The Credibility Of The Incredible.

When, exactly, did the neoliberal economic thesis become the only "credible alternative?" Ed Milliband has thrown his lot in with this idea, citing the need for "credibility" in embracing austerity for the majority and ever-increasing wealth for the few. Neoliberalism is a new orthodoxy it seems, while Europe has effectively outlawed Keynsian economics in its new political settlement. So where is the evidence that neoliberalism can save us all? In the last 30 years this economic alibi has enshrined greed as the only guide to the behaviour of the wealthy minority, while it has saddled the increasingly poor majority with rising unemployment, higher taxes, lower expectations and life chances and fewer services. How, exactly, has transferring wealth and therefore buying power from the majority to a minority been good for us? How does "trickle down" work when the wealthy hoard their money in tax free banking havens? How does deregulation help when it only seems to encourage irrational thought and makes a virtue of theft, lying and the art of the confidence trick? Are these people telling us that neoliberalism is the only alternative because the human race is selfish, irrational, greedy and beyond all redemption? And, even if this is true, why do our leaders not even try to lead by example or to inspire us by telling us we could be better? If they are no better than us why should we vote for them in the first place? When did the politics of despair overwhelm the politics of hope? I suspect it was around 1979.