It isn’t readily apparent to the Financial Times editors and writers that the age of the Neo-Liberal ascendancy is at an end, and in political answer to that death, or at least it’s coma, Mr. Giles offers his extensive comments about what a ‘hard left’ might do, in policy terms, as a rejoinder to Mr. Corbyn’s scattered, unfocused and ineffective policies. All of these postulations a product of Mr. Giles and his own, and the FT’s, political agenda
The salient question might be why would Mr. Corbyn seek the advice of Mr. Giles on any question? The raison d’être of this essay is to appeal to conservative readership of the FT, and to hew to the left hysteria mongering, that is the party line. Mr. Corbyn is a Democratic Socialist or even a Left Wing Social Democrat certainly not a ‘hard leftist’. Who might just take Labour back to it’s Socialist roots, which within the politics utterly reshaped by Thatcher, and her addiction to Hayek’s political romanticism passing itself off as the ‘wisdom of the market’, by now a demonstrably failed epistemology: this economic theology has failed in the most dramatic fashion. 1929 remains the touchstone of economic/political failure, followed by the kind of political chaos that Mr. Giles fears will be the fate of Britain tied to the future of Labour, as led by Mr. Corbyn. But that economic failure remains off stage as it is a political inconvenience to both Mr. Giles and the FT. The scapegoating of Mr. Corbyn is the first order of business, the first line in defense of a moribund Neo-Liberalism. For the proof of that see the rise all over Europe: Syriza, Podemos, Farage, La Pen of both Left and Right: our future is a chaotic, irrational Populism as conjured by Mr. Giles.