In the Critics this week

John Gray on markets and morals, Ferdinand Mount on oligarchy and Bryan Appleyard on the iPhone at f

In the Critics section of this week’s New Statesman, John Gray reviews What Money Can’t Buy, the new book by the Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel. “In a culture mesmerised by the market,” Gray writes, “Sandel’s is the indispensable voice of reason … He shows that the limits of markets cannot be decided by economic reasoning.” Though Gray is less confident than Sandel that disputes over the limits of markets can be resolved, he suggests that if we do “bring basic values into political life” in the way Sandel urges, “at least we won’t be stuck with the dreary market orthodoxies that he has so elegantly demolished”.

In the Books Interview, Jonathan Derbyshire discusses similar themes with Ferdinand Mount, author most recently of The New Few. Mount says that in that book he “tries to connect the two themes of inequality and oligarchy. As well suggesting that there is a connection between the two, [I] argue that power in every field today, whether it’s a retail chain or a university, is centralised.”

Also in Books: Leo Robson on Skios by Michael Frayn; Robert Irwin on The Arab Awakening by Tariq Ramadan; Liz Thomson on This Land Is Your Land: Woody Guthrie and the Journey of an American Folksong by Robert Santelli; George Eaton on Occupy by Noam Chomsky; and Ben Wilson on The Plantagenets by Dan Jones.

Our Critic at large this week is Bryan Appleyard, who marks the fifth anniversary of the launch of Apple’s iPhone. In 2007, then Apple CEO Steve Jobs declared that his company was going to “reinvent the phone”. “Jobs was right,” Appleyard writes, “he had reinvented the phone – not as a phone, but as a near-universal machine.” There remains an unresolved question, however: do we really want everything this remarkable invention gives us? “Mobile connectivity perpetually seduces us with the call of elsewhere,” Appleyard notes. “It takes us out of the moment.”

Also in the Critics: Ryan Gilbey on Alexsandr Sokurov’s take on Goethe’s Faust; Antonia Quirke on a BBC World Service documentary about Khalil Gibran; Will Self’s Madness of Crowds; Andrew Billen on Love, Love, Love at the Royal Court; Sophie Elmhirst on the joy of small-scale literary festivals; and Hunter Davies’s The Fan.

The call of elsewhere: a man checks his iPhone (Photo: Getty Images)
Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Theresa May and the resurgence of the state

More than any of her recent predecessors, the Prime Minister seems willing to challenge the economic and political orthodoxies of the past 35 years.

Theresa May entered office in more tumultuous circumstances than any other prime minister since 1945. The UK’s vote to leave the European Union was a remarkable rebuke to the political and business establishment and an outcome for which few had prepared. Mrs May recognised that the result was more than a revolt against Brussels. It reflected a deeper alienation and discontent. Britain’s inequalities of wealth and opportunity, its regional imbalances and its distrusted political class all contributed to the Remain campaign’s ­defeat. As she said in her speech in Birmingham on 11 July: “Make no mistake, the referendum was a vote to leave the European Union, but it was also a vote for serious change.”

When the financial crisis struck in 2007-2008, David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, was caught out. His optimistic, liberal Conservative vision, predicated on permanent economic growth, was ill-suited to recession and his embrace of austerity tainted his “modernising” project. From that moment, the purpose of his premiership was never clear. At times, austerity was presented as an act of pragmatic bookkeeping; at others, as a quest to shrink the state permanently.

By contrast, although Mrs May cautiously supported Remain, the Leave vote reinforced, rather than contradicted, her world-view. As long ago as March 2013, in the speech that signalled her leadership ambitions, she spoke of the need to confront “vested interests in the private sector” and embrace “a more strategic role” for the state. Mrs May has long insisted on the need to limit free movement of people within the ­European Union, and anticipated the causes of the Leave vote. The referendum result made the national reckoning that she had desired inevitable.

More than any of her recent predecessors, the Prime Minister seems willing to challenge the economic and political orthodoxies of the past 35 years. She has promised worker representation on company boards, binding shareholder votes on executive pay, improved corporate governance and stricter controls on foreign takeovers.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has set the ­Labour Party on a similar course, stating in his conference speech that the “winds of globalisation” are “blowing against the belief in the free market and in favour of intervention”. He pointedly criticised governments which did not try to save their domestic steel industries as China dumped cheap steel on to global markets.

We welcome this new mood in politics. As John Gray wrote in our “New Times” special issue last week, by reasserting the role of the state as the final guarantor of social ­cohesion, Mrs May “has broken with the neoliberal model that has ruled British politics since the 1980s”.

The Prime Minister has avoided the hyperactive style of many new leaders, but she has deviated from David Cameron’s agenda in several crucial respects. The target of a national Budget surplus by 2020 was rightly jettisoned (although Mrs May has emphasised her commitment to “living within our means”). Chancellor Philip Hammond’s Autumn Statement on 23 November will be the first test of the government’s ­fiscal boldness. Historically low borrowing costs have strengthened the pre-existing case for infrastructure investment to support growth and spread prosperity.

The greatest political ­challenge facing Mrs May is to manage the divisions within her party. She and her government must maintain adequate access to the European single market, while also gaining meaningful control of immigration. Her statist economic leanings are already being resisted by the free-market fundamentalists on her benches. Like all prime ministers, Mrs May must balance the desire for clarity with the need for unity.

“Brexit means Brexit,” she has repeatedly stated, underlining her commitment to end the UK’s 43-year European
affair. If Mrs May is to be a successful and even transformative prime minister, she must also prove that “serious change” means serious change and a determination to create a society that does not only benefit the fortunate few. 

This article first appeared in the 29 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, May’s new Tories