You are reading a single comment by @andyfallsoff and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
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?
andyfallsoff-
It's more the immediacy and huge nature of it that strikes me as ideological. I don't think anyone could have planned such a large change and really grasped the long term consequences, so in my mind there has to be some belief system underpinning it.
Dunno, "fuck it, let's do this huge fundamental change to the economic sphere that denies us future power just for shits and giggles" doesn't really seem like the kind of thing you do without believing something?
So I've not really got an argument here — just vibes
slippers
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.
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.