-
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
-
the immediacy and huge nature of it that strikes me as ideological
Not saying it's not ideological, but the immediacy strikes me as more of a PR move: BAM! We're in power and we're already making BIG CHANGES!
I mean either way thank fuck they did it. Can you imagine what Johnson and Truss would have done were they able?
-
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.
I think you’re straw-manning. There clearly is democratic involvement. For better or worse it was a reduction in operational control, not complete oversight.
Do you feel the same about the judiciary? That the government of the day should have direct control?
I’m not convinced that the degree of independence of institutions is directly correlated with the degree of neo liberalism
-
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.
I felt similar to this for a while too, but then I watched a documentary about Blair and Brown and it was something they'd been working on for literally years before they came to power, and pretty much knew the consequences. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/independence-day-why-gordon-brown-gave-the-bank-the-right-to-set-interest-rates
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?