Whose adviser said what to whom in News Corp? With both Rupert and James Murdoch up in front of the Leveson inquiry last week, the plot thickens. One begins to wonder how many adviser and ministerial resignations and demotions Messrs Murdoch will have to their name by the end of this.
Read more at the Scottish Times.
Last week, the Economist raised some concerns over the economic viability of an independent Scotland. I am inclined to agree with Alex Salmond that the way these concerns were raised was patronising and condescending. I’d go as far as saying cheap and crass actually; yet there are some valid questions here.
Read more at the Scottish Times.
The latest YouGov poll shows the pro-independence vote trailing significantly: on a straight yes/no question, 32% of Scots would vote for independence, 53% would currently vote against it, with another 15% either undecided or intending not to vote.
Read more at Scottish Times.
Neoliberalism – the idea that the market is the most efficient and therefore best way to organise every aspect of our lives – has won. Education – both higher and basic – is being privatised. The NHS is being privatised. The police is being privatised. And if that’s not enough to convince you that neoliberalism has won, then let’s look at how we have started measuring the value of people.
When former Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said that increasing the motorway speed limit might cause more deaths but would also generate huge economic benefits and it was all about finding the right balance, that probably came as a shock to no one. (Though that the same man should only a few weeks later be found fit to be Defence Secretary was, I must admit, a surprise.) After all, you expect neoliberals to measure everything – including the value of human life – in economic terms. But when that same argument is made by every sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading leftie, we have a problem.
Let’s start with me. One of the topics I write passionately about is immigration. This is because I am an immigrant, and every time someone mutters about the foreigners stealing our jobs and our women it’s personal to me. Yet more often than not when someone attacks immigrants, the first words out of my mouth are “higher rate taxpayer”; as if that is the only way to justify my own existence and presence in this country. When Gillian Duffy cried “flocking Eastern Europeans”, I cried “I pay more into the tax system than I get out of it”. When David Cameron cried “good immigration, not mass immigration”, I cried “Look at the economic contribution immigrants make to British society!” It’s a compulsion: whenever somebody questions why I’m here, the first thing that comes to my mind is the economic argument.
I am, of course, far from alone in this. Look at Stonewall, the white, middle class face of LGB(T) rights campaigning. One of their biggest campaigns is convincing UK employers that being nice to LGB(T) people is okay because there’s a business case for it. Employees working in a supportive and inclusive environment where they can be themselves, the argument goes, are 30-40% more productive. The value of the “Pink Pound” – the disposable income of LGB people in the UK – is about £5-6 billion. Not only that, but LGB people tend to be better educated, have more disposable income than straight people, are very brand-aware and extremely brand-loyal to companies that specifically market to them. If you’re nice to LGB people, you too, dear company, can have a slice of that pie. Of course this argument works very well – you show someone where the free money is and they’ll go for it. One wonders, though, how one is supposed to campaign for the rights of people with lower-than-average disposable incomes.
My friend Rho, after describing in excruciating, harrowing detail the impact constant transphobic abuse has had on her life, then proceeded to explain the economic benefits of being nicer to transgender people. It’s a good, logically solid argument that even the most patriarchal of neoliberals should understand.
The disability rights campaigners behind the Spartacus Report on the proposed reform and cuts to Disiability Living Allowance felt compelled to point out the high cost of implementing the reforms.
Campaigners for women’s rights in developing countries point out how empowering women will lead to economic growth.
Our vocabulary for expressing the value of people has been reduced to three words: “consumers”, “workers”, “taxpayers”. This is indicative of a seismic social change that has crept in so slowly, so quietly, that none of us noticed before it was too late. Neoliberalism has not only won – it has redefined the game. We find ourselves in a world where respect, human life and human dignity count for nothing unless you can monetise them; where the only acceptable argument is the economic argument.
We need to take that world back. I am not a consumer. I am not a taxpayer. I am not a worker. I am a woman. I am bisexual. I am an immigrant. I am human. That is what entitles me to dignity and respect, not my higher-than-average disposable income or net contribution to HMRC. Repeat after me:
I am not a consumer.
I am not a taxpayer.
I am not a worker.
I am human.
That certain members of the current government are actively hostile to the BBC is a given. Back in 2010, Conservative Home reported some of the milder remarks on the subject from Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
“…there are huge numbers of things that need to be changed at the BBC. They need to demonstrate the very constrained financial situation we are now in.”
Other quotes, if I remember correctly, included words like “we must all feel the pain” in conjunction with “deficit reduction”. Of course, the BBC’s license fee settlement plays absolutely no part in deficit reduction as the license fee is essentially an earmarked tax – there is nothing else the government could do with it even if they wanted to. What the government can do is make the BBC pay for things which have historically not come out of the Corporation’s budget – like the BBC World Service.
In recent years, the World Service (which celebrates its 80th anniversary on February 29th), has been funded by the Foreign Office. There is a very good reason for this: The World Service is, essentially, a foreign policy tool – an extension of diplomacy. This is clear both from its history and from its current activities. Consider this:
Despite this history, the government is in denial about the role of the World Service in foreign policy, and from 2014 the BBC will have to make its license fee money stretch as far as funding the World Service.
Don’t get me wrong – I like the World Service. Over the years, it has helped me learn English, provided half-decent news when I’ve been travelling and even asked me to appear on one of its radio shows. As extensions of diplomacy go, it beats war hands-down. I just think the government should call a spade a spade and continue to fund the World Service out of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s budget rather than dump it on license fee payers like an unwanted puppy ten days after Christmas.
So the word of the weekend appears to have been “shareholder”. David Cameron and Danny Alexander have been out in force, explaining to us how shareholders should be given a say on executive pay. Here are just three reasons why this is a red herring if I’ve ever seen one.
The uninvolved shareholder
I happen to be a shareholder. I own shares in two distinct ways. Firstly, I’m a shareholder in companies I have a significant involvement with – my full-time employer and a small start-up I helped out over the summer. The start-up hasn’t had an AGM yet, so I can’t tell you how I would vote at that, but when it comes to my full-time employer, I get a letter from the share management company with some vague explanations of what we are voting on (and links to more details), a recommendation on which way to vote, and some boxes to tick. Most years I tick the boxes, some years I even remember to send the form back. This is, frankly, what an involved shareholder looks like.
The other way in which I own shares is rather more removed. I have a stocks and shares ISA which puts my money into an investment fund which is managed by my bank and currently seems to be eating my money. I also have a company pension which too puts my money into one kind of investment fund or another, managed by one bank or another. I don’t even know which companies I own shares in through these vehicles. To be more precise, I don’t own shares this way – I own chunks of an investment fund, which in turn owns shares.
So when the Prime Minister says that “shareholders” should have a say in executive pay, what he actually means is pension funds, investment banks and insurance companies. Those are the largest blocks of shareholders around, and the only ones with enough clout to make a difference. Their interests are not always for the company in question to be productive, stable and long-term sustainable, as long as they can make a quick buck.
The sprawling multinational
The reach of any legislation on shareholder involvement in executive pay is likely to be limited. It will hit small and medium-sized domestic businesses, as well as the “C” level of larger companies incorporated in the UK. Yet if you just happen to be a “Director” or “Vice President” running the UK operations of a sprawling multinational incorporated in the Cayman Islands, well then you’re not an executive, are you? Nevermind that the level of responsibility and the salary to go with it are probably quite similar to those of a “C” level exec of a UK company.
At this point, it’s worth asking ourselves whose pay we’re limiting and why. This is where the answer you are likely to get from the coalition is something along the lines of “not paying for failure”, whereas someone like Deborah Hargreaves from the High Pay Commission will tell you that it’s all about addressing inequality and social injustice. It does somewhat depend on your motivation as to whether the shareholder argument makes sense.
The old-fashioned Marxist analysis
Finally, let me indulge in a piece of good, old-fashioned Marxist analysis. If we look at this through the lens of the capital/labour dichotomy, we quickly see that any move to give shareholders more say in executive compensation retains the power on the side of capital. Employees continue to be disenfranchised in this process. There are of course exceptions in the form of employees who may own a small number of shares in the company – but for those cases I shall simply refer you to the problem of the uninvolved shareholder above.
So if a fig leaf is what we want, then giving shareholders a say in executive pay is the way forward. If we actually want to address both the widening social inequality we are experiencing and the market failure caused by interests of major shareholders being less than compatible with the long-term interests of the company, then we need to look for other solutions.
So Dave used his veto. That must have made him feel manly, and powerful, and in control. For all of twelve seconds. Until someone pointed out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
What strikes me about this sorry mess is how short a time it has taken for the “we must protect the City at all costs” attitude to become acceptable again. Rewind, if you will, back to 2008. Remember the collapse of Lehman Brothers? The credit crunch and the global liquidity crisis? The resulting recession and flatlining of the UK economy? Am I the only one who remembers the intellectual discourse of 2008/09 questioning whether capitalism had failed, whether the financial system was fit for purpose? Did I hallucinate all these things?
Well, apparently not. It was earlier this year that Mr Cameron’s own Business Secretary was still talking about banking reform and splitting retail and investment banking activities. Back in 2008, David Cameron himself said (emphasis mine),
I’m pleased that the European regulators are looking at our proposal to bring stability to the banking system.
and
Many bankers in the City were quite simply irresponsible.
They paid themselves vast rewards when it was all going well……
…and the minute it went wrong, they came running to us to bail them out.
There will be a day of reckoning but today is not that day.
And yet, not only has that day of reckoning not come; barely three years later it seems to be perfectly acceptable for the Prime Minister to put Britain’s membership of the European Union and the country’s standing in foreign policy at risk in order to protect those very same financial institutions for which he promised a day of reckoning. I seem to have blinked and missed something. What happened?
A second question here has to be what the hell have the Lib Dems done? The Deputy Prime Minister claims to be “bitterly disappointed”, almost as if the situation was nothing to do with him. But where was Mr Clegg last week when Britain’s negotiating position for the EU summit was being decided?
In Germany, Cameron’s name is becoming a by-word for causing a breach with Europe (German link). Much like Mr Cameron, the FDP – the junior partner in the German coalition government – are playing party politics with the future of Europe. Much like Mr Cameron, they are being petty, irresponsible, and myopic.
When asked to justify her deviation from mainstream Tory policy in the area of child care, newly elected leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson seemed to imply that this was a uniquely Scottish issue which needed a uniquely Scottish solution.
Commendable and progressive though Ms. Davidson’s engagement in the area of child care is, this is not an issue that is particular to Scotland. All over the UK, families find themselves in a position where both parents either need or want to work, and where child care is inaccessible or affordable only to those whose incomes rival the Prime Minister’s. If I was making a case for Scotland’s need for unique policies or solutions – either under a devolved or independent arrangement – the area I would be most inclined to look at is pensions.
Read more over at Scottish Times.
A referendum on Scottish independence should be a constitutional impossibility. After all, one of the reasons behind choosing the Additional Member System for elections to the Scottish Parliament was to deny any single party (and, one suspects, the SNP in particular) a majority. Yet some time between March and May this year, something spectacular happened.
Read more over at Scottish Times.
This entry was originally published over at HuffPo UK on Monday October 24th, 2011.
Parliament today is debating Britain’s membership in the EU, following an online petition signed by over 100,000 people. Clearly, with the economy having ground to a halt, unemployment at a historic high, and the Eurozone in crisis, we have nothing better to do than navel-gaze, expose divisions within one of the governing parties, and thereby create further economic and political uncertainty. What strikes me in all this are some of the spectacular rhetorical feats of Conservative politicians when it comes to Europe. I have prepared a brief dictionary.
Bernard Jenkin MP: “It’s about growth. The economy is not growing, and one of the reasons why the economy is not growing is … a business survey showed that over £60 billions per year of burden of EU regulation rests on our economy now. (…) We used to have well below the average of youth unemployment, we’re now on the average and youth unemployment is growing.”
Translation: “I need someone to blame for this mess, and the ‘previous government’s legacy’ line doesn’t quite wash anymore. Who else is around? Ah, the EU! Quick, let’s make up some numbers!”
Here are some questions I would like to ask of the Member for Harwich and North Essex:
There’s the rub: if Britain wishes to continue trading with the largest single market on the planet, it is going to have to take the regulations that go with that. Surely, it is better to have a seat at the table when it comes to creating those regulations. And while we’re making up numbers, the EU has some of its very own. Unsurprisingly, they show an increase in GDP and jobs directly attributable to the Single Market, and an appreciable decrease in “red tape”.
Everyone: “Renegotiate our terms of EU membership!”
This can be neatly translated as “We want a pick-and-mix Europe. We will play nicely when it suits us and when we’re directly benefiting from our membership but will refuse to lift a finger to actually contribute to the community.”
Economists have a word for this kind of behaviour: it’s called “free-riding”; see also “tragedy of the commons”. There is a fatal flaw with this kind of thinking and it’s this: if the UK “renegotiates the terms”, other countries will either not allow that or want much the same thing for themselves. After all, if the UK can reap the rewards of membership without fully contributing, why shouldn’t everyone else? You can see where this is heading. If no one wants to contribute, if everyone only cherry-picks the best bits for themselves, sooner rather than later there’ll be no community left, and no benefits for anyone to pick.
William Hague MP: “There can be very small, narrow treaty changes, there can be major treaty changes. (…) I do not believe that it is in every instance (…) that you need to have referendum.”
This is of course code for “We will give you a referendum when it’s in our interest and we think we can get the outcome we want from it.”
Ultimately this raises the question of whether referenda are a meaningful way to decide on complex constitutional issues such as electoral reform or EU membership. My experience from the recent AV referendum would suggest that they are useful only under certain conditions, which are unlikely to be present if and when it comes to a referendum on the nature of Britain’s EU membership or future treaty changes. Referendum campaigns – especially ones which happen under time pressure, as any campaign on a treaty change would – tend to boil down extremely complex issue into five-word slogans. “Small change, big difference” and “She needs a maternity unit, not an Alternative Voting system”, some of the key slogans from both sides of the AV campaign, are patronising, overly simplistic, lacking in substance. Now imagine having to reduce something like the Lisbon Treaty into a slogan. Far from increasing the level and quality of political debate, referenda like the one on AV or any we are likely to get on the European Union have a tendency to shut debate down. Only if political discourse can develop naturally, over and appropriate time span which allows for issues to be explored in depth – like for instance in the proposed Scottish independence referendum – are referenda a truly meaningful way of making political choices. So in some ways, this whole debate is a huge red herring.
William Hague MP: “…the return of other powers to the United Kingdom, particularly in the field of social and employment laws, things like the Working Time Directive, things of that kind.”
Read: “Rights for workers? What is this EU nonsense? You must be joking!”
It always strikes me how the first (and as far as I can tell only) area of community competency that William Hague wants to repatriate is to do with social justice, equality, and protecting workers. He’s been singing that particular song ever since he was Tory leader and came to speak at my school in Vienna about Britain’s awkward relationship with the EU. Let’s have a quick look at the much-maligned Working Time Directive, for instance. These are some of the things it regulates:
If this is William Hague’s main bone of contention with the EU, then I know what side I stand on. And if you are an employee of any kind – salaried, agency worker, occasional – then so should you.
The Europe debate is of course one that is never far from the surface on this sceptered isle. Yet bringing all this to the fore right now, as the EU and the Eurozone struggle to find the political will to overcome a huge crisis, and as it becomes increasingly apparent that the UK economy itself will need some sort of intervention to get moving again seems a little like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Mind you, it’s entertaining enough.