Assaulting the bureaucrats
John Biffen
THE DEADWEIGHT STATE by Russell Lewis Economic Research Council, 110, pp. 65 At Cambridge I had a copy of the 1848 Communist Manifesto. Out of affec- tion, and certainly not conviction, I still have it in the study of my Shropshire home. It is a reminder of the age when economic judgments began to dominate the political debate, and national institutions and loyal- ties were under challenge. In the words of the Manifesto, 'A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of Communism.'
Of course, it is mischievous to place The Deadweight State by Russell Lewis, a good- natured Welshman and an effective pam- phleteer, in the same debate as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. They have the role as relentless pioneers of world commu- nism, but there is a helpful link. Lewis in his impish way is challenging the economic basis of western society no less than did the Marxists. If his radical analysis is proved correct he will have anticipated great social and economic upheaval, as did the Marxists earlier in this century.
The Deadweight State is essentially an attack upon the growth and the cost of the Leviathan state represented by fashionable public welfare and economic regulation. The book has a generous introduction by Lord Ezra, who tolerates Lewis's Euro- scepticism with courtesy. The main gist of Lewis's argument is that we are over-regu- lated, subject to burdensome public spend- ing and are thus over-taxed. Ultimately this threatens freedom itself and the moral val- ues it represents. A variety of factors have led to this situation, including the public spending consequences of Marxist and Keynesian economics. Lewis cheerfully takes on all corners, including the growing number who seek to establish greater phys- ical controls to protect the environment and, with seat-belts and no smoking, to provide rules to save us from ourselves. It is a challenging liberal manifesto, but Lewis first has to persuade us that his radi- cal programme is politically correct.
The book is made topical by British political experience in recent years. The Thatcher years from 1979-90 certainly demonstrated that the Tories could carry through a liberal economic programme that was eventually endorsed by its oppo- nents. On the other hand, there is little evi- dence to support the view that the British public welcomed the disciplines of mone- tary control. The Conservative political dominance certainly derived from the deep divisions which paralysed Labour. Lewis can probably take most comfort for his libertarian arguments in the remarkable success of Margaret Thatcher in driving through a policy of privatisation. Institu- tions seeming impervious to change, such as the telephone, gas and water utilities, were transferred to private ownership, and the Labour Party accepted that, politically, nationalisation was brain-dead.
Lewis is realistic enough to realise that the future is not necessarily on his side. For example, it is perfectly possible to place economic controls on the utilities that will provide regulation over prices, investments, executive pay and purchasing policies. The triumph of private ownership would then be shown to have been hollow, and the deadweight State would have become more burdensome. No one can doubt this possi- bility in today's Westminster world.
A second area where Lewis will have an uphill struggle is the Welfare State, partic- ularly in respect of health. The runaway costs are evident enough, reflecting a grow- ing age profile, and improved medical tech- niques and costs. These are factors that should be manageable by the methods of insurance, but there is a further and seem- ingly intractable problem. The bonds of marriage and social cohesion that under- pinned society in the ages of Bevan and Beveridge are collapsing. Britain, with European records of extra-marital relation- ships and single parenthood, provides an awesome challenge to those who want to see a reduction in the burdens of state wel- fare. It is a challenge that will strain the radicalism and crusading skill of Russell Lewis. I wish him success.
Finally, there is the whole issue of the Social Chapter and minimum wage to which Britain is now linked on account of membership of the European Union. Here there is a deep irony. In the late 1950s to mid-1960s when Britain was seeking Euro- pean membership, Germany was held aloft as a natural free-trade ally. It was argued that her achievements would be an inspira- tion as we struggled with the lacklustre, controlled economy of our post-war era. Russell Lewis, even then, felt that the European Community balance sheet was not unmixed in its advantages. In 1971 he wrote a pamphlet, Rome or Brussels, in which he contrasted the open markets sought by the Rome Treaty with the grow- ing intervention and regulation sought by the institutions at Brussels.
Today matters have moved much further. The Social Chapter, extolled by the former President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, is now strongly supported by Ger- many. It is a touchstone of her domestic policy and is crucial to her support for free trade. Inevitably, the uncomfortable ques- tion arises whether Britain can avoid the dynamic of welfare and social spending on her present terms of European Union membership. It is a fundamental question. I suspect Russell Lewis would enjoy answering that. The bigger the windmill the greater the rubble.
It is a virtue of The Deadweight State that it does not understate the challenge presented by the current degree of state ownership and control. This review has considered only a handful of issues: the entrenched welfare bureaucracies, the belief that the state has a superior morality and competence to markets, and the instinct, notwithstanding commu- nist experience, that size is bound to triumph.
I am a shameless partisan; I want Russell Lewis to win and the bureaucrats peaceful- ly to retire. So The Deadweight State will now sit on my shelves alongside the 1848 Communist Manifesto. It is ironic that I have to pay £10 for the Lewis wisdom, but the 1848 Manifesto — reprinted in the 1930s — cost less than 2p. I guess you pay for quality.
Previous page
