Let's actually have ideology in politics
Chuntering noisemonkey Ed Balls on the "regressive" Coalition:
“The government’s ideological assault on our welfare state and public services is not simply economic vandalism, I fear it will damage the very fabric of our society too."
I have little interest in what Balls has to say - I'm tired of listening to his vapid and deeply predictable assaults on the Tories and/or the Lib Dems. You could replace Balls with a basic programme designed to spew out attacks on the Con-Dems every few days without damaging political discourse in this country. In fact, such a programme would positively improve British politics, if only because Balls would be excised from it. Binning Balls would be lancing a festering wart on the face of British politics.
No, what does bother me is the increasing use of the word "ideological" in relation to the government's spending cuts. Put simply, there is nothing ideological about these cuts; they are basic economics. The Labour government spent too much, the new government has to spend less - therefore it has to cut spending.
That's not to say that there is anything wrong with ideological attacks on the size of the state and state spending. In fact, I'd love it if the government was being ideological. It would make a welcome change from the bland technocratic government that we have had to endure in this country since 1997. To actually have a government doing something because they believe in it rather than to get good headlines or because they have no choice would be a welcome fucking change, quite frankly.
Using the term "ideological" in the way the quote above does is to run the risk of turning it into an insult - which would be beyond stupid, even for a witless toad like Balls. Surely the reason why people get into politics and join a political party is because of ideology? Politics should be ideological, and if the main parties actually remembered the ideologies they are meant to believe in then politics in this country would be one hell of a lot more interesting than the beyond bland bullshit and empty posturing that had now been substituted for political debate.
Labels: Balls, Coalition, Con-Dem, Cuts, Ideology, Progressive, Spending, Witless Morons
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 9:35 am
4 Comments
4 Comments:
You're directly, 100% wrong. The government is cutting spending at a rate that far exceeds anything the debt markets have demanded - in other words, *it could choose to cut the deficit more slowly if it wanted*. Also, *it could choose to deal with the deficit through tax raises*. Both of these are policy options that all economists accept are on the table - the only people who claim they aren't are right-wing columnists and talking heads.
The fact that it's chosen to deal with the deficit on the timescale it's chosen, and through cutting spending rather than raising tax, is an ideological decision. Really, really obviously. If we'd had a Labour government, it would have chosen a different mix of policies, and the world wouldn't have ended.
(the world won't end under Coalition policies, either, but they will benefit the rich at the expense of the poor...)
Yesterday I was watching a Question Time episode on the BBC iPlayer from last year, and Andrew Lansley was complaining about how Labour had "changed" from 1997, but that it was terrible because they'd apparently "gone back to the past". Excuse me for raining over MPs opportunism, but I actually want to go to the past. I want to see both the Labour party and the Conservative party go back to their ideologies.
It seems to me that both New Labour and Cameronian Conservatives are desperate to remove the ideologies of other parties, to turn into the same corporate mush that's indistinguishable from each other. It's sickening, and ideology is/would be a brilliant thing, had it actually decided to come back into politics.
So, uhm, yeah, I'd rather "go back to the past". If, by "going back to the past", they mean knowing what parties stand for, knowing that parties will differ on most things, knowing that someone could represent your views, knowing that they'll have a manifesto in which they'll stick by. Fuck, I'd go back to the past for many more reasons that aren't political (music, TV programmes, style etc), but going back to the past politically is what's needed, and proof of this is the fact that social mobility in this country has gone down the drain from 13 years of so-called "progressive, non-ideological" New Labour.
john b,
No, it isn't ideological; it is a technocratic question - both Labour and the Tories were committed to cutting spending before the election, they just would have chosen different targets and ways in which to do it. The fact that the likes of Balls now stand opposed to cuts is indicative of nothing other than the fact that he doesn't have to implement cuts anymore; he can play holier than thou with the Tories because he no longer has to undertake practical political policies. Ideology has nothing to do with this; it is about different methods of running the state.
An ideological spending cut would be one that is not done owing to economic demands, but because the party implementing the cut believes that the state should not be spending taxpayers' money in that area. And I would absolutely support such cuts. However, the cuts happening now are not about that.
TNL
The Jaunt,
Yep, I agree. Let's go back to the past: I'd rather have the divisive politics of 1983 than the bland, technocratic political debate of 2010. Politics should be about leading, not managerialism.
TNL
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home