Labour's insane economic policies are taking us back to the dark 1970s
Decline was not just an alarming possibility: it was inevitable and crushing in its finality. The everyday business of life was not simply encumbered by incompetence and infuriatingly poor services as it is now. It was made virtually impossible: the lights were going out on a regular basis along with facilities like heating and cooking, which relied on electricity; the train service on which commuters depended (no working from home back then) was repeatedly withdrawn sometimes without warning; and essential supplies were obstructed, which caused desperate shortages of goods. It was often observed, with characteristic British irony, that it was like living through the war – only this time the enemy wasn't foreign.
You know what happened next. The Thatcher Government broke the death grip of trade union power which had crippled the British economy, not just by new legislation that directly limited the unions' coercive practices but by dismantling the nationalised industries over which they had a monopolistic hold.
Along with union hegemony, the suffocating grip of Left-wing councils was also brought down. I recall this particularly vividly because my family's life in the London Borough of Haringey had been turned into a class war nightmare by a vindictive Labour council whose rising star Jeremy Corbyn obligingly closed down the schools in solidarity with the striking caretakers.
But the miraculous revolution did not happen overnight. The first attempt to beat the coal miners who were critical to this struggle failed because the deprivation that their prolonged strike caused was too great for the population to bear. It took the Government a year of stockpiling coal in a carefully planned strategy to survive another winter of strikes before the breakthrough came.
There was no instant revelation on the political front either. The presentation of what soon became known as Thatcherism, with its transformational view of how wealth was created and distributed ('growing the pie' as opposed to simply dividing up the existing one into more equal pieces), was a major philosophical undertaking.
This was no mere electoral strategy. It was a historic shift of paradigmatic social thinking: a systematic argument with the Marxist analysis that had dominated political discourse in its harder or softer forms for a century.
It took philosophical thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Nobel Prize-winning economic theorists like Milton Friedman, translated into practical action by an inspirational political adviser like Sir Keith Joseph, to create solutions that no one could have foreseen a generation before.
Yes children, that was how it happened all those years ago that Britain emerged from what looked like an inevitable descent into domestic failure and global insignificance. But how can this be relevant now? After all, we have learnt the essential lessons about how to create economic growth and encourage the spread of it through society – haven't we?
We know that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish if actual wealth is to increase, and that the state can only spend real money that markets produce if it is not to bankrupt the nation with debt. And, what is more, if the state inhibits or depresses the ability of private entrepreneurialism to flourish, there will be no possibility of it improving living conditions for anyone.
Surely we know all this – don't we? The awareness of it must be embedded in the consciousness of every serious politician who aspires to power. (The unserious ones who are so ideologically purblind that they will not accept it are, I genuinely believe, unlikely ever to be more than a disruptive nuisance.)
Blairite Labour had to demonstrate that it had been converted to the new truth before it could hope to be re-elected. It staged a ceremonial renunciation of the old dogma with the removal of its commitment to state ownership of the means of production and declared itself enthusiastically committed to capitalist free markets – so long as they were accompanied by 'social fairness' (which was, unfortunately, redistribution by another name).
After all that, here we are. A new Old Labour Government is now restoring the suffocating employment rights which make the dynamism and flexibility of entrepreneurial business impossibly difficult. It promises enormous amounts of money that don't exist and cannot be produced, because of the restrictions it has put on private enterprise, to public services like the NHS designed on the old monopolistic model. It caves in, without a struggle, to the demands of every public sector union for all the world as if the 1980s had never happened.
What is at the heart of this? To understand such retrograde thinking, you must listen to the rhetoric in which it is expressed. The Prime Minister and his hapless Chancellor speak of 'working people' as a homogeneous class whose communities are as conformist and predictable in their attitudes and loyalties as they were 50 years or more ago. Their lives are seen as inextricably bound up (and limited by) a single local industry which must be renewed or replaced by another industry or by a technological revolution into which the population can be inducted.
There appears to be no understanding that what used to be a solid, passive working class which wanted nothing more than safe jobs for itself and its progeny was awakened by the 1980s to the possibility of social mobility. The working people to whom Labour is offering its expensive beneficence may now quite possibly be inclined to start up their own ventures and move on. Pouring government money into regional capital projects will mean taxing their new enterprises into the grave.
The revelation of the Blair years was that there were lots of working (class) people who did not welcome the traditional, patronising Labour message. They may still be a minority, these brave individualists, but they are the future and they will not be ignored.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
For D.C., Threats of a Federal Takeover Were Familiar. Now They Are a Reality.
Muriel Bowser, the mayor of Washington, D.C., was born just a year before the city's residents were given the right to elect their mayor. In the five decades since, Washington has wrestled with challenges common to many U.S. cities, like violent crime. It has also faced challenges that, given its peculiar status under federal law, it shares with no other American city. But even in Washington's unique history, there was no episode quite like the one that Ms. Bowser, in her third term as mayor, had to confront on Monday afternoon. 'We know that access to our democracy is tenuous,' the mayor said to reporters just hours after the city's most prominent resident, President Trump, announced that the federal government was going to take over the local police department and deploy the National Guard to the streets of Washington. 'While this action today is unsettling and unprecedented,' the mayor said, 'I can't say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised.' Indeed, Mr. Trump has not been shy about his feelings toward the nation's capital, calling it a 'filthy and crime-ridden embarrassment' and 'a rat-infested, graffiti-infested shithole.' For a city that federal law leaves vulnerable to the prerogatives of the White House, the raw rhetoric was a warning. Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, which gave residents the power to elect a mayor and a city council, Washington has a degree of self-governance, but it is limited. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Bloomberg
42 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
What a Trump Bid for Cut of Chip Revenue Means for China
A revenue-for-exports deal between the US government and two of the world's biggest chipmakers opens a new front in a trading regime turned upside down by Donald Trump. Bloomberg's Minmin Low and Tom Giles break down what we know so far. (Source: Bloomberg)


Forbes
42 minutes ago
- Forbes
Retirements And Businesses Face Risk From Administration Actions
The topic of regulation often sits in the penumbra of companies. Many executives hate them. Some regulation is overdone. Much of it isn't, being instead expressions of restraint when corporations behave recklessly, damaging the public and the balance of the economic system. Large regulatory packages have often enabled greater trust, attention to operations, and ultimately higher profitability overall. As often as regulation is necessary for companies, it is also required through laws and constitutional guarantees for government entities and officials who otherwise would misuse their powers over businesses and the many millions of retirement accounts that require economic success to thrive. Tech Companies And Law Firms Under Attack Donald Trump has established a practice of singling out both individuals and particular companies. Criticism on the part of the nation's chief executives, whether publicly or privately expressed, isn't new. They are people and will act as people do. However, the newest expression of it is unusual. Trump reportedly demanded that U.S. chip companies, Nvidia and AMD, pay the government a percentage of their revenue from sales to China, according to the Financial Times. The two companies agreed so they could get the export licenses necessary to ship products, reportedly admitting it to the newspaper. Also, according to the story, unnamed expert sources said that this type of arrangement was 'unprecedented.' Companies have never before paid commissions for permissions. On August 7y, 20205, Trump called on Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign because a Republican senator was concerned about Tan's reported investments in Chinese companies, Business Insider reported. Holding shares in Chinese companies is a common part of investment portfolio diversity. Days later, Trump praised Tan's 'success' online, Business Insider separately wrote. However, in a broader sense, this is not the first attempt by Trump at deals following economic threats. In April, Trump announced a deal with five major law firms for $600 million in free legal work, as The Hill and others reported. The payoff for the firms was that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would withdraw letters asking about hiring practices in an alleged attempt to target diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. 'The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head, including in our nation's elite law firms,' acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement, as The Hill reported in a separate article. Trump had also chosen law firms for their past clients and cases. Banks And Pharma Join The Ranks Trump accused banks in early August of political discrimination, wrote The Wall Street Journal. He wrote an executive order claiming that banks 'have engaged in unacceptable practices to restrict law-abiding individuals' and businesses' access to financial services on the basis of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.' According to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, there can be illegal discrimination if based on 'race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age.' Political beliefs are not a protected category. Last week, Trump told major pharmaceutical to lower prices or face punishment, as Agence France-Presse wrote. He wanted the companies to work with the administration to make changes within two months, including a 'most favored nation' policy that would require the companies to sell at the lowest price paid by other countries. Foundational Problems For Commerce And Retirement The efforts to force companies in multiple industries to act one way or another remain highly unusual and speak to the reason why such actions are considered so unusual and undesired. A president can exert enormous power from the bully pulpit alone. Extend efforts to the powers of the state and what a president can do is terrible. It harkens back to Richard Nixon's famous enemies list and his willingness to use such agencies as the IRS and FBI to attack political adversaries. In the present, the actions the Trump administration has taken show the reasons why such activities have been either illegal or considered unacceptable as norms. They can unbalance industries, upend commerce, and disturb complex social and financial mechanisms without consideration of the extent of damage that might happen. All these perturbations, as tariffs on GM profits showed, can effectively become taxes on everyone's retirement funds. With a large aging segment of the population, this ultimately is not good for anyone.