politics

by

Capital and Ideology

Thomas Picketty has produced another enormous tome. Like Capital in the 21st Century, it is an excellent analysis of the growing problem of inequality and comes at a really interesting time. Whereas his first work looked at the economic drivers of inequality and produced the formula r>g where r stands for the annual rate of return on capital and g stands for the growth rate of the economy. In essence claiming that the wealth of owners of capital’s income will increase at a faster rate than the growth in the overall economy. This facilitates a remorseless concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. In essence that book looked at the mechanics of this process. 

Capital and Ideology is a companion volume which essentially looks at how the inequality produced by this mechanism is justified. It does so by setting the process of justification of inequality regimes in there long term historical setting. He explores the transformation from, what he sees as a sort of pre-modern template for all inequality regimes, ternary or trifunctional societies, to the inequality regimes of modern unified states. 

Trifunctional sytems are those which divide society into three variously described social orders. Essentially, a clerical, a noble and a mass grouping. The clerical is the religious and or intellectual order, the noble is essentially the warrior class, and the final group is the third estate, the property-poor remainder of the population. Picketty applies this trifunctional analysis to an enormous canvass. Ranging across a number of European civilisations but also, India, China, Iran and others. He sees this system of distinctions as the oldest and most common type of inequality regime.

His analysis is aimed at showing how the trifunctional historical roots of different societies shape the changed circumstances of inequality and continue to echo in the forms of justification used today. Throughout there is an impressive wealth of historical data and analysis. 

Picketty also looks at how the “age of exploration” and imperial dominance impacted the shape of the global economy, the emergence of the modern centralised state and a new template to support the new inequality regime. A template structured around the deification of property ownership. Under trifunctional regimes there was an overlapping of property rights and regalian powers at the local level. In other words the local baron owned the land, defended it, taxed it, maintained order and dispensed local justice. The emergent modern age was organised around “a strict separation of property rights, ostensibly open to all, and regalian powers, a monopoly of the centralised state.” 

This model persisted through to the beginning of the 20th Century when three challenges arose causing a crisis for the ownership model founded on private property. The three challenges were around, growing inequality within European ownership societies; inequality amongst countries as colonial competition and increasingly powerful independence movements contended; and finally a nationalist and identitarian challenge which reinforced competition amongst European powers with the consequences of economic collapse and two world wars.

All of this led to a different view of property and willingness to redistribute it as an outcome of conscious public policy. A massive reduction in levels of inequality resulted with the advent of social democratic movements across the world, building upon demands from the 19th Century for wider franchise and greater state support for the unemployed and the old. Accelerating the creation of social states with substantial public services and economic and industrial engagement by governments. The New Deal in the US, the National Health service are just two, albeit shining, examples of how the needs of the majority of the population started to be met.

In truth the first two parts of the book are building up to this point and the last three are an analysis of how the period of classist, social democratic politics after the end of World War 2 consciously addressed the issue of inequality and created a trente glorieuses where the living standards of millions in the west were increased beyond any historical precedent. It then analyses the period from 1980 when a new model of Hypercapitalism evolved through the twin processes of globalisation and communications technology innovations, and the new justificatory regime which supported this model. One dressed in notions of equality of opportunity, set in a context where the levels of wealth concentration are returning to levels last seen in the gilded age of the robber barons.

This is a political economy history book but focussed very much on the here and now and critically the ideas and ideologies which have created and sustain the world we live in. By setting these in a historical framework Picketty aims to show how what exists at the moment as the economic reality is contingent and can be contested, but more importantly can be changed. The book does not just analyse the world but aims to change it. Picketty sets out what can be done via progressive taxation of all sources of income and wealth to reduce unsustainable levels of inequality. He addresses the issues of tax avoidance and secrecy regimes; the problem of European unity; the beggar my neighbour race to the bottom of corporate taxation; inequality in educational opportunity and much more. The book does not lack ambition.

By bringing into the public consciousness the experiences of the past, where, for example, property rights were so sacrosanct when slavery was abolished it was the slave owners who were compensated, it provides depth  and shade to many contentious issues of the hear and now.

This book is very much a marathon but one where you are running through the pages of history brought to life in limid prose and substantial detail. Acres of statistical evidence are marshalled and reveal trends in the longue duree which impact now on the issues shaping national and international political debate. They are deftly handled by a writer at the top of his game. Dissecting ideologies and debates of the past and illustrating how they continue to be evoked in political debate. Like a marathon the work is daunting at the start but on completion there is a real sense of elation. I have every confidence there will be those who profoundly disagree with it and I am certain some of the arguments are contestable, however, as a catalyst for change it is unrivalled.

It would be fascinating to hear what Picketty has to say about the political economic implications of Covid-19 as I suspect they may provide a catalyst for much more profound change than anything we have seen to date.

It is said that those who fail to study history are condemned to repeat it. Picketty is doing his best to help us overcome this failure. Help him. 

“Capital and Ideology” Thomas Picketty. Belknap Harvard Press 2020.

by

The distance between the Prime Minister and the President

So the PM, the Health Secretary and the Chief Medical officer are confined to quarters. We do not know whether they practiced what they preached when off-screen, however,  what this does demonstrate is that if you continue working the chance of avoiding infection is low. The multiple infections are perhaps not surprising amongst a group of people who have had to work intensively and closely together for some time however it is unfortunate in terms of the governments messaging.

To date I think I would give the Prime Minister 7 out of 10 for his handling of the Covid-19 crisis. Due account has to be given to the sheer scale and multi-dimensional nature of the problem and the speed at which it has evolved. It is one thing to hear descriptions of the spread and see graphs it is another to live it. On the positive side, he has taken the issue seriously and, has deferred to the science or at the very least taken serious account of it. He has “pivoted” when necessary, albeit a touch abruptly.

Overall I think, from the distance of the North, he has done as good or bad a job as many of the other West European leaders have. The leaders of countries in the East, like South Korea and Japan have had much more recent experience of what a national epidemic can do and might have been expected to be better prepared both logistically and mentally to respond with more appropriate alacrity and concern.

There are of course questions to be asked. The timing of lockdown looked more a like a response to mounting political and external scientific pressure than the next step in a carefully crafted, strategic timeline. It would be interesting to see what mortality rates were attached to the herd immunity strategy which was disavowed as soon as the Imperial College Report was in the public domain.

Communication has been and continues to be a problem. The daily press briefing, meant to reassure the public by demonstrating a transparent approach to keeping the nation informed, was a good idea. Its very existence communicated a sense of urgency. The professional and business like way they were conducted and the presence of subject experts transmitted seriousness but also reassuring competence. Unfortunately the message was not clear enough.

This may have been that the strategy was evolving from mitigation to suppression however the social distancing message was just not strong enough. Details about what it involved keeping 2 meters apart, staying at home etc. was undermined by a failure to communicate the need for rigid adherence. The Prime Minister talking about continuing to shake hands and hoping to visit his mother on mothers day weakening and confusing the message.

As the potentially catastrophic consequences of the disease began to sink in, driven it would seem by the Imperial College Report the Prime Minister stiill appeared to be struggling with either his libertarian instincts, his concern for the economic consequences or fear that stricter controls would be ignored. He started out by “asking”,  then moved to “telling”, but then in very short order he moved to  “instructing” as emergency legislation was put in place. It may be argued that the language followed the legislation or that it was part of a strategy to take the population on a journey, however, a pandemic is not a time to be “nudging” people. It is a time for decisiveness and clear, consistent, simple messages. Days mattered.

Unfortunately as time has gone by the communication strategy has become more problematic. If you start out claiming you want to be transparent and that you are following the science you set yourself up to fail if you start to obfuscate. As the media have asked increasingly specific questions about, how many ITU bed spaces are available – now, how many ventilators the NHS have – now, and where the PEP is – now, the vagueness of the answers has become a source of concern and, for front line staff, anger.

Nadhim Zahawi, Minister for Business and Industry, was writhing like a fish on a line when being pushed to provide detailed figures on this and dates when more of all of these items would be available. It looked as if at one point he would crack and shout out, “You can’t handle the truth.” He would have been wrong. People prefer truth, however unpalatable, to obviously untrue platitudes about “ramping up”.

It is obvious to all that the requirement for rigid social distancing is absolutely critical and that anything less will mean the NHS is overwhelmed. It does not have the equipment or staff it would need to address anything other than a limited spread of the virus. False reassurance will come back to bite when reality tragically contradicts it as the infection rate accelerates and peaks.

Having said all this, I still hold to my 7 out of 10 for the Prime Minister. He may not have acted as decisively and early as he should  to implement rigid social distancing and he may not have been clear enough in the initial messaging, however, he appears to be someone doing the best he can in a fast moving crisis. He remains courteous to the media, even in the face of difficult questioning, he respects the views of the scientific advisors and at least seems to understand what it is, and he is trying to communicate that medical advice to the public.

By comparison,… a picture is worth a thousand words, and here are two.

However effectively implemented by the PM and his team there is a real attempt to communicate the social distancing message.

If you watch the two briefings the contrast could not be greater. In the US version, depicted here, three advisors stood like lemons on the stage of the press briefing  room waiting for the President. There was an awkward, nay embarrassing silence. Eventually, presumably when the time had built up enough tension for a grand entrance, the President appeared.

There was then a rambling, incoherent presentation by the President, talking mainly about what a terrific job his administration and he personally was doing. His one strength is consistency, whenever he speaks he is saying something which is either a lie or stupid or both. Firing on all four cylinders he managed the double on most of what he had to say.

His overriding concern to ensure re-election tempered his concerns for the thousands who may die from this virus. His view is that we must ensure the “cure is not worse than the disease”. He talked about the 50k people who die each year from flu and those involved in road traffic accidents to reassure the American people he had their welfare at heart.

He probably struggles with numbers (other than $ bills) but if the US do not get a grip on Covid-19 the fatalities could be in the hundreds of thousands not, the clearly more acceptable to the President, tens of thousands. From the start the President has treated Covid-19 as an annoying distraction from the main business of getting reelected for another four years of self aggrandisement and national corruption. Variously he has referred to Covid-19 as a “hoax”, the “Chinese virus”, only affecting 15 Americans, something where the “cure cannot be worse than the virus”, and which is likely to be pretty much over “by Easter”.

I had been thinking a suitable sobriquet for President Trump might be, “The President that Broke America.” Sadly, if the individual States don’t save him and their citizens I think a more appropriate one may be, “The President that Killed America.” At least the distance between him and the Prime Minister is reassuringly large.

by

Boris the radical remainer.

The moment he became Prime Minister Boris Johnson became an arch remainer. His one overriding goal is to remain in 10 Downing Street. Having been selected by c150k Tory party members on the basis that he would achieve Brexit, and having the example of what happens to PM’s that fail he devised a strategy which would secure Brexit come what may.

The problems he faced were a hopelessly divided legislature, a slim majority and a pressure group within the Conservative Party who were not for compromise. In these circumstance Mr Johnson decided the strategy to achieve his goal would be, “no ifs, no buts, no-deal”. However he needed cover for what would happen if he failed by 31 October, and also, for if he succeeded.

If he failed his credibility with the electorate might be shot and in any subsequent election he would face losing votes to Mr Farage. If he succeeded and Yellowhammer came home to roost he might be fighting an election with growing queues at ports, disrupted holidays, food and drug shortages and who knows what other disruptions.

Plan A was to have a snap election and get majority to deliver Brexit. When Jeremy Corbyn refused to play the part offered to him a revised strategy was needed. This involved ensuring that the blame for; a) not securing Brexit, or b) securing Brexit would fall on others.

It is almost certain his first and final offer to the EU will not be acceptable, it is becoming increasingly clear it was never meant to be. If they had rejected it outright he would have claimed foul and that it was the fault of the EU we have crashed out. Again they refused to play ball and are considering what they know is a non-starter. At the coming summit it will become clear that it is not workable. There will then be a lot of manouvering and synthetic anger by Boris and his team trying to portray the Europeans as intransigent and unwilling to negotiate in good faith. This is a tactic we see more and more often in politics where a party will do something outrageous but attempt to hide it by accusing the other side of doing the exact same thing.

Following all the sound and fury we will get to the point where the Ben Act comes into play. Mr Johnson then faces the dilemma, should he really attempt to overcome the Ben Act, crash out of the EU and risk an election in the context of Yellowhammer, or should he manouver himself into a position where he appears to have been forced to accept an extension, then have an election where the risk is Mr Farage is able to portray him as another failed Brexit leader.

It looks as though he is opting for the latter, pinning his hopes on a “people versus parliament” election. He must have calculated the combination of die in a ditch Brexiters and more widely held Brexit fatigue will produce him a majority which he can then apply to taking the UK out of the EU in January. He is probably correct in assuming that Brexit fatigue might quickly evaporate following a no deal departure.

Like most carefully crafted battle plans, Mr Johnsons did not survive the first engagement with the enemy. People refused to behave as they were supposed to. The tactics that have survived are about attempting to threaten and bully and lie their way to Brexit. It is a moot point whether this will be successful. 

However, elections are unpredictable as Theresa May found to her cost. There is no certainty about what the election result will be. And there is no doubt it will be anything other than a Brexit election. What happens then if the popular vote is for remain candidates but the electoral result is a leave majority in parliament? Who knows?

There are only two things that I think are clear, first, Mr Johnson’s steadfast commitment to leaving Europe, second his absolute commitment to remaining in 10 Downing Street.

 

by

The retreat of Western Liberalism

This is an excellent book summarising the the intertwined global forces which are threatening democracy and liberalism, indeed pitching them against one another.

It is said the book can be read in three hours, it took me longer. Mr Luce clearly has a strong grip on the growing literature addressing,  globalisation; populism; automation; the shift to the East ; climate change and more. His erudition, however, never gets in the way of clear concise exposition and commentary.

His analysis always sets maters in a historical context taking due account of the transitory nature of much that seems permenant as lived. Implicit in this is a challenge to all of us to recognise the scale and reality of the threats which exist and to do something about them. History is not inevitable it is created, although not necessarily consciously.

His arguments are often challenging but always thoughtful. He is particularly good around the contentious opposition, or as I suspect he sees it, interplay between class and identity. He is clear however that if the Democrats ever want to govern effectively again they need to develop policies which address the concerns of the “basket of deplorables”. Of course the contentious bit is defying what you think their concerns are.

If you want to read one book that will provide you with an underground map of contemporary social, political and economic issues this is it. It reduces the complexity by focusing on the key issues, illustrating what connects and divides them.

It may take you longer than three hours to read but whatever it does you will think it worthwhile.

The retreat of Western Liberalism. E Luce. Abacus 2018.