Category Archives: Politics

Putting Humpty Together Again

Posted on by
Reply

4th February, 2011


Nick Clegg, speaking on Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning, came out fighting with a “new model” for economic growth.


Or, if not yet a new model, it will be, when they’ve come up with it.  It seems coming up with a plan “is not an overnight job” and “you can’t just put Humpty Dumpty back together again”.


The economy, he argued, needs rebalancing.  It has been overly focussed on financial services.  It has been fuelled by indebtedness.  We’ve had growth “on the never-never”.  It is unsustainable.


I don’t think anyone could argue that it wouldn’t be nice to have more industry and less reliance on services in our economy.  Unfortunately we were deindustrialised by the Tories… but if there’s a way to get manufacturing going again, hurrah.


I don’t think anyone could argue that the private sector is not massively indebted; this is perhaps an unfortunate product of stability and particularly interest-rate stability.  Cheap – reliably cheap – money.  It’s hard not to feel jittery about that as the spectre of stagflation looms.


Trouble is, noticing that we have been over-exposed to the financial sector, or that cheap money has produced an indebted private sector, doesn’t amount to a plan for growth.


Mr Clegg suggests there are four elements to such a plan:


1) to wean the economy off debt-financed growth


2) to invest in infrastructure, skills and education


3) to boost competitiveness by reducing regulation and tax


4) to balance growth across regions and sectors


On 1) (weaning the economy off debt-financed growth) it is hard to square this idea with the constant calls for the banks to lend more to business.  Perhaps consumers are also borrowing too much, with cheap money fuelling a housing boom.  But mortgages are now very hard to get and the housing market is in dire straits.  Whichever way you look at it, debt-fuelled over-consumption seems to be the least of our problems.


On 2) (investing in infrastructure, skills and education) it is hard to see this government investing in anything.  School rebuilding has been abandoned.  Crossrail survived by the skin of its teeth, as did the high speed rail plans.  What new infrastructure might we expect?  Don’t hold your breath, dear reader.  As for “skills and education” the intentions of the Tory-led government are very clear.  They’ve completely withdrawn funding for whole swathes of higher education.


On 3) (reducing regulation and tax) these sound good.  Who likes regulation and tax?  But what does this really mean?  Are we going to reduce regulation of the banks?  I doubt it.  Regulation is there for a reason.


Are we going to reduce tax?  It doesn’t look like we can afford to.  Taxes, in fact, are going up.  Personally I don’t worry about that, because I don’t think slackening the tax regime helps growth.  Investment is driven by the desire for profit.  Spotting the chance to make a buck.  And that needs a vibrant economy – people with money in their pockets, willing to spend.  Sure tax plays a part in determining costs and profit, but if nobody has any money to buy my ice cream, you can cut my taxes all you like, I still have no sales, no profit, no tax.  Costs matter, but demand matters more.  And demand comes first.


On 4) rebalancing the economy, oh, go on then.  Let’s have some industry and not just a service economy.  And let the north thrive.  Might be a good idea to fund some regional development agencies to make that happen.  Oh no – we already have those.  Created in 1998.   Abolished on 22 June 2010. Closing soon.



The Tory-led government believes in the ‘crowding-out argument’ which I have discussed elsewhere in this blog.  When demand drops out of the economy, those who believe in the “crowding out” credo jump into action.  They cut demand even more, by slashing government spending and throwing people onto the dole.    Nick Clegg says, “we can’t just put Humpty Dumpty together again” as if that justified what they are doing to Humpty – namely to kick seven shades of shit out of him. 


The truth is I’m being mischievous when I scrutinize Clegg’s “plan”.  And so is Labour and everyone else who asks the government “where’s your plan for growth?”  Because we all know that the credo cannot allow alternatives.  The deficit reduction drive IS the plan for growth.  The dismantling of the state IS the plan for growth.  The stepping-back of government in order for the private sector to “do its thing” (or not) IS the plan for growth.


There’s no Plan B for Humpty.  We all know that.  Would somebody please tell Nick Clegg?



 

 

 

Women’s Attitudes Towards Men

Posted on by
Reply

15th January, 2011


I’ve been sent a home-video copy of my brother Anthony’s play, Whale Music, from 1982.


I know it by heart, and I sing the songs which go with it almost daily.  Nevertheless it’s wonderful to have a copy.


One thing I’d forgotten was how radical it appeared at the time.  For those who don’t know it, it’s a play about a young woman who gets pregnant while at university, and hides herself away in a seaside town to have the baby (which she will eventually give up for adoption).


If unmarried university-years pregnancy were not shocking enough in 1982, the play also offends by having no men it.  It’s all women, and some of those are lesbians.  Another character is a self-confessed maneater, who confesses in a memorable speech to destroying men in bed.


But nowadays this is not noteworthy content, and there’s probably more in-yer-face frankness about sexuality in your average episode of Glee.


So I was quite shocked to hear the viewer warning at the front of this broadcast:


“Viewers should know that the play deals with certain women’s attitides towards men in a frank and explicit manner.“


I found it hilarious.  Have a listen below.  It’s not just the words of warning; listen to the disapproving tone!  The accent!   It’s more 1950s than 1980s.


The recent furore about Miriam O’Reilly and sexism/ageism in the BBC reminds us there’s still a distance to travel.   But we’ve come a long way, thank heaven, since 1982.


In this track there’s a trailer, then the viewer warning, then the opening music.


Whale Music Trailer 1982



Thank you Eds, Bob and Tom (and Greg)

Posted on by
Reply

22nd December, 2010


On 10 December, Ed Balls sent out a link on twitter to an article he’d written about the LibDems serving as a fig-leaf to a radical right-wing government.  Quite right too.


I responded, “@edballsmp Good piece; now pls translate that into action. New PLP rule: don’t mention the LibDems?”


Nine days later:


Ed Miliband has banned the shadow cabinet from using the word “coalition” to describe the government because it sounds too moderate and reasonable, and fails to convey what he says is its true “ideological, rightwing agenda”.

 

In a memo to his front-bench team, obtained by the Observer, the Labour leader’s director of policy, Greg Beales, says that from now on they must use the term “Conservative-led government” to describe the alliance of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

 

(The Observer, 19 Dec 2010)


Thanks guys.  I’m sure you had that idea independently, but I am happy anyway.   I’ve been arguing for ages that the language of the er, Conservative-led government, has been brilliantly controlled and effective. 


Labour must respond in kind.


Calling Ed, Bob & Tom

Posted on by
Reply

22nd December, 2010


In case you’ve been wondering where I’ve been lately, the answer is: on Twitter.  There are lots of things that are amazing about it.  Lots of things that are horrible too, but there.


One of the things Twitter is no good at is subtle arguments or packages of ideas.  You can’t always boil them down to 140 characters, and if you split your thoughts across 3 or 4 messages, someone will read you out of context and be confused.


So I still need my blog.


I wanted to say a couple of things about the Vince Cable story.  Vince has been tricked by a couple of female Telegraph journalists posing as giggling star-struck constituents into making at least two big mistakes.  Firstly, he boasted that if he was pushed too far he could use “the nuclear option” and resign from the government, which would (in his view) bring it down.  Secondly, we subsequently learn, he has “declared war on Mr Murdoch” and set himself against Rupert’s proposed buyout of BSkyB.  In response to the former boast, he was made to eat humble pie in Cabinet and out.  When the second element of the story broke, David Cameron withdrew Cable’s ministerial authority on the BSkyB transaction.


There are many issues raised by this turn of events.  My focus is on Labour’s response, which is troubling.


On Monday night, Cable had boasted about going nuclear and bringing down the government.  Labour’s response?  John Denham saying that this demonstrated the government was “paralysed by infighting”.  Of all the criticisms you can level at this government, paralysis is not one of them.  It is perhaps the busiest, most radical government in living memory.


Where are Bob Roberts and Tom Baldwin, Labour’s new spin doctors?  What are they thinking?  It could be that they were caught on the hop, it being Christmas and all, and needed an overnight to get their response straight.  That would have been disappointing, but worth it if they had come out the next morning fighting.  They didn’t.  On Tuesday John Denham went to press online with the same lame accusation of paralysis.  The pot, sadly, was calling the kettle black.


Surely there was an opportunity on Monday night for quick-fire political jibing.  Surely there was something in Cable’s unguarded comments which sharp minds at LPHQ could have fired right back at him.  I’m not arguing for glibness, just a sound-bite to tide us over before the measured response comes, as it surely will, from the political big guns.


But then, what about that measured response?  What does Ed Miliband say, the next day, when the story moves to its second stage and Cable throws away his credibility with daft comments on Murdoch?  He says that he, Ed, would have sacked him.


(Actually his response was smarter than that, to be fair – he said that “having apparently broken the ministerial code”, Cable should go.  He asked whether David Cameron had made the decision to keep him in post in the interests of the country, or just in the interests of the government.  The trouble is that all the press is going to hear is, “Miliband says Cable should have gone.”  And sure enough, the news tickers said exactly, and only, that.)


The trouble with an Opposition response which can be reduced to a call for resignation is that it sounds, and is, lazy.  Perhaps Ed Miliband thought it would help him to look stronger and more decisive than his counterpart, but we already know Ed can be ruthless.  And as for decisive, the flipside of that is to be collaborative and inclusive, qualities for which Cameron is rightly admired.  I fear Ed’s call for resignation only made Dave’s call for calm tolerance appear the more mature.


Ed Miliband was in a difficult position on this one because he wasn’t able to go in hard on the content.  Cable was only saying what a lot of people on the left want to hear on BSkyB, and I can’t imagine Ed Miliband being a stout defender of the Murdoch faith.  So Ed could only go on principle (the ministerial code) and on leadership qualities (“I’d have been tougher”).  Not thrilling.  Not enough.


What Ed so badly needs is a story for situations such as these.  He needs a line of attack on the government which sees past the headline events of the day (there are so many in these busy and uncharted waters) and gets to the nub of content.  Further, he needs to shape his critique so that it segues into a clear, passionate, inspired alternative policy offering.  He has hamstrung himself on this score by calling for an extended (two-year!) period of navel-gazing inside Labour.  If he leads from the front now with policy initiatives, it will be conspicuous that he is not waiting for his own policy review process.  If he waits, he will leave the public with nothing but his own sense of the Labour alternative to think about – a party, which in his own words, has “lost its way” (22 Nov 2010).


Ed’s is not a difficult choice.  Waiting is the worse of the two options.  If Cable shows us anything, it shows us that the Coalition is fragile.  If things “go nuclear”, Labour will need a leader.  Now.