Budget 2011: shock doctrine in the UK

George Osborne’s Budget will attempt a radical social re-engineering of the UK.

So will next Wednesday's Budget be "Shock and Awe: phase II" for the UK? The government's mantra of a "budget for growth" would have us believe otherwise. But even if we are spared any bombshells of the 20 per cent VAT variety, we can still anticipate what Pentagon planners call the "smart war" approach. Expect the Budget to be a more precision-guided follow-up to the original onslaught – and with the words "enemies of enterprise" chalked all over the warheads.

But, smart bombs or otherwise, the underlying coalition programme remains the same: a refashioning of the balance of power between social classes and public and private interests that George Monbiot lambasted last year (referring to the bestseller by Naomi Klein) as tantamount to the UK's very own "shock doctrine".

Klein's book of the same name shows how vested interests may capitalise on times of crisis to impose the sort of economic restructurings that folk would normally reject as sheer folly. It is becoming increasingly clear that, from cuts to tax breaks, the coalition is taking all the steps it can to refashion the country along pro-market, anti-equality lines.

Against such accusations, the government claims it is merely being level-headed: paying off all that burdensome debt and warding off the markets that prowl about our neighbours. But just as Margaret Thatcher proselytised the virtues of private ownership to cover her clawing away at public institutions, so today does David Cameron preach about devolved responsibility to hide the true intention behind making the cuts.

The Iron Lady's cold individualism may appear to have been shuttered out from this by talk of the "big society", but in truth Cameron has simply tacked up the garish swags of community empowerment in its place. Either way, we are left with little more than window-dressing for an ideological crusade.

Which is why we can expect further moves in this direction from the Budget.

Cue the anticipated setting aside of money for the sort of "enterprise zones" that Thatcher tried to introduce. These will be hoped-for pockets of success to be pointed to later, against the tide of the country's widening geographical inequalities.

And watch out for Osborne's preference for Pareto optimality as a policy tool: outlawing any policy intervention on behalf of the needy if it stands to impinge even marginally on the interests of the rich. These may well be interests he is now reliant upon to kick-start the economy.

But at times of cutbacks it is the least well-off who need most protection, and women among those most of all (one analysis of tax and benefit cuts after the June Budget shows that women bore 72 per cent of the cutbacks). Their basic needs are hardly the "enemy" of future growth.

Add to this the government's ongoing "war" on bureaucrats and the ratcheting up of a culture of aggression against "the forces of stagnation", the government's assault on local councils, the housing benefit cuts driving poorer people into cheaper rental "sinks", the cuts to and reshaping of the education system, and we are already well up to our necks in the sort of social re-engineering that Klein would be only too pleased to call a shock doctrine. A land that Thatcher would have been only too pleased to call home.

And with the Budget coming before the cuts agreed to last year start to make themselves properly felt, we have some chastening longer-term consequences to look forward to. As a recent study has shown, the combined effect of the ongoing and anticipated further precision targeting of welfare benefits and public expenditure will be to render the UK's public expenditure even less than that of the United States by 2014/2015. If fully implemented, this "unprecedented" development will equal, in the words of the study's authors, "a radical new departure in British policy directions".

Is this the brave new world that favours the boldness extolled by George Osborne at Davos in January this year? It may be for the decreasing few who can avail themselves of its pleasures. For the rest of us, it won't be a step towards the future at all. When Osborne's economic surgery is complete, it is more likely we will wake to find ourselves back in the night-time of Thatcher's Britain. Only now the lights will have gone out, too. And the trains still won't run on time.

Simon Reid-Henry is a lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London.

Getty
Show Hide image

Former Labour leader Ed Miliband tells Jeremy Corbyn: "I would have gone"

Jeremy Corbyn's predecessor broke his long silence to say the leader's position was "untenable". 

The former Labour leader Ed Miliband has swung his weight behind the campaign to oust Jeremy Corbyn after describing his position as "untenable" and declared he would have resigned already.

His intervention is seen as significant, because since losing the general election in 2015, Miliband has taken a step back and refused to publicly criticise his successor. 

But the day after Labour MPs voted they had no confidence in Corbyn, the former leader has finally spoken. 

Miliband told BBC Radio 4's World at One that his position was "untenable". 

He said:

"We are at a time of acute national crisis, a crisis I haven't known in my political lifetime, probably the biggest crisis for the country since World War II.

"At that moment we in the Labour party need to think about the country.

"I've supported Jeremy Corbyn all the way along from the moment he was elected because I thought it was absolutely the right thing to do. A lot of what he stands for is very important. But I've relcutantly reached the conclusion that his position is untenable."

 

But with Corbyn already defying the opinion of most of his parliamentary colleagues, this alone is unlikely to have much effect. It's what Miliband says next that is crucial.

Corbyn has argued the vote of no confidence against him was unconstitutional. Miliband thinks otherwise. He said: "You are the leader of the Labour Party, the leader of the party in parliament and the leader of the party in the country. Some people are saying this is unconstitional. In our constitution it says if a fifth of MPs support another candidate there is another contest."

And he implied it should not even get to a leadership contest: "No doubt that will follow if Corbyn decides to stay. but the question then for him is what is the right thing for the country and the party and the causes he stands for."

Miliband also hit out at accusations of a conspiracy to oust Corbyn:

"I've never been called a Blairite. I'm not a plotter. I'm somone who cares deeply anpout this country, deeply about my party, deeply about the causes I think Jeremy and I care about. I think the best thing on all of those criteria is that he stands down."

Asked what he would have done in the same situation, he replied: "I would have gone.

"One of the reasons I'm speaking out is because of what people are saying about this proceess. If you look at the people saying Jeremy should go, it's not people on one wing of the Labour Party.

"I had my troubles with certain people in the Labour Party. Some of them ideological, some on other issues, but this is not ideological." Some of Corbyn's ideas could continue under a new leader, he suggested. 

Miliband shared his views just minutes after his former rival, the Prime Minister David Cameron, told Corbyn it was not in the national interest for him to remain as leader. "I would say, for heaven's sake man, go," he told the Opposition leader at Prime Minister's Questions. 

Although the Brexit vote was a devastating blow for the PM, the aftermath has unleashed equal waves of turmoil for the Labour Party.

Corbyn's refusal to resign sparked a series of resignations from the shadow cabinet. Unmoved, he replaced them. Meanwhile Momentum, Corbyn's grassroots political organisation, held a rally in support outside Parliament. 

On Tuesday, Labour MPs voted 172 to 40 in favour of a no confidence motion, which paves the way for a leadership challenge.

But Corbyn described the vote as unconstitutional and pledged he "would not betray" the Labour Pary members, who gave him a sweeping mandate in 2015.