tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post7387262910592546407..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Was New Labour Neoliberal?Philhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-22433285480297247402018-11-20T20:11:58.734+00:002018-11-20T20:11:58.734+00:00New Labour were neo liberal, they introduced inter...New Labour were neo liberal, they introduced internal markets into the public sector, privatised many of the services (outsourcing cleaners onto worse pay etc), increased the gap between the pay of managers and staff etc etc. They peddled the idea that society progressed because of the talent of people in suits. So where New labour had direct control over what changed (i.e. the public sector) they introduced new liberal policies. And where they introduced legislation it was so watered down as to be almost pointless. So increased but meagre union rights alongside decline in union membership, minimum wage alongside more precarious work and zero hour contract culture.<br /><br />Balirism was a continuation and acceptance of Thatcherism and not any kind of break from it.<br /><br /><br />“and the rude intrusion of masses of people into politics”<br /><br />I must have missed this development!<br /><br />It is lucky I manage to get out, because if I didn’t and all I did was immerse myself in left wing internet sites I would have a very distorted view of the world, similar to if I only ever got my news from the mainstream!<br />TOSPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-26574751301231445692018-11-20T09:06:41.478+00:002018-11-20T09:06:41.478+00:00As with anything there's what they said they w...As with anything there's what they said they were going to do, what they really intended to do and what they ended up doing. Mostly they ended up with a giant scheme giving tax payer's money to rich people and for rigging maekets to favour the most powerfull lobby (bribary). A free market would require suitable regulation from a class neutral state.<br /><br /><br />https://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm<br /><br />https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/19/will-progressives-ever-think-about-how-we-structure-markets-instead-of-accepting-them-as-given/Johny Conspiranoid.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-57624496504433634092018-11-19T16:05:40.690+00:002018-11-19T16:05:40.690+00:00Thanks for this. I followed your links to the art...Thanks for this. I followed your links to the articles from the two learned professors, Talbot and O’Hara, who are keen for us to see neoliberalism as a straw man (or bogey man) created by the left. Talbot attempts to undermine the theory of neoliberalism by quoting from David Harvey’s book written in 2005. Talbot detaches the term from its context and wants us to see it as an ambiguous term, a sort continuation of contradictory relations by state. Harvey, on the other hand, is quite precise in locating it in the first big financial crises since WWII (the spring of 1973 with the Arab oil embargo) and the numerous financial crises since then, leading up the crash of 2008. As Harvey says, “My view is that it (neoliberalism) refers to a class project that coalesced in the crisis of 1970. Masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility and the virtues of privatisation, the free market and free trade, it legitimises draconian policies designed to restore and consolidate capitalist class power. The project has been successful judging by the incredible centralisation of power and wealth observable in those countries that took the neoliberal road”. The Enigma of Capital (2011, p.10)<br /> <br />For Prof O’Hara, Blair’s neoliberalism should be understood less as model of political economy and more as a ‘managerial strategy’. But as you say, it is a strategy dedicated to the reproduction and strengthening of prevailing class relations. O’Hara outlines all the supposed successes of New Labour but does admit that Blair’s ‘managerialism’ (managing capitalism but not regulating it) was, unfortunately, harmed by a ‘targets culture’. This led to distortions and perversions in public service efficiency and the current distrust of ‘expert knowledge’. Ironically, O’Hara gives the example of the local management of schools as a success of Blair’s decentralised public-sector. The current scandals over PFI built school and the emerging deficiencies in the ‘academy model’ (Multi-academy trusts with CEO, in charge of clusters of schools, run as businesses) ought to have given him a moment to pause. <br /><br />I think it is always worth examining the theoretical basis (weird revisionism, as you call it) of attempts by the NeoBlairites, presently waiting in the long grass. People like O’Hara, Chuka Umunna, McTernan and others are desperate to legitimise and detoxify ‘third-wayism’. Glen O’Hara in his obsequious, hand-wringing, article offers us a lengthy review on the successes of Blair’s policies. They can be more succinctly summed up as: ‘a brief golden age’ when the public services opened up some opportunities for the most disadvantaged. What is left of this legacy? Ten years later, the UN report tells us: 14 million are living in poverty; 1.5 million are destitute; Child poverty may rise to 40%; the use of food banks are soaring. Blair and New Labour tried to deny the class antagonisms that lie at the root of living in a capitalist society. As Harvey says, neoliberalism is a ‘class project’ masked by a rhetoric of individual freedom and personal responsibility. New Labour played a significant part in legitimising the idea that capitalism could be successfully managed and that role of government was not the redistribution of wealth and resources but ‘opening up opportunities’. <br />Dialectician1noreply@blogger.com