Picture the scene. Margaret Thatcher, power suited in cool blue, sits opposite a Sunday Times reporter armed with the latest tape recorder technology. Its two years since she swept into power and her legacy remains uncertain. Key events for the biographer’s pen, such as the Miner’s Strike, the Falklands War and the Brighton bomb assassination attempt, have yet to hit the headlines. She’s asked mundane questions, perhaps indicative of a Prime Minister unlikely to last. Credit for reductions in inflation is tempered with rebuke for only a partial economic recovery. The interview meanders to vague references to the Europhile and the Europhobe, celebrating the German economy as a success but tutting at Britain’s contribution to Europe’s budget. It looks like it’s going to be just another journalist bust, a newspaper filler yielding no insight. The Iron Lady, however, refuses to accept such mediocrity and finishes with a gold-dust quote: “Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul“. This sets out the battle lines for a shift in the economic paradigm. You either accept the inefficiency of collectivisation or you favour the opportunities created by personal responsibility. You’re either an apologist for ‘money for nothing’ statism or you celebrate the beautiful freedom of individualism. Despite the tea-party promise of New Labour, Thatcher’s individualism legacy is unchallenged. Blips, from the Poll Tax to the Financial Crisis, offer no dent. But might the COVID-19 crisis be different?
Before we consider Government policy, I’ll start with the good news. I’m heartened by the localised reactions to the crisis. Right across Britain local movements are springing up to support the vulnerable. The well-being of our neighbour is too important for us to sit on our hands. This, to the follower of Thatcherism, is proof of righteousness. The Government is not needed for draconian intervention. The people, ultimately a market prepared to offer ‘zero price’ product through the ‘warm glow’ of altruism, will fill the void. But they are wrong. It is a reaction to desperation. Individualism works when we can sunbathe on our own desert islands, knowing that there will be a steady supply of beer and preferred nibble. As soon as the wind picks up, and the waves threaten an island disaster, we retreat and search for safety. We look for help; we look for solution through co-operation with neighbouring island. It is ultimately an admission that the impersonal ‘one man, one island’ concept of market forces is easily forgotten. But this admission is not necessarily enough, as haphazard organisation may leave the most vulnerable still watching those waves crash in. ‘Government the Planner’ provides the key role in improving on dispersed help. My question is: Where is it? Economists are not seers. They do, however, offer forecasting skills through the art of looking back and testing data. Even those skills aren’t needed here. Take panic buying. It is an outcome that even an irregular shopper like me fully expects. Just a report in a Billionaire’s pet newspaper over the threat of snow will strip the supermarket shelves of bread and milk. The Government would assuredly know that this would happen with COVID-19. So why didn’t the ‘Government the Planner’ step in and protect the supply chain?
The answer comes down to the distinction between Government and ‘Government the Planner’. To the neoliberal perspective, the Government role is about protecting the market. Ironically, that involves a specific type of planning. We see how Government, despite the libertarian protests, is a key economic agent in stabilising capitalism. From infant industry industrialisation to guaranteeing reproduction of capitalist profit, it interferes. But it is not ‘Government the Planner’. Its role is restricted to mere facilitation to shield the invisible hand. We have seen the consequences with Government policy. The Budget ‘give away’ is focused on employer, rather than employee. Advice favours ‘consider’ over ‘must’. The City of London, a financial hub, must not be spooked. The neoliberal dogma makes people-focused planning alien to the Government’s remit. With COVID-19, this blasé attitude is finally being kicked into touch. It is forced into direct intervention, helping Joe Average. While this change is arriving late and remains too piecemeal, it can still guarantee better outcomes than what can be achieved by our localised reactions.
How should I finish this blog? I’m tempted to go with a ‘told you so’ tut at right wing dogma. I’m tempted to whinge at the voters for ensuring a Government not fit for purpose, ensuring that ‘government failure’ accentuates ‘market failure’. I won’t be so peevish. In the current crisis we must continue to work together, and with ‘Government the Planner’, ensure that we defeat COVID-19. We must protect our communities. But when we do win? As the environment recovers, due to industrial self-isolation and subsequent reduced economic activity, we can’t simply go back to destroying it. That would be akin to capsizing the ship rescuing the desert islanders. Thatcher, ironically, would then be close to the truth. Environmental disaster would be the end of Society as we know it. But there is no room for gloom and doom. Instead, lets bathe in optimism. We can, and should, celebrate community spirit. We won’t stop there. As the Government is so keen to provoke World War narrative, let us not forget our history. Our heroes then guaranteed marvellous developments such as social housing and the precious NHS. What greatness can we, as a Society, achieve this time?
Photo by Sergio Jara on Unsplash