Capitalism has always depended on state patronage

Even after the state has saved capitalism from itself, Simon Heffer continues to lionise the free ma

Simon Heffer's assertion in today's Daily Telegraph that the free market will recover once politicians "stop interfering" is both historically and economically illiterate.

His claim is particularly galling at a time when the state has once more been forced to save capitalism from itself. But more than this, the right-wing belief in a golden age when Thomas Jefferson's dictum, "that government is best which governs least", was obediently followed is a delusion. From its birth in the 18th century onwards, capitalism has always depended on stage patronage.

It is therefore ironic that Heffer should continue to lionise America as the "home of capitalism", a country where corporate welfare was growing long before the financial crisis. Heffer is fond of attacking New Labour's "client state", populated by public sector workers and welfare claimants, but he conveniently ignores the rows of corporate claimants at home and abroad.

For instance, a 2008 report by the Cato Institute estimated that in 2006 the US government spent $92bn on subsidising corporations such as Boeing and General Electric. It was Gore Vidal who first identified this collusion between the state and monopoly capitalism as "capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich".

It is equally disingenous of Heffer to hail Barclays' £3 billion profit as a sign that we are returning to business as usual. As my colleague Mehdi Hasan pointed out earlier this week, while the government may not have taken shares in Barclays, it did provide significant loans and guarantees to the bank.

After the humiliation of Big Finance this year, one continues to long for some modesty from its cheerleaders.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Theresa May can't end speculation of an early general election

Both Conservative and Labour MPs regard a contest next year as the solution to their problems. 

One of Theresa May’s first acts as a Conservative leadership candidate was to rule out an early general election. After a tumultuous 2015 contest and the EU referendum, her view was that the country required a period of stability (a view shared by voters). Many newly-elected Tory MPs, fearful of a Brexit-inspired Ukip or Liberal Democrat surge, supported her on this condition.

After entering Downing Street, May reaffirmed her stance. “The Prime Minister could not have been clearer,” a senior source told me. “There won’t be an early election.” Maintaining this pledge is an important part of May’s straight-talking image.

But though No.10 has wisely avoided publicly contemplating an election (unlike Gordon Brown), the question refuses to die. The Conservatives have a majority of just 12 - the smallest of any single-party government since 1974 - and, as David Cameron found, legislative defeats almost inevitably follow. May’s vow to lift the ban on new grammar schools looks to many like an unachievable task. Former education secretary Nicky Morgan and former business minister Anna Soubry are among the Tories leading the charge against the measure (which did not feature in the 2015 Conservative manifesto).  

To this problem, an early election appears to be the solution. The Tories retain a substantial opinion poll lead over Labour, the most divided opposition in recent history. An election victory would give May the mandate for new policies that she presently lacks.

“I don’t believe Theresa May wishes to hold an early election which there is evidence that the country doesn’t want and which, given the current state of the Labour Party, might be seen as opportunistic,” Nigel Lawson told today’s Times“If, however, the government were to find that it couldn’t get its legislation through the House of Commons, then a wholly new situation would arise.”

It is not only Conservatives who are keeping the possibility of an early election alive. Many Labour MPs are pleading for one in the belief that it would end Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. An early contest would also pre-empt the boundary changes planned in 2018, which are forecast to cost the party 23 seats.

For Corbyn, the possibility of an election is a vital means of disciplining MPs. Allies also hope that the failed revolt against his leadership, which Labour members blame for the party’s unpopularity, would allow him to remain leader even if defeated.

Unlike her predecessors, May faces the obstacle of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (under which the next election will be on 7 May 2020). Yet it is not an insurmountable one. The legislation can be suspended with the backing of two-thirds of MPs, or through a vote of no confidence in the government. Alternatively, the act could simply be repealed or amended. Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who have demanded an early election, would struggle to resist May if she called their bluff.

To many, it simply looks like an offer too good to refuse. Which is why, however hard May swats this fly, it will keep coming back. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.