You are here:   Economy > They Who Speak for England
 

The unions' destruction of the Heath and Callaghan governments did them no good. They succeeded only in persuading mainstream opinion that they were over-mighty subjects, "holding the country to ransom" — to use another characteristically English cliché. Their defeat allowed the triumph of Thatcherism and the destruction of the old Left. To understand the present crisis, you must accept that the system established by Margaret Thatcher and modified by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has collapsed and English rage against those who take advantage is now roaring against the political and business elites.

It is an inchoate and often directionless anger, which can appear left-wing or right-wing, depending on the angle you look at it from. A better way of understanding the modern mood is to dispense with conventional political labels and turn to the 17th- and 18th-century descriptions of the anger of the country against the corrupt court: the loathing of outsiders of the advantages those on the inside track enjoy. The modern equivalents of bewigged courtiers and favoured monopolists are the politicians, bankers, quangocrats and senior civil servants. They have access to power but, more importantly for understanding popular fury, to public money. Who pays taxes and who receives tax revenues are the basic questions of politics. At the moment, too much is going to those who need it least. 

When the Titanic sank, it was said that the plebs in steerage watched as first-class passengers hogged the places in the lifeboats. Today's plebs could be forgiven for sharing their astonishment as they watch the executive class hog public money as the country goes down. Consider the events of the past two years. First, banking imploded and destroyed many illusions with it. If you had asked senior civil servants before the summer of 2007 to name Britain's unique selling point in an overcrowded, globalised world they would have immediately pointed you to the City. China and India were turning out millions of graduates who had all the skills of their counterparts in the West, but were willing to work for one-third of their wages. The mandarins did not know how manufacturing and information technology industries could compete, but in financial services they believed we had a world-beater. The City was the unstoppable cash machine, the source of tax revenues and national pride. 

Labour leaders who wanted money to fund their social reforms were as ready as Alan Greenspan to forget a lesson at least as old as the South Sea Bubble: bankers must be kept on a leash because banks cannot be allowed to submit to the market's normal punishments for imbecilic management and be allowed to fail. Instead of ordering prudent protection, the political class encouraged fantastic recklessness. The Financial Services Authority's job was not "to discourage the launch of new financial products", Labour said as it laid down the terms of trade for London's banks and hedge funds in the 2001 Financial Services and Markets Act. The FSA had to avoid "erecting regulatory barriers", it continued, must "consider the international mobility of the financial business" and "avoid damaging the UK's competitiveness". No one would tell the police to avoid damaging the competitiveness of the tourist trade by not arresting drunken visitors, or to avoid damaging the competitiveness of the music business by not arresting cocaine-snorting pop stars. But in the case of the City, there was indeed one law for financiers and another for the rest of us. 

Even when his country stood on the edge of the precipice, Brown was so lost in Panglossian fantasies that he could not see the danger. "Over the ten years that I have had the privilege of addressing you as Chancellor, I have been able, year by year, to record how the City of London has risen by your efforts, ingenuity and creativity to become a new world leader," he told the bankers at the Mansion House dinner of 20 June 2007. On 14 September 2007, Northern Rock went under. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Matthew
July 16th, 2009
4:07 PM
Captain Stupendousness would look like less of a fool if he hadn't completely bowdlerised the quote from Egil.

Captain Stupendousness
July 3rd, 2009
2:07 PM
@egil Some people might read "multiculturalist hostility of the ruling classes toward western values" as the raving of some lower-class crank who was stupid and irresponsible enough to swallow the rhetoric pumped out by big-business, right-wing media. But not me. All I had to do was look at all the black and Pakistani people in the British parliament; clearly, you're on to something. Tonight, when you're out smashing the windows of Jewish-owned businesses, assassinating abortion doctors or whatever, I'll raise a toast to your fine efforts to keep us safe from everybody who isn't white. Cheers.

Will
July 3rd, 2009
1:07 PM
The trouble with these sort of arguments is that they all focus on 'greed'. The desire to do well in business is not unique to bankers, and it is also not something that can have an intrinsic upper bound - what the focus on greed implies is that there is some level of greed which is acceptable, but that bankers have overstepped that line. Clearly it is not for players in an economy to stand back if they believe they are doing too well, just as sportsmen do not concede points when their team happens to move into the lead. If greed - which is in essence a desire to increase a feeling of happiness or wellbeing - has no natural limit, why do we suppose some people should impose such limits on themselves. Clearly, some external factor has to do this. However, greed, in this case is also misrepresented as people are really refering to the recklessness which has come about as a result of greed. Attacking greed is ultimately futile and perhaps akin to attacking the human instinct for survival.

Dee
June 30th, 2009
1:06 PM
You could say about a Scottish MP, who has no democratic mandate to rule over England - "He's given himself powers above his station." Our rulers have proven that they have no interest in democracy, above their own Party interests. They disgust me. We are slow to rouse, merely grumbling for the moment, but when we blow our fuses over this, they'll certainly know about it. I'm not far off that stage myself.

Egil
June 28th, 2009
8:06 PM
The economy is only part of the reason why so many people distrust government. There is also the fanatical multiculturalist hostility that so many in the "ruling classes" feel towards traditional British and generally Western values. People see the fraudulence and unfairness of multiculturalism, but there seems to be little they can do about it.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.