[Image description: Still from a Boris Johnson speech overlaid by a
quote, reading: “Inequality is essential for the spirit of envy.”]
Article by Amelia A. J. Foy
So, I watched the Prime
Ministerial Debate when it was on TV. Amongst many other scream-worthy moments (like
Corbyn essentially calling Boris Johnson scrooge), a moment that sticks out is
when they were asked about austerity. More specifically, a woman in the
audience gave her experiences under austerity, and asked the leaders what they
would do about it.
Corbyn goes first:
he’ll end it. That was his answer - that he will end austerity, the past decade
of welfare and public service cuts at the expense of the most disadvantaged in
the country. It was originally introduced to bolster the economy following the 2008
financial crash. Essentially, the Tories wanted to… redistribute the wealth… from the
poorest people in the country… because of the actions of the rich, specifically
bankers, in causing the crash. Hmm.
Johnson then takes
the question. He does not promise to end austerity in the slightest. He instead
says we should, for our economy to grow, believe in and support businesses.
Then he accused Corbyn on “trying to overthrow capitalism”... in response to an
austerity question.
So, that’s a mess.
But it got me
thinking about how polar these responses were to the question - and why. Why,
in the face of recent figures
showing 130,000 preventable deaths have been caused by austerity, did Boris not immediately guarantee
an end to this scheme? Why did he dodge around the question by referring to
businesses - of course, avoiding the question is almost second-nature to a
politician, but telling a woman that investing in business is a good thing
after she literally asked about austerity is something else.
What underpins these
kinds of arguments? It got me thinking about some of my latest university
reading. In the US, the Republican party ran with (continues to run with!) the
phrase “Good For Business, Good For America!” which I found almost disturbingly
echoed what Boris Johnson has to say in the debate. Closer to home in the UK,
Thatcher was instrumental in this kind of ideology - opening up the market for
businesses to thrive.
This is what we call neoliberalism.
Here’s some key factors of this ideology:
- Free-market
economy, aka the self-regulation of pricing and exchange by businesses.
(Linked to the 2008 financial crash.)
- Competition
between businesses is good for the economy
- Of
course: capitalism and consumerism, expressing your freedom through your
buying choices…
- Myth
of meritocracy: firstly, hard work pays off regardless of your background
(institutional barriers, who?) meaning if you don’t succeed, it is your
fault.
- The
“trickle-down effect”: justifies the accumulation of wealth at the top of
society, as it will be slowly dispersed throughout the social levels… If
anyone’s seen any of that happening, let me know!
But, everything I’ve
just described can be said in everyday terms.
- “You
get what you deserve”
“If you work hard, you can do anything” - “[Insert
millionnaire name here] gave [some impressive-sounding amount of money
that is about 0.5% of their wealth]! Be grateful! He earned that.”
- “Take out a payday loan” instead of using
a food bank (said by a Tory MP)
Neoliberalist
ideology has become almost a natural part of our society - so much so that
people can’t call it out by name most of the time. This is why it is so
important to take a step back and look at things. Why are we buying -
literally and figuratively - into this?
Harvey (2016)
highlights that a key part of enacting neoliberalism is cutting back social
welfare institutions. Yep. You read that right. State interventions for public
health for example, such as the sugar tax, are dubbed “nanny state”
interventions - in other words, an infringement of free-market capitalism and
individual liberty.
(By the way, there are 32 Conservatives with direct or indirect financial connections to theInstitute of Economic Affairs (IEA), who have literally made a table of nations with "nanny state" interventions. Including Boris Johnson.)
We could go on here,
but first let’s turn back to Thatcher. Her regime against the mining community
in the UK was a pivotal victory for neoliberalism. The miners, who were working-class from mining
towns where it was their primary job source, were squashed out by Thatcher’s
schemes. Meanwhile, she opens a free-market economy up in the UK, and big
businesses still to this day love her.
She couldn’t do
everything, though. We still have the NHS and the wider welfare state, which
was introduced post-war and widely received by the population. In fact, a key
part of Britain’s identity is our welfare state. Free healthcare and the
NHS is the pride of the country, and even for the Tories as they slice and
slice the funding away.
Seems a bit
contradictory, doesn’t it - for the austerity party to proclaim their love for
the NHS. Actions speak louder than words, which is also key here - can you love
something you’re destroying, selling
patient data from GP surgeries to US companies (Big Pharma, anyone?) amongst other things, or cutting NHS
student bursaries?
This is a conflict of
interest for the Tories that they have to tip-toe around. Their Big Business
mentality is at odds to the country’s love for, and reliance on, the NHS.
Taking the NHS away would be astronomically bad for the party. So instead, they
chip away at it slowly, and hope it goes unnoticed, so appease their business
friends who fund their campaigns. But consider, for a moment, the NHS wasn’t
established - instead, it was proposed in more recent years. Perhaps by
Labour’s current manifesto: “make healthcare free for all”.
Do you think the
Tories would still receive it with open arms? Better yet, would the country?
Let’s examine that
using Corbyn’s other policies: free broadband in every home, free
travel for under-25s on buses, scrapping tuition fees for Higher Education,
amongst others. What has the response been from the Tories, their supporters
and sceptics (ignoring Brexit, which Boris seems to think is the answer to any
question directed at him?)
“There’s no magic money tree!” “Where will we get the money from?” “Why
am I being taxed for this?”
Note: Corbyn’s
manifesto has been backed by 163 economists. It is economically viable. So why
this response?
Because taxing the
5%, redistributing the wealth through the system and funding our social
institutions are so far removed from the “trickle-down effect” of current
neoliberalism it seems like socialism. (Maybe there are elements, but it is not
fully socialist by any means, let alone communist). Because neoliberalism is so
entrenched in our understanding of human relationships, that this seems like
robbery to the 5% - it’s unfair, because they’ve earned it. It’s implausible,
because we have lived under the strain of austerity for so long - and
pre-dating that, Thatcherism - it is the norm. Neoliberalism has become almost
unconscious, and super pervasive, seen not just in business or politics but in
education. Tuition fees
were only introduced in 2004. Nobody dared beforehand to even try. When they were tripled to
£9,000 under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, there was an uproar. And now,
the thought of scrapping them seems economically unviable, as if it wasn’t free
fifteen years ago?
What this boils down
to is: question what you are sold by the media and the Conservative Party.
Historically, neoliberalism has never been effective at generating global
wealth - it’s biggest asset is maintaining class power, and not just that but justifying
it. When we start to notice this ideology in our culture, we can better
combat it. Do not buy into the idea that inequality is essential.
...Also, while I’ve
got your attention: Vote Labour.