The following blog was written on Howard Jackson’s Elvis blog. Now I admit I don’t know Howard, and I don’t usually read Elvis blogs, but I’ll share it none the less, and offer my thanks to Howard:

The mens’ toilet at Wembley was crowded.  The bloke who stood next to me was tall, broad and loud. ‘Stewart Downing,’ said the large man in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear, ‘man of the bleeding match.  When I saw that I thought I was back on the drugs.’

I said nothing.

‘Let’s be honest, mate,’ he said.  ‘We were dogshit.’

‘We have played better,’ I said.

Bliss and disbelief occur often in football.   Liverpool had just won a penalty shoot out to clinch the 2012 Carling Cup Final despite missing their first two penalties.   Later, in the car, the disbelief and the bliss was compounded by the Analysis programme on BBC Radio 4.  The Trade Union economist, Duncan Weldon, demonstrated how, during the last ten years in the UK, wages had flattened for ordinary people.  He challenged the self-serving establishment view that it was an unavoidable consequence of globalisation and technology.   He compared countries with neo-liberal policies with the few remaining social democracies and stated that the latter had been far more successful at protecting the jobs and living standards of working people.   The penalty shoot out was bizarre by even the somewhat dodgy Cup Final standards of Liverpool Football Club.  Neither is economic heresy normal for the BBC.

The social democrats are fighting back and Richard Murphy, the number one economics blogger in the UK, is leading the fight.   He wrote ‘The Courageous State’ in three months.  This compares to Elvis producing the classic albums ‘Elvis Is Back’ and ‘Elvis Country’ in a matter of days or, for the more serious, Joseph Conrad writing ‘Heart Of Darkness’ in a month.    I have spent my life deferring to superior talent but this effortless mastery is definitely sickening.

In the week before the Cup Final, ex-cabinet minister, David Laws, wrote an article for The Guardian newspaper defending the chancellor, George Osborne.   Laws is the man who made fifty million in the City and who believes that the free market always produces the best possible outcomes.   He resigned from the Government because of expenses claims which culminated in him being paid money to which he was not entitled.   I have no way of verifying this but I am prepared to bet some of my own cash that he supports Harry Redknapp for the job of England football manager.  The article by Laws was short on analysis and quoted just one statistic, the rate of inflation.  Instead, he intimidated with a superior tone and used words like serious and informed.    He had the comfort of knowing that other people thought like him and that these people were invariably powerful.  That’s right, he agrees with the idiots who created the current economic mess.

Richard Murphy may not thank me for featuring him on an Elvis blog but it should not do him too much harm.  He is combative, confident and energetic enough to be everywhere.  He was interviewed today on Sky News about Barclays Bank and the £500m underpayment of tax.

‘We ain’t done anything wrong, mate.   It’s all legal,’ said a spokesman from the Bank.

Richard Murphy used to work as a tax consultant.  He knows the dirty secrets and the insatiable greed of the rich.  Indeed, his book has a good section on why they are so callous.   He is not a man who made a £500m fortune without a hint of personal doubt and subsequently felt obliged to claim expenses to which he was not entitled.   This merely makes him a better human being and is not the reason we should trust Richard Murphy rather than David Laws.  Murphy has qualities that make opportunists and networkers like Laws sneer.   He is capable of original thought and he is not afraid of facts.    The most alarming that his book ‘The Courageous State’ reveals is the £20bn unpaid tax, and the 97% portion of the UK money supply created by the private sector.   Before Thatcher, the State created most of the money, now it creates a mere 3%.  This 97% is debt disguised by the banks as assets (my words not those of Richard Murphy).   Debt attracts interest and this interest is paid to the rich and the bankers.   No wonder their bonus payments amount to billions.

Richard Murphy is right.  The State has been enfeebled and those economic libertarians who are joyfully welcoming this should consider an alternative history to their romanticised view of the industrial revolution.   The two leaps forward in human development were precipitated by the rise of Rome and Athens, and the emergence of powerful nation states in the 18th Century.   (These are my words again.)

‘The Courageous State’ argues for the nation state to assert itself once more.   A civilised society is obliged to maximise the development of the potential of its citizens and to reduce the income gap between the very rich and the poor.   Richard Murphy is offended by an economy where the richest do not pay tax and the poorest pay more of their money in tax than those who have more.   Only in our crazed world of neo-liberalism are his views described as extremist.

tax cuts‘The Courageous State’ is a 300 page book and the future of the world is a big subject.  There are omissions.  Faith in his future is undermined by the knowledge that too much economic power has shifted to outside the nation state.   Richard Murphy admits this but we need another book to convince politicians that it is in their interests to cooperate with each other rather than their financiers.  Also, within the left, somebody needs to talk about the tyranny of government AND the tyranny of the market.  I have no doubt that Murphy will rise to the challenge.

Murphy is right to argue that we should use a different language for tax. We are citizens and we do not give money to the Government in the way the British press describes.  We pay the Government what we owe it for services such as roads and hospitals.   But when Murphy says that it is the money of the Government and not ours he does not help the argument.

The book offers clever alternative circular economic models to the familiar co-axial graphs of economic theory.  In some, the circles are too conveniently concentric but the underlying assumptions are valid.   Diagram 10.14 sums up brilliantly what is wrong with neo-liberalism and its sole emphasis on money and is a fabulous moment of epiphany that demonstrates how lives are wrecked and distorted by narrow economic ideology.

I hope this inspiring economist is not offended by being included on an Elvis blog.   60 years ago the establishment argued that ElvisElvis could not sing but he prevailed and now people realise he could warble better than the rest of them.  He also inspired other rockabilly singers such as Johnny Cash and Jerry Lee Lewis.    These men were not prepared for the world to stay the same.   Like Richard Murphy, Elvis was not alone.  Murphy has Ann Pettifor, Paul Krugman, Roger Bootle and Robert Skidelski for company.   He is not the only brave economist talking sense.   I am a pessimist by nature but on Sunday I enjoyed bliss and disbelief for almost the whole 200 mile journey back to Liverpool.   With heroes like Richard Murphy around we may yet be pleasantly surprised.

If you want to read about Elvis, rock and roll and much more click here.

 

I have a version of the following on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site tonight: and I share it here in haste:

The news  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/16/civil-servants-union-tax-schemes that making payment to people who are, in effect, senior civil servants through their personal service companies is widespread across Whitehall is shocking at a number of levels.

It is shocking because, as H M Revenue & Customs say on their website, it is the duty of an employer to determine the proper status of their employee and in particular whether they are self employed (which term, they make clear, also covers those working through a limited company) or not. As HMRC put it, if this is not done  http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-status/index.htm#5 :

it creates unfair competition between those businesses that meet their responsibilities and those that do not. It also creates unfairness where, for instance, two workers engaged on the same project and performing the same tasks for separate businesses are not paying the same tax and NICs due to the incorrect classification of one of them.

No one could have put it better: As HMRC say, there is unfairness at the core of what is now known to be happening in Whitehall.

It’s also shocking that this is being done to curry favour with those on the highest levels of pay: this is shocking government encouragement of inequality.

There is much more to it than that though. This is not just unfair; it’s illegal and an employe can be penalised for getting it wrong. As a result HMRC publish clear guidelines to make sure no one can make a mistake about who is and is not self employed in situations like this.http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/calcs/esi.htm. There is, therefore, no excuse for any government department getting the employment status of any person wrong. And, try as you might, someone working as what is, in effect, a senior civil servant will always come out as an employee using this test.

That can only mean that these payments made to people through their own so-called consultancy companies mean that at the core of Whitehall there are senior civil servants willfully ignoring the requirements of tax law. And that will be true even if the people receiving these payments work for more someone else in addition to their civil service work: as the rules and case law make clear, two part time jobs never make a full time self employment. As the PAYE regulations make clear, each separate engagement has to be decided on its own merits and the right rules must be applied. But as the level of pay in the cases now highlighted indicates, the chance of any recipient undertaking much other work is, in any event, really quite low.

In that case it is this willingness to ignore the law that is really shocking in this case. Tax and government go together like, as Frank Sinatra would have put it, a horse and carriage: you can’t have one without the other. And yet these payments make clear that the tax abuse that has over the last thirty years come to undermine the credibility of the accounting and legal professions and the corporate world has now so thoroughly permeated Whitehall that no one has even seen how corrosive these payments are.

That means that at the very heart of government the operation of tax law that is central to the credibility of government revenues is now being ignored by the people who are charged with maintaining our state, and all because they so lack conviction in what they do that they have over time outsourced so much of their decision making to consultants that those same consultants (mainly in the accounting and legal professions) can now price anyone working on public sector policy out of the price-reach of government employment, so forcing this corruption on the civil service. This is the inevitable consequence of our having had what I describe in my book The Courageous State http://www.searchingfinance.com/products/soon-to-be-published/the-courageous-state-rethinking-economics-society-and-the-role-of-government.html  as cowardly politicians who have sought to undermine the state in the name of neoliberalism for the last thirty years.

In that case this is not just a technical issue requiring the technical fix of putting these people on the payroll. What it really says is that we need a new breed of courageous politicians who will stand up for the state and all it can do for itself and who will at the same time uphold tax law, the obligation that all employees be treated equally whether in state or private sectors, and who will also rightfully demand a civil service able to make up its own mind in the public interest without outsourcing all key decisions to consultants. Right now we don’t have those politicians and yet without them what is clear is that our whole system of government is at threat, and with it our society as well. That’s why I argue we need the Courageous State we have not got.

 

As the Guardian reports this morning:

The true state of British unemployment is more than double its current level at 6.3 million people, if alternative measures including adults stuck in part-time work are used, according to research published on Tuesday.

The TUC, the umbrella body for UK trade unions, said the total is swelled beyond the official figure of 2.68 million if new categories such as underemployed adults are included. Britain bases its jobless data on a widely used formula that defines an adult as unemployed if they are out of work and have actively sought a new post over the past month.

However, the TUC said incorporating six measures of joblessness that are common in the US would paint the UK job market in a much bleaker light. Those include unemployed people who want work but have not actively sought it for six weeks, who number more than 2.2 million in the UK, and “underemployed” adults who are in part-time work because they cannot find full-time work, who add a further 1.3 million to the unemployment total.

Precisely so (and although I advise the TUC I had nothing to do with this work).

I predicted UK unemployment would increase to more than 4 million when this recession started. What I did not allow for was the massive fall in productivity we have seen, mush of which is reflected in part time work and the under-utilisation of people’s talent.

In the Courageous State I argue that the goal of economic policy should be the achievement of people’s potential because it is the fact that everyone has the ability to achieve that potential that all people are really equal.

That would mean Courageous States would be driven by principles. Of course they’d also be pragmatic sometimes – politics always is, and has to be an exercise in pragmatism. But principles matter in a Courageous State. This will be a fundamental change that will differentiate them from the neoliberal states they will replace.

Those principles are reflected in the following beliefs:

  • People come first;
  • People must have the opportunity to achieve their potential;
  • Poverty is unacceptable;
  • Sustainability is essential;
  • Balance is best for human well-being;
  • Government has to work well;
  • Real business deserves strong support.

We are so far from that now, as the TUC show. Which is to the eternal shame of this government and those parties that make it up.

 

This is a video just released of me talking a couple of weeks ago with Ross Ashcroft of the Renegade Economist about the state of the UK economy and how to rescue the failed discipline of economics.

 

Matt Sissons has reviewed my book The Courageous State on the Why Politics? blog. I won’t reproduce the whole review, and it’s fair to note he does offer some minor criticisms, which he has absolute right to do, before concluding:

What is most evident is that this is a book rammed full of good ideas. Not pie-in-the-sky but pragmatic, realistic solutions; not just to the economic crisis or the inherent unfairness in our society, but to the whole ideology which has led to the current class of wobbly politicians, whose lack of vision and conviction has allowed the dangerous status-quo to continue far longer than it should. It is these ideas, concentrated towards the end of the book, which elevate The Courageous State well above the yet-another-book-about-neoliberalism class of commentary. Murphy presents his solutions with great clarity, as well as clarity of purpose, which enables the reader to see the logical connections between them and for them all to sit together as a cohesive whole.

As a result, the most striking thing about Murphy’s vision, especially amongst the doom and gloom of the austerity agenda, is that it is one of hope; the best kind of hope based on specific, realistic objectives. You won’t find here any suggestions for revolution, simply a change of mind-set which will allow for the many small changes needed to alter the course of our troubled political and economic institutions; to enable them to be forces for the good of the majority rather than a wealthy few. With the current absence amongst national politicians of both hope and a cohesive vision, anyone looking to take up the leadership challenge on the left could do worse than read The Courageous State. If they were to pick it up they would find not just a book, but a fully-formed and fully-argued manifesto for a more stable and more equitable world.

The Courageous State is available here.

 

This is so true:

It is an argument I make in The Courageous State.

Hat tip, Think Left

 
The following was posted on Amazon today. I’ve no idea who T-Runner is – but thanks all the same:
A coherent solution to our current economic predicament – at last., 29 Dec 2011

The Courageous State: Rethinking Economics, Society and the Role of Government

After reading Nick Shaxson’s excellent book ‘Treasure Islands and the men that stole the world’, I had been searching for practical solutions to our current economic malaise. Richard Murphy’s book is this.

The book is divided into three parts. 

The first is a review of our current economic status that covers much of the same areas as Nick Shaxson – the rise of neoliberalism. Richard Murphy attacks the intellectual abdication that equates active government to bad (big) government. This section is easy to follow, but is less compelling than `Treasure Islands’ relentless and readable analysis.

The second section makes the point that man and society are more than money and the material economy. This rather obvious point is rammed home (as is probably necessary) with diagrams that highlight how progress in the financial area may perversely restrict potential in a wider context. The numerous examples given through this discussion prepares a descriptive intellectual background to the subsequent solutions.

The third section contains Richard Murphy’s solutions. These are radical, but practical and are clearly informed by the author’s experience in business. It would not be surprising to find that many small businesses would strongly endorse many/most proposals.

After reading the book I find myself thinking ` What would the UK be like if this radical programme were put into operation?’. This is simultaneously an exciting and a scary prospect.

Could there be economic flaws at its heart? Who to believe? Witness the recent and sudden conversion of leading economists to the view that the Eurozone needed fiscal union all along. Could a minor country implement the proposals without the support of others within a larger union? How would powerful vested interests frustrate / block implementation?

Despite these concerns, the ideas in this book need to move centre stage to reinvigorate the heart of our anaemic economic debate. 

 

The longest review of my new book, The Courageous State, to date  has been published by Left Foot Forward.

I am grateful to Carl Packman for the care he has put into writing it.

I could quote it at length, but I seriously suggest a visit to Left Foot Forward to read it there. I certainly found it useful, and I wrote the book!

 

Many thanks to all I met in Norwich yesterday.

Four events, all very different, all masterfully organised by Lesley Grahame (to whom special thanks), and an empty bag of books on the way home, thanks to Norwich Greens.

It was good day – and especially good to take part with 50 or so others in the (very cold) march to Norwich Castle to remember the life of Robert Kett, hanged there in 1549.