14 February 2012

The Feast Day of Saint Valentine – funny way history works


On this day, 1,742 years ago, a zealous if somewhat rash and overly-optimistic Umbrian bishop, famed for healing the sight of a blind girl, was flogged and beheaded outside Rome on the command of the Roman Emperor Claudius and the Prefect of Rome for preaching the Gospel – to the Emperor himself. This bishop, who later became identified with several other martyrs of the same name, was beatified as Saint Valentinus of Terni. As his reputation as saint grew, he became the patron of young lovers and happy marriages.

By sheer coincidence, on this day 66 years ago, precisely such a happy marriage was concluded between the Governor and Company of the Bank of England and His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the fruit of many years’ work and preparation, primarily of Baron Norman and his cooperation with the government during the Depression and during the War (particularly in putting the final nail in the coffin of the gold standard, which had long been holding back the productivity of the British nation). I say a ‘happy marriage’ in that it enshrined the role of the venerable Bank as an actor in the public interest, rather than only in the private interest – for the first time in its long history, the Bank of England’s job was to oversee a fair(er) dispersal of capital and income rather than to act as a magnet for its concentration in the hands of a few. For a while during the postwar era, the Bank was a key partner in a government which saw itself as a positive moral actor in society, and oversaw a period of wealth and prosperity: one committed to full employment; one committed to a strong and independent unionised labour movement; and one committed to public ownership of key low-profitability infrastructure and assistance to the least able.

Sadly, into every love story there comes a period of hard times – in this case, in the form of a tightly-disciplined movement led by one Baroness Thatcher, a movement which placed little if any value upon love or loyalty (and would prove it time and again: by severing the Tories from their traditional values; by making divorce progressively easier and more convenient; by regarding children as contractual rather than moral obligations). The relationship between Thatcher’s government and the Bank, governed by Baron Richardson of Duntisbourne (a World War II vet and a classical High Tory if ever one was to be found) was an incredibly icy one as Thatcher and her henchmen jockeyed for greater control over the nation’s monetary policy. Part of the conflict was one over values – Thatcher, radical that she was, wanted a clean break with the past and a complete redefinition of the role of the Bank in its relationship to the government; a change which Richardson resisted as naturally as anyone with his stature might. Thatcher thought in terms of ideological dogmas and correctness; Richardson (even in instances where he might otherwise have agreed with Thatcher) in terms of institutions, order, balance and proper, transparent rules. The fight over monetary policy has had some far-reaching consequences since – rather than solidifying the role of the Bank of England, it created confusion. Where there had been a balance in the old system between independence and accountability by splitting powers cleanly between the two bodies, that old system had been disrupted. In a swing in the opposite direction from Thatcher’s time, the Bank of England was given control of interest rates in 1997, a privilege which had previously been the role of the Treasury – and (by giving the Bank of England control over both money supply and over the nation’s supply of credit) allowed the Bank of England to operate more in the role of the American Federal Reserve, a body notorious for its lack of accountability to the government.

Of course, this coincided with the abdication by government of anything resembling a moral presence in the society. Gone is the commitment to full employment. Gone is the commitment to public ownership of key infrastructure. Gone is the commitment to a strong and independent unionised labour movement. Some bodies of the welfare state do remain (notably the NHS, which remains the envy of Europe – and, if I may be so bold as to speak for some of my fellow countrymen, of America), but the cultists of both Blair and Thatcher are dead-set on ridding the grand Union of those as well (by degrees, naturally, and slowly to ensure people who depend upon them are not sufficiently outraged until the life support has stopped). The marriage isn’t quite dead yet, though. There are still some sparks of passion between the Bank and the Government, and between the Government and its people.

Perhaps what is needed today is a group of zealous if somewhat rash and overly-optimistic group of saints and martyrs to bring sight once again to Britain’s conscience, better nature and love of institutions, order, balance and proper rules, in order to bring this love story to its proper conclusion.

1 comment:

  1. Sometimes, but this celebration have started way way back already so all we do is re-celebrate. Relationship banking, on the other hand is being discussed and different from each bank.d

    ReplyDelete