THE TORIES' BIG LIE

How they are duping this country into massive cuts.

Marjorie Smith. (published in Tribune 24th September)


"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” – Jozef Goebbels.

Goebbels is not a person I feel most comfortable with when using quotations, but the quote is apt. Goebbels instinctively knew the power of propaganda, which at its basest level, was used to prepare people for unpalatable acts and unpopular decisions.

This current Conservative Government's chances of electoral success in the future is significantly dependent on the UK electorate accepting the big lie that current levels of public expenditure have got out of control.

It should not be forgotten that the one irredeemable economic fact of recent and present times is that due to a purely private sector crisis, the public finances have taken a massive hit due to the costs of the bail-out of banks and related economic stimuli measures and not because of public sector profligacy. However, the prevailing wisdom amongst the mainstream media and the' chattering classes' is that in order to put the public finances 'back in order', then the current level of public spending must be drastically reduced so as to lay the foundations for a sustainable recovery.

The cuts that will be implemented are of a draconian nature, not seen since the 1920s. An average of 25% in nearly all Government spending (NHS and International Aid excepted) will equate to a massive 10% decline in UK economic activity. Yet Alistair Darling has already laid out that cutting too fast and too deep is simply unnecessary and counter-intuitive. Cutting contracts and making people redundant does not boost economic activity, it compounds the damage.

Labour announced that it would have to cut Government spending by 80 billion pounds over five years because of the economic crisis caused by the atavistic activities of some banks (and their hangers-on) in the western world. The Tories, want to cut by 50% more and introduce those cuts twice as quickly. This has the disastrous effect of tripling the size of the cuts.

"Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the 25% of cuts expected in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored."


This is the current strategic achievement of Cameron and Osborne, they have redefined the political landscape, so that rapidly cutting the public deficit is the be-all and end-all of Government policy. We are constantly told that there really is no alternative and that we should prepare for a period of deep austerity so that the public finances can be restored and the country put back on an even keel. Consequently, they also claim it is time for the State to step back and empower people to rediscover a sense of community to fill the vacuum left by the retreating public sector.

They go further, the supposed 'perilous' situation we find ourselves in, is largely blamed on the Labour Government's profligacy, that the public purse is empty, that we can no longer afford our present level of commitments. The former Chief Secretary Liam Byrne's note to his successor was extremely unfortuitous. Telling David Laws (even in jest) that there was no money left, was a massive political gift to the slashers and cutters on the Tory benches and this was seized on with glee by George Osborne's ministerial team.

Today's Tory spinners and their willing messenger boys in the print media and the blogosphere may not always realise their gullibility is being exploited, but the constant repetition that the deficit must be overcome and that public expenditure must be slashed dramatically and immediately, is this coming decade's big lie.

It is also a big lie that now defines much political thought outside of Tory circles. Both the BBC and ITN now seem to accept that the Conservative's position on the deficit is the default position for the vast majority of the country. Hence all debate about economics and politics is framed around a central tenet that we must cut deep and we must cut fast.

I'm afraid elements within the Labour Party also carry a heavy responsibility in allowing the Tories so much political space to pursue their narrow Thatcherite view of cutting the size of the State. The argument between Brown and Mandelson about Labour's response to the medium to long-term fallout from the financial crisis (which Mandelson won on points) was the seed bed in which the Tories were allow to cultivate their big lie unhindered and unencumbered by social responsibility.

"….they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut."

This current Conservative Government (it may be a coalition of parties, but it is irredeemably Tory) is led by post-Thatcherite Tories (of which Clegg is one). They have thrown overboard Geoffrey Howe's Holy Grail of fixation with the money supply and Milton Friedman's political economy is now seen as rather passé in Tory ranks. However, they still perceive the State as a barrier to sound economics and liberal political economy and view some public expenditure as a necessity rather than a duty.

Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the expected 25% of cuts in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored. This is clear evidence that Osborne and Cameron's economic policies are ideologically driven, "cut, cut and cut and never restore" that is their maxim. This point needs to be emphasised, they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut.

The ring-fencing of the NHS and the International Aid budget is no acceptance that socialised medicine or externalised philanthropy are good things, but was the product of a cold public relations calculation that it would be the necessary cost (in the short to medium term) of detoxifying the Tories.

The major problem for Labour and the wider movement is that the political climate in which cuts are being discussed is far more fortuitous than it was when Thatcher came to power in 1979. For all Thatcher's rhetoric about shrinking the size of the State, she had to proceed cautiously because of significant internal opposition from 'One Nation' Tories in her own party. This internal opposition has been reduced to an ineffectual rump (and that includes so-called left-leaning Lib Dems) and Osborne and Cameron have free rein to pursue their ideological convictions.

However, the only way to fight this Government is to constantly remind people that at the heart of the Tories' core message is the big lie. The Tories will continue to argue that massive cuts are necessary because of the so-called 'structural deficit'. This they claim is so unsustainable that the coming cuts are necessary and that Labour's supposed mismanagement of the economy has seriously aggravated the situation.

However, the structural deficit is an artificial construct that invents a theoretical basis for Osborne's (and Alexander) tautology over the role of the public sector. It should a matter of Labour party mantra that that the structural deficit is not the actual deficit. The structural deficit relies totally on contentious assumptions that are interpreted in such a way that they are only taken account of if they support the hypothesis of a so-called 'unsustainable' structural deficit.

James Sassoon, the Conservative Government's Treasury minister, gave the real game away when he said in the House of Commons debate on the finance bill, "We cannot afford a public sector of the size to which it has grown" and there must be "a complete re-evaluation of the government's role in providing public services". This is not economics; this is neo-conservative prejudice writ large.

Labour was already cutting the deficit and Alistair Darling's March budget would have halved the deficit in four years. Even the Tories' newest pet quango, the Office for Budget Responsibility agreed this was the case.

It seems that Osborne's' cuts which will have the effect of reducing the UK's GDP by a massive 10% are to be compensated for by increased activity in the private sector as it takes up the slack left by the public sector. In other words the Tories are betting the shop on a false premise based on a hypothetical interpretation of an inane analysis.

Because of the Tories ideological commitment to shrinking the State, we are now embarking on an extremely perilous economic programme that has little chance of success, is against the recommendations of the G20 group of nations and almost certainly will terminate in a double dip recession.

The economic crisis was the fault of turbo-capitalism, it was hatched in Wall Street not 11 Downing Street, the City of London was a co-conspirator, not the Cities of Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc etc. The Big Lie will demand a high price and it will be those who have the least culpability that will be paying the highest price. "All in this together" -Don't make me laugh.

Right-Wing Entryism and the Neo-Liberals

This article will be published in Tribune Magazine on 28 May 2007 -  http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/

The new Con-Dem coalition should come as no surprise to those who have studied the development of a free market philosophy at the core of current Lib Dem thinking. What we have witnessed since the election is the culmination of a right-wing grab for power in what was formerly (albeit loosely) perceived as a progressive centre-left party.

The actual final nail in the coffin for a progressive alliance of the centre-left was marked by the leadership contest between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne in 2007. Both firmly on the centre-right of their party, the contest was between two free market fundamentalists far more interested in individual rights (by itself commendable) than in state intervention to address manifest injustices.

The party of Grimond, Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has had its progressive heart completely hollowed out by neo-economic liberal activism in the party and replaced by a right-wing cabal of Clegg, Huhne, Davey, Laws and Cable amongst others. It should come as no surprise that a coalition with the Tories was no ideological barrier to their personal ambitions. Supposed left-leaning Liberal MPs such as Simon Hughes are either now Tory lackeys or simple hypocrites.

The only faction within the Liberal Democrats that would have been able to oppose the relentless drive to the right in their party, the Beveridge Group, made up of social liberals who are convinced that the role of the state should be a force to increase social welfare by state intervention, has been completely emasculated by the leadership cabal. It should be noted that only 2 out of their 28 members in the House of Commons have been given ministerial posts and inconsequential ones at that, one as deputy chief whip and one as a junior transport minister.

The Beveridge group (whose inspiration includes Keynes as well as Beveridge) would have been the core of any progressive alliance with Labour. Even if it was a loose arrangement in this Parliament, it would almost certainly have been able to help Labour block the worst excesses of George Gideon ‘Gus’ Osborne’s savage cuts to come. Instead they have meekly accepted the triumphant entryism from the right and allowed Clegg and his followers to lurch the party rightwards.

Chris Huhne, unsurprisingly, has tried to straddle both factions, being a member of the Beveridge group and former highly successful economist in the City, but crucially a contributor to the Orange Book. Of course, the ex-Labour party supporter has obviously been on a personal political journey, ‘rightward, ever rightward’, However, Huhne, owns seven houses (five of which are rented) and is independently wealthy.

In fact it can be argued that the current Lib Dems have reverted to being a party more akin to a historical Whig position, with its main concern being the defence of the merchant class with their interest in protecting property rights, laissez-faire economics and a penchant for free trade rather than any real or feigned concern for the working class.

What many term as a Blue-Yellow coalition is in reality a Blue-Orange coalition with the little-known Orange Book forming the core of current Lib Dem political thinking. To understand how this disreputable coalition has come to pass is to forensically examine the political thinking laid out in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism edited by David Laws (yes that Laws) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems' current leadership.

The Orange Book published in 2004 marked the start of the decline of progressive values in the Lib Dems and the gradual abandonment of commitment to a social market system. It also provided the ideological pole for the party's right wing to coalesce around and start the march to seizing power in the Lib Dems. What is also remarkable is the complete failure of the former SDP (and originally Labour) element in their party to sound the warning bell as to the direction the party was going. Ex-Labour people like Shirley Williams and Tom McNally should be thoroughly ashamed about their inaction.

Clegg et al are a mirror image of Cameron's philosophical approach with its social liberal solutions to society's perceived ills. At the core of the Orange Book is an abiding belief in the role of the free market's ability to address most of societal issues, such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government and prisons. Laws even advocated replacing the National Health Service with an insurance-based scheme.

What is also remarkable is how easy the Lib Dem leadership sits within the Tory-led coalition. This is an arranged marriage between partners of a very similar social class. Even the historical Tory-Whig coalition of early 1780s, whilst similar in class, at least it had fundamental political differences. In many respects we are seeing a Government being formed made up of a single ruling elite that has previously manifested itself as two separate political parties whose leading figures can now be seen to have been divided more by subtle shades of opinion rather than any single ideological difference.

The Orange Book contributors of David Laws, Vincent Cable, Nicholas Clegg and Chris Huhne, Edward Davey are all Oxbridge-educated (as was the remaining member of the cabal, Danny Alexander) and four out of the five went to private schools with Cable an ex-Grammar schoolboy.

These are not people who know how it is to struggle financially, socially or academically. Its leader Nicholas William Peter Clegg was educated at the exclusive and highly expensive Westminster school (as was Huhne). He was also educated at his family's expense in the USA and at the very exclusive and super-elitist, College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium. He was a member of the Conservative Association at Cambridge University and was an integral part of Tory European Commissioner Leon Brittan's private office in Brussels. It should come as no surprise which party and which party leader he feels most comfortable with.

The idea that the current Lib Dem leadership clique could have easily sat with the Labour party; either in Government or in opposition was always fanciful and a forlorn hope to those on the right of the Labour party who thought that an accommodation could have been reached.  The electoral mathematics gave the perfect excuse to the Lib Dem's right-wing cabal (or more accurately neo-Liberals) to refuse to deal with Labour at a strategic level. Whilst hints of a deal with Labour were useful in dealing with the Conservatives tactically, Clegg was quite obviously never interested in a deal.

One salutary lesson to be learned from this squalid deal amongst the country’s forces of conservatism is that the Tories real intentions are plain to see. The Lib Dem Ministers have, to use the vernacular, got ‘the shitty end of the stick’. Appointed to Cabinet Posts with little power (i.e. Clegg and Alexander) or little room to manoeuvre as the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the purse string (Laws, Huhne and Cable), the Tories’ disdain is manifest.

Finally, the main justification for this squalid coalition agreement being that the country needs strong and stable Government ((i.e. absolute power for a guaranteed five years and a signaled gerrymandering of national elections, Parliamentary procedure and a short to medium-term stitch up of the House of Lords) is vacuous in the extreme.

The basis for the Con-Dem coalition is nothing more than naked class interest that will cost the working class of this country dear and may well endure far beyond the initial five-year proposal, if their naked attempts to gerrymander Parliament bear fruit.