Last week I made mention of the way an international credit agency, Standard and Poor’s was busy trying to run UK economic policy with its statement on the country’s economic outlook. The story was picked up un similar terms by Andreas, and by Duncan on TV.
Not much changes, thought I, as I read a bit of Harold Wilson’s memoirs:
‘…until we were in surplus it meant that every action we took had to beconsidered against a background of the confidence factor, particularly against an assessment of what speculators might do. It meant, and this is not olny inhibiting but humiliating for any Government, that things we had decided to do, right in themselves – for example, an increase in old age penions, even as late as 1969, when we were moving into surplus – had to be timed in such a way as to minimize possible speculative consequences.’ (Wilson 1974: 59)
Reference
Wilson H (1974) The Labour Government 1966-1970, Harmondsworth: Penguin
Charlie covered this very well:
http://itslifejimbutnotaswknowit.blogspot.com/2009/04/from-gilts-to-class-struggle-in-five.html
Oh yes, I forgot that. Saw it at the time and it was good. Thanks Duncan.
Wilson’s memoirs are exceedingly tendentious of course. His railing against international finance capital is only matched by the bollocks he talks about the white paper he was to introduce on the future of trades unionism.
Pretty much the only thing of interest I gained from Wilson’s memoirs (and I have both volumes) was the interesting descriptions of the role of the Palace in changeovers and other matters of state, and the role of senior civil servants.
Isn’t it the nature of memoirs/autobiogrpahies to be tendentious?
Does that completely invalidate the comparison?