NEETs are only a symptom of a much deeper problem

Tweet

 

It has been suggested this week that “Primary schools in England should be required to identify children at risk of leaving education at 16 without finding a job”, with a view to putting mentoring / tutoring arrangements in place for the children thus identified. Although the review is specifically about England, the same issue exists in Wales. There is something profoundly depressing about the idea that we can and should categorise children in such a way before they are even 11 years old - or even, according to the author, for pre-school children.

It’s not a new issue, and the links between deprivation in childhood and poor opportunity in adulthood have been well understood for at least 60 years – I read the seminal study on the issue by JWB Douglas (“The Home and the School”) back in the 1960s. Six decades later and we’re still only debating how to address the symptoms – because treating the symptoms is what the proposal for mentoring and tutoring is about. That’s not to argue that we should not be trying to treat the symptoms – any help that we can give the children concerned is to be welcomed.

But really, after all that time, we shouldn’t still be debating potential corrective actions at all – we should be addressing the underlying cause. It remains the case that the social class and financial situation of the parents are the factors with the greatest influence on children’s life chances. Even if we were to accept that the situation of the parents is down to their own choices in life (although I hasten to add that I don’t accept that things are as simple as that), that is no justification for restricting the opportunities open to their children. Yet, far from seeking to make the starting point in life less unequal, recent decades have seen a continued concentration of wealth and income in fewer and fewer hands – and the gap between the richest and poorest in society has grown, not shrunk.

Gross inequality isn’t the natural order of things, and life doesn’t have to be that way. It is the result of political choices made by UK governments, both Tory and Labour, over decades. And the most depressing part of the reporting on the pending review is that it doesn’t even seem to touch on that.

What is the UK for?

Tweet

 

The PM returned this week to an issue which he has raised previously, namely the need for the UK to have a written constitution. In principle, he’s right: the current approach is an antiquated patchwork of law, precedent, custom and practice, leaving the UK as an outlier in the world. The motivation for his latest statement appears to be based around the need to entrench and codify the relationship between the Westminster government and the regional mayors to whom he wishes to devolve more power. I’ve long supported the idea of a formal written constitution for the UK, and even more so for the independent Wales that I still hope to see one day. But the reasons for that support are precisely why I don’t think it can or will happen, at least until it’s time to write separate constitutions for England, Wales, and Scotland. There is a whole shop’s worth of cans of worms waiting to be opened once the suggestion gets serious debate.

Firstly, as the SNP have already pointed out, a constitution which defines and codifies the relationship between Westminster and English regional mayors will also need to define and codify the relationship between the constituent nations of the union. There are basically only two options as to how the UK can define itself – it is either a single unitary state, or else it is a voluntary union of nations. The former is likely to inflame Scotland in particular, whilst the latter must, by definition, specify the terms of that voluntary union, including how it can be ended. The opposition of devout unionists to formally documenting the nature of the relationship is based on more than tradition and inertia.

Then there is the question of sovereignty and who owns it. There are monarchies in the world which have written constitutions, of course, so it’s not impossible. But would it really be politically acceptable, in the twenty-first century, to write a formal document declaring that all power stems from god via the monarch, and parliament and the courts merely act as the monarch’s agent? The alternative view – that power belongs to the citizens and is delegated by them to parliament – would be a complete undermining of centuries of precedent and custom, to say nothing of a serious constraint on the royal prerogative on which much of the government’s activity depends.

Bigger than either of those, however, is the question of purpose. Defining what the state is for is no easy matter. The US Declaration of Independence talks about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s a reasonable starting point, especially the bit about the pursuit of happiness, but it’s a bit wishy-washy: fine words which can be interpreted in different ways. A more comprehensive statement of purpose for a modern constitution might be something along the lines of ‘enabling all citizens to achieve their potential and lead fulfilling lives’. It is, though, the sort of aim which would have neoliberals (such as Andy Burnham) choking on their cornflakes.

I don’t seriously believe that a written constitution will happen under Andy Burnham or any currently conceivable successor. But we can perhaps hope that he will at least spark a discussion during which alternatives to the status quo can be seriously debated.

The issue over care should be about how it is delivered, not how it is funded

Tweet

 

The UK’s new PM talked a lot last week about care, and there’s no doubt that identifying what care is needed and how it is to be provided are significant issues facing us, particularly as the population ages. Sadly, though, the debate rapidly turned into one about how care is to be paid for, which is a completely different issue – and in some ways, irrelevant. The need for care is based on the aggregation of the needs of millions of individuals – whilst the level of provision might vary according to how much money is available or what budget is set, the need doesn’t change in response to the funding.

If we start from first principles rather than ideological views about money and the size of the state, the nature of the problem changes. One of the problems with neoliberal economic thinking is that it values only two things: labour and capital. The economy is seen as belonging only to those who supply either their labour or their capital – with a huge bias in favour of the latter. Everything and everyone else is then seen as a ‘burden’ on the productive economic activity of those groups, often with the implicit assumption that the living standards / purchasing power of those non-productive groups should be limited to the basics. But if we instead see the economy as a social construct, with the objective of serving all members of the society in which it operates, the picture changes completely. A successful economy needs to be able to provide a decent standard of living (leaving aside, for the purposes of the current argument, who decides what that is, and on what basis) for all its members – young, old, sick, and disabled. And, however defined, that ‘decent standard’ includes things like education, health – and care.

If ‘the economy’ is to serve all of us rather than only those supplying labour or capital, the question ceases to be about how much we tax to pay for x, y, or z, and instead becomes one of how we ensure that the level of economic activity is high enough to provide that decent standard of living – and what mechanism we use to share the benefits of that economic activity. Economic growth is important, of course, but once we accept the obvious truth that growth cannot be infinite in a world where resources are finite, we cannot use that growth – however much the politicians try to do so – as an excuse to avoid discussing the issue of distribution. But avoiding that issue, ultimately, is why the supporters of the current neoliberal capitalism reduce everything to a question of ‘how will you pay for it?’. Better – from their perspective – to turn people against each other over a question of taxation than to get to grips with the question of how wealth and income are distributed. All the debate around how care is to be funded - like the debate about the welfare bill, or the pensions triple lock – is about diverting attention away from the key question, which is about the distribution of wealth and income within society. And whose interests are served by that?

Burnham is making the problems worse by his adherence to self-imposed rules

Tweet

 

One of Andy Burnham’s ‘qualifications’ for the job of PM was that he was used to running a major public sector operation in the form of the mayoralty of Greater Manchester. It’s certainly a big job, and he will certainly have learned a lot from doing it, even if the degree to which he was successful is always going to be arguable, depending on one’s political perspective. There is a difference of scale, of course; but even more important is the difference in the constraints acting upon the incumbent. Manchester (like the Senedd here in Wales) has its powers and budgets circumscribed elsewhere. Westminster sets both, and the mayor (or First Minister) has no choice but to follow the statutory requirements laid down for him or her.

When it comes to running the UK from Downing Street, however, the situation is completely different. The Westminster parliament insists that it has absolute power – delegated to it by God and the Monarch – to do whatever it wants. Financially, the only real constraint is the capacity of the economy – the available resources, in short. Any other constraint is self-imposed: the so-called ‘fiscal rules’ are the invention of the government of the day which can change them at any time it wants to (and history shows that governments tinker with the rules regularly). There was no such thing before Gordon Brown invented them in 1997, and they were invented largely to ensure that the incoming Labour government followed broadly the same policies as the outgoing Tory government, in the belief that that was what ‘the markets’ wanted.

To date, Burnham has given no indication that he understands the difference – that he has moved from a situation where he has to obey rules laid down by others to one where he can make the rules. And all the neoliberal foundations and lobbyists – to say nothing of the financial ‘experts’ in the mainstream media – are only too keen to ensure that he doesn’t realise the extent to which he is imposing unnecessary constraints upon himself. There was a report today, for example, claiming that the PM “will have to raise taxes or cut spending” to meet his pledges and that “There's clearly no scope for increasing borrowing”. What they like to call ‘borrowing’, some of us prefer to call ‘accepting deposits from people looking for a safe home for their money’ – and the only limit on that is whether people have money for which they are seeking a safe home. Given the lack of worthwhile investment opportunities (which is a much bigger problem in itself), there’s no sign of any lack of deposits; and the choice posited by the first quote is solely a result of the fiscal rules.

One of the big issues which Burnham has highlighted this week is the question of social care. It’s usually presented as a shortage of money, but even if money was unlimited, there would still be a lack of qualified and willing carers, and lack of capacity is a much more important constraint than lack of money. But that lack of capacity is another self-imposed constraint – this time it’s arbitrary rules over numbers of migrants.

One point of similarity between the governments in Wales and Scotland, the mayoralty in Manchester, and the UK government is that they are all facing major issues. But only one of them is compounding the problems by using its unique position to be able to set its own rules in a way that exacerbates rather than alleviates.

Hard hats and graduate caps

Tweet

 

According to the PM, “From today, Britain will value the hard hat every bit as much as the graduation cap”. It’s a nice soundbite, but what does it actually mean? He’s not the first politician – or even the first UK Prime Minister – to talk about what has often been called ‘parity of esteem’: the idea that people with key technical skills should be as highly regarded as those with a degree. Few would disagree with the sentiment. And it’s certainly true that an academic degree, and the learning involved in gaining one, is not something which suits everyone, although we need to guard against the idea that making learning less academic also strips away the remaining vestiges of the notion that a well-educated populace is a good thing in itself.

But one of the other things that those who want fewer people to seek a degree are concerned about is the lack of what they call ‘graduate jobs’, which generally seems to be a euphemism for jobs which pay a higher salary, or graduate premium. There is an obvious conflict here: it is simply not rational to support the idea of there being a graduate premium whilst also demanding that other types of qualifications and learning should carry equal value. Having done a certain amount of graduate recruitment in the past myself for two different organisations, I’m not convinced that the requirement for a degree is, in many cases, much more than a filter mechanism enabling lazy employers to discard large numbers of otherwise suitable employees. There is, though, no real question that employers seeking only graduate recruits do find themselves obliged to reinforce the pretence by offering higher salaries.

Achieving real equality of value requires more than identifying which young people are more suited to a so-called ‘vocational’ route, providing the necessary places, and making airy statements about parity or equality. If I thought that Burnham was wanting to start a serious conversation about how we value and reward different occupations, his statement today would be very welcome. How do we determine the relative value of lawyers and nurses for example? Does the current difference in reward reflect that relative valuation or reverse it? I’m pretty certain, however, that that isn’t a can he proposes to open, and that what he’s talking about is more about persuading people to accept their station in life – and the level of reward which goes with that. His fine words are, in short, more spin than substance. Being better with words doesn’t change the underlying message.

When Labour's self-image clashes with reality

Tweet

 

Last week, the new PM instructed his cabinet to “stop assuming that decisions belong in Whitehall by default”, according to a Downing Street source quoted in the Times (paywall). The source went on to add, “Departments will now have to justify why a power should stay at the centre rather than being transferred to a local area”. Perhaps the new Secretary of State for Wales was asleep during that part of the meeting, but his statement that he is not yet "entirely convinced" of the case for giving more powers to the Welsh government, although he remains "open to the conversation" sounds an awful lot like an assumption that powers should remain where they are unless a convincing case is made otherwise – almost the exact opposite of his boss’s instruction.

It’s possible, of course, that Burnham never intended that his new policy should apply to the national governments in Wales and Scotland – for him devolution is all about the powers of local mayors; and his record to date of understanding the difference between those national parliaments on the one hand and regional mayors on the other is not good. It’s more likely, though, that we’re just seeing two different versions of the Labour Party. There is the image that they want us to believe: a party committed to localism, empowering communities and their representatives to take the best decisions for their areas, and then there’s the traditional version with which we are all too familiar in Wales: a centralised and centralising party which wants to keep all power in its own hands. Kinnock is simply presenting the well-established reality; those who fall for the Burnham rhetoric will inevitably end up disappointed.

The power has been retained at the centre all along

Tweet

 

The problem at the heart of devolution is, and always has been, that ‘power devolved is power retained’. It might be politically difficult for Westminster to deliberately and blatantly remove powers from the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, but it would be entirely legal under a constitution which assumes that absolute power is vested in the monarch by god and exercised by parliament through the gracious consent of the monarch. Devolved administrations are allowed to exercise such powers as the central authority decides in the manner, and for so long as, that central authority determines. The conceptual difference between that and a republican system under which power belongs to the people and is exercised by governments on their behalf and at their discretion – even if, in practice, the differences are not so great as they are in theory – is huge. The underlying difference of principle – whose power is it anyway – is fundamental.

Andy Burnham presents himself as a committed devolutionist, which might look like a big plus for Wales and Scotland compared to what has gone before. But, like all devolutionists, his starting point is that power is owned by the centre and may be shared at the centre’s discretion. It means that he can decide what is devolved and to whom, setting up a potential conflict with the administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh as he probably seeks to devolve power to more local mayors. And it isn’t just powers currently held at Westminster that he might be seeking to devolve – it is also those currently exercised in Cardiff and Edinburgh that he is likely to want to devolve.

As a matter of pure principle, I would actually agree that devolution shouldn’t stop at the national parliaments of Wales and Scotland; it is a disappointment to me that Plaid’s long history of supporting decentralising power within Wales seems to have gone into reverse somewhat since the establishment of the Assembly/Senedd, as politicians came up against the harsh reality that seriously devolving power necessarily means that different areas will set different priorities. Leaving that issue to one side, the question is: ‘who decides?’. Many – perhaps most – in Wales, and certainly in Scotland, would argue that further devolution within those countries should be a matter for the national parliaments but, for devolutionists, the issue of which powers should reside where is a matter for central determination. Whilst we in Wales might think that we have a Senedd in recognition of nationhood, to a devolutionist, it doesn’t necessarily look that way at all.

Paradoxically, it could well be that it is a pro ‘devolution’ PM who poses the greatest challenge to what ‘devolution’ means for Wales. The power has indeed been retained from the outset.

One sector's boost is another sector's loss

Tweet

 

The slimmed-down Commonwealth Games opens in Glasgow today, featuring around half the usual number of sports, because Glasgow stepped in late in the day as host after Victoria, in Australia, pulled out. Slimmed down = less cost – a good thing, surely? Well that depends. Because slimmed down also = fewer athletes, fewer spectators, fewer hotel nights and meals, less of a boost to the local economy.

During the recent world cup, many pubs in England were allowed to open late, and enjoyed something of a bonanza as a result. Hard-pressed hospitality sector gets boost – a good thing, surely? Well, again, that depends. Where did the money spent come from? If it was money which would otherwise have been spent in the same pubs, but over a longer period, then it’s just a change in cash flow. If it’s money that would otherwise have been spent on other things, then a large short term boost for one sector probably equates to a smaller longer term reduction in spending in a host of other sectors. Maybe not even noticeable in the grand scheme of things, but there nevertheless.

The point is, as the wondrous invention called double-entry book-keeping tells us, that what looks like a positive entry to one party will always look like a negative entry to someone else. Unless there is an overall increase in the supply of money, it cannot be otherwise. And, as Richard Murphy pointed out a couple of weeks ago, there are only two ways in which the total money supply can be increased: deficit budgets by the government and commercial bank lending. In accounting terms, both end up looking like ‘borrowing’ to someone, although that’s an oversimplified view when it comes to the government. The questions to be asked are ‘which is better?’ and ‘for whom?’. Neoliberals (and that includes Andy Burnham, for all his rhetoric) will always favour commercial bank lending, which in turn always favours those who already own most of the wealth. It is not the option which is most favourable to the majority of us, but unless and until we break free of the assumption that it is always and inevitably ‘better’, we will never rebalance the economy in favour of the many.

Out with the old, in with the old

Tweet

 

So far, the Burnham rhetoric has been better than the Starmer rhetoric, but that isn’t exactly a high bar. The substance – to the extent that there is anything other than a superficial paint job – will emerge in the coming days and weeks. Later this year, there will be (we are told) a 10-year plan. In the light of the recent rate of turnover in leaders of the UK government, the degree of confidence that Burnham will still be around to see the plan published (it will, inevitably, be later than proposed), let alone to see it through to implementation, cannot be high.

Some of the signs are not good, already. Putting a man who resigned from government because the Treasury wouldn’t divert enough funding away from protecting people against poverty and ill-health into deterring imaginary Russian threats in charge of the Treasury doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that the ‘change’ being demanded by Burnham will be quite the change that we need. Rhetoric about moving away from the neoliberal approach of the past few decades is utterly undermined by the statement that the arbitrary fiscal rules – only ever invented in order to entrench neoliberalism into the UK government’s economic philosophy – will be adhered to.

Scrapping the mad scheme for digital ID is a welcome step, but the mathematics behind diverting the uncommitted funding from that into a reduction in VAT on electricity costs are a little dodgy to say the least. Those paying the fuel bills – and especially those living in fuel poverty – will welcome any reduction, but when reduced to the level of ordinary household bills, the saving doesn’t look that large. £45 a year off the energy price cap equates to around 86p a week, strangely reminiscent of Gordon Brown's derisory 75p per week pension increase in 1999 - and worth rather less when inflation is accounted for.

We need more than a sharper rhetoric, a more developed sense of humour, and a bit of tinkering at the edges, but there are no signs as yet that Burnham is any more capable of envisioning a different approach than his predecessor. Being better at selling the same basic approach might buy him some time, but it will do little more than that.

Those with the vested interests aren't the ones who should be deciding the rules

Tweet

 

Back in April, Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, apparently demanded that the security arrangements for a visit to Vancouver should be at a level higher than that provided for Canadian PM Mark Carney, and at a level normally reserved for the likes of the US President or the Pope. Here in the UK, it seems that Farage has refused the security arrangements he was offered – which are equivalent to those provided for members of the Cabinet and the leader of the official opposition – as being inadequate, and said that his company would continue to provide his security instead. In the case of Infantino, it appears to have more to do with validating his own sense of self-importance than with security; perhaps there is at least an element of the same thing with Farage. Two entitled men with an exaggerated sense of their own importance, seeking special treatment. There is a valid question about what level of security is needed for people in the public eye and how should it be provided and paid for, but, even more importantly – who decides?

People who feel themselves to be under threat naturally want the best security they can get, but are probably the least appropriate people to decide what that level should be. But leaving it to the ‘experts’, which is the obvious alternative, depends on an assumption that those experts really are expert, and don’t make mistakes – an assumption which is necessarily flawed when we’re dealing with human judgement. There isn’t a simple answer (which is not to say that the government will not fall back on its usual simplistic answer to all issues – set up a review). I do wonder, though, whether Farage’s motives are as straightforward as he claims. After all, when public servants are providing security, they are subject to the normal scrutiny of public servants, and it’s more than possible that Farage wouldn’t want the security services, let alone various other authorities in the UK, to know where he was and who he was with at all times. And I really don’t believe that I’m just displaying a naturally suspicious mind by saying that.

He has attempted to turn the issue into a justification for the sort of large individual donations on which he and his company seem to depend. Without such large donations, he seems to be saying, Reform Ltd would not be able to afford the level of security which he deems necessary. It’s a complete non-sequitur – spending millions on security depends solely on the total amount of donations received, not on the amount of each one. It does, though, betray how dependent he is on a small number of enormous donations, underscoring that his company is struggling to attract the larger number of smaller donations on which other parties often depend. It is also, I suppose, possible that the widow giving her mite might just possibly be less happy than one of Farage’s fellow millionaires with her contribution being spent on security rather than electioneering. Or expelling foreigners. But here’s the thing: in the same way that people feeling threatened are not the best people to decide on what security they require, politicians dependent on the largesse of millionaires are not the best people to decide on the rules surrounding political donations.

Being against one thing doesn't mean you support one particular alternative

Tweet

 

One of the features of parliamentary process is that votes on legislation, budgets etc eventually come down to a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Prior debate, both in committee and on the floor of the chamber, offers opportunity for parliamentarians to seek to amend and improve the proposition under consideration, but at the end of the process, nuance, subtlety, and the fact that there may be varied reasons why members choose to support or oppose the proposition are all erased in a simple binary vote.

Whether Labour made the ‘right’ call in this week’s Senedd vote on the supplementary budget is a matter of opinion, and depends on first asking the question ‘right for who?’; what suits the party’s needs may or may not suit the needs of the people. Maybe they were trying to put down a marker about not being taken for granted; perhaps they’re just struggling with the move from government to opposition. Whatever their logic, I’m amongst those who think that they called it wrong on this occasion. Whether the government should have made more effort to get them onboard is another moot point – just as former governing parties need time to adjust to being in opposition, so too former opposition parties seemingly need time to adjust to being in government.

The biggest disappointment for me, however, came not in the vote, but in the aftermath. Voting against the government is not the same thing as voting for the other opposition parties, and Plaid’s repeated criticism of Labour for voting ‘with Reform Ltd’ grates with me. It’s a tactic which has been used by Labour, in particular, against Plaid for decades, especially in Westminster, but it’s a kindergarten approach, and it’s disappointing, to say the least, to see the party which has been subjected to such an approach for so long trying to use the same approach against its former tormentors, rather than demonstrating that the grown-ups are now in charge. There are going to be a lot of votes in the Senedd during the current term, and the combinations of parties voting either for or against a proposition will also vary. Voting the same way as Party B doesn’t mean that the rationale for voting that way is shared, and the suggestion that it does is a dishonest way of avoiding the substance. Resorting to the ‘yah boo’ tactics of Westminster is not a good look.

Joining the Establishment is easy - it's staying out which is difficult

Tweet

 

One of Trump’s imaginary foes is what he refers to as ‘the deep state’, a vast conspiracy which he alone is capable of vanquishing. That there are shadowy forces at work in US politics pushing particular viewpoints is not a particularly remarkable claim, but the idea that it is a coherent and sinister organisation is much harder to substantiate. The biggest proof that it is not is probably Trump himself: he’s both still alive and still in office, neither of which would be likely to be true if the deep state was really all it is claimed to be. Unless, of course, rather than being its nemesis, he is actually its willing tool.

In the UK, we more usually refer to the ‘Establishment’, another shadowy creature, and Farage has chosen to paint himself as its enemy. Its membership is hard to define, but it certainly includes top civil servants, the military top brass, media proprietors, the old-boy network of certain private schools, and the aristocracy. There’s no formal membership, and no-one ever describes themselves as being part of it. It’s neither organised nor coherent, nor does it have a leadership. Traditionally, much of the interaction between its members would have taken place in the so-called ‘gentlemen’s clubs’ of London, in the way portrayed in the Yes, Minister series. Farage himself is a member of at least one such club and regularly uses others for meetings and events. Indeed, by almost any definition one would choose, he is an archetypical member of the Establishment – and the more he denies it, the more typical of its members he becomes.

There is one thing that the Establishment is very good at doing, and that is capturing and absorbing new blood, perpetually renewing itself in the process. People who start out claiming to be rebels or revolutionaries almost invariably end up becoming part of that which they set out to oppose. Titles, gongs, membership of boards and panels all help, but perhaps one of the biggest factors is that life is simply so much easier if people simply go with the flow. Membership – as Farage currently, and Tony Benn in the past have demonstrated – doesn’t require adherence to any particular political viewpoint; the Establishment can happily accommodate them all. It merely requires them to abide by a whole series of undocumented conventions and traditions, most of which serve to protect and prolong the status quo – especially for those who benefit from it. Farage doesn’t (and never really has) threaten any of that. Brexit may not have been popular amongst the Establishment, but it hasn’t threatened their entrenched position, any more than joining the EEC/EU did in the first place.

The challenge for those who seriously want to challenge the way the UK works – a group which most emphatically does not include Farage – is to recognise the ways in which they are likely to get sucked in and resist. The longevity of the Establishment shows how few have ever succeeded.

Could Farage be right about the people vs the establishment?

Tweet

 

Farage presumably thought that resigning and fighting a by-election in which he expected to vanquish all his foes was a wizard wheeze. But then the other parties decided not to play, leaving him to fight a campaign against Count Binface and potentially a few other fringe candidates. There’s something rather pleasing about the man who refuses to play by the rules laid down by others now complaining that the others aren’t playing by the rules he has attempted to set for them.

The pundits all seem to be expecting that he will win an easy electoral victory, albeit one that will prove nothing, and probably leave him facing the same jeopardy. I wonder, though. In the first place, turnout is likely to be low – without other parties campaigning at all, who will be working to get the vote out – and for what? Secondly, in a country where ‘the people’ chose to name a boat Boaty McBoatface rather than honouring official national treasure David Attenborough, is it really too much of a stretch to imagine a victory for Count Binny McBinface, especially if the latter opted for such a scotification of his name? Farage claimed that it would be a fight between ‘the people’ and ‘the establishment’, and maybe he’s right. It’s just that he doesn’t understand that in a fight between these two titans, he – a multimillionaire public school-educated city trader – is the establishment candidate, and McBinface the anti-establishment insurgent. Farage also said that it’s an opportunity for people to stick two fingers up to the establishment – is there anything more likely to have that effect than sending a bin-clad warrior to Westminster? If I lived in Clacton, I’d certainly be tempted – and on a low turnout…

For those of us who see Farage as a danger to community cohesion, bringing his political career to an end would surely be a cause for celebration. And could there be a better – or more humiliating – way of achieving that than seeing him turfed out by a man wearing a refuse bin on his head? Maybe the pundits will be right, but we can surely dream in the meantime.

What's so special about 2029? or 2030?

Tweet

 

There seems to be a quiet difference of opinion amongst those who want us all to prepare for war with Russia: will the apparently inevitable Russian attack come in 2029 or in 2030? Either way, the dates postulated by defence ‘experts’ are largely arbitrary, carefully selected to be close enough to provoke action, but far enough in the future for that action to be meaningful. The ‘action’ required, of course, is to divert resources from those things which benefit the population as a whole, such as education, health, and transport, into the development and acquisition of armaments. Two years from now, the difference of opinion over the assumed date of attack will be between 2031 and 2032. It doesn’t matter how much is spent, or what weaponry is ‘required’, the need to add to it, or replace it with even newer versions, will always be there in the minds of the warmongers, to say nothing of the arms manufacturers.

Why, precisely, Russia would want to attack isn’t debated as widely as it should be; after all, if the threat was genuine, we’d know why they might want to attack, wouldn’t we? I simply don’t buy the idea that world domination by force is the motivating factor. But there is just a big hole where that question should be, and a vague assumption that Russia simply wants to expand the territory which it controls. From what Putin has said, we know that he has some strange beliefs, based on his curious understanding of history. In his view, Ukraine is not a nation, and its people are just Russians with an odd dialect. He also seems to believe that countries previously ruled from Moscow are destined by fate to be so, and should be brought back into the fold. Whether those beliefs are the driver of his military ambitions, or just a story told to justify them is another question. Telling stories as justification isn’t a trait unique to Putin.

In reality, it is surely much more likely that he genuinely believed the other story that he has told, which is that NATO and ‘the West’ in general intended to surround and dismember Russia, and he was therefore acting pre-emptively in launching the invasion. The biggest reason for striking first is always likely to be a fear that the other side would otherwise do so, coupled with the belief that striking first confers advantage. All of that, combined with a misunderstanding of the extent to which Ukrainians, particularly in the east, wanted to be Russians, and an underestimation of the likely resistance might have made it all a huge miscalculation. But one doesn’t have to be a Putin supporter or apologist to wonder whether, from the perspective of the Kremlin, the threat might have looked very real. It’s a perspective which continued active preparation for war in three or four years’ time is more likely to reinforce than dispel.

The military build-up is always presented to us as ‘deterrent’; the idea is that being seen to have a greater capability to destroy and kill will ensure that the attack never comes. It could, though, simply provoke it. Whether carrying a big stick to ward off invaders actually works is impossible to know. The fact that the putative invaders don’t invade whilst we’re waving the stick doesn’t prove that it worked – they might never have wanted to invade in the first place. But finding bigger sticks every year might eventually convince those believed to be would-be invaders that they had better act before the stick is used against them anyway. Logically, what looks like a deterrent to one can always look like a threat to the other. Discussion and mutually-agreed de-escalation are always going to be the safer route. They also mean that resources can be used more beneficially - 'defence' is about more than territory, there are other aspects to building a secure future for the population.

Spotting the obvious isn't always easy

Tweet

 

One of Andy Burnham’s acolytes told us this week that people who are migrating to London from elsewhere in the UK are causing problems in London, and that Burnham’s policy of directing investment into all parts of the UK rather than concentrating it all in London would help to discourage such migration. It’s impossible to disagree with the proposition: if lack of opportunity in one area of the UK encourages migration to the wealthiest area, then the best ‘solution’ to the perceived ‘problem’ is to invest in creating opportunities elsewhere. I think we can reasonably assume that the relevant ‘elsewhere’ includes Wales and Scotland as well as the north of England, although that isn’t always clear when London-based politicians are talking. No doubt some conspiracy theorists will see the suggestion as being an example of the way governments are trying to restrict our movement, but the basic proposition – widening the geographic range of opportunity – is surely sound.

But, hold on a moment – there’s also a glaring inconsistency in that policy. When people from poorer parts of the world see the riches of the UK (and even the poorest parts of the UK will look rich to many) and seek to migrate to benefit from those riches, Labour and Tory alike tell us that the ‘solution’ is to cut the economic aid which might help to develop opportunities in their home countries, and divert the money to providing the migrants with temporary accommodation before deporting them. It’s strange how they find that which is blindingly obvious in one context so hard to discern in another.

Cutting benefits isn't as simple as they claim

Tweet

 

One of the metrics underpinning the argument of those seeking to reduce the costs of welfare benefits in the UK is that the number of people living in households which receive more in payments from the government than they pay in taxes has been increasing. The figures are available in this spreadsheet. There are, of course, a number of assumptions and estimates involved in any figures of this nature – how much any given household pays in VAT, for instance, is not a figure for which robust actuals exist, and can only be projected from such data as does exist. Accepting such inevitable limitations on the accuracy of the figures, the statistics show that the percentage of people living in such households has indeed risen from 37% in 1977 to around 53.3% in 2024. The simplistic conclusion that benefits are therefore too generous and should be reduced doesn’t follow, however.

Whether we should really count the state pension as a welfare benefit at all is a controversial question. Theoretically, it is (like an occupational pension) paid for by contributions from employers and employees based on salary. It is true that those contributions are not enough to pay for the pensions, and it’s also true that they are not put in a long-term fund in the same way as occupational pensions, but those are deliberate decisions taken by government – the beneficiaries can hardly be blamed for those. In any event, what the same statistics show is that over the same period, close to half a century, the proportion of pensioner households in that category of receiving more than they pay has barely moved at all. Whilst it has varied between about 84% and 94%, the net change over the whole period has been from 92.4% in 1977 to 90.1% in 2024. The two messages from that are, firstly, that the overall increase for all households referred to above is not down to pensions, and secondly, that despite the increasing prevalence of occupational pensions, pensioner households remain highly dependant on the state pension. What it is not, is an argument for reducing pensions.

It follows that the increase in the proportion of people in households which are net recipients relates to people below pensionable age. Some of those people will be employed, others will not be. The popular belief seems to be that the problem is that more people are choosing not to work but to live, instead, on benefits paid for by others. The data doesn’t support that interpretation either. In 1977, the proportion of the population of working age in gainful employment was around 71%. Since then, it has varied as the economy has been through boom and bust cycles, but it reached a high of 76.5% in the 2010s, and for the purposes of comparison with the benefits figures being discussed here, it stood at 74.8% in 2024. In global terms, that puts the UK above the OECD average. The obvious conclusion is that the growth in the benefits bill is not a result of more people choosing not to work – the popular myth is just that, a myth. Certainly, the UK could be higher up the table, but the extent to which government action aimed primarily at cutting the bill can achieve that is doubtful.

Where does that leave us? Well, part of the issue is clearly the payment of ‘in-work benefits’: topping up inadequate wages. A subsidy, in other words, to employers who are underpaying their staff. One really good way of reducing that part of the benefits bill would be for the employers concerned to pay decent wages in the first place. A company which cannot pay its staff decent wages is a company which is not economically viable. In more general terms, reducing the benefits bill doesn’t start with cutting the budget, it starts with understanding why benefits are being paid and reducing the need for them. It’s a far more complex task, which the financial axemen seem unwilling to address. Simple cuts will reduce living standards. The extent to which there is scope simply to reduce the level of benefits being paid to individuals therefore depends, ultimately, on a judgement about the living standards which we, as a community, want to set for benefit recipients. That’s a much more difficult conversation, and one which politicians seem keen to avoid.

Building for peace, not war

Tweet

 

The idea that ‘Russia’ has learnt nothing from its catastrophic losses invading Ukraine, and will shortly be poised to take on the even greater challenge of a direct attack on a part of the European Union seems to be gaining ground almost daily. The Conservative and Labour parties seem equally in thrall to the threat of the Russian menace and equally determined to divert resources from welfare to armaments to prepare to meet the threat. In the process, they and what increasingly seem to be their puppet-masters in the armed forces and the weapons industries seem to be making such a war more, rather than less, likely.

Yesterday, we had a report of a speech from the head of the UK Army, laying out his views of what is needed. Needless to say, the head of the army wants to build up the army, but it was the detail which struck me. “Only armies seize and hold ground”, according to the pre-release of his speech. It’s impossible to argue with that, but the question which needs to be answered is why, exactly, we would want to ‘seize ground’ in the first place. The questions posed by his statement were compounded by his argument that the UK needs to be able to ‘strike deep’ and ‘defend forward’, which seems to mean developing the ability to strike at the enemy’s resources deep inside their own territory before those resources can be used against us. To me, it sounds a lot like an argument that the best defence is attack – and from the Kremlin’s perspective, it will surely sound even more so. What reaction should we expect from a state which feels itself thus threatened, after having watched the UK (and other governments) portray it as an imminent threat to themselves? Do we expect them to just wait, and watch that capability being built for use against them?

For the military (and, apparently, most UK politicians), the natural instinct is to build ever stronger armed forces to deter an attack by the enemy, but surely the deeper issue is how to avoid an attack. Maybe 'deterrence' has a role in that, but the extent to which that is so in that is arguable: up until the point at which war starts, it is impossible to know whether the lack of war is down to deterrence or simply a lack of rationale for going to war. (For example, whether merging the French and German economies into a single economic jurisdiction prevented the two countries from going to war again (one of the original objectives of the EEC) or whether they would never have gone to war anyway is an academic question, to which there can never be a definitive answer.) What we do know is that one of the most likely reasons for going to war against any potential adversary is the belief that 'they' intend to attack ‘us’ and need to be stopped before they can build the capability to do so successfully. But why are so few able to understand that exactly the same consideration plays out on the ‘other’ side as well?

Where are the political leaders prepared to make the argument that if we want to build for peace we should avoid sending the message that we are building for war? Building for war has, instead, become the default position of the UK establishment. And those who build for war are likely to find themselves, sooner or later, fighting that war.

May was a near record month for UK saving

Tweet

 

The UK Government accepted a record level of deposits from savers during the month of May, the second highest total on record for the month of May. Savers (mostly pension and life insurance funds as well as some wealthy individuals) clearly recognised that saving with the UK government is one of the safest places for their money, because the UK government’s ability to create extra money as and when required means that they can never lose their capital. That’s one way of presenting the figures, but it’s not the way that most of the media chose to present the same information. Instead, the near-universal response (here’s one example) was to treat it as a disastrous increase in government borrowing.

The disparity serves to underline the simple and unavoidable fact that what looks like a debt to one party will always look like an asset to the other. It also underlines the way in which those who want to deliberately constrain or reduce UK government expenditure will choose to interpret the facts in the way which they believe boosts their perception – to say nothing of boosting their own financial interests. The willingness to deposit such large sums with the government suggests that the savers aren’t really against what they describe as ‘government borrowing’ at all – why would they be, when they’re the main beneficiaries? It’s more that they’re against the government spending money on services instead of cutting taxes. And – surprise, surprise – those who benefit most from interest payments on government ‘borrowing’ would also have the most to gain from tax cuts.

For the rest of us, the problem isn’t government borrowing per se, it’s the way in which paying for that borrowing ends up funnelling money into fewer and fewer hands, concentrating wealth rather than spreading it. Any meaningful attempt to decrease inequality must inevitably mean that we have to look at the way in which wealth and income are distributed within the economy. Understanding that one person’s debt is another person’s asset is one small step towards that.

By-election significance isn't about competing brands of vanilla ice cream

Tweet

 

With the votes counted and the dust settling, Andy Burnham won yesterday’s Makerfield by-election by a large majority. To what extent this was a personal vote for the man rather than the party (‘vote Labour to get the Labour PM out’ is an unusual campaign strategy, to say the least) is not clear. I’ve always tended to the view that personalities don’t have a huge impact on election results at parliamentary level, but all rules have their exceptions and the circumstances and extent of coverage in this case may have enhanced the impact of the individual. If individuals really do make a difference, then it certainly helped that Reform Ltd chose a walking car-crash as their candidate, a man whose past comments made him an easy target. A cynic might even suggest that Farage would prefer Labour to stick with Starmer. Whatever, the fact is that Burnham is now in Westminster, and expectations are high that the starting gun will soon be fired on either a Labour leadership contest or else a coronation for the man from Manchester. Whatever gloss attaches to the Burnham name now may well be tarnished by the forthcoming mayoral by-election, which Reform Ltd have a reasonable chance of winning based on the local council elections, even if the bookies currently narrowly favour Labour; but maybe he’ll have staged his coup before that can happen.

The media are painting the Burnham bandwagon as a virtually unstoppable force, ushering in a new government and a new era. I’m not so sure. Burnham is undoubtedly a better communicator than the incumbent, although that isn’t exactly a high bar. The question is about how different he will be in practice. On that score, the omens are not good. He has already committed to maintaining the arbitrary fiscal rules drawn up by Rachel Reeves, and the appointment of a set of deeply conservative financial advisers to support him augurs badly. It looks as though the neoliberal agenda of continued wealth concentration is likely to continue unabated, and he is tying his own hands to do little more than tinker at the edges. Those sunlit uplands aren’t getting any closer. Burnham vs Starmer is politics as ice cream flavours, except the choice is limited to different brands of vanilla.

To my mind, the more significant, not to say worrying, by-election result yesterday was the one in Aberdeen South, where the SNP lost a seat to the Tories. The significance isn’t in the SNP losing, although that’s unwelcome, or even in the Tories winning, although that goes against the run of play. It is, rather, in the basis of the political upset, which is all about the oil and gas industry. It’s an issue that the SNP have not handled particularly well, but the outcome suggests that voters in Aberdeen have fallen for the snake oil being peddled by the Tories (as well as other parties of the ‘right’), namely the idea that we can both secure the planet’s future for coming generations and at the same time use all available resources with no concern for tomorrow. It isn’t just a problem in Aberdeen. Those who would deny the evidence of anthropogenic climate change have seen an opportunity to persuade voters to support them: after all, what’s not to like about a politician who tells you that you can do what you like today and you don’t need to worry about future consequences? Aided by a dumbed-down and lazy media which reports the debate as a “he said, she said” question rather than seeking out facts and scientific consensus, alongside echo-chamber social media, they are pushing against an open door.

Perhaps our end will come not with a bang or indeed any type of sudden event, but in the fug of a long drawn-out party.

There are limits to what can be controlled democratically

Tweet

 

If Knut had been Swiss rather than Danish, he could have called a referendum instead of having his courtiers carry his throne to the water’s edge. It wouldn’t have made any difference to the outcome, but at least he wouldn’t have got his feet wet demonstrating the limits of his authority. Some things are susceptible to human control, others less so; the difference isn’t always clear, especially when it comes to politics. On Sunday, the Swiss voted on a proposal to cap the country’s population at 10 million, a proposition which was defeated, but with a surprisingly high level of support (the result was 45%-55% on a 60% turnout). The proposition had nothing to do with the reproductive practices of the Swiss people, of course: it was really about immigration. Had the proposal been passed, the government would have found itself obliged to comply, primarily by limiting immigration. What they would have had to do if the Swiss started breeding at a rate which took the Swiss population not counting foreigners over the limit seems not to have been determined, although King Herod’s approach is the historical example which leaps to mind. Too unlikely a scenario to worry about, perhaps.

The figure of 10 million is entirely arbitrary, but the proposition was based on a fear that population growth would increase the pressure on housing etc. It’s a familiar refrain. When it comes to issues like housing, it’s inevitable that a larger population requires greater provision, and that’s true whether the growth is ‘natural’ or the result of immigration. The logical response to an increased demand for housing as a result of a growing population is to increase the housing stock. However, it seems that there are some who would prefer to evict ‘foreigners’ and deport them in order to allocate their homes to ‘natives’, even if they don’t always put it in those terms.

But ‘not always’ isn’t the same as ‘never’, and that brings us to Farage, who, at the weekend, announced his company’s new policy of evicting all foreign nationals from social housing, and deporting them if they can’t find private accommodation within three months. Evicting the unwanted from their homes and re-allocating those homes to others is not without historical precedent, as I’m sure Farage will be aware, although whether deportation is better or worse than being forced into formally demarcated ghettos is a question one might have hoped that we never had to debate. It was ‘interesting’ that, in his rant posing as an essay, Farage chose to make a simplistic distinction between ‘white British’ and ‘foreigners’. The implicit racism is both casual and revealing, and something which the use of language seeks to normalise.

Whether the UK has enough housing overall to serve all its population is a question which isn’t easy to answer; what is certain, though, is that there is a significant mismatch between the available type, location, and price of housing on the one hand and the needs of the current population on the other. I suspect the same is true in Switzerland. In either case, there’s something deeply irrational about setting out to adjust the demand (by controlling population numbers) rather than the supply (by building more homes). But then, rationality and racism have never made for good bedfellows.

Making the pie bigger isn't enough

Tweet

 

Politicians at both ends of the M4 place a great deal of emphasis on economic growth as a way of making us better off. It’s true, of course, that a bigger pie makes it possible for people to enjoy bigger slices – and making the pie bigger is a convenient way of avoiding questions about the way the pie is shared. Sometimes, vacuous phrases about rising tides lifting all boats are thrown into the debate, but it’s an analogy which isn’t as helpful as the initial image may appear. In the first place, only seaworthy boats are lifted – unseaworthy ones simply get inundated. Secondly, even for all the boats that are lifted, there is still a huge disparity between a superyacht and a dinghy, and rising tides do nothing to reduce that. Thirdly, at the risk of pushing the analogy too far, if the owner of the superyacht steals the sails and oars from the dinghy, the rising tide isn’t overly helpful to the guy in the dinghy.

The point is that whilst growth creates the potential to benefit all, the reality can be different: ignoring the question of distribution of benefit is akin to a belief in the magic of trickle-down economics. In the US, the proportion of GDP going to employees (through wages etc.) has fallen from a high of 58% in 1970 to around 51% today; over the same period, the proportion diverted into profit has risen to around 12%. There is a similar pattern in many other advanced economies, underlining the way in which the benefits of economic growth have been concentrated in fewer hands, leading to an increase in inequality. On the face of it, the UK is something of an outlier. According to this research, the proportions of GDP going to wages and profits have been remarkably stable in the UK, which might give us superficial hope that rising GDP will indeed benefit society more generally than is happening elsewhere.

As the research also makes clear, however, such high level statistics are hiding a pernicious growth in inequality. It’s not only the share of GDP going to ‘workers’ which matters, it’s also the way in which that is shared out amongst those workers. More detailed analysis shows an increasing remuneration gap between the lowest and highest paid workers, and that in turn leads to an increase in inequality, and means that an apparent increase in wealth is not being felt at all by many. It underlines the importance of governments avoiding a dependence on simplistic measures of ‘success’ such as overall GDP, or even average GDP per head. Growth per se is not enough. Even if growth is always possible and sustainable (which is a whole other, far from unimportant, question), we cannot ignore – as many politicians seem keen to do – the question of the way in which wealth and income are shared within society. Baking a bigger pie is not enough.

Tax is part of the cost of doing business, not an optional extra

Tweet

 

Politicians of various parties seem to be lining up to support a proposal from some in the hospitality sector to reduce the rate of VAT to 10%. There’s no doubt that the sector is currently facing a number of challenges, and it’s easy to see why governments and politicians may wish to aid the sector in order to maintain levels of employment. Tax cuts are probably the easiest way for governments to provide more support, since they can do little about the other costs being faced by those businesses. There is a problem, though, with the basic premise of the campaign, based around the slogan “VAT’s the problem”. The suggestion that ‘tax’ is causing the problem is fundamentally misleading, not to say dishonest: it owes more to neoliberal ideology than practical economics.

It may well be true that if businesses in a particular sector didn’t have to pay so much tax their profits would improve. But it would also be true that their profits would improve if they didn’t have to pay for raw materials, staff wages, or the costs of their premises. It’s not one element of their costs which causes the problem, it is the fact that they are unable to sell enough of their ‘product’ at a sufficiently high price to cover all their operating costs and make a profit. In terms of market economics, any business in such a position is technically non-viable. The most basic law of economics, the one that almost everyone knows, is the law of supply and demand, and that law tells us that if competition is so intense that prices cannot be raised to a viable level, then there is an oversupply in the market. And the natural economic solution to that is to reduce the supply – capitalism requires some companies to fail in order that price levels can rise. It’s another example of supporters of capitalism failing to understand how capitalism is supposed to work.

There may well be social and economic reasons why politicians may not consider that a desirable option, and there’s nothing inherently ‘wrong’ with taking a decision to find a way of delivering subsidies. We should not pretend, though, that a tax cut in such circumstances is somehow not a subsidy. Reducing government revenue in order to cut the costs of private businesses is always going to be a subsidy, however it’s presented. VAT, in particular, is supposed to be added to the bill after the business has set the price based on its costs and profit margin: theoretically, it isn’t paid by the business at all, but by the customer. Reducing it, whilst keeping the final price constant, simply allows the businesses to underprice their product by treating the cash they are no longer handing over to HMRC as part of the revenue generated from their business activity. 

The biggest danger of all is that politicians caught up in the demand for a VAT cut end up reinforcing the neoliberal narrative that tax is in some way an ‘extra’ cost rather than part of the financial environment in which businesses have to operate.

Are productivity and efficiency always good things?

Tweet

 

Will Hayward drew attention this week to the rather defeatist comment by a Reform Ltd MS that “we are not very good in Wales at being efficient in running things”. There’s a sense in which we should not be overly surprised at the comment; it is, after all, in line with the general view held by the unionist parties that Wales is too small and too poor, and Welsh people too stupid, to ever govern ourselves, and that we should defer to our betters in London. For a Reform Ltd politician to express similar views is on a par with the breaking news that the Pope is a Catholic; all he’s done is to repeat a weary old trope in rather more blunt language than that to which we are accustomed.

Leaving that aside, though, the thing that piqued my interest is the inherent assumption that ‘efficiency’ is always and necessarily a good thing anyway. It may seem blindingly obvious, and be a generally applicable rule, that it’s better to achieve a given goal with fewer resources; but being blindingly obvious doesn’t make something true. I’ve been around long enough to know that what’s obvious isn’t always true and what’s true isn’t always obvious. Whilst they’re not quite the same thing, there is a clear overlap between efficiency and productivity, and coincidentally the new Welsh Government announced this week that it will be setting a national productivity target aimed at closing the gap between Wales and the rest of the UK. The announcement itself makes it clear that many of the details are yet to be determined, so it’s impossible to predict the likelihood of success at this stage. The encouraging thing, though, is that it looks as if the target is to be set and monitored at a macro level, rather than being a micro-economic target for individual businesses or sectors.

That difference between the micro level and the macro level is an important one, and brings us back to the question of whether improved efficiency is always a good thing. For any individual business, the ability to produce the same output with, say, half the input in terms of labour is a huge financial advantage, and unquestionably a benefit for that business. But for the economy as a whole, producing the same output with half the input could simply leave half the workforce unemployed, an outcome which few would welcome – even the businesses which have achieved the savings, who could find that half their potential customers can no longer afford their products. Whether reducing the number employed in existing enterprises is a good thing or a bad thing thus depends on whether – or to what extent – those freed up resources can be employed on other useful activities. That is a lot harder to plan for and achieve, and increased use of AI in the drive for efficiency / productivity gains may make it more so.

It also opens up other questions, particularly about how the benefits of improved productivity / efficiency are distributed (increased wages, reduced working hours or increased profits, for example). Changing that distribution goes beyond the current powers of the Senedd, unfortunately. It would, though, be good to see, amongst the yet-to-be-announced metrics which will be used to measure success, an attempt to at least monitor who is benefitting, rather than simply assume that an overall average increase in productivity is sufficient in itself. Sometimes, a simplistic bottom line can obfuscate rather than clarify meaningful progress.

Identifying the right problem

Tweet

 

There was a report of an opinion poll in the i paper a few days ago on the issue of paying benefits to young people who are not in employment, education or training. The article itself is behind a paywall, but the data is available in Table 53 in this report. The headline figure was that 56% of those questioned believed that all benefits should be stopped for such people. As one might expect, the numbers vary between supporters of different parties, with those supporting parties of ‘the right’ most likely to support the proposition. Asked in isolation, it’s easy to see why so many might support that (why, the implication is, should anyone not seen to be ‘contributing’ expect to be supported?), but I wonder whether the implications have been thought through by those responding to the survey.

For people in that ‘NEET’ category, benefits are likely to be their only direct source of income; removing it implies that those 56% of respondents are quite happy for the young people to go without food, clothing or shelter. In reality, of course, many (but by no means all) in that category will be living with their parents, who would presumably be expected to continue paying the living costs for their adult offspring. The key economic fact to note, though, is that the withdrawal of benefits from anyone means that someone, somewhere, has their own spending power reduced. Maybe it’s the individuals directly affected, maybe it’s their parents who are obliged to divert money from their own discretionary expenditure. In economic terms, it matters little to the basic conclusion: somebody’s spending power would be reduced, with a consequent reduction in overall demand. In fact, there’s a more general point which this underlines – if a government cuts spending or increases taxation in pursuit of the alleged nirvana of a balanced budget, someone, somewhere must always have their spending power reduced.

The political question is that the ‘who’ and the ‘where’ are ultimately choices being made by politicians. The claims that ‘benefits’ or ‘pensions’ are unaffordable are not the result of some iron-clad law of economics; they are the direct result of political choices as to who should pay for the entirely arbitrary need to pursue a balanced budget. Worse, they are framed in such a way as to encourage us to believe that governments have no choice but to act to reduce such expenditure, and that the impact of doing so will be felt by ‘someone else’. But if we ask a rather different question, it’s easy enough to expose the lie. That question is, in simple terms, ‘are there enough resources in the UK to provide every citizen with a decent standard of living?’ The answer, unquestionably, is ‘yes, of course there are’. That we ‘choose’ not to use those resources to achieve that aim is down to ideology, not economics.

None of that, of course, provides an answer to the problem of so-called NEETs – but then neither does simply cutting their benefits. The only ‘problem’ that that solves is how we continue to ensure that resources are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. But that concentration of wealth is the much bigger economic problem.

Curiosity isn't enough to justify an inquiry

Tweet

 

There is no rule or mechanism which guarantees that members of a political party committed to the pursuit of a cause rather than merely power will be any more honest or less venal than mere careerists; nor that they will be any more resistant to temptation when it is waved in front of their noses. But, somehow, we all want to believe that ‘our’ side are more inherently honest and genuine than everybody else. As a result, the conviction, last week, of the former CEO of the SNP (and ex-husband of the former First Minister) somehow comes as more of a shock, to say nothing of disappointment, than the secret £5 million payment to Farage, or a whole host of financial scandals relating to other politicians in recent years.

Having been Treasurer of a party for five years in the 1980s, I’ll admit that I’m somewhat mystified as to how it can have happened. The level of scrutiny to which accounts were submitted back then was intense, and I distinctly remember lengthy meetings examining the budgets line by line looking for potential savings for a party which was perpetually cash-strapped. Things are different now: the advent of devolution has transformed the finances of parties which are now at the centre of events rather than eternally on the periphery. But still… The defence that the auditors had signed off the accounts looks rather weak to me. A thorough audit would surely have checked that expenditure (for large items as a minimum) was properly authorised and had an appropriate ‘paper’ trail in terms of invoices and receipts, but it’s hard to believe that to have been the case in relation to some of the items on the list. I find myself with a number of serious unanswered questions.

It’s true, as some of the SNP’s opponents have suggested, that the guilty plea means that those questions will never be aired in open court. That’s a pity – as much for the members of the party, who are the victims here, as for the wider public – but the idea that that justifies some sort of public inquiry is a strange one. I can see the attraction to the SNP’s opponents of demanding such an inquiry; keeping the scandal running for as long as possible has its political attractions for parties which have been unable to make a serious dent in the SNP’s popularity. But public inquiries are not cheap, and if one were to be set up for every resolved crime that left the curious with some unanswered questions, there would be an awful lot more public inquiries being held. Good news for the lawyers, I suppose, but probably not for the rest of us.

Whether the initial investigation was politically-motivated or not isn’t entirely clear – but the way it was handled, with a ‘murder tent’ outside the house and so forth, certainly looked a lot like a political act. Even the stated cause for the investigation, that money had been raised for one purpose and then spent on another, looked more than a little dodgy; the idea that specific pounds and pennies would somehow be locked away in a special account doesn’t look like a realistic expectation. It seems, though, that they found a real crime, even if it wasn’t quite the one they were looking for. It’s a disappointment, of course – but to return to my starting point, there is no rule which guarantees honesty, even amongst those apparently committed to a cause. Clay feet can appear even where they’re least expected.

Five million unanswered questions

Tweet

 

Labour’s decision to report the alleged hacking of Farage’s phone to the police is a gimmick, of course. Given the reluctance / inability (delete as applicable) of the boys in blue to investigate a whole host of crimes, diverting resources to a crime which the ‘victim’ himself has not seen fit to report is an unlikely prospect. But if the objective is to keep the story about Farage’s receipt of a £5 million gift running for a day or two longer, it is at least an effective gimmick. It’s reasonable to suppose that the attempt by Farage to turn the story into one about an illegal action performed against him was itself an attempt to divert attention from the £5 million, a generous gift which he continues to maintain is an entirely personal matter between friends.

But the ‘hacking’ story raises more questions as well. Farage is claiming that the ‘hacking’ was the result of a spear-phishing exercise. Assuming that to be true, then it wasn’t really what most of us would call ‘hacking’ at all: it means that he was conned into giving the attackers access to his phone and/or data. Still a crime, of course, just not quite the one which is being alleged. We’ve not been told what the messages were which induced him to part with the access codes to his data, but the possibility that revealing them might just be embarrassing could be one explanation for his coyness in involving the appropriate authorities. We also don’t know who the cyber-security experts were who have concluded that it was a “hostile state actor” behind the plot but, again, those experts seem not to have been the ones employed by the British state precisely to counter such actions against politicians and others.

It’s easy to see why, tactically, Farage might want to blame Russia. Given the suggestions that he and his party are too friendly by far towards Putin, putting some distance between him and the Kremlin looks like a reasonable plan. But hold on a moment – let’s look at this from the other side. Why exactly would Russia want to bring down Farage (and it’s reasonable to suppose that to be the aim of the leak of information)? Looked at from the Kremlin, the best chance of getting a more Russia-friendly government in the UK at the next General Election is through getting Reform Ltd elected, and all the conventional wisdom suggests that is more likely under Farage than under any alternative leader. That must surely be as obvious to Putin as it is to me, so why sabotage the campaign?

There are still far too many unanswered questions about that mysterious £5 million and the events surrounding it.