"Managed Decline"
When I was studying economics at school and university in the late 70s and early 80s there were plenty of pessimists who believed that Britain's position as a leading economic power was finished and that the best we could hope for was "Managed decline."
Whatever else Margaret Thatcher did, and like all Prime Ministers she got some things right and others wrong, she totally refused to accept the idea that Britain was in irreversible decline. By the end of ten years in office, this country's relative economic decline compared with the rest of Europe had been reversed and the idea of inevitable decline and failure was completely discredited. When Blair came to office, he did so on the basis of an alternative positive vision of the future, not by an unremittingly negative one. Similarly, part of the strength of David Cameron's approach has been his determination to find a positive view of what the Conservatives can offer Britain in the 21st century.
So I find it deeply ironic to read from Newsnight's Economics correspodent, Paul Mason, that Labour is back to ideas of "managed decline" not just for the country but in respect of their own government!
Mason reported on Friday on his blog that 'The buzzword among Labour negotiators at the Warwick conference is "managed decline". A Labour official told me this last night - at a time when most people at the National Policy Forum were expecting to win Glasgow East.'
Mason asks himself why Labour are using the phrase managed decline and responds that various parts of the Labour movement are heading in different directions.
"Consider the situation at Warwick: the unions, which will provide 3/4 of the party's funding, are asking for two major changes of policy: a slowdown of public service privatisation and a Trade Union Freedom Bill," he says.
"They have been told 'there is nothing to discuss' by ministers and know they will get neither of these things ... their plan B was to argue for a whole range of minor reforms, such as free school meals.
"There is a dark mood at Warwick and some believe key ministers would like the Sunday papers to be reporting 'blow up between unions and Labour'.
"I asked the quesion: is anybody aware of the acute absence of a "narrative" to combat Cameron with? Because nice as free school meals sound, they do not add up to a narrative. The answer was 'No. We are looking at managed decline'."
If this kind of counsel of despair is the best Labour can come up with, even for their own future, never mind the country, then the sooner they call a general election and let someone with a more positive attitude take over, the better for everyone.
Of course, the Labour MP for Copeland has the opposite problem: as mentioned a couple of posts ago, he thinks Conservatism is dying. (Perhaps he knocked his head during light-saber practice.) So Labour offers us a choice between the despairing and the delusional.
"Managed decline" is rarely an option in politics or economics: it guarantees the decline but rarely provides the management.
Whatever else Margaret Thatcher did, and like all Prime Ministers she got some things right and others wrong, she totally refused to accept the idea that Britain was in irreversible decline. By the end of ten years in office, this country's relative economic decline compared with the rest of Europe had been reversed and the idea of inevitable decline and failure was completely discredited. When Blair came to office, he did so on the basis of an alternative positive vision of the future, not by an unremittingly negative one. Similarly, part of the strength of David Cameron's approach has been his determination to find a positive view of what the Conservatives can offer Britain in the 21st century.
So I find it deeply ironic to read from Newsnight's Economics correspodent, Paul Mason, that Labour is back to ideas of "managed decline" not just for the country but in respect of their own government!
Mason reported on Friday on his blog that 'The buzzword among Labour negotiators at the Warwick conference is "managed decline". A Labour official told me this last night - at a time when most people at the National Policy Forum were expecting to win Glasgow East.'
Mason asks himself why Labour are using the phrase managed decline and responds that various parts of the Labour movement are heading in different directions.
"Consider the situation at Warwick: the unions, which will provide 3/4 of the party's funding, are asking for two major changes of policy: a slowdown of public service privatisation and a Trade Union Freedom Bill," he says.
"They have been told 'there is nothing to discuss' by ministers and know they will get neither of these things ... their plan B was to argue for a whole range of minor reforms, such as free school meals.
"There is a dark mood at Warwick and some believe key ministers would like the Sunday papers to be reporting 'blow up between unions and Labour'.
"I asked the quesion: is anybody aware of the acute absence of a "narrative" to combat Cameron with? Because nice as free school meals sound, they do not add up to a narrative. The answer was 'No. We are looking at managed decline'."
If this kind of counsel of despair is the best Labour can come up with, even for their own future, never mind the country, then the sooner they call a general election and let someone with a more positive attitude take over, the better for everyone.
Of course, the Labour MP for Copeland has the opposite problem: as mentioned a couple of posts ago, he thinks Conservatism is dying. (Perhaps he knocked his head during light-saber practice.) So Labour offers us a choice between the despairing and the delusional.
"Managed decline" is rarely an option in politics or economics: it guarantees the decline but rarely provides the management.
Comments