Uncategorized

by

Trading Down

As our government wrestles with Covid-19 (C-19) and seems to be losing, of which more later, the issue of Brexit is starting to rumble again. At the end of this month is the deadline for a draft trade agreement to have been out in place and for the application for an extension of the transition period beyond 31 December 2020 if needed.

Government Ministers are clear no extension will be applied for or agreed if proposed by the EU. They reassure us that Europe really does want a deal with its largest trading partner but that they will only do so at the last minute.

Trade and economics are complex subjects and Ministers seem very confident the EU will see the light but if they do not  that the UK will go forward to trade in the wider world successfully anyway. Maybe.

It is true that the UK is a major trading partner of the EU. It comes third after the US and China and does some €511bn of imports and exports amounting to 12.6% of the EU’s total trade. Looking the other way the EU is a major trading partner of the UK accounting for 45% of our exports and 53% of our imports. Just based on these numbers it looks likely to be more painful for us than for them but hey trade and economics is complex. I have no doubt Ministers have a good grasp of the real balance of advantage.

One reason we do so much trade with the EU of course is because it is close to us. The friction of distance means there is a strong correlation between distance and scale of trade. As Father Ted explained to Dougal, long way away, small; close up, large. It is certain we will not stop trading with Europe on the 31 December if there is no deal its just that the terms of trade will be so much the worse for us both. Worse for the 48% of our trade with Europe and worse for the 12.6% of their trade with us.

However, we will be bringing back sovereignty to the UK. Of course this is a UK which C-19 has exposed as anything but United. The differing approaches to management of C-19 particularly the move out of lock down has thrown into relief the distinctions between the “devolved authorities” which are increasingly looking like separate nations.

This might be dismissed as cosmetic but it has a powerful impact on the sense of national unity when people are thinking about cross border difference between England and Wales. It reinforces a process that has been in progress for some years which threatens the long term unity of the UK.

On a more positive note… for the EU. The ordo liberalism of Germany’s financial elite seems to have started to crack. C-19 and the economic collapse it has spawned across Europe has infected the swabian housewife. As the economic consequence started to become clear Germany moved to put in place €150bn of new borrowing and a fiscal stimulus of €130bn to combat the impact within the country.

More significantly perhaps for the long term future of the European project Germany worked closely with France to secure €500bn of common EU debt to provide grants, not loans, to support C-19 hit EU countries economies.

All this might be seen as part of a process of deeper monetary and fiscal integration which may ultimately lead to a United States of Europe. Certainly the perception of an EU supporting its weaker members in their hour of need is a much more attractive proposition than one which kicks its weaker members (Greece) when they are down.

There is probably an inverse relationship between the volume and veracity of nationalist rhetoric. However, if there were  promoters of Brexit who were little Englanders they may well get exactly what they wished for. Sadly little England may well be next door to, but outside of, one of the largest and most powerful trading blocks in the world. 

by

The Brahmin Left – Educational Elitism

Thomas Picketty’s latest book, Capital and Ideology, provides a stimulating analysis of contemporary political issues. These are always grounded in detailed historical research which explore how social, economic and political drivers of the past have shaped the nature of current political practices with a strong emphasis on the role of ideas.

One interesting issue he addresses is that of the Labour Party’s evolution in the post war period. It provides a challenging perspective on the collapse of the red wall and the alienation of working class voters over recent years. The issue of immigration and the lack of an effective narrative to address many traditional labour voters concerns is often cited as one of the causes of this loss of support.

The distance between the party and its voters seemed apparent in the unguarded comments of Gordon Brown, recorded during the 2010 election campaign, about a labour supporter, Gillian Duffy, who he called a bigot after she had questioned him on immigration and “people on benefits”. To dismiss the lady as bigoted was seen by many as illustrative of the views of an out of touch metropolitan elite who no longer had any real understanding of the problems faced by the people they were supposed to represent.

Clearly there are a number of historical forces at work in this apparent divorce of Labour’s political elite from its base. Picketty would be the first to accept and indeed insist on this. However, he points to a specific driver which he feels has played a major part in the evolution of this divide. Education and a concomitant commitment to a meritocratic view of equality.

Picketty sees the structure of political debate and division evolving over the post war period and resolves this evolution into two broad eras. Firstly, the period from 1950 to 1980 which he characterises as “classist”. In other words a battle between advantaged, right,  and less advantaged, left,  social classes. The heyday of the bipolar party system with Labour the party of the workers, and Conservative the party of the owners. The left / right model which this represented has, over the years become less relevant but continues to shape many debates in ways which are counterproductive in Picketty’s view. 

From 1990 to 2020 he perceives the terms of political debate having moved to one which is more about competing elites. These elites coalesce into two broad groupings around the traditional parties. One, Labour, supported by the more highly educated, the other, Conservative supported by the wealthiest and most highly paid.

Picketty’s analysis of the structure of political affiliations in the UK is situated in a much broader consideration of social democratic politics across West and Eastern Europe, the USA and some non-western countries including India in the post war period. He never lacks ambition.

He looks specifically at the level of education of voters for parties of the left and parties of the right using a variety of survey sources. His findings across the piece for left of centre social democratic parties are similar to those for the Labour Party in the UK. Broadly he claims that in the classist period, from 1950 to 1980, the vote for left wing parties was significantly lower amongst the 10% of the population with the highest levels of education than amongst the 90% of the population with the lowest levels of education. The size of the gap between these two diminished over the two decades from 1950 such that in the 1990’s and 2000’s the vote for Labour amongst the 10% of the population with the highest levels of education increased and became significantly higher than those voting for the party from the 90% of the population less well educated.

In parallel with this a meritocratic theory of inequality was adopted. Equality of opportunity was seen as the key which critically meant developing better access to education for the working class. The 1960’s saw the expansion of the Universities following the Robbins Report and the expansion of Polytechnics promoted by Anthony Crossland. Essentially, the aim was to level up the playing field of education to allow working class students to have better and more equitable access.

Through the late 1960’s and 70’s this obviously benefited a significant number of Labour supporters who went on to become senior members of the Labour Party with a very positive view of the beneficial effects of education. Consistent with this was a positive view about their own meritocratic progress. This, according the Picketty, has meant over the years Social Democratic Parties including Labour have “come to be seen as increasingly favourable to the winners in the educational contest while they have lost the support they used to enjoy among less well-educated groups in the post war period.”(712)

The problem with a view that focuses on formal access to education as the key driver of equality fails to take account of the many, less obvious, barriers that exist for individuals from low income families. Picketty feels that the loud support for a meritocratic starting point ignores the facts on outcomes at the end of the race. 

Picketty refers to what he sees as an “astonishingly prescient” work by the sociologist Micheal Young, The Rise of Meritocracy”. This was a dystopian novel in which British society is increasingly stratified on the basis of cognitive capacity which is closely related to social origins. In the novel the Tory Party become the party of the highly educated and dominate the “technicians” in a world where science has decreed that only one third of the population is employable. Picketty sees elements of the novel coming to pass but it is the Labour Party which has become the representative of the educational meritocracy, or in Picketty’s short hand the Brahmin left.

There is much in Picketty’s analysis that can be challenged but his limpid exposition is exemplary and provides a clear target for those who wish to challenge him. His analysis of the mistakes and failures of social democratic politics is much more wide ranging and I will come back to it in the future. His thesis about the Brahmin left as part of it is worthy of consideration and should at the very least provoke wider debate which is sorely needed, as what is not in doubt is the alienation of many traditional Labour voters.

by

Partisan Thoughts

At the moment it is common to see the partisan state of its politics as a major problem for American democracy. A picture is painted of the Republican and the Democratic parties retreating behind increasingly high walls of partisan prejudice. Dialogue and debate being replaced with name calling and assertion. Both sides having blind faith in a revealed truth, impervious to criticism and reinforced in echo chambers of the like minded. In consequence there is a popular dismissal of of all political debate and a pervasive cynicism where the views of all politicians are dismissed as self serving bunkum.

Whilst there certainly is a more aggressive debate in America, and a very clear divide between the two major parties, a universal condemnation of partisanship is misplaced. It leads to an exasperated response of, “a plague on both your houses”. At the extreme a view that there is no such thing as truth, or no such thing as truth other than what my side thinks. This is dangerous.

This needs to be resisted. In the current political debates within the United States there is no comparison between the position on fundamental issues between the Republicans and the Democrats. One is just more right than the other, by a lot.

No one has a monopoly on truth. However, that does not mean truth does not exist. Real distinctions can be made between right and wrong when the wrong in question is egregious. Similarly, between science and fanciful, self serving propaganda. If we reject this then we are allowing a world where “alternative facts” are real. Where debate is pointless as there is no way to arbitrate between what is personal preference and what is true.

It is not partisan to believe there are scientific truths that exist independent of my beliefs. Partly because there are people who devote their lives to something called the experimental method which in area after area has demonstrated the truth and effectiveness of this fundamental belief.

It is not partisan to believe climate change is real. Nor that man, through CO2e emissions, is affecting it. To believe thousands of scientists across the globe, in dozens of different disciplines all providing evidence pointing in one direction are part of a massive conspiracy is not partisan, it is stupid.

To believe that Covid-19 is a non-partisan killer because medical experts and epidemiologists say so, … oh, and also because there are a lot of dead people, is not partisan. It is common sense supported by science and should not compared in any way with the views of those who believe they will not catch the virus because they are immunised by the blood of Christ. 

The first priority of a national leader is to protect their citizens. There are a host of ways in which this can be done. Suggesting it might make sense to ingest disinfectant is not one of them. That is not partisan thinking outside the box, it is not thinking. It betrays a lack of common sense, never mind scientific awareness, of breathtaking proportions.

Trump did not create the current pernicious divides in US politics. In truth they have been decades in the making. He is however their apotheosis. When you start down a road where you denigrate science in the interests of carbon extractive interests; where you try to tip the scales of justice in your favour by gaming the appointments system of justices; where you undermine the role of the state as a part of the problem not the solution; where you denigrate public service; where you use the law to persecute your opponents; where you blame foreigners for the problems besetting more and more of your fellow citizens, eventually you end up with a disaster like Trump.

This is not the unfortunate outcome of a mutually destructive partisanship. It is a result of a conscious process funded by an ultra wealthy elite. An elite which is growing in confidence as to what it can get away with. One which avoids, an already regressive taxation system, and prioritises economic growth over peoples lives, without compunction.

We laugh too much at President Trump. His outrageous stupidity is his best defence. Challenging and opposing him is not partisan politics it is a life and death struggle for the future of American democracy. At the moment the Republican party in the US is just wrong and the States are paying an awful price for this.

Being a partisan is about being a strong supporter of a party or cause. It is not about surrendering your capacity for critical thought. The Democrats are partisan however when you compare what they are attempting to do on a whole range of issues their partisan proposals make sense. They are in no way equivalent to what the Republicans are defending if not supporting. The Republicans are wrong not because they are partisans. They are wrong because they are wrong.

 

 

by

Seeing your “R’s”

It seems to becoming clear that in order to transition out of lock down a strategy of testing, tracing, isolating and quarantining (TTIQ), at scale, needs to be adopted. What is interesting is how “the science”  around all this in the UK seems to evolve, almost in lock step, with the availability of the resources to implement the science. This helpfully means the Government can pretty much always do the right thing at the right time.

But how much testing needs to be done? To address this I guess one question is, what is testing for? From a lay persons point of view it seems to me there are broadly three purposes to testing.

First, a clinical one. This is about testing to identify which people, exhibiting serious symptoms are actually infected with Covid-19. The outcome of this being critical in determining the way the patient is managed.

Another clinical reason for testing is to check those managing the disease, working closely with patients and caring for the most vulnerable are not infected and thus in danger of spreading the disease. Ideally, I guess you would want to test front line staff perhaps once a week to ensure they are not working whilst infected but asymptomatic.

With these types of testing you would expect the ratio of positive to negative results as likely to be high. Essentially you are using self selected samples of most at risk people and therefore most likely to prove to have the disease. As of 9.00am on 30 April roughly 690k people had been tested and of those 170k tested positive which is almost 25% of those tested.

The second purpose for testing we might call epidemiological. It is about trying to understand the progress of the disease, its prevalence and spread, where the hot spots are etc. How effective this testing is will probably be critical to the design and success of any transition out of lock down.

This is what I take Pillar 4 of the testing regime to be partly about.  Currently the numbers devoted to this are very low, just short of 10k out of the 690k tested to date. It may be that fancy sampling techniques means this is sufficient. However none of these random tests have so far proved positive so to a lay person this suggests a larger sample may be needed.

Given the 25% ratio between sampling and disease in the self selected groups mentioned above and the zero infection rate in the Pillar 4 sample you suspect there must be a Goldilocks sample size and structure that gives more useful information. One suspects  the size of Pillar 4 sample is currently being determined by availability of tests rather than statistical design.

The third role for testing  is “R” management. This is about running a “wack a mole” programme of early identification of potential carriers and trying to break the chain of infection, of which they are a link, as soon as possible.

We know when we come out of lock down the disease will still be with us, lurking in the community. Success will be about managing not eliminating infection. Keeping the “R” as low as possible, so those who contract the disease and require critical care do not overwhelm the NHS. Or indeed take up all available resource thus increasing the collateral, non Covid-19, mortality rate.

In lock down “R” was controlled by the radical separation of people. Confining them within their homes. The less opportunity people have to interact at all the less opportunity for the disease to spread. This does appear to have been effective  but it is incredibly disruptive economically, socially and also, as time goes by, on people’s mental and physical health.

Having applied the hammer of lock down to get the “R” down to something below 1 we now need to look for more sophisticated ways of managing the spread to keep the “R” in check without lock down. Presumably when the R is above a certain level the only way to control it is through lock down. But when you get it below a certain level (something below 1) the progression of the disease is at least susceptible to less disruptive forms of management.

Social distancing protocols will be important in this but it is impossible they will be as effective as lock down so the virus will inevitably begin to spread again. This is where TTIQ at scale comes in, breaking the chain of infection as soon as the mole emerges into the light.

Ideally of course you would like to track it and intervene before it fully emerges into the light. To do this you would have to test everyone at least once a week to keep absolutely on top of the disease. That is 66m tests per week, 3.4bn tests a year. Mmm, probably not.

In the absence of this fanciful ideal what you need is a very agile and fast regime of TTIQ which responds immediately to individuals with even minimum symptoms, ideally supplemented with some large scale randomised tests to try and get ahead of the disease.

This means having significant numbers tests available and Test and Trace teams. Their job would be to go out as soon as someone identified as symptomatic, even if mild flu like symptoms, and test them. If the test was positive isolating those individuals and then tracing all of their contacts over, say, the past two weeks and ensuring those most at risk are tested and quarantined. For this, speed is obviously of the essence, as every day an infected person is not isolated they are spreading the disease.

TTIQ is foremost a logistical challenge. You need teams of well trained individuals with excellent interpersonal skill. Able to instantly respond to cases in the community, test the person, identify, trace, meet and test all their high risk contacts. Harvard Global Health Institute estimated an average of 10 tests of contacts per infected person.

Given all this how many Test and Trace teams would you need? That has to be a function of how many suspected cases are identified in the community per day. And how many cases a team can manage effectively per day. These are a couple of questions journalists might like to ask.

A related issue is the number of tests available to be used by the Test and Trace Teams. We should be up to 100,000 per day by now. Is that enough? In a recent blog, “Dancing out of lock down” I talked about research coming out of Harvard Global Health Institute suggesting a minimum number of tests as being of the order of 152 per 100k population. Which for the Uk seemed to work out at around 100k tests.

Whether this is right or not remains to be seen. An alternative estimate of the numbers needed comes from Tomas Pueyo who has now written a series of articles on the progress of Corvid-19 and how it is being managed. His latest is precisely about how to do testing. Initially I was cautious about Mr Pueyo’s credentials on this issue, however, over time I have found his common sense approach much more informative and convincing than the carefully honed statements of the UK press briefings.

Mr Pueyo argues sampling needs to be such as to ensure the proportion of positive outcomes is below 3%. This is what those countries which seem to have managed the disease well have done with early mass testing. Whilst I see the logic of his argument I guess this must be sensitive to the stage of the disease and thus general level of infection in the population. However, given all countries are probably at an early stage in this pandemic this is probably not a fatal criticism at the moment.

In the absence of statistically significant random testing identifying the level of “R” must involve working back from hospitalisation and death rates and some, no doubt, very clever epidemiological statistical manipulation.

The problem with this is you are looking backwards at the “R” rate which existed some days previously, and days matter. Fast and effective Test and Trace teams will not stop transmission of the disease but they may ensure, together with social isolation protocols, that its progress is reduced and the “R” kept within what the NHS can manage until we get a vaccine.

Throughout this blog so far I have talked about “the” “R” as if there is a single infection rate. This is not the case. Whilst the “R” in the general community seems to be managed by lock down it does not seem to be anywhere near as well managed in those communities that are locked in care and nursing homes and those locked up in prisons.

Urgent action needs to be taken to support these communities or what is a tragedy for those that live there, their carers and their families will become an ongoing source of infection in the wider community. We need to be able to see and address all the “R’s”

If increased resources are not supplied to these current hot spots, and a combination of social distancing and TTIQ do not slow the disease down enough, over time it will accelerate and we will have to resort, once again, to the blunderbuss which is lock down.

The World Health Organisations advice on managing this disease was “testing, testing, testing”.  As the resources become available “the science” will show this is right and we will begin to do the “right thing at the right time” and see our “R’s”. The sooner the better.