« the problem of sporting power | Main | noise pollution »

May 18, 2010



I came to a similar view, influenced in part by your post-election posting. http://tinyurl.com/37vqc2n

But, on reflection, I wonder if your title on this post is quite right? May be it isn't that Osborne is against politics per se, he's just against democratic politics: the three way tussle between the allegedly post-Westphalian nation-state, the bond markets and the supra-national quasi-state institutions such as the ECB continues as the current Euro crisis illustrates. Osborne still wants to play that game.


And here's Alan Budd - the man who will head the ORB - commenting on his role in advising the Tories during the 80s in a 1992 documentary:

"The nightmare I sometimes have, about this whole experience, runs as follows. I was involved in making a number of proposals which were partly at least adopted by the government and put in play by the government. Now, my worry is . . . that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions . . . who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation.

"They did, however, see that it would be a very, very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes -- if you like, that what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which re-created a reserve army of labour and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.

"Now again, I would not say I believe that story, but when I really worry about all this I worry whether that indeed was really what was going on."

Who can doubt this time round the clear class implications of reducing a deficit acquired through bailing out banks?

The comments to this entry are closed.