Clear Blue Water

(Published 7 October 2014 on my Wordpress blog)

Last week saw the Conservatives hold their annual conference.  Like the Labour and UKIP conferences before them, there was a marked move towards their core supporter base, a move I for one applaud in all three cases (and I hope the Lib Dems follow the trend).

Having first become politically aware in the 1980’s, I look forward to an election like those of my youth, where the choices were clear and the policies made on the basis of conviction not focus groups.  The past two year has seen the passing of both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Benn, two of the giants of politics during the past half century.  Love them or hate them, neither Benn nor Thatcher could ever be accused of being wishy-washy in their politics.

In these terms, David Cameron scores higher than either Ed Miliband or Nigel Farage.  While the latter two made speeches that they were clearly aimed at the faithful, both were rather long on rhetoric and rather short policies, especially those policies that might appeal more to the core than to the middle ground.  In comparison, the Tories policies such as increasing the threshold for the 40% tax band and focusing the burden of deficit reduction on working age benefits are certainly lines in the sand.

Now while I don’t doubt for one minute that this approach by Messrs Cameron, Osborne et al was driven by a desire to win back voters who are flirting with UKIP, this is likely to have a number of consequences on election day.  UKIP’s past record on producing coherent policies is up there with Saudi Arabia’s record on women’s rights.  UKIP, like the Scottish Nationalists in the recent referendum vote, appeal to voters’ emotions, some pretty base emotions, and while these get the blood pumping on the campaign trail, quite frequently cooler heads prevail at the ballot box, something that the Tories are likely to benefit from.

The big question for senior Tories however, is whether the gains on this front will outweigh any negative impact such an approach has on floating voters and those who voted for the Lib Dems in 2010.  Like Labour, the Tories conference speeches suggest that they will have their core vote well motivated, including in the case of the Tories, many who might have voted UKIP at this year’s European Parliamentary election.  But in 2010, the Lib Dems received 23% of the votes cast, a figure that increases to almost 30% if the non-nationalist minor parties are included.  How many of these votes that find their way (or not) to the two major parties will determine who wins, who loses and whether another coalition will be on the agenda.

It is clear that many voters with centre-left inclinations who voted for the Lib Dems in 2010 have long since moved their support to Labour, as evidenced by the polling figures over the last couple of years.  What is less clear is how those votes are spread with reference to our first past the post voting system.  Labour gaining former Lib Dem votes in its northern urban heartland means very little in electoral term, just as the Conservatives winning back UKIP waverers in the Home Countries has minimal effect.

With the UK now showing a strong economic rebound, the Conservatives should reap electoral benefits, but the rather uneven distribution of the fruits of recovery may limit this, especially as the beneficiaries are quite likely to already be Tory voters.

So what does all this mean?  I think the only thing that is certain is that it is going to be close, and quite possibly the closest since the titanic struggle between Harold Wilson and Edward Heath in February 1974.

Nick

Ferguson

The last week has seen much comment on the events in Ferguson, and I don’t propose to comment on the case itself; there has been enough comment already and passions on both sides are already inflamed enough.

Instead, I would like to comment on the broader issues; I think the issue of Police brutality is a symptom not the cause of the problem, and just treating the symptom never cures the disease.

The American culture has always been based on a zero sum game of winners and losers; it is the ugly dark side of all the things that in many ways make America such a great country: entrepreneurial spirit, creativity, self sufficiency and sense of adventure.  Those ugly aspects have included: taking land by force from the natives; enslaving Africans, then oppressing their descendants; exploiting cheap labour from China/Latin America (both in country and immigrants); and fighting wars (some overtly and some covertly) to control resources and strategic locations.  

Just look at the history of labour disputes and trade unions in the US; they have been far more violent than in the UK, France or Germany, despite American workers being paid more. It was common for the National Guard to be called in and strikers to be shot right up until World War 2.

To stop young black men being shot will require a change of culture: the people need to stop obsessing about money and material possession, guns have to removed from everyday society and education rather than celebrity should be the aspiration of the society.

People need to start thinking beyond themselves and their immediate family.  One would hope those who have been blessed with success would be the most generous in helping.  This is not a matter a race or social class, applying equally to the Silicon Valley CEO buying another yacht as it does to a rapper buying yet another Ferrari.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have shown a how this can be done, so lets hope others will follow.

The legal and political system needs to become more consensual, and quite frankly, more grown up.  Much of the debate this week has been about whether the grand jury made the right decision regarding the Michael Brown case.  I would ask a different question; could they have come up with any different decision based on the law as it stands.  The American legal system appears to accept the right to resort to deadly violence (whether it is the police, other government agencies or individuals) in so many situations , and guns are so prevalent, that is it surprising that so many deaths occur?  America has roughly 5 times the homicide rate of France, Germany or the UK; is a constitutional right to bear arms really worth that?

And my final point is one of a culture of violence; again not an issue of race or class.  It equally applies to the white “good ole’ boys” with their love of guns and intolerance, to the “gangstas” with their profanities and glorification of drug dealing and objectification of women, or the large corporation putting the bottom line before the health of its workers or the local community.

Nick

Lines in the sand

A debate took place on the on the Facebook page of one of my friends last night regarding Amina Tyler, the young Tunisian woman who is pictured topless online with script across her chest in protest against the treatment of women (http://bit.ly/10wF4PA).  This is something I wrote about a couple of weeks ago already (http://on.fb.me/10wFwgM), but the debate raised the broader issue of what limits society and culture should place on the freedom of the individual.

Several comments were made about how I was viewing this through western eyes and that I needed to be more understanding of Tunisian culture. As a 40 something white British male working in the City, I guess I am the epitome of the classic image of Western imperialism, but equally, I am a creature of the modern world of globalisation; I live in London, probably the world's most cosmopolitan city, my friends, my clients and my interests are spread around the world, I am married to someone from another continent and I try to absorb as much information and understanding of the wider world as I can.

Britain has faced its own issues with dealing with the different cultures of people moving to this country; forced marriage, female genital mutilation and honour crimes are just three such recent issues, and the same issues are raised. I don't believe that these are issues that can be pussyfooted around; they are just wrong, and it has nothing to do with where anybody comes from.

I don't know Amina, but I do know that it is wrong for anybody to be treated as a second class citizen because of their gender. It doesn't matter what was written in a book, whether that book is 2,000 years old, 1,300 years old or published last week on Kindle; this is something that is wrong and as the human race has developed we have realised is wrong, just like slavery and human sacrifice. I don't want to care who you pray to, what you read, what you eat or how you live your life; that is up to you. As long as you do not impose your views on others or expect others to involuntarily support you in your life, then go ahead live your life as you chose.

So to all people everywhere I say that if you that if you wanted to be treated with respect, that if you want the benefits that the modern world can bring, then start treating everybody as equal, whatever their gender, race or sexuality. If you try and crush the potential of half your population, you will forever stay poor and stupid. respecting the individual does not kill a culture, it enhances it.

Reds Under the Unmade Bed

Those of you with long enough memories will remember the Cold War fear that there were Soviet sympathisers everywhere, just waiting for their opportunity to overthrow capitalism; "reds under the bed" was the common turn of phrase.  But then came Gorbachev, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the discrediting of the Soviet economic model.  At the same time, Western leaders such as Thatcher and Reagan provided new impetus for market based economic reforms.  This trend continued into the 1990s, converging around centrist policies promoted by Blair, Clinton and the EU.

The next turn came in 2008 with the crash of the financial system, and holes began to rapidly appear in the consensus as the debt fuelled expansion in the private, public and banking sectors all came to a grinding halt and the full difficulties in paying back those debts became apparent.

In Britain, one of the main focuses of the coalition government has been to reduce the ever growing welfare bill, and this has created one of the biggest fault lines in British society, and one that is likely to grow wider.  On the right, the argument is that a system of welfare dependency has been created, leading to large numbers of people for whom living off benefits is preferable to low paid and/or unfulfilling jobs.  The evidence for this is that Britain has more people in employment than ever before, but with increasing numbers of those  low paid and/or unfulfilling jobs taken by immigrants, as benefit drawing Brits either refuse to take them, or are so unemployable that no sensible employer would hire them.  On the left, the argument is that the the poorest members of society are being blamed for the chaos caused by the reckless behaviour of financial institutions (they never blame over borrowing individuals or governments, who must also surely share the blame?) in the pre-crash period, and that a return to economic growth will solve the ballooning welfare costs.

I want to reflect on a slight tangent - is this British underclass starting to to resemble aspects of Soviet era society?  I know it sounds crazy, but here is my thinking.  In the Soviet bloc unemployment was practically non-existent, but productivity was almost practically non-existent; if they had not, their economies would not have collapsed in the way that they did. The Soviet bloc economies could not meet the requirements of their population due to the ever increasing productivity gap with the west; just compare east and west German industry - Trabant -v- Volkswagen.  Capitalism works because it makes people hungry, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically in terms of what they wish to achieve or acquire. The benefit system creates a kind of mini-Soviet bloc society within a broader capitalist society, with people paid low amounts but with no expectation of productivity or profit. Like Soviet society, its members live with petty, often vindictive rules, and a standard of living that does not compare to the mainstream capitalist economy, but it is also undemanding on its citizens. They receive free healthcare, sufficient income for a basic standard of living and none of the issues associated with life in the tooth and claw of capitalism. Somebody recounted the experience of a job centre advisor (albeit in Canada) about people returning to work not being psychologically prepared; I would argue that it is not work but capitalism that they are unprepared for, and when they then try to enter or re-enter the mainstream workforce, they find similar cultural difficulties to those experienced by Soviet bloc citizens post the collapse of communism and their attempts to join the capitalist economic system.

The question is, will this sub-economy collapse in the same way that the Soviet economy did?

Nick

I can see clearly now

It struck me today that the latest Budget is tangible evidence of the path down which the Coalition Government wants to take the country, and the radical nature of this path.  I think Cameron is portrayed as a smoother but more limited version of Thatcher, but the policies are possibly more radical, albeit in a different direction.

20% Corporation Tax was never even remotely achieved in the 1980s.  The reform of the benefit system creates a much greater incentive for people to move to work than anything attempted under Thatcher.  But most significantly, inflation, the totemic enemy (along with the Soviet Union and the left in general) of the 1980's now appears to be the unspoken ally instead.  Inflation will erode the horrific debt levels (both in the state and private sectors) and the accompanying depreciation of the Pound will increase the competitiveness of exports (at least in the short term), but it will result in a continuing erosion of living standards.  The big gamble is will this lowering of real living standards, reduced corporate taxes and tougher benefit rules turn Britain into a lean, cost competitive but also high value added economy, or will it just lead to constant decline?  It is one hell of a bet.

Nick

Credibility in the Vatican

I can't say I know that much about the new Pope, but the election of a non-European Pope appeared to indicate a modest move in terms of realising the world in which the Catholic Church now exists.  However the sight of a despot like Robert Mugabe being treated with such reverence at the inauguration suggests that they have learned little, and that the Catholic Church remains one of the more reactionary institutions on this earth.  To denounce contraception, abortion and homosexuality while laying out the red carpet to a murdering thug who has destroyed the second strongest economy in Africa seems perverse in the extreme.  I can't somehow see Jesus giving the thumbs up to that one.

Nick

It's the end of the tie as we know it

I work in the financial sector and have done for over 25 years, so I am no stranger to suits and ties, but I think it is time to commit them to history as work attire.  The world is moving in a different direction and the formal business suit and tie will soon be gone the same way as the telex machine and the typing pool; a relic of 20th century business culture that has outlived its usefulness.  They are uncomfortable and impractical, so why do we persist with something that adds no value?

I work advising entrepreneurs, in particular in the technology and natural resources sectors; they want advisers that they can empathise with and trust to be a key part of their business, not someone who seems distant and condescending.  How many clients (not other advisers like lawyers and accountants) actually wear suits and ties?  Certainly a minority of the ones I come across, and the number shrinks every year.

The last decade has seen has two of the greatest seismic shifts in the business world of modern times: the rise of the internet from the play thing of geeks and pornographers to become a dominant and still growing part of modern business life and the financial crash of 2008.  One of these was led by guys wearing hoodies and chinos and the other wearing Saville Row suits; who have been the successes and who the failures?  Bankers, politicians and estate agents are all reviled by the public and all well known for their suit and tie wearing; where does the trust lie?

I am someone who reads widely on business, economics and society, and the key to the future is not to be left behind.  The business world of the next decade will be about being smarter in the non-sartorial sense.  We should be worrying less about whether we wear ties and more about how much we know; that is what our clients and prospective clients are worrying about.  

Instead of worrying about whether we look like a GQ model, we need to seriously increase the level of learning and development we undertake, and by that I do not mean the box ticking of "continuing professional development"; we need to be smart in the networked, global, 21st century sense of the word.  The world is moving so fast that to rely on knowledge acquired 20 years ago and just keeping up to date through experience will just mean that you fall behind.  Unless you have the knowledge you cannot know whether you can deliver what is needed or not.  

I work at a small firm that cannot rely on a big balance sheet or captive customers; we need to be both the smartest guys in the room and the one that the client feels in their bones to be the closest aligned to their interests; we need to be more Steve Jobs and less Bob Diamond.

Nick