So much for lefty internationalism!

James Bloodworth says "our welfare state is primarily for those who’ve paid into it – it isn’t a global pot".

So much for lefty internationalism!

And "too often multiculturalism has been used as an excuse for the creation of monocultural ghettos based on a lack of integration".

When Labourites start attacking multiculturalism we know we are making progress.

"The rental market is overheating in many areas because not enough houses are being built. Immigration is exacerbating the problem" - well that is a welcome admission of reality.

And this is astonishing:  "Britain no longer feels like Britain when they can’t have a conversation with their neighbours and when they travel on a bus or a train and everybody is speaking in a foreign language".

This is a big step forward.

http://leftfootforward.org/2014/11/three-good-things-and-three-bad-things-in-camerons-immigration-speech/ 

Breakdown

In an article for today's Guardian Deborah Orr addresses the breakdown of consensus in politics over the welfare state:  http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/20/dont-blame-poor-children-for-poor-education

She blames "Thatcherism" for this breakdown, but does not ask why the Conservatives became so disillusioned with the welfare state.

To understand this she needs to look at the previous two decades and the experience of mass immigration in which assets belonging to the community were allocated to new arrivals on the basis of "need" not on the basis of the contribution they had made via the National Insurance system.

Who on earth is going to pay higher taxes to provide Bangladeshis and Jamaicans with social housing and welfare payments?  To provide health care and education for the larger-than-average families of East African asians?  To give translation services to eastern Europeans?

No-one is keen on paying for the rollercoaster social revolution of mass immigration.

Carole Malone and her (I hope unintentional) oblique suggestion

In all the justified furore over the nastiness of Carole Malone and her (I hope unintentional) oblique suggestion that welfare claimants should be burnt alive it should not be forgotten that she worked for ten years for the left-wing newspaper The Daily Mirror before she had so honed her skills in nastiness that she was able to graduate to the opportunistic News of the World (which as part of News International supported the New Labour government for fourteen years).

By all means let us condemn Carole Malone.

But it would be misleading to link her nastiness to the policies of the Coalition government.

The nastiness of Carole Malone is directly attributable to the culture of vilification towards the "under class" created by the Labour Party post-1993.  This was a cynical move based on the understanding that benefit-dependent social groups had nowhere else to go in voting terms (although some of them subsequently voted for extremists).  If we allow this fact to be forgotten we risk the chav-hate of 1997-2008 happening again if the Labour Party ever gets back into power.

Of course, all political parties rely on scapegoats to some extent.  It is a theme you can see in ALL administrations (and so far does not seem to have been analysed - perhaps I should write the book myself).  However although it might be acceptable to attack strong groups (bankers, lawyers, perhaps even miners since the NUM in their heyday were capable of defending themselves) it is despicable for a government to wage internal war against people who are weak and defenceless (as the Blair administration did against the "chavs" 1997 to 2008).

The Great Recession

Useful precis by Ben Chu in today's Independent on the LSE report The Effect of The Great Recession On The Household Income Distribution.

Who at the LSE decided to call it "The Great Recession"?

Latest progress report of the Committee on Climate Change

Yesterday, 30th June, I was at Westminster for the latest progress report of the Committee on Climate Change.  Long queue to get into Portcullis House (police pacing up and down ostentaciously holding automatic weapons as if this was France).  The presentation was held in the Attlee Suite, a long room with seating laid out in horizontal rows.

Cups of over-strong coffee and miniscule chocolate biscuits.  About a hundred and fifty people were there.  The room was too warm.

The launch of the report began at 10.15 with an introduction by Tim Yeo MP (in a voice made for droning): 

"Progress is not fast enough... the government has accepted the fourth carbon budget... policies to decarbonise a whole range of sectors..."

Division bells rang at intervals.

Lord Adair Turner then delivered the main part of the presentation, bowed over the podium as if his head was weighed down by his shock of iron-grey hair:

"At any one time we have a fifteen-year vision... we will need in the mid-2020s an acceleration... we will have to be on the green path [referring to a graph] to avoid playing catch-up...

"We do not believe in the St Augustine approach of emissions control but not yet... we have to look at indicators to make sure we are on the fifteen-year path... electricity market reform will be a key...

"The recession has produced a fundamental shift downwards in the underlying trend of emissions reduction... in public policy there are always lead-times to increase the intensity... we are well-behind on solid wall insulation..."

We considered renewables, new boiler designs and electric car sales.

There was a point when one of the slides had the headings wrong, but Adair Turner spotted this and adroitly talked us through the graphs, giving the impression that he was completely in control of his brief.

The presentation ended with a look ahead to future areas of the Committee's attention - bioenergy, shipping aviation.

Questions followed, including a very interesting question on the "export" of carbon emissions via the import of manufactured goods - Adair Turner said this was an important area but the Committee can only look at areas the government asks it to look at.

The meeting ended.  Some networking in the minutes that followed.  Then to Kings Cross for the lunch at The Driver restaurant.

The Asianization of the Global Economy (世界经济的Asianization)

Yesterday I went to Birkbeck College to hear Professor Andrew Jones talk about The Asianization of the Global Economy.

Professor Jones is Professor of Economic Geography at Birkbeck, and is author of the Dictionary of Globalization as well as several other books on the topic and about thirty-five articles.

The lecture began with a brief review of globalization over the last twenty years and the growing view that globalization was unraveling because of nationalism, protectionism and the fragmenting of the EU. 

This view, although understandable, is not valid.  Far from faltering, globalization is entering a new phase of intensity.  Two examples of relative European decline - the IMF is no longer in the forefront of globalization (for obvious reasons related to the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn); Glaxo Smith Kline are undergoing a global restructuring, and not only closing their production facilities in Europe, but also moving their research to China.

We are witnessing a rebalancing of the world economic activity, especially as over the last five years the global downturn has not really affected the emerging economies.  The West is failing to appreciate what has happened.  We are probably at a tipping point in the shift of the centre of gravity from West to East.

If you put the word "globalization" into the Amazon search box you get tens of thousands of books but the focus is very narrow.  Globalization has been confused with Westernization or Americanization.  Now definitions need to be widened to include political, technological and cultural aspects as well as just economics.

What we are seeing is the growing inter-connectedness of human society.  Times have changed since Peter Dicken wrote the highly-influential book Global Shift.  We are now in a new sort of globalization.

Especially the global economy has become very complex - complicated, uneven, geographically dispersed.

This has masked what is really happening in the world, so that almost unnoticed we have arrived at a tipping point.

Why has this happened?

We need to look back over the last five years at the economies that have been growing and the economies that have been contracting.  This has been a very unusual recession - the rest of the world did not follow the US into recession.  Over the last five years The West has had non-existent or very low growth while all the time China has been booming.

We are now looking at the Asianization of the global economy - a period of far-reaching change with perhaps Asia approaching dominance.

Five factors to consider:

1  In 2010 China leap-frogged over Japan to become the world's second largest economy.  By 2020 China is expected to overtake the US as the largest economy.  Over Asian economies are following so that we are looking at a majority of the top 20 economies to be Asian (Australia is the only Western economy still growing, and this is as a result of growth in Asia).

2  Look at the growing size, number and dominance of Asian corporations:  eg five of the top ten investment banks are Japanese (the Bank of China is number 14); nine of the ten largest steel firms are Asian-based; five of the top ten car manufacturers are Asian-based etc.

3  Be aware of the on-going upskilling and capacity of the Asian economies to do what the West is doing in terms of services.  Consultancy, IT and software companies have mushroomed across Asia.  Also finance and business services - they will not be looking to western consultants for much longer.

4  Consider the rising power of Asian capital.  When George Osborne talks about "the need to appease the markets" he is talking about China.  The largest holder of UK sovereign debt is China.

5  Asian countries are a growing power in the governance of the world economy.  They want voting rights on the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the UN.  The recent challenge by emerging economies to European dominance of the IMF is an indication of how things are likely to develop. 

There will be limits to the Asianization of the global economy, and these will depend on a number of issues - economic, political, cultural, linguistic.  But Western dominance looks ever more fragile.  What will count is the absolute size of economic activity.

In the future Western companies may have to adapt to Asian capitalist norms.

The talk came to an end.  In an adjoining area white wine was available.  When I left the Clore Management Centre it was pouring with rain.

Looking at Ed Miliband from a PR point of view

Above:  interesting articles by Patrick Wintour and Michael White (in the Guardian) and Rachel Sylvester (in The Times) discussing Ed Miliband's failure to make an impact as Labour Party Leader.  In many ways this criticism is unfair.  There is a huge amount of work to be done before Labour can develop a programme of new ideas to put before the electorate.  All leaders aspiring to fundamental change have to go through this "wilderness" phase (Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle even Ayatollah Kohmeini).  During this phase the emphasis has to be on purgation of unhelpful elements and the development of an integrated programme that includes at least nine completely original policies (less than nine looks light-weight, more than nine and you start to lose people).

There is evidence that the Conservatives are already engaged on a programme of reinvention, even while they are in office ("we are already planning for the next term").

Above:  looking at Ed Miliband from a PR point of view, there is little he can currently do to create an impact as leader of the Opposition.  This is because the role of Opposition has become increasingly usurped by the Liberal Democrats from within the Coalition.  Thus arguments against Coalition policies can be played out by disgruntled Lib Dems (and sometimes Conservatives), a faux row played out for the benefit of the media, and the policy adjusted (but not too much) to suggest the government is listening and responding.

I am unsure whether this is just the way things are happening or (this may be too machiavellian to be true) is deliberately being choreographed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Phone hacking scandal

The News International 'phone hacking scandal is becoming an explosive issue for the media group. Having issued so many denials, obfuscations and (in my opinion) downright lies their increasingly contorted behaviour has created a narrative drive to the story, with the instinctive reaction to every new statement now being "there must be much more still to come out". The story combines illegal 'phone tapping (possibly sanctioned at the highest level of News International) with political conniving and police corruption (surely not too strong a word if they have deliberately failed to investigate criminal activity). The period that News International have so far admitted they broke the law was 2004 - 2006, a time when the New Labour administration was intertwined with News International operations in the United Kingdom. Yesterday's Observer indicated that a "go between" (widely interpreted as Tony Blair) last year tried to get Prime Minister Gordon Brown to nix the police investigation as a favour to Rupert Murdoch. This sounds like Al Capone's Chicago rather than London in the 21st century. Excellent articles by Toby Helm and James Robinson on the topic - easy writing style, all complexities explained, on-going issues identified. More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/09/phone-hacking-rupert-murdoch-gordon-brown

Coverage of Libya on BBC News 24 this afternoon

I was watching coverage of Libya on BBC News 24 this afternoon, and was very impressed by Andrew North's report from Washington (at 17.15). Concise, informative, analytical. A natural communicator.

Peter Mandelson at Jewish Book Week

Above: after the talk Lord Mandelson signed copies of his new book.

Yesterday I went to a talk by Peter Mandelson at Jewish Book Week.

Didn't think I would actually get there since it was a busy day and I was running late, but I managed to scramble in just as the talk got going.

Darkened auditorium, floodlit stage, Peter Mandelson in brown jacket and black shirt (no tie) being interviewed by Nick Cohen.

Most interesting points he made were as a series of asides, talking about the ways in which the "centre ground" of British politics can be occupied.

He talked blithely about "the Blair, Brown, Mandelson era" as if he had been a Prime Minister himself. He told us "I am not an aspic person" (when discussing the legacy of New Labour). He candidly analysed "being in government is office politics writ large", creating a ripple of sympathy and recognition throughout the audience.

When someone said "now you are out of politics" he told us very deliberately "I'm NOT out of politics".

He talked with affection about his father (an enthusiast for the preservation of Hampstead Garden Suburb) and grandfather (a legacy of political cartoons in a Lambeth pub).

Asked by Nick Cohen about his Jewish background he said he was an atheist and didn't grow up in a Jewish culture. Asked if he had ever suffered anti-semitism he said that other people had analysed some of the things said about him, particularly by Polly Toynbee, as close to the negative way in which Jews are traditionally portrayed ("a cancer" etc). Asked if he is hurt by the personal attacks made against him his urbane style almost slipped, and he condemned with some feeling "the nasty tone... of insidious character assassination".

Although I have seen Lord Mandelson many times on the broadcast media, in person I had been unprepared for the empathy which he created, making a room filled with hundreds of people into an intimate occasion. I was also very impressed with the carefully crafted way in which he spoke, so that although he talked at a normal speed all his sentences were elegantly balanced and coherent (unlike the stuttering of Nick Cohen) which indicates a mind working at tremendous speed working out what he wants to say and how he wants to say it. An impressive performance.

Jeremy Hunt

I'm not at all happy that Rupert Murdoch is being allowed to extend his control over BSkyB.

This is the first time that the Coalition government has taken a decision that has seriously alarmed me.

I don't want Jeremy Hunt in the government at the next election. He is an idiot. He needs to go.

Not all that keen on Francis Maude either.

Pamela Nash MP

MP for Airdrie and Shotts is Pamela Nash.

Interested in sustainable housing.

Member of the Executive of the Fabian Society.
http://www.nextleft.org/

Youngest member of the House of Commons. When speaking in debates often refers to "Scotland" rather than her constituency, which gives the impression she is a nationalist sympathiser. Likely to become influential in the Labour party due to her youth and solid majority - all she has to do is stay out of controversy and Shadow jobs will (eventually) come her way.

Has a Twitter account: http://twitter.com/pamela_nash

Also a sort of blog: http://local.stv.tv/airdrie/news/967-blog-pamela-nash-mp/

Every effort should be made

Above: article by Marcus Leroux in today's Times about the way in which High Street shops have been affected in the economic downturn. Marcus Leroux is retail correspondent at The Times http://journalisted.com/marcus-leroux . He has a twitter account http://twitter.com/marcusleroux .



Above: every effort should be made to preserve small family-owned retail units. Not only do they employ more people, they keep money within local communities and they have longer staying power - often over several generations. They also contribute significantly to community cohesion and regeneration.

I would like to see the government give incentives to family owned start-ups - perhaps even zero taxes and rates for the first five years or so.



Above: whenever I see the tagline "family owned" I am inclined to give a company my support, even if the prices are slightly higher. One of the reasons Germany has done fairly well economically is that a large proportion of their manufacturing sector is made up of family-owned companies and so are less susceptible to the arguments of accountants. Also less likely to be asset stripped (in the disgraceful way Kraft has despoiled Cadbury).

The solution lies in creating meaningful identities

Above: when the Coalition government came to power last year there were hopes that they would start to tackle the entrenched behaviour of binge drinking, especially among young people. Although heavy drinking had been an area of concern for decades, the previous Labour government unintentionally fuelled binge drinking through repeal of almost all drinking laws, expecting to create a "European cafe-style culture" where low-cost alcohol was freely available whenever and wherever someone wanted it. It soon became clear that the policy reforms had backfired and led to unrestricted uncontrolled drinking at levels dangerous to health.

At the same time the "night-time" economy quickly assumed prominence, especially in urban areas, and therefore the Labour administration hesitated to reverse its policy (plus an understandable reluctance to admit they were wrong, and a practical inability to take away a freedom once it has been granted).



Above: article in The Times in August 2010 where Sam Lister and Marcus Leroux present a very troubling statistical picture of the impact heavy drinking is having on society. I have reread this article several times over the last five months. 860,000 hospital admissions per year caused by drinking (up 69% on 2003), a 500% increase in mortality from alcohol-related liver disease, an annual total cost to the nation (through drink-related crimes; absent days from work; costs to the NHS etc) of £50 billion.



Above: article in today's Guardian by Denis Campbell, reporting on a survey published today that reveals the terrible effects excessive alcohol consumption is having, particularly on young people.



Above: the solution to binge drinking is usually seen as higher retail prices, and this policy is being tested in Scotland. However, I am not entirely convinced. Recently I read Violent Night, Urban Leisure and Contemporary Culture by Simon Winlow and Steve Hall.

Some quotes:

There are serious problems besetting young people - anxiety, drugs, violence, suicide, loss of traditional forms of identity, consumer pressure.

In the past society was comprehensible by the majority of individuals, especially in terms of functional roles, identities, and transitions into adulthood.

Today "society" has been replaced by "consumerism" - a megalithic system whose principle political-economic strategy is to infiltrate the dreams and desires of the individual and promise their easy fulfilment in the shape of exotic and seductive lifestyles.

The imagery of the night-time economy has become the exclusive signifier of a pleasureable and hedonistic experience, attracting millions of young people into a mutually understood realm of excess, freedom and debauchery predicated upon the physical delights of sex, drugs and dance, and spiced even further with the risk of violence or some sort of encounter with the law.

In idealized "nights out" entire friendship groups appear to be in the mood for good times, jokes are funnier, alcohol and atmosphere more intoxicating, the music is better, the opposite sex more attractive etc.

There are serious forms of anxiety in youth cultures regarding the construction of identity in a cultural world where the ability to see oneself as part of a broad historical process has been virtually eliminated.

Therefore it doesn't look as if higher prices is going to solve the problem of binge drinking.

The solution lies in creating meaningful identities for young people as "part of a broad historical process" (in other words creating a mythological narrative to replace the one created by consumerism).

Johann Hari in The Independent

I never thought I would write this, but there was an excellent article by Johann Hari in The Independent yesterday. Normally I don't bother with his column - his writing has a spiteful quality that undermines any more serious points he is making. But yesterday's "manifesto" on care for the elderly was important, cogent and full of intelligent ideas. He is obviously writing from the heart. You can read it on-line here: http://johannhari.com/2011/01/26/how-to-end-the-crisis-in-our-old-peoples-homes-and-make-sure-nobody-suffers-like-my-grandmother-again I absolutely endorse all ten points in the article, and would like to see them adopted as government policy. Ironically economic and demographic pressures may help to ensure elderly people are supported in their own homes by their own families. If first time buyers are unable to afford a house of their own many of them will be obliged to stay in the parental home until they ultimately inherit. This may not be ideal in every case, but it seems to be a reasonable generational trade-off - care for elderly relatives in return for a £450 weekly payment and ultimate ownership of the family property (perhaps with a presumption in law that children who look after their parents are entitled to inherit their property, whatever the Will may say). As most couples have only two children this should be an economically elegant solution to the housing shortage and the issue of long-term care for the elderly. It will not suit the current "lifestyle" preferences, but lifestyles are just a matter of marketing (and we know how malleable marketing can be).