All in this together…?

What follows is offered up in the hope that someone more knowledgeable & resourceful than me will either confirm or discredit it with reference to some facts & sources. It’s just a line of argument I’ve been pushing here & there (twitter mostly) which I think, if true, needs airing often. I’ll keep it brief & high-level.

The dominant political narrative at the moment goes something like this:

• Pre-2008 a small elite in the banking industry enriched themselves via business practices & financial instruments that turned out to be massively flawed.
• Consequently the global economy crashed leaving governments to pick up the pieces & bail out various banks and institutions at great expense.
• In turn that  led to huge spending cuts impacting ordinary working people who weren’t responsible for those practices and didn’t benefit from them pre-2008.
• This is all unfair and needs addressed.

I know that’s simplistic but that’s the point – both David Cameron and everyone on the steps of St Paul’s would agree with every word and only once you got into the nuance and detail or the policy prescriptions needed to address it would the differences emerge

So here’s my – possibly erroneous and fact-free at the moment – rebuttal:

• The ‘benefits’ from those now discredited business practices didn’t just go to this ‘small elite’. Yes some people got ridiculously rich via them but the public purse was also hugely enriched and that benefited all.
• Or, to put it another way, imagine in the decade pre-crash government receipts didn’t include the corporation taxes & income taxes paid by these companies and the ‘elite’ who run them; would the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme have been anywhere near as well funded? Would the record investment in health spending have happened?

As I said at the top I don’t have the talent or time to trawl the ONS or Treasury website to validate or discredit any of this so if anyone has already done so – or would like to – I would really love to know.

It’s worth pointing out that my rebuttal is pretty ‘left/right neutral’ – you could accept it as a starting premise to argue for a wide range of solutions so this isn’t about which ‘side’ is right here. It doesn’t in anyway diminish the validity of calls for real banking reform, a more balanced economy etc. It just feels sensible, given how widely accepted that original premise is to make sure it’s accurate or call out any flaws, hence this plea for help.

Blogging silence will now resume….. ta.

Philip Gould & Contributory Fairness….

In Jonathan Derbyshire conversation with Philip Gould (this week’s New Statesman) the idea of ‘contributory fairness’ crops up a few times:

Contributory fairness is important, too. This came up all the time in the focus groups: the sense that some people are working hard and other people are getting the benefit and that this is unfair. This is a slightly different notion of fairness from the progressive one, which is that people should be treated fairly on the basis of social justice. It would have been better if we had been more explicit about our values. It’s one of the things that I feel we could have done better.

Gould claims – rightly I think – that both parties are desperate to demonstrate they’ve grasped this point but I’m interested in the different ways this idea can play out depending on the context and how that benefits or hinders their electoral pitch.

Our sense of contributory fairness can be offended from two angles – the perception that for some people benefits are a lifestyle choice rather than a safety net (call it bottom-up CF) or a sense of resentment over the level of executive pay & bonuses and the disconnect from effort (call it top-down CF). In the current climate both types have some electoral purchase but I think it’s reasonably safe to say that over the longer term – and certainly pre-2008 – the bottom-up fairness angle is the more politically potent. The question is why?

I suspect in the minds of most of the public an exorbitant bonus or salary paid to a CEO isn’t thought to have ‘came from their pocket’ in any way. There might be resentment or a belief that is was ‘undeserved’ but I think there’s a tendency for people thinking that way to dismiss such thoughts as jealousy or sour grapes. Thinking a little deeper of course you arrive at the conclusion that the funds could have been used for higher dividends, avoiding less tax, bigger pay rises for employees etc. but deeper thought like that isn’t particularly common and it doesn’t lend itself to easy headlines or soundbites in the pub.

Benefit fraud is very different. People feel almost personally cheated because they read a payslip each month with a very clear note of the funds taken from their wages to support those welfare payments. Again the real situation is far more nuanced than that and I’m not denying that complexity – just pointing out that it’s far easier to make political capital from that bottom-up sense of grievance than it is from the top-down one.

Can’t we understand AND condemn?

Regretting his loss of temper on R4′s Moral Maze Matthew Taylor calls for a more nuanced attitude to wrongdoing in terms of condemnation vs understanding:

“The balance between condemning and understanding is difficult to get right and so is that between punishment and rehabilitation. I certainly failed to find that balance last night but as I read today of yet more ways of punishing poor offenders and, in the same news cycle more evidence that many parts of the UK are close to being economically dead, I can’t help wondering how we can try to develop an account of wrongdoing which integrates both the need for individual responsibility and for tackling social deprivation.”

I think there’s two separate things going on here. First the idea of  ‘balance’ between those two reactions – condemnation and understanding – seems flawed. And secondly, however important it is to understand social causes when framing policy there are occasions when it’s more appropriate to stress condemnation rather than understanding.

To completely understand something is to have a full account of it, the details of the ‘thing’ itself, the context it sits in, the immediate & longer term causes, the impacts and consequences etc. Whether you happen to wholly condemn the ‘thing’ or not is immaterial to that level of understanding – it’s not a zero-sum game where the only way to enhance your understanding of something is to soften your condemnation of it. Politicians on all sides should take some of the blame here; remember John Major’s call to ‘understand a little less & condemn a little more’?

The implied conflict is nonsense of course – informed, intelligent people can do both independently. Moreover – in the case of the recent riots – we should do both.

In terms of developing public policy of course condemnation isn’t useful at all – Matthew’s absolutely right to say that policymakers must develop ‘an account of wrongdoing which integrates both the need for individual responsibility and for tackling social deprivation’. But it’s worth remembering that the media isn’t (thank goodness!) the primary platform for public policy making – when a politician has a microphone thrust under their nose while a riot is actually going on, while the police are on the streets trying to restore order, it seems pedantic at best, dangerous at worse to imply ANY sort of justification or explanation for the events (which, however wrongly, is how any discussion of ‘root causes’ would be understood).

That’s how I understood the criticisms of Ed Miliband, Ken Livingstone and others for trying to discuss root causes and talk about social deprivation; not as a rejection of the idea that those things have anything to do with the events of early August, just a recognition that articulating that in the wrong place or the wrong time isn’t wise.

On Annie Lennox…

Annie Lennox belongs to that class of pop star a little too desperate to be ‘taken seriously’. I’ve never heard or read anything she’s said which didn’t, within about 90 seconds, arrive at a demand to be considered an ‘artist’ whose output we should ‘respect’ (rather, by implication, than ‘enjoyed’).

Her New Statesman interview this week is no different. But what caught my eye was this:

Do you vote?
For many years I didn’t. I thought: I don’t believe in this political system, so not voting is valid. Then I voted Labour in 1997. But I was disgusted and hugely disillusioned by the invasion of Iraq. If I’m going to vote, I want to believe 100 per cent in who I’m voting for. So I’m back to not voting.

I could understand that sort of naivety from a younger musician but Annie will be 60 in a few years; she prides herself on her activism and engagement in various political issues and has made admirable contributions to many, many campaigns. She also rose to public prominence in the 1980s; politically a very volatile time. To neglect the most basic & powerful democratic right you have on the basis that you can’t “believe 100 per cent’ in any of the candidates is astonishingly stupid.

It lends weight to the oft-levied charge that Lennox’s public campaigning is as much about sustained profile & ego as it is about the issues themselves.

On the other hand…

Nothing ill-suits me to the world of blogging & online politics more than my aversion to partisanship. One of the few things that unites the uber-tribalists of the left & right is a loathing of us mushy independent sorts who can’t be relied on to pull rank.

I’ve long argued that the ebb & flow between left & right – and I mean the broadest possible conceptions of those terms – is what ‘works’ in our political system, it’s what drives progress and makes Britain the country it is. The posture “I could never vote for [insert name of major party]” is actually faintly ridiculous and marks out the persons as rather unthinking.

David Brooks makes a similar point today:

“Each party took different whacks at pieces of the great national problem, depending on its interests. Opposing parties, when it was their turn in power, quietly consolidated the best of what the other had achieved. Gradually, through constructive competition, the country quarreled its way forward.”

What David Cameron should say about NHS reform

Later today David Cameron will give a speech to health workers in an attempt to rally support for NHS reform in the Health and Social Care Bill. Here are a few things I’d like to hear him say.

1. The NHS is too important to remain a political taboo – The NHS was conceived & designed for a very different country to the one we live in now. Those of us who want to see it endure need to recognise that and have the courage to examine it closely, to acknowledge it’s failings as well as it’s successes. “Leave well alone” is not an option and anyone who suggests as much is no friend of the NHS.  The way we fund & deliver healthcare nationally is absolutely a topic that needs to be on the table and it’s too important to be ‘politically sensitve’ or something ‘off-limits’ for political discussion.
2. The ‘profit motive’ is already a major part of the NHS  - the phrase ‘profit motive’ is often used by opponents of reform as though it was completely contrary to the founding principles of the NHS. But every syringe, bedpan & heart monitor; every wheelchair, ambulance & MRI scanner; every bandage, pacemaker or drug delivered in the NHS is there via the profit motive . And for the most part that’s been the case since the NHS was established more than 60 years ago. Yet nobody is calling for the government to start providing these things or questioning what impact the ‘profit motive’ has on their provision. There are limits of course; it would be wholly wrong to allow the pursuit of profit at the expense of quality of care or clinical standards so if anyone feels these reforms do that let’s call it out, have that discussion. But let’s acknowledge the reality of how the NHS works at the moment.
3. Let’s remember what’s REALLY important about the NHS – good quality healthcare, free at the point of delivery, irrespective of the ability to pay. That, in a single sentence, is what the NHS is about. It’s not about this model or that model, it’s not about whether or not someone somewhere is making a profit, it’s not even about who actually delivers that healthcare and who’s employing them. There are important discussions to be had about all those things but in each there’s a range of opinion that stays true to the fundamental purpose of the NHS.

Be wary of those who want to ‘elevate the debate’.

Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post on Obama’s readiness to demonise the Republicans:

“The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith.”

This chimes with my suggestion for John Rentoul’s ‘Banned List’ earlier this week – the phrase ‘elevate the debate’ – and is something we in the UK need to be particularly alive to given the tensions in the coalition government and a Labour party trying to find a strong, popular voice.

When politicians use this frame the pretence that they are above partisan or ideological motives while their opponents are steeped in them and it’s nearly always used disingenuously. The public have a low view of partisan or ideological interests (interesting discussion to be had on whether that’s fair) and so to tarnish your opponents with that is a cheap way to land a blow without having to really engage in the substance of the issue.

Not much of an alternative…

Take a look at the video below, the winning entry in the TUC 60 Second Ad contest, championed by falseeconomy.org.uk and set to feature in Saturday’s ‘March for the Alternative’ rally:

 

Where to start?

The most obvious & fundamental objection is that it doesn’t actually offer an alternative at all. It closes by asking us not to ‘burden our kids with a lifetime of debt’ but doesn’t point out that debt already exists or articulate any alternative plan to reduce it. Next the crude, tiresome stereotype – “Tories quaff champagne & send children up chimneys”. It will of course have the desired effect on a big screen on Saturday,  whipping attendees into a frenzy of class hatred but were I serious about trying to win this national debate I’d have hoped for something a little more mature & measured.

It’s also completely ignorant of the wider political context. The supposed “gambling away” of money took place largely under and by the party most of these protestors support, not the party implementing the changes. The ‘reckless with our future charge’ can’t be levelled credibly at a government in power for some 10 months, it can & should be levelled at the last administration. Whatsmore had Labour remained in office the pace & scale of the cuts may have differed a little but would undoubtedly have still angered & irritated those that take to the streets on Saturday. To just ignore this context is to belittle their own argument.

Now, I’m not naturally sympathetic to those marching on Saturday but this video still disappoints me because it leaves the debate hopelessly one-sided.

Consider the context – after less than a year in office an unpopular coalition government is implementing a once-in-a-generation scaling back of public spending. The media is awash with stories of closed local libraries, reduced or cancelled services and increasing financial hardship for many people. The first of these cuts will bite formally in less than a week. Growth forecasts have been paired back, borrowing forecasts increased, unemployment predicted to rise and a confident neo-Keynesiasm more than holds its own across the media landscape.

Are we really saying, with that sort of background & wider context that the above is the best the government’s opponents have to offer?

On ‘cuts’ and ‘savings’….

Johann Hari takes issue with David Cameron’s preference for the word ‘savings’ over ‘cuts’:

“Let’s start with the word “cuts”. It is not a pejorative. I have cut the amount of food I eat over the past year, and I’m proud of it. I have cut the amount of time I spend reading fiction, and I’m dismayed by it. The word neutrally and aptly describes both. It means simply “to reduce the size, extent or duration of”. The word “savings” means something different – and they are not synonymous.”

I have a couple of problems with this.

Firstly, in political dialogue ‘cuts’ is clearly a pejorative. Were it not Gordon Brown wouldn’t have fought so vociferously against using it or went to such lengths to associate the Tories with it. In the examples he cites it’s not, in every day political usage it is.

Secondly I have no sympathy with this sudden enthusiasm for semantic purity. People have been pointing out for years that slowing the growth of something is not the same as cutting it. Despite this that subtlety has been lost entirely and it’s now a given that lower (or slower) increases are routinely described as ‘cuts’.

So I’m quite happy for Johann to call out Cameron when he misuses the term ‘savings’. Let’s hope he’s equally fastidious in his semantics the next time he accuses the government of cutting public expenditure.

** UPDATE **

I challenged Johann on this via email also and he’s now replied so, in the interests of fairness, the reply is below:

“Yes, I agree with that. A cut is a reduction. You can say they are "cutting the rate of growth", or in the case of the NHS, "cutting the money per patient" (because the population is growing and getting older, meaning they need more medical help, so while the gross spending is going up, per patient it is falling) - but a growth shouldn't be called a cut.“

Michael Flatley is from Chicago…

I have friends whose explanation for the economic collapse is no more sophisticated (or right) than this man’s but they won’t mind me saying they’re not quite as entertaining as he is. I believe the correct phrase is ‘not suitable for work’ if you know what I mean, language is a little ripe! And for the record the interviewer’s right about Mr Flatley’s provenance….

Hat-tip Bob Piper