Last week in a book sale I picked up for 10p a battered copy of a book entitled ‘Britain in Wonderland’ published in 1948 by Gollancz. The author was RWG (Kim) Mackay, the Labour MP for Hull North West, 1945 –1950.* What struck me (and convinced me to part with 10p) was the cover blurb ‘We want something more attractive than austerity at home, more imaginative than work or want, & more realistic than an impossible export drive.’ Dipping into Mackay’s immediate post-war analysis, it seems clear to me that many of the establishment remedies for a flailing economy are still being touted today, captured in the banal idiocy spouted by Osborne/Reeves/Starmer that the ‘credit card is maxed out’ with its echoes of Thatcher’s likening of the UK economy to a household budget. Mackay criticised the Attlee government for bringing a basket of short term fixes to the table when what was needed he said were long term solutions which could in turn have more immediate policy aims. He saw the creation of a single European market in a federal structure as being one of the long-term solutions for an industrial economy which needed a market greater than its domestic size to flourish. He was therefore an early exponent of European integration. Mackay supported Attlee’s great nationalisations but I suspect he thought they could have gone further. Having said that, I think he romanticised the Soviet economic model under ’Marshall Stalin’ - even if it did deliver some public goods in terms of greater literacy and healthcare (Tsarist Russia no doubt set a very low bar on those fronts).
How prescient was Mackay? The full section from which the cover’s blurb is taken says ‘There is no hope for the British people if we follow the present economic policy of the Government. We want a long-term policy which takes into account our changed position, phrased in terms which recognises the changes that have taken place in the world. We want something more attractive than austerity at home, more imaginative than work or want, and more realistic than an impossible export drive.’ (p.95) The three items here sum up where we are today: a failed austerity program about which we all now know and suffer the consequences; employment practices which are little better (if at all) than ‘workfare’ (where to boot wages have to be subsidised by the state) and finally the failed appeal to globalisation where we can see our ‘competitive advantage’ disappearing faster than Norman Wisdom’s space rocket (for those who remember). Mackay pinpoints a key failure of economic policy, referencing Lord Thomas Balogh (economist and later Harold Wilson advisor), ‘the more unequal the distribution of wealth between countries and within each country the more likely and the more violent is the world economic system. For the war which has destroyed large areas of Europe and Asia, continents where poverty was already acute and which at the same time increased the productive capacity of the Western Hemisphere and most especially of North America very sharply, necessarily increased the inequality of distribution of wealth in the world economy.’ (p.117) The fruits of globalisation have not changed since the accrual of wealth persists in the way Mackay and Balogh described. What they didn’t consider in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War was that the fruits of globalisation could now threaten human extinction thanks to the use of fossil fuels. At the time the natural world consequences were seen as an externality, not a concern of economics. But I wouldn’t condemn Mackay for that—I think the key quality of his thinking was that he was prepared to argue against a failed orthodoxy, even if it emanated from his own party. Now a failure to deal with climate change will just multiply the dangers inherent in global inequality. Starmer’s ditching of the £28billion green investment pledge is symptomatic of the lack of a long-term approach Mackay sought. Mackay also deals with the issue of national debt. To sum up: The credit card’s maxed out? My arse! *Mackay wrote ‘Britain In Wonderland’ after Victor Gollancz had heard one of his speeches in the House of Commons and asked if he would like to write it up as a book. I like the sound of that.
0 Comments
+A brief visit to Edinburgh gave me the opportunity to see the seven Oscar winning film Oppenheimer. I'm not sure I would have given it so many. It was far too long at three hours for a start, and consequently seemed to travel down a lot of avenues which whilst relevant no doubt in the director's mind occasionally seemed too tangential for this member of the audience. Well, at least one got a fairly complete picture of Oppenheimer's activities in and out of bed (an opportunity for a bit of naked flesh to creep in). I also found the direction somewhat frenetic at times, as if quantum physics could be illustrated with brief explosive moments of galactic, primordial chaos. There were so many of these visual-sonic interjections they rather dimmed the impact of the big bang when it finally came - it didn't look nearly as impressive as the real thing. At the very local level I guessed right that most people who wanted to see it will have already done so, and thus the cinema was virtually empty. One reason I don't bother much going to the flicks anymore is having to share the space with gabbling, mobile phone wielding numpties. Despite the place being near empty, three of said types just had to sit near me, and I just had to tell them to shut up. Their behaviour is surely as irritating as a concert audience clapping between a symphony's movements. Another issue I have (you've got this far after all) is the deafening volume of the sound system. It was so loud it was at times impossible to discern what was being said. This seems to be a common feature of the contemporary cinema experience. It's like every time someone shuts a door it must sound like the apocalypse has arrived. Idiotic.
+Having a wee trip to Edinburgh can have its downsides. My booked train I was informed became 'cancelled' so I had to rebook at extra expense. Then I got an email saying it was not cancelled after all, but by then it was too late to change back. I think I will get a refund. On return, my connecting train from York was half an hour late (another refund) - the reason for its lateness was 'it was late leaving the depot.' Which is like saying the train's late because it’s late, hardly an explanation. I think the time has come to compile a book of non-explanation explanations. Of course, the reason my original Edinburgh train was shown as cancelled was due to the best non-explanation ever, viz 'technical issues.' Such a publication could also have a big section on non-apology apologies. +The sad saga of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle continues, as he failed to call Diane Abbott at this week’s PMQs, even though she was the subject of discussion. Hoyle has clearly lost his grip. In a bid to protect him (and Starmer) over his SNP Gaza amendment debacle, his three deputies have now rejected a request from MPs for an inquiry into what he and Starmer discussed. They concluded such discussions should be kept private, and it would set a precedent to reveal the content. Ironic, given Hoyle’s disregard for precedent. As I predicted (Blog 16th January) Lee Anderson has jumped ship again, now to the Reform Party. Being a man of honour he’s not resigning his seat to test whether his constituents actually want a Reform MP. That’s too risky, especially after Reform’s poor showing in the Rochdale by-election. But I hear you say, what about poor old Henry Grisewood? Indeed. As of today, Henry is still listed as Reform’s parliamentary candidate in Ashfield on the party’s website. This is what he has had to say ‘Henry is standing for Reform UK because he has had enough of the mediocre representation that has been given to the people of Ashfield and Great Britain, and believes that to bring true change, we need to change our voting habits, and not just continue to allow an unelected government to make vital decisions that are not a real representation of what the people need.’ (emphasis added) You’ve got to agree with Henry about the mediocrity. But now presumably he’ll be out door knocking for 30p Lee. That’s real change for you.
Thanks to BBC Radio Four's Profile programme I have learnt a little about Sir Paul Marshall, a mega-wealthy hedge fund chap who is the major backer of the baleful GB News. Happily, it seems GB News lost £42 million last year. They ought to ask themselves whether Rees-Smug and ‘30p’ Lee Anderson are worth it, two of their shining shining stars. Marshall is a committed Christian it seems, so as a mega wealthy person, gives a little bit of his wealth away to good causes, although I suspect he still wouldn’t be able to squeeze through the eye of a needle. And I’m sure that as wealth/income inequality has grown massively in the UK over recent years he probably doesn't see himself as part of the problem. But he is precisely one of the causes of inequality. Along with his industry compatriots. Now it seems he wants to buy the Daily Telegraph, which has led to the following headline in said paper (courtesy of MSN 10/3/24): ‘GB News-backer Paul Marshall ‘unfit to own a newspaper’, claims Telegraph bidder’. The bidder, the story reveals is a chap called Jeff Zucker, ‘the former CNN boss who now runs investment vehicle RedBird IMI, [who] criticised Sir Paul after he was accused of endorsing social media posts espousing “far-Right ideologies, Islamophobia, and conspiracy narratives”’. Apparently ‘The social media posts he “liked” on Twitter/X included ones that warned there had “never been a country that has remained peaceful with a sizeable Islamic presence” and that Muslim immigration was a form of “infiltration” that would lead to “the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic theocracy”, according to the charity Hope Not Hate. ‘ ‘Sir’ Paul has deleted the post and has said such thoughts do not represent his views, which begs a few questions. Perhaps he was just joking. Or can’t read.
So there’s one mover and shaker who hopes to guide the UK out of its current hell hole into the next one. But I also read of other ones who seem to typify the age of private influence we live in. This came in the form of a book review (Cuckooland: Where the rich own the truth, Tom Burgis, William Collins) in the New Statesman where we learn about Mohamed Amersi and Ben Eliot and the way doors are opened (and sometimes closed) when money rubs shoulders with politics. Judging by the review I will have to read the book but suffice to say when these people talk about our country—they only envisage enhancing their own wealth, bugger the rest of us. None of this is new of course, and as we know the filthy rich can do what they like ‘as long as they pay their taxes’ (which they don’t at the level they should). Thankfully Labour will put a stop to all this. The filthy rich will not influence Labour’s policies in any way whatsoever. And what’s more, Labour will put a stop to cronyism in the awarding of public contracts, following the Tories’ VIP nudge-nudge wink-wink Covid PPE scandal. The latter bit will be very welcome, but I’m afraid I have little faith the former assertion will stand. Labour’s leaders may not inhabit the same milieu as the Tories, but the company of millionaires (preferably billionaires) will not be eschewed when the time comes. Government budgets used to be serious affairs, so much so that when a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer back in the Fifties hinted what might be in his budget before telling parliament he had to resign (subs to fill in the details). Now the biggest thing in Jeremy Hunt’s budget was all but officially announced well before the event. Namely, a two pence cut in National Insurance contributions—something that doesn’t help the poorest who are below the NI threshold, nor pensioners who don’t pay NI full stop. Middle income earners may benefit a little, although the freeze on uprating income tax thresholds will see more of their income clawed back. Big deal all round. Many commentators have looked at this budget through a lens focused on this year's general election, but it’s really about general election 2028 or 2029—the thinking being that by tying Labour’s hands to an unaffordable tax cut now, Labour (as usual) will have to risk a lot of unpopularity seeking to repair the damage done by the Tories. This then should pave the way for their return in the subsequent general election. Since the current Labour leadership faction is thoroughly wedded to economic orthodoxy, there seems little chance that they will escape a drubbing in four or five years’ time, and any modest gains in that period will be washed away just as they usually are. But as somebody once said, hope springs eternal.
Charles Bradlaugh, you died in vain. The nineteenth century radical MP was elected, and re-elected to the House of Commons several times. His plurality of elections happened because he refused to utter an oath pledging his faith in God. He wanted a secular oath. Eventually, such an oath was introduced, and is still an alternative today, as it is in the courts. (I can’t remember all the details of Bradlaugh’s history, so correct me if I’m wrong.) Fast forward to the oath taking of one George Galloway MP—according to the news he went full throttle: ‘“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.” A picture had him clutching what looked like a Bible, but it could have been the Koran. George clearly didn’t have that radical no-nonsense firebrand rhetoric to hand on this occasion—I suspect he just wanted to get the officialdom over and done with as quickly as possible to make the most of the predictably limited time he will on this occasion spend in parliament. So, the King Charles III loyalist has sworn his allegiance to his liege, Charley Boy the Third. George’s fans everywhere will even now be drafting their excuses for their hero’s abject subject-status. For myself, a republican, taking the secular oath, which still had a reference to loyalty to the Queen was fairly straightforward. As you can see from the above, the oath includes the word ‘successors’ which so far as I was concerned could mean elected successors, never mind ‘heirs’ - I wonder who felt it appropriate to go one step further than ‘heirs?’ Anyway I took my cue on this oath-taking business from an RAF recruiting sergeant who told me when I signed up, in response to my declaration that I was an atheist, that it didn’t matter one bit if I swore on the Bible or a bottle of Newcastle Brown. My conscience was thus left undisturbed (although later in basic training they had me down as a Methodist for some reason).
According to the opinion polls, President Trump and Prime Minister Starmer will be elected more or less at the same, promising four years of co-existence. Starmer has said that whatever the result of the US elections, he will of necessity have to work with whoever sits in the Oval office. Given Starmer’s current record of obeisance to the US, this does not augur well. His alleged collusion with US security interests over Julian Assange is a telling example. His absolute commitment to NATO another—although in this case Trump in his blundering way may accidentally set a trap or two. Then there’s the much vaunted post-Brexit trade deal with the US, which Biden has shown little enthusiasm for. Will that change under Trump? I suspect there won’t be any progress there, given Trump’s protectionist views—so if something were to emerge it wouldn’t likely be anything advantageous to the UK. Unlike Theresa May, I don’t think Starmer will be rushing across the pond to be seen to be the first to hold hands with Trump. I imagine The Great Buffoon (Trump, that is) will be keener to entertain his like-minded autocrats from abroad. Could Starmer imagine himself to be a restraining influence on Trump? The precedents don’t serve us well. Blair and Bush, anyone? So at the moment it’s hard to see how this relationship will pan out, if it pans out at all. The notion of a ‘special relationship’ will become even more specious. One happy consequence of this could be a rejuvenated relationship with the EU, which Starmer wants apparently and which I am sure would be very welcome in Europe where growing nationalisms loom. This doesn’t mean undoing Brexit. In fact, I’m not sure what it would mean if we were looking for concrete outcomes. But if it meant Starmer became more engaged with Brussels than Trump I wouldn’t complain.
Unless there’s a shop in Rochdale that sells something called ‘tectonic plates’ in which George Galloway had a bull in a china shop experience, his victory speech last night contained little of significance for the general direction of political events in the UK. The commentariat have already dismissed his success as fleeting and of little consequence. It’s hard not to agree. Galloway’s record is relatively successful in by-elections but he generally stands down or loses at the subsequent general election. Electoral Calculus gives him a 5% chance of winning later this year. If anything I fear that Galloway’s victory will stiffen Starmer’s support for Israel’s war against Palestinians since that is precisely the reaction one would expect from the establishment when faced with a controversialist disrupter. Starmer I doubt will imagine that there are any lessons to be learnt from Gorgeous George’s victory, since Labour had effectively pulled out of the contest. Nothing to see here, move on. But Labour does need to quickly select its next Rochdale parliamentary candidate to mount an effective campaign against Galloway. I’m not sure I would describe Galloway as a populist so it was cheering at least to see that the party of populists, Reform performed so badly. Perhaps they chose the wrong candidate. At least over the next few months the re-insertion of Galloway into parliament may provide a distraction from the equally voluble Lee Anderson.
It’s crept back in! That ever so patronising (condescending? I always get the words mixed up) phrase ‘hard working families’ is back. Here’s a sentence from the Toolmaker’s Son’s speech at some photo-op in the Midlands: ‘It’s time for change. My Labour government will be different. We’ll run a patriotic economy where Britain’s interest is centre stage and Britain's hardworking families reap the rewards.’ I wonder about these hard working families. How shall we measure the productivity of the two year olds amongst them? Perhaps in the over-arching ‘patriotic economy’ they will be given a say on whether yet another American hedge fund should snatch yet another chunk of the NHS, or whether some Indian conglomerate should decimate the British steel industry—such as it is. Does a ‘patriotic economy’ have anything to do with repatriating core industries—not just their location but their ownership? I doubt that Starmer has got this far, even if Biden is seeking to e.g. rebuild USA’s microchip manufacturing capacity. We’ll have to wait and see what, if anything Starmer lifts from the Biden patriotic economy plan, even if Starmer’s grand investment in the green economy has already been shredded, unlike in the States where Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act survived its passage through Congress, albeit a wee bit battered. I have just watched an interview with Yanis Varoufakis on a You Tube show hosted by ‘Joe’ (sorry I’ve lost the link) where Yanis tells viewers that Starmer has got nothing between his ears, which translates as no analysis. For Starmer to use the phrase ‘patriotic economy’ precisely encapsulates what living in an analysis-free world means. On the other hand, I suspect President Presumptive Trump has a clearer idea, but he just happens to be congenitally incapable of delivering it, having built his empire on fraud and Russian oligarchs’ money.
A Tory grandee has died but the dear departed has received little attention. I refer to Patrick (Lord) Cormack whose parliamentary career spanned several centuries. I can’t say I knew him intimately, indeed I can’t really say I knew him at all (our clubs never crossed—Ackroyd Street Working (sic) Mens Club and the Carlton didn’t have a reciprocal arrangement) but where our interests did converge was in the All Party Parliamentary Arts Group. This was one of the great privileges for me of being an MP, since we were often invited to events and previews, and Patrick would, with his jowly gravitas make a little laudatory speech each visit, e.g. in honour of the Tate or the National Gallery, extolling the virtues of culture. His Wikipedia entry had him down as a wet and a Heathite. I can imagine him singing some Schubert lieder with Heath at the piano in the No. 10 flat. Not quite Thatcher’s kind of Tory because so far as I can tell Thatcher had no appreciation of high culture whatsoever. He may have been a Tory, but I suspect he understood the value of the arts, a sensibility nowadays largely absent among Tory MPs, whose understanding of the subject is constrained entirely by the dreaded word ‘woke.’ Patrick will now rest in peace, probably haunting a box at the Royal Opera House. His Wiki entry amused me when it recorded that at a constituency selection meeting, the result was disallowed because more votes had been recorded than there were electors. Starmer take note! (Got that one in.)
|
Archives
March 2024
|