It's difficult how to react to these most recent revelations about yet another U-turn by the Liberal Democrats. This must now complete the most comprehensive and rapid breaking of policy pledges any party has ever enacted. Even New Labour at the height of Blairism didn't go this far (Thatcherism of course had always stated its aims - if anything it probably didn't go far enough considering its ideology).
But this betrayal of the LibDems basic constituents has got to be one of the most senseless and bizarre decisions ever taken by a party. What do they expect to get out of this (a Lordship for Clegg and Cable? Is that it?)? Are they aware who their voters are; namely students, academics, university towns? Are they aware of the havoc this will cause and the extent to which the gap and divisions within society will widen? Perhaps they do not care.
This also further entrenches the neoliberalisation of the UK. What began under Thatcher, was accentuated under New Labour (in relation to universities, quite heavily so) is now being pushed out completely into the arms of business logic and diktat.
But the most unfathomable aspect to all of this is the speed and brutality with which pledges have been not only discarded or compromised (these things happen after every election), but comprehensively overturned.
Of course the once sainted Vince Cable will claim that it is all Labour's fault, that they did not know the state of the finances. But of course they did: The figures had been public. So either they were incompetent before the election, promising things they could not possible hold, or they lied. I am quite sure that it's almost exclusively the latter, since there is an alternative (in fact: alternatives) to the drastic and ideologically-driven proposals put forward by the coalition (or let's just call it the Tory government, since that is what it is de facto).
The New Statesman predicted at the beginning of September that the photo above might yet come back to haunt Nick Clegg. What the New Statesman couldn't guess (no one could) was the wholehearted endorsement offered by the LibDem leadership. They merely suggested that an abstention to send the bill through would be sufficient to please the government while appeasing the LibDems constituents. It seems they have been even more radical and idiotic than that. It will certainly come back to haunt the Liberal Democrats as they face - rightly so - political oblivion and possibly the end of the party altogether.
17 comments:
Yes, it is depressing. And it's difficult to see how the LDs are going to survive after all this, not just because of the fees issue but because a whole swathe of their electoral support who saw them as a vaguely left wing alternative to New Labour will presumably drop away; those who were basically on board with the orange book programme will presumably realise they might as well vote Tory, so I guess that leaves just those who think that somehow the LDs will restrain the 'nastier' elements of the Tories - a fairly small number of voters I would think and in any case they are likely to be disabused the more that the LDs give ground on core policies like this.
The rapidity with which not just the LDs but the Tories too have ditched their manifestos citing 'new economic circumstances unknown at the time' is extraordinary and of course absurd: the deficit is actually slightly smaller than was predicted during the election and the 'Greek' argument is a non-starter. Yet when in the campaign did the Tories say anything remotely like '25-40% cuts across all departments'? When did they talk about fundamentally re-casting the role of the State?
Mind you, it is far from clear that they will be able to make those kind of cuts - interesting to see, for example, how all this silly talk about the billions to be saved by axing quangoes turns out to be, as was inevitable, so much nonsense (cf cutting bureaucracy, cutting the back office etc). Nevertheless, they are clearly going to cut enough to make things very, very unpleasant for a lot of people and you really feel they have it in mind to complete the Thatcher 'revolution' by its extension into every last corner of social provision (I think that, as much as the cost savings, is what lies behind their enthusiasm for fees). Again, not in any manifesto and hard to see how they would have got anywhere near power had it been so.
Going back to university fees, of course Labour don't have a leg to stand on (as with welfare 'reform' etc) having not just introduced them in the first place (with the predictable consequence that they would rise and rise) but having commissioned John Browne of all people to do the review - that was only ever going to have one outcome and had Labour been re-elected they would surely have implemented it. And, on manifestos, thinking about is, I seem to recall that fees were first introduced against a manifesto promise not to do so within the (then) next parliament which was wriggled round by saying that it was only the legislation that had been passed, the fees didn't come in until the following parliament.
Anyway, as bad as the fact that these kind of fees will entrench inequality and elitism is that even those who do take on the debt will inevitably become even more economistic and utilitarian in their attitude to university education.
Nice one Olching. I've got just one point to make about this. Fuck knows they deserve it, and it's hardly 'off-topic' to point out what a bunch of mendacious opportunist scumbags they are, but pointing out the obvious isn't enough. It's still imperative to attack the Lib Dems with a political argument otherwise you get drawn into this whole realm of apolitical-or anti-polical- discourse which Neo-Liberalism seems to thrive upon.
I'm hardly guilt-free in this area myself but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. When politics no longer has any purchase and they start pleading 'pragmatism' or 'reacting to changed circumstances'..."we just didn't realise the size of the mess Labour had saddled us with"...and think this excuses the lies and betrayals, if we get drawn into criticism on the basis of character defects rather than policy then we've been sucked into the game...it's what they want.
Fortumately, the argument's are there...provided by Clegg himself-or his 8 year son-from six months ago. Even pointing out the own-goal factor, and the probable electoral backlash, misses the target...as long as policy and ideology are off the agenda, every thing in the Neo-Liberal garden's lovely...they can act "pragmatically", improvise, manage events and basically fuck us over at will in a piece-meal unaccountable way.
They've gotta be made to talk policy and argue against counter policy...that way people can project and see just how fucked over they're gonna be. The absence of anything resembling an ideologically distinct opposition makes this even more vital. When differences amount to minor disputes over the preferred time-scale...old political divides have evaporated...and we have an entire political class united in its determination to put its own people through the mangle to bail itself out, it's important to challenge with an alternative.
In two weeks time when the cat's out the bag, people start thinking "oh shit-it's me!" and we get the "we're all in this together" and the "harsh but necessary sacrifice" trope wheeled out again...someone's gotta stand up and say "No way..this is what you should be doing...and this is why it would leave a sounder, happier society so fuck you and your bonuses and 'got to stay lean and competitive'...and this is what your way's gonna do to us all".
Here's Nick Clegg's homepage on Education on 24th September 2010, a mere couple of weeks before the Lib Dems accepted Browne's report:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rg5X-ZlIFR0J:www.nickclegg.org.uk/education.aspx+http://www.libdems.org.uk/education.aspx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
It's unequivocal on 'where they stand' on tuition fees and student funding, particularly here:
For those youngsters leaving school, university is getting more and more expensive. To get a degree, young people are saddled with thousands of pounds of debt when it is tough enough to get a job, get on the housing ladder and make ends meet.
Liberal Democrats are the only party which believes university education should be free and everyone who has the ability should be able to go to university and not be put off by the cost.
I would say it is a volte face of giddying proportions, but nothing surprises me anymore.
Peter/monkeyfish,
excellent posts as per.
Peter,
The rapidity with which not just the LDs but the Tories too have ditched their manifestos citing 'new economic circumstances unknown at the time' is extraordinary and of course absurd: the deficit is actually slightly smaller than was predicted during the election and the 'Greek' argument is a non-starter. Yet when in the campaign did the Tories say anything remotely like '25-40% cuts across all departments'? When did they talk about fundamentally re-casting the role of the State?
Have you seen this?:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
which charts the current deficit in its historical context. It is of course a nonsense that the UK is in 'extreme economic circumstances' and is a smokescreen to push through the hard right radical reforms demanded by the Conservatives paymasters.
Possibly I'm particularly cynical at the moment...or possibly not...but...
We know that the charade of political parties masks not only the fact that capitalist reality has replaced ideological potential but it also maintains the illusion of representative democracy...
Surely all we are seeing is a more blatant acceleration toward a single dominant capitalist authoritarianism...
Are we really surprised that having noticed the astounding apathy and/or compliance shown by populations worldwide after the Great Crash...that the powerful wouldn't merely become more brazen in their behaviour?
This is tantamount to criminal behaviour channelled through (once) legitimate state institutions...and we know that the penalty for this criminality is negligible...
So why the surprise?
Peter,
Yes, I agree entirely, right down to the position Labour find themselves in. When tuition fees were introduced the first time (and the rise the second time), there were ample warnings from within university (as well as outside of academe) that this is a slippery slope. Indeed, it's come to pass.
Whatever little constraint there was within the upper echelons of New Labour towards a total marketization were always going to fall by the wayside the moment even more extremist free marketeers came in.
The point about 'not knowing' the situation before the election: Well, as you say, utter bullshit. The fact that it's all better than anticipated, makes all of this even more ideological than it already looked.
You are right about manifestos: Still (and this addresses Lester's point, too) I think this LibDem parliamentary party represents the worst example of not just reneging on their policy pledges (as all parties do) but doing the precise opposite. You'd almost have to applaud their temerity in all of this.
Monkey, absolutely right. And it is easy to attack the LibDem and Tory position, because it is so nonsensical. Added to the fact that it looks like the cuts for university funding is going to larger than anyone could have ever imagined, it is quite clear that the policies are not only going increase the social and economic divides in this country, but retard it to the point of it being unrecognisable.
Who would have thought that everything could happen in one, two days? Liverpool FC as an example of the nonsensical privatisation of Britain followed by the quasi-privatisation (and multinational privatisation!) of education. The NHS is next, and of course charities like the Citizen Advice Bureau.
What's the response beyond our intellectual pontificating? It's like a noose is around our necks and there is no room to move.
@13thDuke:
That graph is exceedingly interesting, but of course this will always fall on deaf ears. What you are demanding of them is context, both historical context as well as relative context. That is too much. You can't expect a bunch of semi-intelligent libertarian philistines to understand any of this. Didn't anyone tell you: Public bad, private good.
It's so depressing.
@Lester:
I've kind of added to your answer already (and of course you are right to point out the sliding scale of neoliberalisation), but I think what is shocking (even for our post-cynical age) is the unprecedented comprehensive and rapid nature of the LibDems about-face (or is that farce?). Yes, of course it all makes sense in the general direction of things, towards an ever-increasing sell-out and atomisation, but surely this about-face is deeply shocking. I didn't expect it to be so deep, comprehensive, and fast.
Duke, thanks, that's an interesting link. The point, of course, is how quickly and securely the neo-liberal right have re-grouped so as to re-position the financial crisis as a crisis of the public sector. I am not sure how to explain this, even given the extent of the neo-libs command of ideological resources. I suppose one answer is the accretion of supposedly commonsense understandings of economics (the comparison with households, for example); the other, paradoxically, is precisely in the kind of 'banker bashing' in evidence in the media. For that, whilst appearing 'left wing', of course manages to position the problem in terms of some 'greedy people' rather than in the systemic and structural ways in which global capital operates to the disadvantage of most of us.
The 1980s and what followed saw the wholesale sell off of productive capacity. Now we are seeing the sell off of what remains of social capacity leaving behind a politics which is completely inattentive to the sources of global inequality and instead concerned to pit against each other different ethnic and generational groups. Truly we are now all ragged trousered philanthropists.
I sense that the Left has failed at what could have ben its pivotal moment, in 2008. In the long run there may be better possibilities and, as in the last thread on this blog, it may only be a full-on crisis that makes something better come into prospect. But, as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead and certainly there is much suffering in prospect before we can attain even so limited a goal as a social democratic State. Like Lester, I am cynically resigned.
Excellent comments from everyone.
We've nailed it, of course, this is purey ideological. John Gray admitted as much in the LRB yesterday, and he's hardly the quintessence of the Left. Just as the initial wave of neo-liberalism vanquished the power of organised labour, the next wave, shorn of the residual social democratic principles that prevented Blairism from being pure neoliberalism, is targetting all insitutions and disciplines that deal with critical thought. These incubators of counter-hegemony
, which perform the vital function of nurturing, affirming and co-ordinating the random critical thoughts that come and go in almost every mind, must also be destroyed. This task will be performed by exposing these institutions to the purging forces of the philistine market, and when the deed is done everyone will think it's what everyone else wanted anyway.
We are in the midst of Badiou's 'bourgeois restoration' period. Global political power, economic logic, culture and hi-tech mass-mediated ideology are pumping away like the four cylinders in a well-tuned engine. This is incredibly potent; the politico-religious leaders of the past could only dream of such virtually unchallenged power. So much for Foucault, Lyotard and the rest of the pomo fools with their crude transposition into the socio-political world of the physical principle that power automatically produces resistance.
It is based not on discipline and repression but on seduction. The seduced individual will suffer any privation or insult - and expect others to suffer the same - if he thinks he has even an outside chance of his erotic dream coming true.
Is the power of seduction reversible? That's the question.
Sorry, that's 'purely', of course.
- questionnaire
questionnaire
This is incredibly potent; the politico-religious leaders of the past could only dream of such virtually unchallenged power
As Zizek says, it was not just communism that died in 1990 but also "Western" social democracy. With the communist countries setting a base standard in terms of welfare and guaranteed standard of living, the capitalist west had no option than to maintain systems above the "communist" standard to prove the West was the 'better option'.
Now that capitalism has no bulwark it has no need anymore to guarantee the social democratic rights enjoyed by western workers post WWII. And thus we see the continuous denigration.
Craig Murray in his blog pointed out yesterday that the Browne report has no precedent, even in the USA. Apparently the federal Govt in the USA spends 13% more per student than the UK Govt.
Additionally, 7 of the top 10 universities in the states are state universities.
We have reached a pretty pass when the UK is implementing neo-liberal policies not even seen in the USA.
Duke:
"We have reached a pretty pass when the UK is implementing neo-liberal policies not even seen in the USA."
You're not kidding. Neo-liberalism has come back to its classical-liberal home in England to summon up energy for its Restoration. I didn't think they would dare go this far that fast. There's a danger that it will become a global 'arms race', each country trying to 'out-neoliberal' the other. Let's hope there's enough oppositional spirit within English academia and amongst supportive elements of the public to block or at least temper these proposals. The English neoliberal political class are beginning to appear in my mind as corrupt 18th and 19th-century ideologues, the Manchester free-trade movement writ large. There's even a Hogarthian feel about some parts of the country.
What is to be done? I don't know about you, but I feel like a speck of dust on these blogs. The new media have not lived up to their promise.
Questionnaire,
Thanks for mentioning Badiou is this instance. It's really struck me how correct he is in his analyses (including the intelligent longue duree conceptions of historical development).
He is also right in pinpointing neoliberalism (this new wave of it) as obedience to big finance dressed up as innovation and renewal - precisely what Sarkozy has been doing and precisely what we are now experience (and perhaps could only experience with the consent of the Liberal Democrats).
This is where your sense of capitulation (an apt false friend) fits in. What clearly is capitulation, by most of the left, centre-left, even the right, is presented as consensus borne out of a sense of renewal ('didn't we all want this anyway?').
Yes, of course, the new medium, the idea of resistance, all this feels futile. And that's how the fuckers get you. What is to be done? There's not even so much left as public space or public spirit to even dream of resistance.
I think you are right to criticise Foucault et al, and it's exactly the kind of criticism that Henri Lefebvre was levelling at them already in the 1970s.
@13thDuke:
Yes, we are outplaying the USA on neoliberalism. But who knows which direction the US will take. Perhaps there will be a new 'global arms race', as Q posits, or perhaps the country (as I suspect) will simply fall in on itself, tear itself up, pray, condemn and violate itself out of existence. The real impetus of the neoliberalisation of everything human might well come from Europe (as it seems) and the Far East.
Add to this the rise of the 'fear of fear', and we have a rather unhealthy combination of rising fascism and neoliberalism - a vision of hell where fascism no longer focuses on the collective, but on the atomised individual as part of an imagined community of fear and competition (WCS).
Everyone seems to be condemning the Liberals for being liberals, but at least they're being true to their underlying principles, unlike the Conservatives, who have turned in to liberals, and Labour, who have turned into liberals, thereby closing down the options for legitimate dissent. That's more of a problem, I feel.
Q's reference to Manchester liberalism is interesting though, because the early 19th C was a time for which the claim that our civilization had gone into decline would have some validity: the deracination caused by the rapaciousness of the industrial revolution, the ruinous wars, the urban squalour, the corrupt political class, the degenerate aristocracy, a deeply unpopular monarchy, etc. and, yet, this decline did not turn out to be terminal. This turning around was not so much achieved through revolutionary ideas, but rather by drawing on latencies in a culture and traditions which was
deep and wide enough to allow the emergency of a labour movement which, famously, owed more to Methodism that to Marx; a more morally austere middle class (in modern times, the terms "Puritanism" has almost entirely negative connotations, until you actually think about what it really means, i.e., the reigning in of individual appetites, and conservation or energies toward the common good, usual as a reaction to the effect of dissipation and profligacy); and which even imbued the ruling class of the time with a greater senses of the obligations which befell on them largely as a accident of birth.
I'm not saying that what emerged was perfect, far from it, but I think we exited the 19th century in far better shape than we entered it, mainly by falling back on our own resources.
I don't know really what I'm trying to say by this, other than that the relentless hell-in-a-handcartery in this blog and elsewhere might just turn out to be misplaced.....
But Pat, you are talking about the period in which we witnessed the blooming of the ethico-cultural roots of what became, when politically organised, post-war social democracy.
You might know that I'm a social theorist/historian/criminologist by trade. Have a look at the diagram half-way down this page, courtesy of my colleague John Lea.
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/history/36801.htm
The falling crime rates indicate that what integrationist theorists call the 'solidarity project' 1850 - 1970, which had cultural and political wings, did, to a moderate extent, actually work. I sometimes think that the neoliberals are more scared of social democracy than they are of any revival of fascism or communism. What we should have seen after the 1970s recession was a rational transition from social democracy to a democratic socialist political economy maintained in a framework of humanised 'traditional' forms - family, community and so on. This would have been quite strong, durable and attractive to other nations, but it was that potential that the forces of cultural and economic liberalism were determined to destroy forever. To a large extent they succeeded, but the unstable and crash-prone neoliberal system they put in its place is now more likely to crash badly and provoke extreme reactions. It's inevitable, although of course we don't know when.
That's why we need to be prepared to offer a bold new vision. The past's organic continuum has already been ruptured. There's no going back.
Dunno why that happened, here's the proper url:
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/history/36801.htm
- questionnaire
Why is it doing that? Bloody thing. Try again, I've had to split it up:
http://www.bunker8
.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
history/36801.htm
Something has definitely changed in the last few few decades - it's my feeling that Donald Trump, for example, the rogue capitalist bull par excellence - has been able to get away with buccaneer strokes that would caused great outrage in the 80s -
http://glasgowalbum.blogspot.com/2010/10/save-otago-lane-16-october-2010.html
The fuss over Trump's claim that he was given a wink by the Scottish government has of course died down.
This is how it all works these days.
- big capitalism does something outrageous
- one or two media voices say this is terrible
- big capitalism gets what it wants, fuss dies down
I do think Pat is also probably right in indicating that we can talk ourselves into too deep a gloom - I just feel we are surrounded by an acceptance of the bully boys that seems shocking to me.
'But this betrayal of the LibDems basic constituents has got to be one of the most senseless and bizarre decisions ever taken by a party. What do they expect to get out of this'
I guess The Party has nowhere to go having knifed its best leader in the back. As for its current leaders, a certain sack of dogshit who writes for The Guardian* gives some indication: Nick Clegg is 'brave' and 'smart' for embracing neoliberalism.
Now, 'brave' and 'smart' might not be adjectives normally reserved for someone who ditches their principles overnight, but I'm afraid in the parallel world that the Brit journos/ politicians live in, shafting the poor is a test of one's valour. I can just see Clegg being given an American tour:
Fox idiot: Now, I'm, you know I wonder if you'll agree here, I mean, I think you're a hero, a real hero, you know, you've ditched the loony left element of your party who want socialismising the state and you're helping Cameron destroy big government
Clegg: Well, I wouldn't say hero exactly, but, well, yes, yes. I am proud of making Britain a more free country.
*I can't even type his name, especially as I'm now getting moderated for criticising him, but I suppose you can guess who
Post a Comment