LIVINGSTONE, HISTORY AND "MASS KILLINGS"

Ken Livingstone and Adolf Hitler (International Business Times)

The political storm created by the former London Mayor, Labour MP and Leader of the Greater London Council's suggestion that Adolf Hitler was a Zionist shows little sign of abating. This post offers a guarded defence of Mr Livingstone, a long-time controversialist, whose comments have prompted some much needed historical and international discourse in British politics, without, however, supporting his version of history.

Ken Livingstone was suspended from the Labour Party as a result of his clumsy attempt to disentangle Anti-Semitism and Zionism. He was previously expelled from the party by the New Labour government and stood as an independent in the first election for a London Mayor in 2000 in which he won a decisive victory. He was later re-instated by the party and stood as a Labour candidate in 2004. On both occasions, London's ethnic minority communities were a key constituency for Mr Livingstone, along with other groups who felt under-represented in, or let down by, mainstream politics. Perhaps more than any other politician, Ken Livingstone has led the transformation of the UK's capital in to a multi-cultural global city, and compromised his left-wing credentials along the way. It is not without irony that Mr Livingstone - for his detractors one of the founding fathers of modern British political correctness - can be quite politically incorrect himself.

The reason for this, and indeed for Ken Livingstone's political success, is that he is in many ways the quintessential post-war Londoner. The "Life of Ken" is worth reading up on, not least because it has caused much more controversy over a similar time period than Monty Python's "Life of Brian" . Nevertheless, the notion that Mr Livingstone is in some way a Nazi apologist is completely absurd, nor in my view, is he Anti-Semitic.

What Ken Livingstone always has had, along with his onetime arch-enemy Margaret Thatcher, is a highly selective version of events (historical and contemporary), with a possibly even greater tendency to be over-influenced by particular advisers and intellectuals without giving full and proper attention to those with different views. In the present furore, Mr Livingstone has cited the work of the American Jewish Marxist historian Lenni Brenner as evidence of Hitler's early support for Zionism.

However, the wider historical consensus on Nazi policy towards the Jews is very different. For instance, writing in today's Independent on the subject of "Hitler and Zionism" Professor Rainer Schulze points out that:  "Claims that Hitler was a Zionist, or supported Zionism, before his anti-Jewish policies turned into murder and extermination flare up at regular intervals. They usually cite the controversial Haavara Agreement (Transfer Agreement) of August 1933 as the most potent evidence of a wilful cooperation between Hitler and the Zionist movement. When viewed in a certain way, this deal does superficially seem to show that Hitler’s government endorsed Zionism – but just because it was a mechanism to help German Jews relocate to Palestine it does not imply it was “Zionist”. Professor Schulze is General Editor of "The Holocaust in History and Memory" a research project led by the University of Essex and his article originally appeared in "The Conversation".

Returning to Mr Livingstone, his unwary, shorthand view of history has, nevertheless, unwittingly contributed to the Labour Party's new "Big Conversation" on the relationship between the past and present. As my own contribution to this discourse, I would strongly recommend that the former London Mayor, together with Labour's present Leader and his colleagues add to their summer reading - if they have not read it already - a recent book by the historian Timothy Snyder, "Bloodlands"  The subject of this book is "a zone in Europe where the Soviet and Nazi powers overlapped" and where at least 14 million people, mainly civilian or non-combatants, were "killed by purposeful mass murder associated with the above regimes" during the period 1933-45. Snyder purposely uses the term "mass killing" instead of "genocide" to describe the atrocities of the Bloodlands, of which the Jewish Holocaust is the most infamous.

Yet, as Snyder also points out: "During the years that both Stalin and Hitler were in power, more people were killed in Ukraine that anywhere else in the Bloodlands, or in Europe, or in the World". Indeed, Ukrainians have their own expression - the Holodomor - to describe "the greatest artificial famine in the history of the world" that killed between 2.5 and 7.5 million people in the period 1932-3 alone.

The term "Holodomor" is, however, little known outside Ukraine, currently engaged in both a "history war", and a real one, with Russia, and this points to a fundamental problem of modern history itself: that it can sometimes be as selective in its version of events as Ken Livingstone. Much of Timothy Snyder's work is based on "new" archive material that became available to North American and Western European researchers after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc in the early 1990s. However, the partial narrative of mid-century European history also occurred because Russia became a Western ally after 1941, and it suited the allies to emphasize the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany rather than other mass killings that occurred in the Bloodlands between 1933-45. Of Snyder's estimated 14 million victims, "more than half died of starvation", yet as he also admits, the "Great Chinese Famine" of 1958-62 greatly surpassed even this figure.

When Labour's John Mcdonnell presented Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer with a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book last year he was making a serious point: "...We must not pretend to know what we do not know" By this action - which was misunderstood and much derided at the time by Britain's ignorant political classes - Mr Mcdonnell meant that George Osborne , who studied modern history at Oxford University, should seek to understand what the possible implications of an increasingly close economic and financial relationship with the communist People's Republic of China might actually mean for the UK.

I no doubt risk being ridiculed like John McDonnell in conflating the power of contemporary China with the problems of its quite recent past. However, the lessons for both George Osborne and Ken Livingstone, another Sinophile, is the perennial one of needing to understand the past in order to know the present. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the "New Opium of the People"  is  the promise of a digital utopia in which cheap, plentiful and high quality consumer goods continue to be supplied to Western and other consumers by the new Workshops of the World, particularly China. The shallow and materialistic lifestyles to which the post-WII generations - from Baby Boomers to Millennials - aspire has conspired to support an elite dominated by techno-optimist groupthink. It is hardly surprising that in such a millieu histories are often forgotten, spawning an ill-educated social discourse in much of the new and conventional media. So finally, let's thank Ken Livingstone for helping to rectify this, albeit unintentionally.

Postscript: May 2018 - Mr Livingstone has now resigned from the Labour Party.

MADONNA: THE EMPRESS OF MATERIAL GIRLS

The Queen of Pop - here riding a horse in her own video - has just returned to New York after another supremely successful world tour in which she reclaimed the title of highest-grossing solo touring artist Needless to say, the tour has not been without controversies, otherwise it wouldn't have been "Bitch, I'm "still" Madonna", the title of her latest single.

I haven't bought an album by Madonna since "Ray of Light" Her music of the 21st millennium doesn't much appeal to me, although I still love the early stuff. Madonna has always been a performance artist par excellence and, like the Empress Cleopatra, age has not withered her in this regard.* In other respects, her achievements are more mixed, and it may be argued that Madonna has played a significant role in creating - or at least facilitating - the modern shallow narcissistic social media culture in which appearance is everything. Discuss!

Yet that would be to sell Madonna, undoubtedly one of the world's most successful businesswomen, short. One might, alternatively, make a comparison with the visual artist Tracey Emin, another material girl but not in the same league as Madonna. I find Emin's art uninteresting, but what she says about her work is often thought-provoking. In Madonna's case, I can't recall her having said anything memorable, but what she does is interesting.

Whatever Madonna does, she does well. This includes horse riding, which the "Queen of Pop" only took up in middle age. Yet, having been out of the saddle for some time, here she is riding out in the style recommended by the great equine performance coach, and mentor of Victoria Pendleton, Yogi Breisner: " in balance, forward, with rhythm." That's how we all should try to live!

*"Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale
Her infinite variety: other women cloy
The appetites they feed: but she makes hungry
Where most she satisfies.." (Shakespeare)

Correction:  the quotation assigned to Yogi Breisner actually came from his mentor Lars Sederholm.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON (HORSE) MANAGEMENT

I recently caused some unintended offence by suggesting that consideration be given to a horse's management regime. With hindsight, options would have been a better word to use than regime. However, I was doing some research on Iran at the time. Better still, I might have initiated a discussion about the objectives of horse management. For me, these are encapsulated in the soundness, wellbeing and safety of animal and keeper or rider. Others may have more aspirational objectives for their horses, but "soundness, wellbeing and safety" are values which many organisations - the National Health Service, for instance - would do well to make central to their management.

LINKEDIN IS A RATHER HUMOURLESS PLACE

The recent spat between a young woman barrister and older male lawyer about his comment on her profile picture has reminded me that the online professional network LinkedIn is a rather humourless place. I can't recall having read one memorably amusing post on the site, although it's possible that I'm just in the wrong sort of networks. Having said this, the people in my Google+ and Facebook communities display no shortage of humour, even it they have very serious points to make.

Doing very little these days, I wonder if contemporary face-to-face business networking is equally po-faced, and if so, I'm glad to be out of it. Modern professional self-marketing, at which some people are undoubtedly very good, reminds me of New Labour, right down to the fake sincerity. You also seem to need a touched-up (or even air-brushed) image for your online profile - particularly if you are a middle aged woman - which I don't have.

I note that Cherie Blair CBE has a profile on LinkedIn in which she also appears as Clerie Booth QC. Amongst her experience is listed that of Downing Street "Spouse" 1997-2007. I wonder what a younger Ms Booth, also a human rights barrister like the young woman mentioned  previously, would have done had a male lawyer commended her profile picture on LinkedIn, or indeed, what she would have done to her husband, also a lawyer, had he complimented an attractive younger woman online.

As a non-lawyer, I tend to regard the profession as something of a "conspiracy against the laity", to quote George Bernard Shaw. In my experience, lawyers tend to take themselves rather too seriously (although I'm sure this is a professional requisite). Indeed, I wonder if at the core of many a legal dispute is a sense of humour failure. It is also not without irony that much of the self-importance that attaches to such disputes is widely regarded as a joke by outside lay observers.

Therefore I'm surprised that many people apparently seem to take LinkedIn and what goes on there so seriously. It also seems to me that young women should worry less about whether men find them too attractive, because they will all too soon find that this ceases to be an issue in life and that the main problem for many older women becomes one of feeling a need to look younger and more attractive. Such is life, and the best way to get through it is not take places like LinkedIn too seriously.

THE ESSENTIAL NAIVETY OF NEW LABOUR

A few years ago I purchased a new edition of Peter Mandelson's memoir "The Third Man" for the princely sum of £1. Sub-titled  "Life at the heart of New Labour", I thought the book very well written and a good Summer read. However, although Lord Mandelson held a number of senior UK government positions and was later Britain's European Union trade representative, "The Third Man" is really a book about political party management, as it seems was "life at the heart of New Labour". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Man:_Life_at_the_Heart_of_New_Labour

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that most people now regard New Labour's years in office as a period of weak governance, whether in relation to the UK government's decision to participate in the invasion of Iraq, or poor regulation of the banking system. Party politics aside, the so-called New Labour Project was primarily an exercise in brand management and this has probably been its greatest success and most enduring legacy, with Conservative prime minister David Cameron later becoming the self-styled "Heir to Blair". http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/05/who-won-the-election-was-it-cameron-heir-to-blair-cameron-voice-of-lynton-or-was-it.html

Now is seems that an increasing number of Labour Party supporters are fed-up with politics as brand management and want something more ideological, possibly even a return to socialism. The veteran MP Jeremy Corbyn has become the surprise leader of this movement, and - perhaps even more surprising -  the wider electorate seem to relate to Mr Corbyn's brand of politics too. Not only is he now the apparent front runner in the Labour Party leadership contest, but also apparently the most popular candidate amongst voters from all parties http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/14/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-most-popular-candidate-voters-all-parties?CMP=share_btn_gp

Needless to say, New Labour's old political spin machine has led a ferocious assault on Mr Corbyn, who has in turn suggested that former prime minister Blair could face a possible war crimes trial over the illegal Iraq invasion.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-tony-blair-could-face-war-crimes-trial-over-illegal-iraq-invasion-10439020.html  However, the role of New Labour in this debacle is more likely to be remembered in these famous words: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Antoine,_Duke_of_Enghien

In short, the invasion of Iraq points to the essential naivety not just at the heart of the New Labour Project but in the type of political management that it has come to represent and which has since been espoused by the Conservative Party. This can be seen at every level of government, whether in the incompetent patronage of some organisations linked to David Cameron's "Big Society" campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Society or continuing incompetence in the management of Britain's economy -  http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2015/05/06/the-naivety-of-the-uk-economic-debate/

It seems rather rich, therefore, that the Financial Times should today publish a somewhat hysterical leader article on the prospect of Mr Corbyn's election as the new leader of the Labour Party - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/311c4e18-426e-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html Had Britain enjoyed a period of robust and prudent governance in the 21st century, alarm bells at the prospect of a socialist interloper might be justified. As it is, most people beyond the well-heeled Westminster elite probably welcome a return to ideological politics in the hope that these might just lead to better government.

SOME POSSIBLE LESSONS FROM KIDS COMPANY

It seems difficult to escape the downfall of Kids Company, although many people might wish to. However, as I suspect something will emerge phoenix-like from the ashes, here are some possible lessons for the future from a detached observer:

1. There may be considerable social capital in having complementary health/education centres, run by charities, the state (if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister) or a combination of both in deprived neighbourhoods which offer a range of free services for vulnerable children and their families. In addition to therapies and support such as meals, these might provide lessons in practical areas like nutrition, cookery and financial management.

2. Such centres should be subject to appropriate forms of assessment so that their impact upon users and the wider community can be understood. If state-funded, value for money criteria should be applied.

3. Ministers and civil servants should be more aware that whilst celebrity figures may be good at attracting media attention and funding to their causes, they are sometimes poor managers and administrators. Having said this, the state and its agents, including the National Health Service, have also shown themselves to be frequently deficient in administrative and management capability, as well as poor custodians of public funds.

4. Unfortunately, the availability of relatively large sums of money for good causes, when perceived to be incompetently run, will attract people who have less than altruistic motives and others who see an opportunity to exploit.

5. The state and charitable sectors are as much - if not more - prone to cronyism than commercial business. This needs to be widely recognised and measures put in place to ensure that people from outside the insidious public-funded networks which increasing dominate British society are involved in how money is spent. Charitable governance needs to be reviewed and some organisations should consider whether they are best served by being a charity, social enterprise or both.

6. No organisation seeking to be sustainable over the long-term should become so dependent on a single source of funding that the withdrawal of this is likely to result in its demise. Kids Company is not alone in finding that the end of public money also means curtains for the charitable recipient.

Media reports indicate that the fate of Kids Company will be subject to inquiries by both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82397fae-3dd8-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html#axzz3iJVF60F7 Lets hope lessons are learnt by all those involved.

ALL THE WORLD'S A SHOW JUMPING ARENA

The UK's Scott Brash and Ben Maher on the international show jumping circuit

The recent case of a British doctor struck off for moonlighting as an international show jumping commentator - having taken repeated sick leave from his NHS hospital employer (1) - has caused me to reflect on the apparent rude health of UK show jumping as reflected on the global circuit.

Scotsman Scott Brash is currently Number 1 in the Longlines International Equestrian Federation (FEI) world rankings, having been preceded in this position by fellow Briton Ben Maher. Both are pictured above with large cheques at Florida's Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (2).

Horse and Hound magazine recently gave 17 reasons why "the flying Scotsman" is the world number 1 show jumper "for the 12th consecutive month, making him the first show jumper since Germany’s Marcus Ehning in 2006" to achieve this feat (3).

Meanwhile, off course, Scott Brash earlier this year purchased the Essex house of ex-glamour model  businesswoman and fellow equestrian Katie Price, whilst she bought Conservative Party grandee Francis Maud's former home (4).

The disgraced NHS urologist might want to consider retraining as a plastic surgeon and seek a private sector employer more sympathetic to his pursuing a second business. After all, a former GP and now health care entrepreneur was the winning horse trainer in this year's Grand National (5).

Notes
1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803787/Junior-doctor-struck-taking-sick-leave-work-jumping-TV-coverage-Urologist-caught-colleague-recognised-voice-commentary.html

2. http://www.ijrc.org/scott-brash-hello-sanctos-steal-show-500000-fti-consulting-finale-grand-prix-csi-5

3.  http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/features/scott-brash-world-number-one-pictures/

4.  http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-price-buys-new-mansion-4463372

5.  http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/national-sport/pineau-de-re-wins-grand-6925172

Postscript - Equestrian enthusiasts may find these Coursera Moocs of interest: https://www.coursera.org/course/equinenutrition and https://www.coursera.org/course/thehorsecourse

MOOCS: NEW CHANNELS FOR BIG CONVERSATIONS

Mooc = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

Like UKIP, the Mooc is a so-called "challenger brand" - http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1296571/ - of the kind described in a Campaign magazine article on the former. UKIP seems to be having a more real "Big Conservation" with the British public than New Labour achieved a decade ago. This is because the latter party and, indeed, the current political ruling coalition, treat a conversation with the electorate as a consultation. In many ways, UKIP has emerged as the antidote to managed politics of the kind most associated with the old New Labour brand.

The Massive Open Online Course model could now be used to facilitate a moderated big conversation around key issues facing individual countries, such as Britain, or geopolitical regions like Europe. Whilst I am a fan of Moocs and have completed a wide range of courses, one of their main shortcoming for me tends to be the dominance of a single viewpoint: ie the host instructor or institution has a particular narrative which is then supported or challenged in the discussion fora. Whilst some subjects lend themselves to this approach, where issues are clearly contested it would be preferable for two or more points of view to be represented by those running the course.

An obvious case is that of migration to the UK and within the European Union. Fact-based arguments for and against the present situation can be made. However, much of the big conversation is unsatisfactory, whatever your view on the issue. A good - or bad! - example of the poor quality of discourse is provided by the Secretary of State for Defence's comments of yesterday and the subsequent reaction to these - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29784486 Rather than such ad hoc outbursts and counter-blasts, far better to have a structured national debate on migration and population change hosted by a reputable institution. A mooc would provide a good starting-point.

MIGRATION AND POPULATION CHANGE IN BRITAIN

As the debate around net migration to the UK grows, it is important to focus on the facts of population change around Britain. A good place to start is the Office for National Statistics Population and Migration page from which the above graphic is taken -  http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/index.html
The UK is forecast to become the most populous country in Europe by 2035 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8851902/Migrants-to-send-Britains-population-soaring-to-largest-in-EU.html - largely as a consequence of migration from within and outside the European Union. This has led to a growing number of calls for the impacts of migration and population change to be better understood, as well as reports questioning the sustainability - environmental, social, economic and cultural - of existing and predicted increases in Britain's population. Such critical reports include work commissioned by the think tank Civitas - http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/LargescaleImmigration - and the campaign group Population Matters - http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/myths_migration.pdf

Population forecasts have a level of uncertainty as acknowledged by ONS. What is needed are future scenarios based on lower and higher level projections and descriptions of their potential effects on key areas of concern. The UK government should have the intellectual and technological resources to do this and to engage the British public in an objective national discourse about migration and population. However, the traditional parties have hitherto eschewed such a "Big Conversation" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3245620.stm - apparently preferring to accept that an already "Big Society" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Society -
- is just going to get bigger regardless of the consequences. The recent award of a peerage to Sir Andrew Green, founder of Migration Watch - http://www.migrationwatchuk.org - for his work  "to improve public understanding of the impact of the very high levels of net migration" appears to indicate that the factual component of a popularist "big conversation" on this subject should now be supported in the managed political process.

POPULARISTS HAVE RE-ENERGISED BRITISH POLITICS

The success of UKIP in the 2014 elections European Parliament - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results - was a body blow to Britain's established political classes, especially the Liberal-Democrats. Similarly, Douglas Carswell's switch from the Conservatives to UKIP, and subsequent resounding victory in the Clacton by-election has seriously rattled the Tories. Moreover, UKIP is also attracting people from the traditional left, as the result of the Heywood and Middleton by-election and this recent Guardian article show - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/24/ukip-voter-guardian-website-nigel-farage The formula for this success is summed up in these comments from a north of England UKIP supporter: “We’re a grassroots movement; we’re an idea whose time has come. We’re on the long march to Westminster and we will get there.” Source - http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/ukip-target-success-in-barrow-and-ulverston-1.1139730#

In short, as a political operation UKIP's tactical campaign led by Nigel Farage has much in common with the modus operandi of the Scottish National Party under Alex Salmond (although both men would not welcome the comparison) as this Spectator blog notes: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/brothers-in-arms-ukip-and-the-snp-are-one-and-the-same/. It concludes: "Neither may reach their ultimate goal of separation from their respective unions (UK and EU) but they have both made politics more interesting and relevant to people previously disinterested. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, it’s undoubtedly an achievement."

All this begs the question: "Why has popularism become become such a dirty word in modern politics?". In Europe, the answer goes back to the populist base of the German National Socialist and Italian Fascist movements in the twentieth century which precipitated World War II. More recently, popularisn has tended to manifest in anti-European Union parties as this article from the Financial Times describes: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/783e39b4-e4af-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#slide0 Opposition to the EU is significantly based on challenges to the power of Brussels, particularly within the Eurozone, and the free movement of people which forms a cornerstone of the European Treaty. Although contemporary populism most often manifests in right-wing groups, in Southern Europe it is left-wing parties who have rallied supporters around these issues.

Significantly, UKIP was set up "with the aim of fielding candidates opposed to the Maastricht Treaty" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party UKIP  The party has been the leading member of the UK's growing EU Referendum Movement which includes a number of other smaller parties. UKIP has been a controversial arrival on the British political scene, as a Wikipedia entry demonstrates, and its success has increasingly been identified with the leadership of Nigel Farage who "started a wide-ranging policy review, his stated aim being "the development of the party into broadly standing for traditional conservative and libertarian values." However, the party's appeal has extended far beyond those who might identify themselves with such political values. Farage now has a column in the left-leaning Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/nigel-farage-8931418.html - and has sought to "highlight UKIP's female, black and ethnic-minority candidates" and to distance the party from extremist politics - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27315328

Whilst UKIP's stance on EU and non EU-migration to Britain has been an important selling point, it seems that a "Farage Factor" drives the party's ratings in the polls - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage  In short, Nigel Farage is a consummate salesman as well as a conviction politician. The conditions for his rise to power were undoubtedly created by New Labour, and Faragiste politics are the antithesis of the Blairite values which persist in the present Coalition government. Whilst I would not predict that UKIP will secure "their ultimate goal of separation" from the European Union, in challenging the "grand projet", including HS2, of the modern national and transnational state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnationalism) and rolling back some of the frontiers of political correctness, Faragiste popularism has undoubtedly re-energised British politics, even if it has failed to grasp global climate change.

Note: The term "popularist" rather than "populist" has been used in this post with two exceptions. This article from the New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/friedman -the-rise-of-popularism.html - say of the former expression: "...I heard a new word in London last week: “Popularism.” It’s the über-ideology of our day. Read the polls, track the blogs, tally the Twitter feeds and Facebook postings and go precisely where the people are, not where you think they need to go". "Populism", on the other hand, is described thus in Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Fascism_and_populism

TRANSPORT KEEPS THE COMMENTATORS PEDDLING

Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne (Getty Images)

There are three articles on transport in today's Financial Times headlined as follows: Cost of congestion takes toll on economy; Contest starts to win £10 billion of contracts to build HS2 line; and, East Thames targeted for regeneration.

The first article reports Edmund King of the AA as saying that "infrastructure investments such a the new high-speed rail link would have "minimal" effect on future UK road traffic increases (or rail congestion, I would add). Meanwhile, congestion in the United States, which has embraced the car more enthusiastically than perhaps anywhere else in the world, is forecast to pay a higher price for congestion than perhaps any other country by 2050.

Although the precise aims of the proposed HS2 remain unclear, it would according to the second article, "provide a lifeline for the construction industry". Indeed, this seems to be the main purpose of the project which is still some way from having all the necessary development consents, although the state-owned company behind it has already "spent £3 billion since it was set up by government in 2012". The total cost of HS2, including trains, is estimated to be in region of £50 million, "making it one of the most expensive railway projects in the world".

Finally, the FT reports that "four river crossings should be built between east London and Kent" at an "estimated" cost of £3-7 billion according to the Centre for London think-tank. Presumably these are also lifelines for the construction industry, as again the precise rationale for them is unclear. I speak as someone who attended two major planning inquiries into an East London River Crossing and then a Thames Gateway Bridge between 1985-6 and 2005-6 respectively.

The UK currently likes to flaunt its economic superiority to France, yet the government seems intent on pursuing precisely the same "grand projet" in the transport and energy sectors which do not seem to have served the French very well. Having been involved in English transport planning for nearly thirty years, much of what I now see is regressive, rather like reality television.

BENEFITS STREET OUTPERFORMS JOHN LEWIS STREET

 

White Dee from Benefits Street and Andy Street from John Lewis

Two British public figures have been in the headlines recently for making speeches. John Lewis man - aka managing director Andy Street - upset the French with his comments on their national decline: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783273/John-Lewis-boss-drunk-beer-wrote-France-finished-says-country-s-prime-minister.html White Dee - real name Deidre Kelly - of Channel 4's "Benefits Street" attended a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference -  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773553/Now-White-Dee-threatens-defect-UKIP-Benefits-Street-star-tells-Tory-conference-IDS-touch-real-world.html - to express support for UKIP. Ms Kelly's public speaking engagements seem to be going better than those of Mr Street, with the lady reporting that business is booming - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779195/Benefits-Street-star-White-Dee-makes-1-500-just-TWO-HOURS-partying-students-personal-appearance-nightclubs.html  Meanwhile, French prime minister Manuel Valls has suggested that Mr Street was drunk when he made the derogatory comments - purportedly in jest and for which he has since apologised - at the World Retail Congress. Perhaps John Lewis need to engage White Dee to carry out a charm offensive and restore some entente cordial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_cordiale

Meanwhile, people concerned about national decline closer to home might like to look at this report on the British High Street - http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/09/national-retail-chains-quitting-high-street-rate-doubles - or read about how Britain is viewed by some of China's Big Men: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10908008/Britain-a-petty-and-declining-empire-argues-Chinese-paper.html The expression "small government, big society" is Chinese, I believe: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S147474641200036X

REVISITING NEW LABOUR AND THE BIG SOCIETY

Headline after UK "Big Society" minister quits following "Sexting Sting"

The resignation of Britain's Minister for Civil Society, following a media sting which saw him reveal his "Big Society" to an apparent young female Twitter supporter, provides a good opportunity to reflect on what is meant by "Big Society", an idea which was supposed to succeed that of "New Labour".

Brooks Newmark, the former minister and a keen supporter of women in politics (particularly attractive blonds of ample bosom it appears) only took up the appointment in July when the Big Society project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Society - had fallen in to some disarray: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-camerons-big-society-in-tatters-as-charity-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-claims-of-government-funding-misuse-9629848.html

However, the fundamental problem with this concept of civil society, aside from brand failure, is the rather narrow view it takes of the original proposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society  The term first really came to my notice during the anti-communist uprisings in Central and Eastern Europe of the1980s, and later in the former Soviet Union, and is identified in this context with "the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society" (Collins English Dictionary). As far as I'm concerned, civil society is not primarily about so-called voluntary or third sector organisations which are increasingly funded, and directed, by the state, and known as Gongos (government organised non-government organisations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GONGO Although such organisations can make a limited contribution to civic values, particularly where these have previously been undermined by the state itself. This is clearly the way David Cameron's "Big Society" construed itself : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MOknpBbt8cgJ:www.thebigsociety.co.uk/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk The question now is whether this political construction, like that of New Labour, still really exists. My judgement is that like the earlier political ideology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour - the "Big Society" is an idea whose time has already passed.

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT: THE CASE FOR NATIONALISM

Public Entrance to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh (opened in 2004)

One consequence of the Scottish Independence Referendum is a re-galvanising of the case for an English Parliament, as recently voiced by the veteran Conservative MP John Redwood - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29203693  However, whilst Mr Redwood suggests that the House of Commons could double up as an English Parliament, this post makes the case for a completely new institution based outside London, accompanied by a  "Great Cull" (humanely executed, naturally) of Westminster bureaucracy. The argument for this might best be summed up in the expression Democratic Sustainable Development.

The so-called United Kingdom has one of the most centralised state bureaucracies in the world. Whilst the previous New Labour administration adopted a policy of "Regionalism", this applied democratically only in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In England, "regionalisation" manifested in the creation of  Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) or Quangos. Indeed "Quangoisation" (see Note) of government was a salient feature of the New Labour state. The Regional Assemblies which gave the RDAs some small measure of public accountability were abolished by the administration between 2008-10 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_assembly_%28England%29

In 2010, a Conservative-led Liberal Coalition Government was elected and set about destroying all vestiges of "regionalisation" - which became a sort of Orwellian banned word - in England, with the stated aim of replacing this with "Localism". In effect, this has meant replacing regional quangos with local ones, including the state-funded Local Enterprise Partnerships. There has also been a re-centralisation of policy-making, notably in the area of spatial planning where English local authorities now have to adhere to a National Planning Policy Framework, which is just as top-down as the Regional Spatial Strategies which it replaced (after much legal wrangling).

Having experienced both discredited "Regionalism" and "Localism" in the past 15 years, the only real option left for England is "Nationalism". This seems to be working very well in Scotland, where record voter turnout in the Independence Referendum gave the birthplace of democracy what seems like a democratic second-coming. I am sure that the prospect of an English Parliament - let's say in Birmingham - in conjunction with down-sizing of the Westminster Elite would have a similar effect. This could leave London with a city state model of government, something that should help overcome the Capital's growing social inequalities.

If all this sounds like it could lead to "Federalism", so much the better. A federal United Kingdom might well be the best way to preserve the Union in the longer-term. It would also provide some justification for the retention of a solid rump of London-based national government. However, the strong likelihood that increased English Nationalism would empower the dreaded  F-word in British politics will ensure that people like are current prime minister and his political cronies (elected and unelected) will do everything in their power to ensure the talk is of a "family of nations" which is run by a parental union of Big Money and Big State (just as it was under the previous government).

Note
1. When I google "Quangoisation" one of the first entries to emerge is a Chinese translation - http://dict.cn/quangoisation - perhaps because it is also a key feature of the State Capitalism model of political economy: one towards which the so-called UK has increasingly moved.

BRITISH POLITICS IS NOT A FAMILY BUSINESS

"I would be heartbroken if this family of nations that we've put together - and we've done such amazing things together - if this family of nations was torn apart." David Cameron.

There is a long article in the lifestyle (Life&Arts) section of this weekend's FT by James Meek, based on his recently published book, "Private Island: Why Britain now belongs to someone else". Entitled "Power from the people", there is much to agree with in the article's description of the British malaise, although the diagnosis seems weak in places.

Meek maintains that Britain has undergone "some grand existential alteration" in the past 20 years ago, and I have to agree that the country is an increasingly peculiar place.

Take, for instance, the recent hounding of the Ashya King family across Europe by agents of the British state with the help of an EU arrest warrant. The family have now taken their child to Prague for medical treatment, a fitting conclusion to a particularly Kafkaesque narrative.

David Cameron and his colleagues appear to have intervened on behalf of the family, and rightly so. However, he is wrong to invoke mawkish comparisons of this and the modern nation state.

There is, quite frankly, a rather daft headline in today's Mail  newspaper about "Childless SNP chiefs 'who have no feel for UK family': Leaders of Scottish National Party 'want to break up Union because they do not understand families' which might have emanated from some Westminster spin-doctor, although the quote appears to come from a rugby player.

Modern politics is fundamentally about neither sport nor some ideal of family, and the sooner senior British politicians grow up and realise this, the better. As the Governor of the Bank of England said recently, Britain is a country with "deep, deep structural problems". Scotland and the rest of the country need a government capable of tackling these, separately or together.

DISUNITED KINGDOM: THE STATE OF THE NATION

"State of the Nation" is a 1997 novel by former royal spin-doctor Michael Shea that was serialised in the Herald newspaper - http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/obituaries/michael-shea-diplomat-1.926959 The plot is summarised thus: "Following Scottish independence, worldwide recession has brought mass unemployment leading to civil unrest. An American-based corporation offers the Scottish government aid..." In the event of a "Yes" vote next week, the more likely scenario is that Scotland will ultimately have to join the Euro and, like Ireland, succumb to German economic disciplines. There may be some historical justice here insofar as the closest living relation of the last king of Scotland is the Prince of Bavaria - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Luitpold_of_Bavaria_%28b.1951%29 - and not the British Royal Family. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond also likes to invoke European precedents, namely the disunification of the former Czechoslovakia, for his country's potential exit from the so-called United Kingdom - http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-break-up-of-czechoslovakia-and-scottish-independence

Meanwhile, in today's edition of The Times, Rachel Sylvester writes that "Alex Salmond and Nigel Farage are both benefiting from disillusion with the Westminster elite felt by the ‘left behinds’". This seems to me to be the crux of the matter, although "left behinds" covers a rather larger rump of voters than Ms Sylvester may have in mind, I would venture. Ed Miliband has certainly picked this up in his party's rebranding as "One Nation Labour", and one of his strategists is quoted by The Times as saying: "The reason Ukip has done well in the European elections and the reason why people in Scotland may vote "Yes" is because they're utterly alienated and sick of Westminster politics as normal..." However, the sense of alienation goes rather deeper. In giving precedence to the city state of London ahead of the state of the nation, recent successive governments, namely New Labour and the Lib-Con Coalition, have failed to recognise that all politics are local.

UK PROPERTY AND THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER

Household Cavalry pass "world's most expensive apartments" (Telegraph)

"We could view the threats and challenges we face today as the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order – and our task now as nothing less than making the transition through a new internationalism to the benefits of an expanding global society...." Gordon - "how I saved the world" - Brown 2009

I enjoyed the benefits of lunch with the FT today and, in particular, a front-page article entitled "Tax haven buyers set off property alarm". According to research by the newspaper based on Land Registry data: "At least £122 billion of property in England and Wales is held through companies in off-shore tax havens". To put this in context, the figure is "more than the total value of all housing stock in Westminster and the City of London". Just under two thirds of the property is in London, with centres like Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds also targets for this type of investment. Land Registry data do not allow a breakdown between residential and commercial property. The full article can be found at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cb11114-18aa-11e4-a51a-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz398lMX18s

The government is currently in the process of privatising the Land Registry - http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2014/06/why-is-the-government-privatising-the-land-registry/ - which may make it more difficult to unravel UK real estate ownership by off-shore vehicles in the future. However, even under present arrangements records show "only the owner or entity holding a property, not the ultimate owner of the company through which the asset is held" according to the FT. This is despite existing anti-money laundering regulations, and an announcement by the Prime Minister earlier this year that full ownership information about UK-based companies would be made publicly available.

The FT analysis cites the example of "One Hyde Park, London's most expensive block of flats" which "epitomises how the rich stash their money through off-shore companies in luxurious property that can remain empty for much of the year". A global market for this type of investment is the main reason why the near-by home of the Household Cavalry, Hyde Park Barracks, is up for sale with a price tag of £600m and prospective buyers lined up -  http://www.arabianbusiness.com/abu-dhabi-s-mubadala-considers-purchase-of-historic-london-property-report-556845.html  as reported in Arabian Business. Although one commentator on this article asks perceptively:"Aren't experts warning about London property bubble????"

Meanwhile, the FT's Philip Stephens - a Rip Van Winkle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_Van_Winkle) type columnist who seems to live in a prelapsarian Blair world*, rather than the alternative universe of Gordon Brown - complains of Britain's increasing hostility to capitalists and immigrants (possibly because of our dysfuctional economy ????)

*According to another FT columnist Blair "ruled in a prelapsarian age, when faith in public figures (and, I would argue, policy) was yet to be blown apart by financial meltdown" - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bedfb93c-10c5-11e4-812b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz398lMX18s

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MIGRATION TO THE UK

UK Prime Minister and Home Secretary on raid of suspected illegal migrants - Picture Slough Express

David Cameron and Teresa May joined a police raid of suspected illegal migrants in Slough yesterday as the government announced a crackdown on migrants' access to unemployment benefit - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10996721/David-Cameron-announces-immigration-benefits-crackdown.html

It is very difficult to have an objective, robust, but nuanced, debate about the costs and benefits of migration to the UK, although a good starting point for such a discourse is Oxford University's Migration Observatory - http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/ My position, incidentally, is similar to that taken in this BBC article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373 - entitled "More or Less: Calculating how much migrants cost or benefit a nation". The article considers the costs and benefits of migration in the UK and wider global context. With regard to the UK, migrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) are identified as net contributors to the national economy in the decade to 2011, but if total migration (ie from within and outside the EEA) to the UK over the period 1995-2011 is considered then "...immigration has been a drain on the public purse". Moreover, the benefits of mass migration, of the kind the UK has seen from some European Union countries, is likely to be short-term because "a good proportion of those people who have been in the UK for some time are likely to be older than the most recent immigrants, and so are more likely to be on benefits and using health services....".

Yesterday's announcements focused on illegal or "undocumented" migrants (whose numbers "oscillate between 417,000 and 863,000, including a population of UK-born children ranging between 44,000 and 144,000" according to work by the London School of Economics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_the_United_Kingdom) and EU migrants claiming unemployment benefit. A Home Office campaign to crackdown on illegal migration last year drew criticism from within and outside the government -  http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/28/vince-cable-attacks-crackdown-on-illegal-immigrants-as-stupid-and-offensive-3901527/ It followed an earlier report by the House of Commons Public Administration Committee - http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/28/uk-immigration-figures-little-better-than-a-guess-3901272/ - that immigration figures are "little better than a guess". Lack of robust information about undocumented and legal migration is certainly a problem, as is the conflation of issues around EU migrants claiming state benefits. The real issue is not the number of people claiming unemployment benefit (which is relatively small) but the growing number of migrant families eligible for the full range of other UK state benefits.

The structure of the UK economy means that many jobs are effectively subsidised by the state through in work and family benefits paid to employees. Indeed this situation might well be described as Britain's new "social contract" - the old one is described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract_%28Britain%29 - in which migration is a key and increasingly contested part.

THE SOCIAL OCCULTATION OF NEO-MATHUSIANISM

I recently came across the expression "social occultation" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_occultation - and suggest this applies to the subject of Neo-malthusianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism - in contemporary UK public policy making (and probably elsewhere). However, difficult issues which are suppressed tend not to go away and David Cameron and colleagues should consider this recent publication on "Malthus: The Life and Legacies of an Untimely Prophet" for their summer holiday reading. A review of this book can be found at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/malthus-the-life-and-legacies-of-an-untimely-prophet-by-robert-j-mayhew/2013388.article

BATTLES LOST ON THE PLAYING FIELDS OF ETON

Although "the famous quote attributed to Wellington" - "the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton" - "was probably apocryphal" according to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_in_popular_culture - David Cameron might like to reflect on whether his defeat in Europe yesterday was lost in the same place.

For our prime minister seems to lack a fundamental grasp of the history of the so-called European Project, which his predecessor Margaret Thatcher actually understood much better. As I pointed out in a post of last year - http://janetmackinnon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-iron-ladies-thatcher-and-merkel.html - whilst Mr Cameron "may privately regard himself as "the Heir to Blair", it is surely the German Chancellor who is heiress of the original "Iron Lady's" drive for democratic liberation of the former Communist Europe where Angela Merkel spent her earlier life..." 

Thus the most significant event in Europe yesterday was not the UK's failure to influence the appointment of the next President of the European Commission, but the signing of a trade agreement between the European Union, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28052645 Moreover, without wishing to appear politically incorrect or incite old enmities, the concept of so-called "Lebensraum" or "Living Space" - http://www.historytoday.com/martyn-housden/lebensraum-policy-or-rhetoric - has always been an important aspect of Greater European Politics, something Russian President Vladimir Putin knows only too well.

Yet the prime minister and his government seem to have no grasp of wider European geo-politics at all. The fact is that the EU can well afford to lose Britain in the long term because the Ukraine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine - as the largest country in Europe, and one of the few places in the world with surplus agricultural land resources, represents "Lebensraum". Although use of this expression  may be construed as anti-German, British colonial expansion was also strongly motivated by the political aim of increasing land and other natural resources available to a small nation state.

With this in mind, Mr Cameron might like to reflect on last week's figures from the Office of National Statistics which saw the UK population increase by the size of Scotland's, or about 5 million people, in the period between 2001-2013 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670751/Number-people-UK-smashes-64million-one-biggest-population-increases-Europe.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 - together with a report by the University of Cambridge and the National Farmer's union which identifies a "significant" shortage of UK farmland by 2030: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28003435

When I attended a Welsh comprehensive school in the 1970s, both "Lebensraum" (which I studied for my history O level) and Malthus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus - whom I studied as part of my geography A level, were fairly key curriculum subjects. I do sometimes wonder what Mr Cameron and his friends learnt at school, apart from how to advance their own careers. However, this problem of the British elite is not new, as George Orwell, also an Eton school boy, wrote: "Probably the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton, but the opening battles of all subsequent wars have been lost there."