That Starmer fella...

Meant to correct my original question. Tax credits is probably the answer in terms of WS.

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.

This is great, thanks for posting 🙂

I was wondering who was voting for Bob Dole when I first read this.

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.

Admittedly "the markets" liked it, but that's not enough to make it neoliberal.

Yes, because of the reasons stated above.

Money Markets Trust Money Men; shock!

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.

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 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

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.

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 think (with no evidence just my memory of the time) it was far more to demonstrate labours fiscal competence than anything else

For better or worse it was a reduction in operational control, not complete oversight

Which is exactly what Milton Friedman thought about central bank independence — that it would be better to manage monetary policy by legislative rules, with less political involvement, to reduce the whims of politicians in the monetary system. In other words, central bank independence is a step in that direction, but not sufficient to safeguard money's independence from politics.

'Money is too important to be left to politicians' is a monetarist idea from one of the most well known neoliberal theorists. So yes, the degree of independence of (specifically monetary) institutions is very much correlated with neoliberalism.

Do you feel the same about the judiciary? That the government of the day should have direct control?

I'm not talking about what I believe — I'm talking about whether one of the main policies of the New Labour period, the implementation of which has had incredibly wide-reaching consequences, can be considered neoliberal. And to try and bring this conversation back to the thread title again: we've got a new leader of a left-leaning party, trying to copy the methods of a previous leader of a left-leaning party, who we can at least partially describe as having some neoliberal-ish policies and ideas.

Which is exactly what Milton Friedman thought about central bank independence

That’s not an argument. Just because he supported something doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily neo-liberal. It can just be a sensible thing. You can be against Liz Truss’s acations and still be very right wing.

And, fine, let me rephrase my point. “Belief in the independence of institutions is not necessarily neo-liberal. As an example, I would suggest that a judiciary with a degree of independence from the government is widely supported across the political spectrum (and the opposite has been misused by far left and far right governments in history)

In the same way independence of financial institutions is not neo-liberal.

It is much more related to your level of trust in governments to behave well - whether right wing or left wing”

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

You've mischaracterised my position — I'm only talking about monetary authorities here. It's absurd to describe an independent justice system as neoliberal.

To create a technocratic 'automatic-stabilising' independent monetary authority is to exclude other forms of politics. Keynes wanted monetary policy to be actively wielded, not set from models of price stability, but used with intent to reduce unemployment as a political end.

This isn't just "Milton Friedman likes oranges, I like oranges, therefore I'm a neoliberal", it's a central maxim of neoliberalism. 'Sound money', automatic stabilisers, neutrality of the monetary system, all that stuff.

Great, thanks — I'll give this a read. Can you remember the name of the documentary?

+1

I think you've got to be careful about how you join the dots e.g. Trump was backed by conservatives and did some things conservatives liked ≠ Trump is a conservative

Ngl I relistened to that Origin Story this morning, so points are ringing around my head, but I think it's useful to separate out use of tools and levers from the neo-lib tool kit vs. being a idealogue where everything is a nail for you to swing your neo-lib hammer at.

In the same way I don't think anyone (here at least) is going to argue that Biden is a socialist, however pink some policies might be.

I commend you for your sane, patient reasonableness in the face of madness

Ok - just wasted an hour reading around this while trying to do real work

I get where you're coming from. However I read your line of reasoning as

"they were making it up on the fly, therefore it was ideological; as its a neo-lib concept, then new Labour are (in this respect) neo liberals"

But the first part of this is incorrect as its fairly well documented that it was a multi-year plan-in-secret by Blair and Brown to get inflation under control.

I think in order to label them neo-liberal or not (in this narrow regard), you'd need to understand _why _ they thought it would work. If it was a case that they'd read they theory and subscribed to it, then yes, neo-lib. However if was a more practical stance that the fed and others were independant and these economies were doing better than the UK, then I would find it less convincing.

I guess its the wider problem of, at what point do you label someone based on their actions. When the Tories take a train company back under national control or spend gazillions on social support during a pandemic most people wouldnt label them socialists (although, some do).

Actually - just browsing the thread, ReekBlefs made this point about China and trade

So, I'll give you "New Labour did something that has support from neo-liberals, and it generally worked at the time", but I'm not convinced with "New Labour were neo-liberals, or had neo-liberal tendencies"

Ok - just wasted an hour reading around this while trying to do real work

Ha, the amount of work procrastination I’ve done on this thread today is ridiculous! I’m gonna tap out of this conversation for today, so if the thread hasn’t moved on tomorrow I’ll post a response 🙂

I thought the important part of Gordon Brown making the Bank of England independent/free from day-to-day meddling by politicians was that the Governor of the BoE was given a target of 2% inflation?

Yes, it was https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p09wg9cm/blair-brown-the-new-labour-revolution - amazing to look back at that time. I'd forgotten what it was like to hope.