特里萨•梅埋葬了撒切尔主义
Theresa May has buried Thatcherism. Under a Conservative government, the UK is now embracing the political ideas of fairness and government intervention. This might mark as big a shift in UK politics as those of the 1940s, towards socialism, and of the 1980s, away from it.
特里萨•梅(Theresa May)埋葬了撒切尔主义。在一个保守党政府主政期间，英国正在拥抱公平和政府干预的政治理念。这可能标志着英国政治的一次重大转变，堪比1940年代的转向社会主义以及1980年代的摒弃社会主义。
Remember that the Beveridge report, which laid the intellectual foundations of the postwar welfare state, was published in 1942, under the coalition government led by Winston Churchill. Similarly James Callaghan, then Labour prime minister, laid the ground for Thatcherism in 1976, when he stated: “We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that option no longer exists.”
记住，温斯顿•邱吉尔 (Winston Churchill)领导的联合政府于1942年发布了《贝弗里奇报告》(Beveridge report)，该报告奠定了战后福利国家的理论基础。类似的，工党首相詹姆斯•卡拉汉(James Callaghan)于1976年表示“我们过去常常认为，可以通过花钱摆脱衰退，以减税和增加政府支出来促进就业。我坦白地告诉你们，这个选项已不再存在。”此言为撒切尔主义奠定了基础。
Now, in her speech to the Conservative party conference, Mrs May argues that “when one among us falters, our most basic human instinct is to put our own self-interest aside, to reach out our hand and help them over the line. That’s why the central tenet of my belief is that there is more to life than individualism and self-interest. We form families, communities, towns, cities, counties and nations. We have a responsibility to one another. And I firmly believe that government has a responsibility, too.”
现在，梅在保守党大会上的发言中主张，“当我们中的某个人陷入困境时，我们最基本的人类本能就是把自己的利益放在一边，伸出援手，帮助他们度过难关。这就是为什么我的核心信念是人生的意义不仅是个人主义和自我利益。我们组成家庭、社区、城镇、城市、郡和国家。我们对彼此负有责任。我坚信，政府也负有责任。”
This is evidently a direct riposte to Thatcher’s notable remark: “I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it . . . They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.” Mrs May has gone much further in her rejection of Thatcher than her predecessor, David Cameron, who merely stated: “There is such a thing as society; it’s just not the same thing as the state.” Indeed, she has channelled Elizabeth Warren, the activist Democratic US senator, who asserted in 2011: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.” Mrs May’s version of this view is: “Nobody, no individual tycoon and no single business, however rich, has succeeded on their own.”
这显然是对撒切尔夫人如下著名言论的直接回击：“我认为，我们经历了这样一段时期，太多人想当然地认为，如果他们遇到一个问题，对付这个问题是政府的责任……他们把自己的问题扔给社会。而你知道，不存在社会这种事物。只有作为个人的男人和女人，还有就是家庭。”在抛弃撒切尔主义方面，梅比她的前任戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)走得远得多。卡梅伦只是说：“社会是存在的;只是社会和政府不是一回事。”的确，梅呼应了激进的美国民主党参议员伊丽莎白•沃伦(Elizabeth Warren)。后者在2011年断言：“这个国家不存在只靠自己致富的人，一个也没有。”梅把这个观点表述为：“无论多么富有，没有哪个人、没有哪个大亨、也没有哪一家企业是靠自己取得成功的。”
The financial crisis, and the stagnant living standards it bequeathed, has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the free-market approach. That is why Mrs May’s interventionism, not the libertarian Brexiters’ dreams of the UK as a “free-trading, deregulated, competitive” entrepôt, now dominates. For many, that is what “taking back control” meant. It may also presage a long-lasting shift in UK politics. If one looks at other political parties, the probability of this looks quite high. Labour, in particular, has shifted leftward. This leaves the ground Mrs May wants to occupy, with her bold claims that “we are the party of workers” and that workers’ rights will be “protected and enhanced by a Conservative government”.
金融危机及其遗留的生活水平停滞，明显破坏了自由市场观念的合法性。正因如此，如今占据主导地位的是梅的干预主义，而并非自由意志主义的主张脱欧者(Brexiter)有关英国是一个“自由贸易、解除管制、有竞争力的”贸易中心的梦想。对许多人来说，这就是“收回控制权”的涵义。这或许还预示着英国政治的长期转变。如果考察一下其他政党，这个概率看起来相当高。特别是工党(Labour)已经向左转了。这留下了梅想要占据的阵地。她大胆地声称，“我们是工人的政党”，工人的权利将“受到保守党政府的保护和提升”。
The commitment to putting workers on company boards suggests this is meaningful. But is it also workable? Here one must note the nuances in Mrs May’s position. She argues that the UK should be “the strongest and most passionate advocate for free trade right across the globe”, while insisting on the need for control over immigration.
让工人加入公司董事会的承诺似乎表明，这是有意义的。但是，这是否也是可行的?在这里，人们必须注意梅的立场的细腻之处。她主张英国应该是“世界上最强有力、最热情地倡导全球自由贸易的国家”，她同时坚称，英国有必要控制移民。
The workability of the new interventionism depends on its detail. It is a matter of fact that UK prosperity depends heavily on the skills and knowledge of foreigners, as both workers and investors. Given that the UK is far from the economic powerhouse some imagine, this dependence will continue. It is vital, therefore, that the new approach does not lead to policies on immigration, tax, corporate governance and control over inward investment that curtail UK access to such valuable global resources.
新干涉主义的可行性取决于其细节。事实是，英国的繁荣在很大程度上取决于外国人(包括工人和投资者)的技能和知识。鉴于当今英国远非有些人想象中的经济强国，这种依赖将延续下去。因此，至关重要的是，新的姿态不会导致英国在移民、税收、公司治理和控制外来投资方面出台阻碍获取这些宝贵的全球资源的政策。
This is, moreover, not just a question of fact but also of rhetoric. Many foreigners now wonder whether the UK has turned its back on them. The government must demonstrate this is not the case. Perhaps the most important requirement, apart from retaining as much access to EU markets as possible, is to welcome any foreign skilled person with a job.
此外，这不仅是事实的问题，还是表态的问题。许多外国人现在想知道，英国是否已抛弃他们。英国政府必须证明，情况并非如此。除了保留尽可能完整的欧盟市场准入，也许最重要的要求是，英国要欢迎任何找得到工作的高技能外国人。
The new activist approach must, instead, focus on the UK’s weaknesses. The most important of these are the quality of infrastructure and education and the supply of housing. It is also vital to promote competition and enhance the scientific and technological base. If the government were to focus on these challenges, while stressing the UK’s openness to foreign skills, foreign investment and global trade, it might deliver the economic dynamism the UK needs. Mrs May’s rhetoric marks a huge shift. Its impact depends on just how those words become reality.
相反，新的积极姿态必须关注英国的薄弱环节。其中最重要的是基础设施和教育的质量，以及住房供应。促进竞争和夯实科技基础也是至关重要的。如果政府关注这些挑战，同时强调对外国技能、外国投资和全球贸易持开放态度，它或许会提供英国需要的经济活力。梅的表态标志着一个巨大转变。其影响取决于这些话如何变成现实。
