-
... his pro-market reforms
BoE independence
Doesn't reduce the size of the state, it just puts a chunk under technocratic rather than political control.
It was popular with markets because it reduced the risk of politicians fiddling with interest rates capriciously. It wasn't abolished or privatised.
Foundation hospitals
Still part of the NHS, still not reducing the size of the state. The inspiration was allegedly a hospital in Spain which is partly governed by trade unions and community groups, which sounds like the least neoliberal thing imaginable.
academies
Are still state-funded, just outside local government control. Again, not reducing the size of the state. Arguably expanding it slightly.
don’t think you can dismiss his neoliberal tendencies
Mostly these are examples of a turf war with local government. None of them reduced the size of the state, or privatised anything, or replaced any state activity with free markets.
They did have other pro-market policies, I just don't think these are good examples, and certainly not enough to justify calling them "neoliberal".
useless-
Doesn't reduce the size of the state, it just puts a chunk under technocratic rather than political control.
Bank of England independence is an interesting one. I see it as quite a core tenet of neoliberal thought — reducing political control sits perfectly within a framework of free will being expressed largely in economic terms. Plus, alongside Friedman’s insistence that inflation is always monetary, having a technocratic institution using automated stabilisers on money supply puts the onus on private entities to do the required economic thinking.
The bizarre thing is that Friedman was (apparently) the first to really describe central bank independence, but thought the idea was intolerable because they’d inevitably fold to the government’s instruction in any conflict. He preferred legislative rules to constrain monetary policy, so make of that what you will. For what it’s worth, I think he was probably right.
On foundation hospitals — I didn’t know about the inspiration, thanks. As far as I understand though, it resulted in more private provision of public services, much like academies.
certainly not enough to justify calling them “neoliberal"
^I think I was fairly clear that I believe he had neoliberal tendencies in a neoliberal era, but mixed with social democracy.
I think for me neoliberal is a very specific thing - it's where free market fetishisation combines with anti-welfare ideology. Having one without the other means it isn't neoliberalism.
@ReekBlefs – Fair enough, I don’t think anyone in politics is so easy to describe, so it’s useful to discuss parts of their programme as being this or that. Thatcher’s considered to be pretty damn neoliberal, but she was no stranger to wielding state power in order to push conservative social values onto individuals (disallowing discussion of homosexuality in schools is one of the most famous examples of this). That doesn’t sound very neoliberal to me.
slippers
Here’s a quote from Harold Wilson in 1970 about Conservative policy:
I’m not fully aware of what he enacted in power, but his rhetoric is the kind of deep cynicism of the neoliberal order that could honestly have been written yesterday with equal importance. Blair had his ideas too, but I don’t think they’re comparable to real social democratic values like this.
Domestically, Blair managed some decent things like the minimum wage and reform to the House of Lords, but his ideology was far from welfare expansionism — like Starmer, it’s a question of how to make some relatively small legal and procedural tweaks within a capitalist framework, rather than tackling neoliberalism head on.
That, alongside his pro-market reforms (BoE independence, foundation hospitals and academies), I don’t think you can dismiss his neoliberal tendencies.