This is in an FT email this morning:
Now the article is by Janan Ganesh, for whom I have little time, so I'm not suggesting it's a great thing to read, but the headline is itself telling.
First, after thirty plus years it seems shocking to some that politics should be about ideology. Og course it should! It's about who gets what in society. That's why it is always down to economics in the end.
Second, Labour is allowed to rock the boat, and yet it seems like effrontery to some that it might. Of course Blair did not, as we know. And there are many in Labour who still would not, which is to its shame, and theirs since its whole job is to rock the boat. But the fact that it might still shocks some in the establishment.
Those who think this odd might need to read Gideon Rachman's article, trailed in the same mail which has this headline:
As he concludes:
[W]hile new political movements are not yet ready to smash the established parties in the west, mainstream politicians are having to react to the new economic climate. Rising inequality is increasing the pressure for more redistributive taxes and higher minimum wages on both sides of the Atlantic. Another decade of western economic malaise — or, God forbid, another financial crisis — is likely to see more radical solutions and politicians emerging.
He's right.
The question is, what will they look like? The struggle is on.....
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
First of all thank you for an excellent blog! I have long followed it here from Denmark. Initially due to my present thesis writing on ‘Aggressive tax planning from a political economical perspective’ (arguing that tax avoidance is directly related to distributional conflicts, and NOT only a ‘technical’ legal-economical issue to be dealt by orthodox-oriented tax specialists only!). However, now I visit the blog for views on all issues of politics and economics.
Being from Denmark (reading a UK-oriented blog), I fear the national difference matters less and less. By that I mean, (unfortunately) countries seems converging towards Anglo-Saxon standards in corporate governance, public administration and other areas. Likely for that reason do we (Scandinavians) now experience inequality growing at a faster rate than e.g. the US and UK (though from a much lower base level of cause).
I therefore feel there is good reason to follow developments from the UK and elsewhere, rather than only following domestic news outlets.
Anyway, more directly to the point: I wanted to recommend the following article, should you not already have read this one: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire
In addition to views expressed here on the blog, in the article I find views sorely missed in public debate (Denmark at least). Now becoming at best only inadequately expressed by left learning political parties even. Here in DK, these in government having strongly scaled back criticism and now all to easy accepting orthodox-founded arguments. In particular on issues and themes perceived as slightly ‘technical'(e.g. EU austerity but also increasingly on job creation, being incentive driven etc.).
BR Jesper
Thanks
I’ll read the article
On the Ghanesh article – I think there SHOULD be a big difference between Labour and ConDem policies, but whether there really IS a big difference, I’m not so sure. Ghanesh says that the Tories and Labour went into the 2010 election with massively different approaches to cutting the deficit – that’s not really the case. The Tories had a hard-right programme and Labour had a right-wing “Tory lite” programme.
Anyone who saw Chris Leslie’s speech at the nef/FES conference on inequality this Monday will be even less likely to agree with the notion that there is some huge difference between Labour and Tory policy. Chris offered NOTHING in policy terms that was really any different from the ConDems – indeed he offered almost nothing at all. It was the worst speech I’ve ever seen by a front bencher on either side of the House.
Howard – I have to agree
What was really worrying was it was so bad that five minutes after he spoke no one I spoke to could remember what he said – bar no more borrowing
It was not the message anyone needed and badly mistimed by him