OK, let's go through this again,
1) Intellectually, neo Liberal economics is broken & a totally bankrupt idea witness the economic crash
2) neo Conservatism is broken by & in the killing fields of Iraq & Afghanistan.
3) There's no mandate for the mass privatisation of services & the transfer of public goods/wealth into private hands.
"Red Ed" *ahem* is voted in as Labour Leader so why the desperate positioning on the right? Why does "centre right" dominate political discourse? A = "common sense" in the Gramscian/hegemonic sense propagated by media. By this I don't mean that "media" a problematic catch all term anyway, are unthinking dupes, more a case of discourse manufactures consent
Exhibit A) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/09/thumbs_up_from_the_imf.html (by IMF, she means capital).
As if the IMF are somehow dispassionate, neutral observers offering an "economic healthcheck" (Flanders 2010) with no ideological position. The IMF remember are the organisation that systematically & regularly enforced "austerity programmes" on "developing countries". These "Austerity Programmes" typically involved privatising public services - water, electricity, even education - & allowing private corps to run the "services" resulting in massive profits. However, Flanders - in a typical discursive flourish - reproduces needs of capital as "common sense" or "good housekeeping". Herein lies the problem, Flanders et al shape the narrative. Resistance to cuts therefore has to work extra hard to even be allowed space to set out the arguments. BBC News et al already reproducing narrative of "necessary cuts" & so with the "necessary cuts" "IMF healthcheck" narrative firmly established, any resistance to them - incl in University education funding to come - will be in a rather difficult position. Public sympathy for academics anyone? Resist false choice of defecit cuts. News Media narrates us paying for casino capitalism as common sense. Aaaaannd I'm done.
I lied, I'm not done. The IMF are the very same people that thought increased financialisation (massive private debt), hedge funds & derivatives trading were a great idea - because they funded/inflated a housing boom, allowing wages to remain stagnant or fall. IMF essentially saying "Well done for transferring the risk onto taxpayers" now tighten the belts & privatise services. Does this sound like a dispassionate, objective "financial healthcheck"? IMF as arbiters of "good economics" needs MASSIVE rigorous critical interrogation Instead of necessary critique, we get "IMF gives thumbs up" FFS.