Morning Call: pick of the comment

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers

1. Cuts and tax divide Labour, but could sink the Tories too (Guardian)

Martin Kettle says the election could really open up if voters fear George Osborne is planning cuts of anything like £75bn a year.

2. Can Apple's Jesus Tablet deliver a miracle? (Times)

Antonia Senior says that publishers struggling to find new sources of revenue view Apple's tablet computer as a potential saviour.

3. Only the US has muscle to make banks behave (Independent)

James Moore praises Barack Obama's plan to break up the banks and says that a US president alone has the tools to haul them into line.

4. Cross of Goldman (Times)

But a leader in the Times argues that Obama's plan will contribute little to financial stability and will also make it more difficult for banks to turn a profit.

5. The age of the killer robot is no longer a sci-fi fantasy (Independent)

Johann Hari warns of the rise of military robots, with the US now using 12,000 as part of its force.

6. The prince charms us, but he hasn't moved us (Times)

The former Australian Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull says that Prince William may have received a warm welcome to Sydney, but the desire for a republic remains.

7. Death by chocolate (Guardian)

Andrew Martin says that the sale of Cadbury to Kraft marks the regrettable death of the Quaker model of capitalism.

8. Flaky thinking from those who scream foul over Cadbury (Daily Telegraph)

But Jeff Randall argues that the outcry over the US takeover is driven by crude political imperatives.

9. Don't be surprised if a protest movement flowers in Britain (Independent)

Andreas Whittam Smith predicts that hostility towards the political class could lead to the creation of a new protest party in Britain.

10. We can turn Haiti around (Guardian)

Kofi Annan says the lesson to learn from the Haitian tragedy is that fragile states require concerted and sustained support.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

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