Balls, bikes and Big Society

Those familiar with the gentlemanly warfare of croquet - that will be Dave, Nick, George and myself - will recognise the concept of the double target. A double target is when the opposition leave their balls so close together that one is bound to hit one of them on the next shot. The news this morning that the coalition proposes to offer incentives for people in areas of high unemployment to move to areas where jobs are more likely to be created (that would be China or India then?) is at least a double target! The obvious comment is that we are back to the Tebbit tactic of the 1980s telling the plebs to "get on their bikes". The less obvious one is to ask how this coheres with the concept of the Big Society, as it is so clearly damaging to communities, social capital etc. Note that the minister in DCLG tasked with the Big Society agenda is a Lib Dem - no surprise there then!
So, a few shots at the target...........
If they have so much money to slosh around that they can afford to do this, why 25% cuts in public services?
Wouldn't the money be better spent trying to create jobs and employment?
Isn't this a tacit admission that certain areas of the country are going to become jobless no-go areas, despite what the budget claims about help for the disadvantaged regions?
Isn't this a return to the Washington consensus, neo-liberal argument about the need for labour market flexibility in the globalised economy?
How are numbers of people moving down to the south east going to be accommodated now they are allowing local areas to revise (i.e slash) the housing targets?
Sorry - this was meant to be a double target, not a duck shoot! But we do seem to be in the realms of a Monty Python approach to politics (and economics!).
So the real concern (!) should be the impact of such a policy on the Big Society..........
What will this do to already "left behind" communities, to remove from them the income generators - the old and the very young will remain, unsupported and without the capacity to function as, what are they called, mini-battalions, cosseted cohorts, of civil society?
Where is the logic or the coherence in this?
One cannot help but wonder whether the coalition is taking this job seriously, and, if they are, can they be taking "us" seriously, if they keep coming up with inept policies such as this!
Come on guys, step up and play the game at least!

Emergency Budget and Neutral Economics

Early days yet to add anything to the emerging comments on the budget, but one facet of the situation has struck me forceably. The budget is politically shaped and motivated - but could it ever be otherwise? Lib Dem influence has apparently determined some of the policies - so there is an obvious example. If they had not been in on the act and had the Tories instead got a clear majority, what would we now be facing? Then the coalition has set its face to keep a number of external parties "happy" - the City; the markets; credit ratings; its own supporters etc. There may be an economic aspect to some of this, but also strongly political reasons for pleasing these particular groups. So can one ever take the politics out of economics when it comes to government policies? Surely not! And yet the new administration claims to be doing just that by having set up the Office for Budget Responsibility, supposedly an independent and neutral interpreter of the national economy. Does it actually believe this claim, or is it simply an exercise in cynical manipulation? There is no such thing as neutral economics, but different schools within economics itself, often differing on political as well as pure economic grounds - e.g. Marxist, neo-liberal monetarist, New Keynsian etc. So which economists does one choose as one's tame experts and on what grounds? Perhaps the coalition really does believe in the neutrality of "experts", but then it is innocent in the extreme and I would suggest that Messrs Cameron and Osborne go back to Oxford for a while to read some basic philosophy or sociology! If they believe this still, then I suspect that many ordinary folks who are going to be in the firing line of the budget and spending review later this year, will be far from convinced that there is anything neutral about the policies or the experts wheeled out to support them. This is going to be seen as a renewed version of class conflict, with those who have protecting their position at the expense of those who have not, or those who won't have for very much longer. This may not be the intention, but it will be the effect. Good news for Marxists then? Maybe - but a call surely for more intellectual rigour in the way that current debates are being presented certainly.

Risk or Uncertainty

I find the supposed difference between these two as used by economists perplexing. Risk appears to be something that can be quantified and therefore the basis for rational calculation, whereas uncertainty means that no calculation is possible and that "anything might happen". So which are we dealing with now when it comes to making judgements about the best economic policies for the government to follow? A recent post on CityWire by a former economist from the Bank of England talks about the risk of current policies putting us into a double dip recession. One might ask how substantial this risk is and what would make it worth taking - what are the risks if we don't follow this path? All of this makes the decisions sound sensible, rational, capable of being defended through open argument etc. We take all sorts of risks every day in normal life, and to do so is perfectly sensible - we have to make decisions in good faith, with access to the best evidence available, and aware of the dangers of getting it wrong. I remember working with the Housing Association world and listening to financial consultants advising us on setting financial policies. They were based on certain assumptions. The rate of interest, rate of inflation, levels of LIBOR over the coming years etc. Then one could calculate what would happen IF...
It seemed a rational way of making decisions -basing the future on what had happened in the past and hoping/assuming that things would remain broadly similar. The problem is that nobody can really know if things are going to remain broadly similar, so the calculations can go badly wrong. One cannot calculate for the unexpected.
This sounds very much like the plea of most mainstream economists after the collapse of 2008. Unexpected and unforeseen events took place that could not be factored in to our equations. Except of course that some other economists did foresee what would happen, did publish their views, and were ignored because it was more comfortable and convenient to do so - until the balloon went up!
Has anything changed as we enter this new phase of the global financial crisis? Policies are being presented to us as if the risks have been calculated and argued through, and there is a consensus that it is riskier NOT to make cuts. But I see little evidence that the counterarguments have been listened to or taken seriously. Where is the public debate using a range of economic commentators which would present the populace with all of the possible scenarios, the arguments from previous experience that would back those up, let alone a consideration of the ethical risks arising from following certain policies? It doesn't exist - a few dissident voices get an airing in the press and on websites, but that is all. Government has made up its mind!
So the language of risk is being employed to cover up the reality that this is an area of great uncertainty where anything could happen, either an economic recovery of some sort or a slide into depression. Is this either a practical or an ethical response to decision making?

Neo-liberals or Neo-Vandals?

Well, perhaps there is no ideological master plan behind the coalition's policies. Perhaps they simply don't know what else to do other than be seen to implement savage cuts because that is what the new "gods" of the rating agencies and markets want to see happening! The effects will be much the same. In my first article of the WTF Religious Futures Network nearly two years ago (Authoritarian Capitalism), I suggested that what we would see would be a rationing of access to the goods of global capitalism. This morning we are being told that universities need to charge higher fees and to teach more cost effectively. In other words, a university education will be rationed to those who can afford it. Maybe those at the lower end of the earnings scale will be protected as public services are cut, but then those in the middle range will be expected to pay for themselves or to lose out. Now there undoubtedly have been some silly and unjustified areas of public expenditure - for instance on consultants and other "jobs for the boys" - but are we being offered any rationale for how and where cuts will now be made? Is this cutting for the sake of cutting?
I have a number of questions about this.
We are no longer a manufacturing nation - that base was eroded in the 1970s and 1980s and has not been reversed. So where do new jobs come from? Leisure and the public sector. Take jobs out of the public sector and unemployment could well hit the numbers predicted by the CIPD today. Growth relies on export markets in China - what if this doesn't happen?
Is the sovereign debt situation in the UK as bad as is being portrayed? Reading recent blogs of Robert Peston and Stephanie Flanders of the BBC apparently not. In which case, why the current scaremongering?
What will be left once these cuts have bitten into our education sector that will create a base for future innovation and investment? Just which are the "luxuries that we can no longer afford", or which only the wealthy can afford?
It is all very well to state that "we" are going to be consulted on this, but no consensus would emerge and is this anything more than a PR exercise or desperate attempt to convince "us" that we have taken responsibility for the direction of our own demise?
So, are we being governed by neo-liberals or neo-vandals?

The death of neo-liberalism?

As somebody once said - well, you know the rest about this being somewhat premature. How obvious does this seem this morning? Let me remind you of the key elements of the neo-liberal project (Harvey etc). The increasing accumulation of wealth on the part of the upper echelons of the capitalist class;bringing wages down and creating unemployment; centralizing power;attacking workers organisations as disrupting the "normal" order of supply and demand;depressing welfare levels as far as possible. So the new regime warns this morning of savage cuts in public spending that will affect all of us for decades! The introduction of a Canadian style star chamber who will oversee the budget proposals and cuts of government departments. Lord Browne, formerly CEO of BP - now there's an interesting role model - as key advisor on how to bring business principles to bear on the operation of government. The shifting of welfare from the state back onto the voluntary sector. And so on........
And this is supposed to be different from the 1980s? How exactly? Well "we" are going to be consulted on where the cuts should be made. Consultations - we stopped believing in those decades ago surely? And such an exercise presupposes that "we" accept the basic assumptions on which such policies are based, i.e. that such cuts are essential and have to be made in this way. No challenges allowed there then!
The idea that this is any way can be described as a recognisable form of liberalism - and I don't just mean the Lib Dem party, although that is probably true as well - is an illusion, a cover for the continuation of the neo-liberal project. But maybe this was always the case anyway. This is central government imposing its own agenda and the interests of its supporters on the rest of the population. It is about consolidating power and wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. We need to be reminded that "there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals". The pain must be shared, we are told, but some are going to be more vulnerable than others!
So can capitalism be "moral"?
What is going to happen now is a revival of the politics of envy and even of class division. But this time more of the middle classes will begin to lose out as they take the hits to their lifestyles. There is an argument that their capacity to share in the "goodies" of global capitalism was always built on shifting sands anyway, and that this moment was bound to arrive. Capitalism can only renew itself through creative destruction and the benefits accrued by normal people are always subject to that reordering process, as in all previous slumps and depressions in the economic cycle. Nothing new there then!
We appear to have forgotten who got us into this mess in the first place - the collusion of politicians with the banking and financial sectors across the globe operating on outdated economic models employed by the business world. So who do we now have in charge of getting us out of this mess? Reassuring isn't it?
However, as my correspondent says, maybe all this agonizing is just wasted energy and we never really have much idea of what is going on or real control over events - there is no masterplan! We shall see. In the meantime watch out for the next episode in the neo-liberal saga and lets hear more about the Canadian experience before we see this as the quick fix!

Holiday Reading

The above included David Harvey's "A Companion to Marx's Capital" as a counterpoint to O'Hara's book on "After Blair". Two particular passages intrigued me. Harvey says that one of the major failures of actually existing communisms is the lack of realisation that an alternative political system would require new and appropriate technologies, plus alternative relations to nature, social structures and reproduction through daily life and mental conceptions of the world (P219).In other words, a whole new world view. One of my problems with all forms of Marxism is that they might reproduce the systems they deride in another, often totalitarian form. They are not radical enough. The other passage refers fleetingly to Deleuze (one of my favoured dead French philosophers) in relation to Marx's description of how various elements of human evolution interact (P196). Again, the suggestion is that a more radical (philosophical) theory or underpinning is required if our self-understandings are to change significantly. In my search for what political structures might best produce a moral perspective and therefore concerns for liberal conservatism, I question how utopian our thinking needs to be and how this might relate to a faith position. Giddens coined the phrase "utopian realism" which sort of closes it off for future reference, but something along these lines seems right to me. We need both. A utopian element that offers an ideal ground from which we can criticize existing practice, and a realism that enables us to move from where we are now - a classic "blurred encounter" then!