The Reappraisal of the British State
Why the Coalition Government should tread carefully
On January 20th European tensions, sparked by Prime Minister Cameron’s utilisation of migration as a political chess piece, came to a head. The tone of UK-Europe relations were reflected in the words of German Foreign Minister (and Social Democrat), Walter Steinmeier.
“Many young people from southern Europe are coming to us, to learn and study. That benefits us and also helps the states from which they come...Whoever questions that damages Europe and damages Germany.”
The UK Prime Minister continues to uphold this political stance; it could be construed as an attempt to pander to popular (and sadly,uninformed) British opinion and pressure from Tory lobbying. This is dangerous in context of the rhetoric coming from other European nations who appear prepared to compromise on EU political matters. One fears, therefore, that the patience of Europe is but a thin membrane, ready to split.
Parallels can be drawn with discussion within The Conservative Party in relation to redaction of the British state: the language is (unintentionally) damaging. Austerity and fiscal rectitude have been pursued aggressively over a three year period. British Chancellor, George Osborne, has actively championed their necessity. In the wake of positive global economic trends some advocate the idea that cutting the state might be ‘good in itself’. As surmised by Jeremy Paxman on a recent BBC Newsnight broadcast (January 13th), many politicians are now considering a complete “reappraisal of what the state is for”.
The debate is nothing new. Many argue that Governmental interference with society is draconian, stifling and the embodiment of an Orwellian nanny state. One would concede that there are legitimate grounds for this: Smoking bans, seatbelt legislation and an infinity of ‘red tape’ have been introduced over the past half century. Many would argue that there is a critical threshold for State interference (and size) and that to exceed it violates a citizen’s inalienable right to define how they live. Public spending has peaked within the last decade at 47% of GDP. These sentiments paved the way for the flagship Tory policy of ‘Big Society’ in 2010.
To my mind this is where the line of thought crumbles. A decoupling of society and state is ultimately destabilising for a nation. Society originally gave consent (albeit inferred) to the state to uphold order and integrity. State is for society, not despite it. Reduction of state size may not provide a feasible solution for a nation with population 63.2 million (2012).
The debate could be ploughed ad infinitum. In light of this I will raise but a few key flags. What form would a wholesale retreat of public services take? To what would multilateral privatisation give license? These considerations prove unsettling and even appear to sit uncomfortably with members of Government. This is typified by ring-fencing of the health service and overseas aid budget. One might argue that the rhetoric is nothing but political grandstanding.
Nonetheless the rhetoric could be irreversibly damaging. It shares a common thread with the stance by some politicians that to be ‘on the dole’ is morally questionable. This in turn links with anti-economic migrant rhetoric. If one simultaneously considers the UK’s ongoing conflict with the European Court of Human Rights over repeal of the ‘life sentence’ for murder, their threats to withdraw from the Human Rights Act and their criticism of the Lisbon Treaty it is clear to see that the British Government is recurrently intent on defining ‘us’ and ‘them’. This is undeniably dangerous on the European front, as the words of ECHR President Dean Spielmann reflected when he advised the UK PM to be careful “not to risk credibility.”
In the national context it could prove disastrous. My intention is not to invoke a Domesday scenario. I simply believe that a decoupling of society and state is nonsensical. Each citizen has a duty to uphold the rule of law, revere civic space and ‘contribute’ to the general order of things. One worries that there would be no incentive to do so if the state were deduced. Society could become irrevocably unpleasant, with money plugging the void left by obligation. Look no further than the Salem Fire Department, Arkansas: If things fall apart and you haven’t paid, no one will douse the flames.
