-
Monetarism is absolutely related to neoliberal thought, so whether it was seen as a purely practical or political means of dodging responsibility is kind of irrelevant here.
I'd also argue that the way in which Blair and Brown introduced it, immediately after the election without it being in the manifesto, tells you it was at least partially ideological.
Unelected officials … can take the unpopular decisions like raising interest rates. Which I agree with.
I'd rather have some form of democratic involvement in tools that dictate a large part of our economic existence, but that's just me.
slippers-
without it being in the manifesto, tells you it was at least partially ideological
Why? I don't really follow - surely ideological changes are more likely to be political (and hence in a manifesto) whereas technical ones less likely?
-
It's interesting that we have a structural disconnect between fiscal and monetary policy. The role of the BoE in QE shows a sort of interplay between the two.
andyfallsoff
hurricane_run
I believe the reason the Bank of England was made independent was to stop Politicans medling with Monetary Policy for short term gain ie win the up coming election.
It came from a much more practical rather than an idological basic, to promote economic policy stability long term to help the economy grow. Unelected officals often in place much longer than Minister can take the unpopular decisions like raising interest rates. Which I agree with.
Also get policians off the hook ie raising interest rates, rembember when Thatcher put them up to 15%?
IMO It wasn't a decision idologically driven to reduce or enlarge the powers of the state.