I want to reflect again on something I wrote about last night and which arose as a result of discussion during and after the lecture I did last night.
The question is, why will change happen. Indeed, is change possible?
Let me deal with the last first. One of the things I talked about - indeed it was a major theme of what I said - was that economics abounds with faith systems, and neoliberalism represents this more than most economic theory. As I said:
There are those who do have complete faith in markets as if they are revealed truth. They do believe that the government plays the role of the devil.
The former is, of course, a salvation belief and the latter a damnation belief represented by the view, as I put it, that any form of regulation by government, and anything other than that minimal taxation required to enforce the laws of private property would so impede the markets that the salvation they might offer could not be delivered here on earth.
Now the question is not whether this is right or wrong - my position on that is, I am sure, clear - but how this belief system which dominates almost all political discourse in the UK can be challenged.
And to do that it has to be understood that this belief system is not based on fact - it is based on dogma and quite remarkable claims that are unconnected to the human condition and our innate sense of community. We are not maximisers. We do not put self interest first on all occasions, although clearly we must on some. We do share. We are compassionate. We quite clearly need not just the neighbour we know and who we recognise as our peer, but also all those who make up the community in which we live. The rich can only be rich because there are others who are not, to out it bluntly.
And that belief system, false as it is, was propagated. It started with the Mont Pelerin Society and has been spread through all the think tanks it has spawned (call them churches if you like), the most notable of which in the UK is the Institute of Economic Affairs.
But like all belief systems it will only work if it is apparent that its leadership is delivering to enough of its followers the rewards from faith that they promise as a consequence if following faithfully. Faith systems only survive on the basis of that condition being met; it's a pretty good assessment tool for their effectiveness. Of course, some morph and change on the way, but the premise is correct, I think.
And that suggests why change is possible in this case - even if, as yet, t has not happened.
Recession for the great majority, even if there is now a recovery for the few, challenges this faith but candidly, not enough to promote change, as is now apparent. A majority are now sufficiently materially comfortable to not challenge the system for this reason.
They will challenge it for another much more pragmatic reason, and that is fear. When they see disabled people being evicted from their homes they will see themselves as potentially disabled.
When they see realise foodbanks are for people in work who cannot afford to feed their children they will see themselves as hungry people.
When they know long term unemployed people - or their children never get a job - they will see themselves as workless.
When the middle classes are punished for being paid child benefit and are fined as a result they'll question why the system does that. And they'll be angry.
When the NHS charges they will ask why - and it will.
When people have to work into years when their bodies cannot face the demand to do so they'll wonder how that can be reconciled with being one of the richest countries on earth.
I could list more such catalysts for changed thinking. Of course the media is fighting all such changes: they have to; they are the friends of those imposing them. They want to create the 'difference' perception that underpins neoliberal thinking - that those who lose deserve it; that it is not happenstance that left so many in misfortune. Hence the 'benefit scrounger' narrative.
But people won't forever but that. There is their own inner narrative that they will see that in conflict with. I believe in the decency of most people: that is my optimistic view. I also believe that many people, far too many people, live lives dominated by fear that they will happenstance become one of the losers, because they know that is possible, and they will know those who are.
And that narrative of fear is a powerful one. It is the desire for that freedom from fear that will create the demand for change. At some point a liberation narrative will develop.
It has not as yet, and there is a massive void that I and many others seek to fill, but which I know we have not done as yet, for a truly coherent alternative about which we can coalesce. But there are people working on that - I met some of them last night. And that narrative is developing. And because it will, literally, be one of liberation it will deliver.
The aim, to go back to belief systems, is to deliver what might be called the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth: we do not need to wait.
Maybe that's always been the aim. So what? Isn't that encouraging? Isn't that the evidence that the demand for this exists?
I have no idea of the outcome, the event that will trigger change, or when it will happen. All I know is we are living with a failed narrative that many want to change.
And I believe they will. And that is why change is possible.
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:
You stated above that the NHS will charge. At present in the UK we pay for parking and prescriptions.
Are you aware of new charges coming in that we haven’t been told about yet?
I believe the panning exists
I think it is the plan for a Tory government
Do you have any factual evidence?
Not that I can report
No
That sounds like a gold mine !
Many years ago I was told by a tory woman neighbour that paying £10 for a visit to see the doctor was very reasonable and might stop all those snivelling peasants (OK she didn’t say that) from cluttering up the doctor’s surgery. I have no doubt that that is ingrained tory thinking now.
25% of GPs now think that
In my area (Surrey) now that Branson owns some of our previously state-owned health facilities we can’t get more than 5 sessions of physio on the NHS any more. It used to be as much as you needed. Now it’s five. After that you have to go private. Of course, if you aren’t earning because you’re injured or whatever then you can’t pay for it as you don’t have the money. This means everyone will need, as well as the state insurance they already pay, to have private insurance as well. This is the shift towards a private insurance model made obvious and it seems to be being engineered by the disgraced American insurance company Unum. You can learn a great deal about them simply Googlng for Unum scandal.
Same here.
Each paid session is @ £76.00/Hr.
Maybe you should also take a look at the drugs situation. The DoH has set a maximum price it will pay for each drug/dose. If the cost of that drug, or course, is higher than that then the CCG will have to pay the difference itself. Follow that line of thinking. Locally, various initiatives for patients chronically ill have fallen by the wayside (such as clinics for those with respiratory complaints)…..at the moment the ‘flu jab seems to still be available. If they start charging…..tesco do it at a few quid a jab, so it may be cheaper to shop around.
I agree, Richard. And let us hope that change is sensibly accepted by those whose interest the change threatens and that it is a peaceful change.
”…there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, when they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish…’’
Great “sermon”, Richard (and I speak as an Anglican Lay Reader who has a real sermon to deliver this Sunday), with its accurate analysis of the “cultic” nature of many belief systems, but especially neo-liberalism – a cultic belief system whose tenets make all but the most wacky of cult belief systems appear rational by comparison.
However, I cannot help sounding a warning about the power of that neo-liberal narrative and the skill of its defenders, and repeat once again what I’ve posted here before about the “moment” in 2008 when even mainstream media were speaking of the need for, and anticipating change – real change. They’d listened to the little boy, and seen the Emperor not only had no clothes, but that he was damned ugly, a pustulent heap of blubber.
Change SHOULD have happened, not least because we had a PM in Gordon Brown who actually acted to stabilize and rescue the economy and who, I believe, wanted and planned real change.
But what happened? The skilled PR “masters of the universe” whipped up the preposterous MP’s expenses scandal – a mere “fire in a waste-paper bin”, as compared with the inferno raging through the world economy, since if EVERY MP was stealing £100,000 per annum that would still only amount to a mere £65,000,000, or the probable cost of 5 years of paperclips in the Ministry of Defence – and we all took our eyes off the main issue, AND ARE STILL DOING SO.
So, I have to hope that your prediction is correct, and that people WILL wake up to the power of the “there but for the grace of God…” argument.
But, alas, I’m not optimistic; the very high level ability to bamboozle and manipulate public opinion and sentiment displayed and deployed by the current Cameron Government – a staggeringly incompetent “maladministration” in almost every other aspect, leads me to fear that they will pull another such rabbit out of the hat, and we’ll all be discussing the seating arrangement on the Captain’s table of MS Great Britain, also known as MS Titanic, as it slips beneath the waves of the “Slough of Despond”.
was it that obvious I was in sermonising mode?
We rarely differ Andrew but this time we will
2008 was a shock but not a change event – people were not ready for change then
They will be
We just do not know when
I will remain an optimist even when I am up against the wall…..
Before I became a confirmed atheist I had two great local vicars whose sermons were often targeted at social injustice. I’m still in touch with one of them. I’m quite sure that those sort of sermons would not be tolerated at my current local church.
2008 was the pre-shock. The real quake has yet to come.
Your are an advocate of the ‘Aftershock’ philosophy-Bill?- I was a bit dubious about the bloke who wrote the book and was very adept at marketing it but I haven’t investigated its contents yet.
Bill’s absolutely right the derivatives WMDs must sooner or later blow. The current level of financialization is unsustainable. I know some at least will say this is a poor analogy, but I can’t help but think that if the world economy were a physical object, then it would be the equivalent of balancing a pyramidal like structure on its apex. This is an extremely unstable arrangement as the centre of gravity is far too high for such a small base. It takes one small wobble to bring the entire structure crashing down.
When it does collapse will we learn how to be generous with each other?
I didn’t know aboout the book called Aftershock (I do now, I looked it up). I was simply trying to find an analogy for our situation.
Richard, sorry for the late reply on this; I tried to post an earlier reply via my Blackberry, but pressed the wrong button, and just gave up, as I had other things to do.
So, two things: first, I too was moved, as were several other posters on this item, by the quality and optimism of your vision here, and try to share that optimism.
Second, however, this seems to be yet another occasion for quoting Gramsci’s great observation “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”
We ALL need to strive to the utmost in the optimistic hope that we can defeat the forces set against us, which aim at nothing less than the complete theft of our liberties and status as democratically enabled citizens. In this quest your efforts are greatly appreciated and outstandingly effective.
Andrew, though I would not profess myself a Christian I was raised in the Wesleyan Methodist tradition and still regard the Wesleys as ‘heroes of the revolution’. I realise that it is not fashionable to say it these days but much of what we regard as the Christian decency underpinning British values stems from the Methodist/Baptist interpretation of the gospels. Wesley stood on the side of the poor and oppressed, when the Catholic and Anglican high church did not.
The organisations that will bring down this Government are often small, but they are many. The role of the church, seen by many as an irrelevance in modern society, is perhaps more important now than it has been for centuries. Justin Welby has already signalled a readiness to stand alongside disparate organisations speaking out against social injustice, as did Rowan Williams. I believe that, after years of being rendered irrelevant(or painted as such) the Christian church is once more finding it’s voice, as it always has, in times of adversity.
The situation, I know, looks bleak but take heart. What must the world have looked like to organisations like the Durham Methodist Miners? Never stop reminding people of Jesus’ justice.
Martin, thanks, I won’t stop “stop reminding people of Jesus’ justice”.
On your thesis, it has indeed been said – often by Tony Benn, but he’s quoting someone else, I believe – that the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than to Marx, so I broadly support your argument.
All I’d ask is that you don’t forget the Anglican founders of Christian Socialism, such as F.D.Maurice and Charles Kingsley, nor the great Bishop of Durham, Brooke Foss Westcott – called the miners’ Bishop for his support for striking miners in the 1890’s
But your main thesis is largely correct – for example, Wesley was way ahead of his time, opposing slavery in the 1770’s
I have been saying for some time economics is a branch of theology (or demonology to some ). At times it seems to be similar to astrology!
You are spot on by indicating the role of fear.
Many, it seems to me, are reluctant to challenge the noe-liberal consensus because if they do, they will lose even that which they have ( a bit like the labourer in the parable who was only given one talent by his master and hid it in the ground). On a newspaper comment page last night, one person was saying if Amazon pay their taxes, they’ll just pass on the prices to us so s/he will settle for his cheaper purchases whatever the effect on society. Cameron, in the Commons yesterday, was attacking Labour’s ‘Marxist’ plans which would force companies abroad and lose taxes and jobs here. People are reluctant to challenge the management by key performance indicators style, because they think dialogue is impossible and risky to their employment at time there are few jobs. The anxiety can be manipulated by the neo-liberals against minorities-immigrants, the EU, benefit recipients, people with alternative narratives- to divide and rule. If there comes a point when the pretext is exposed, or the costs of not protesting become too high or they can see an alternative way, then change will happen. The psychologist Eric Berne said people will change when they are bored, in crisis or can see a different way. I have seen it many times in my work. This is why I hope that those working for change are not discouraged.
Like you, I can’t see how at the moment but I can remember how powerful the USSR seemed with its nuclear weapons and secret police, or the Apartheid state in South Africa: now both history.
You are quite right with your last comments
Change is possible
Sadly it is perhaps pessimistically worth noting that USSR has morphed into a repressive Russian state that bears a remarkable resemblance to the USSR. So, although change may happen, I sincerely hope it will, it will need to be continually fought for.
I am almost totally without hope these days. The population seems to be at war with itself over benefits, housing public services and more. More often than not I see the dark side of the British public fighting it’s way to the bottom.
Your wonderful piece reminds me that there are different views and perhaps a tiny sliver of hope.
Thanks
That made it worth writing then
Also remember something Antonio Gramsci said – that many people hold a ‘dual consciousness’ about their society; they absorb the ideology/hegemony of the ruling class but also face reality too in their daily lives which of course is currently declining wages/rising prices etc. But of course Gramsci said too there has to be a ‘counter ideology’ to combat that hegemony – for many of us that more or less has to be Labour and at times it does shine through as with the 78% who supported Milliband Vs the Daily Mail. Also the public overwhelmingly supported his analysis of the energy companies hence the D/Mail’s hysteria. It is incumbent upon all of us that we keep the narrative going and that we try to see it widely articulated because as Gramsci said its there but it’s in a constant contest or struggle with their hegemony.
I’ll try to do my bit
Unfortunately, psychologically things only change when they get so bad that there is very little to lose. I agree with you Richard, that the pressure is mounting.. but the history is that we will have amelioration and not a fundamental shift. We need an economic Reformation.
Indeed, one along these lines http://www.economania.co.uk/chris-waller/new-reformation.htm.
change is possible, yes, but if 2008 was not enough to show to the world the lie that the City was a ‘wealth’ creator and its ‘talented’ captains needed to be paid huge sums, what will do it -so far we have ‘the eternal recurrence of the same’ with more Ponzi scheme bubbles on the way. Watching the newsnight ‘celebration’ of the 2008 collapse, we heard heard that ‘Sir’ Fred had breakfasted at the Ritz prior to going cap in hand to the treasury later that day! Darling himself, in the following interview, sounded grotesquely complacent in his insouciance. Why are our politicians not taking on an educative function? Barely anyone in politics is trying to clarify, elucidate or educate. These people are piss poor, I’m afraid.
Thanks for this. All of which I agree with.
Many, possibly the majority, know, in their bones, that the currently prevailing neoliberal economics system is junk dressed up in deliberately incomprehensible economic babble – the equivalent of the ‘Hocus Pocus’ of the mediaeval times – with enough of a ‘scientific’ twist to appeal to our age.
I hope and encourage you continue to confront this evil – for evil it is – for all our sakes. You’re not alone.
It’s voodoo Brian, not like as in ‘voodoo economics’ but like primitive religions where the high priests, all made up in garish colours, shake their ju-ju sticks over the bloody altar and shout that sacrifices must be made to the gods which involve the peasants handing over their worldly possessions and the best-looking women to the voodoo priests, for, er, sacrifice. Similarly Osborne waves his bizarre rhetoric at us and suggests tough decisions will have to be made to appease the all-powerful market gods, decisions which tragically involve selling off the NHS and the utilities to his business chums. It’s the same scam in both instances. There are no gods, only shabby and rather obvious little con-men.
I agree with you Bill.
I was speaking with my doctorate level vicar, sometime ago on the subject of economics and he said he also was lost within 2 sentences of listening to economics professionals.
I believe that a change us inevitable, otherwise the consequences are too horrifying to contemplate.
Never underestimate the utter stupidity of humanity, of course! Where greed is concerned, it appears certain numbers of us are hell bent on making the same mistakes over and over again.
However, as with the post-war consensus, we did change and changed for the better.
Should we continue to keep on “managing” capitalism though, or should it be replaced with socialism?
I’m not talking about total central planning, but democratic cooperative ownership by the people of the means of production, labour and exchange.
Socialism doesn’t work? Real socialism has never been tried, as socialism in Russia was never true socialism!
I, like most people on here, am looking for a glimmer of hope and for that, Richard, I thank you. But if we wait for a British Public, brow-beaten and befuddled by the constant barrage of right-wing propaganda, to wake up we will wait for generations, and by then it will be too late.
But there are glimmers of light to be had elsewhere. The low-key, lacklustre Tory party conference showed that they are preaching to an ever-diminishing herd. The policies of George ‘wrecking-ball’ Osborne are doing untold damage in the Tory heartlands (HS2 and their continued support of European Union, cuts in rural transport services, threat to rural postal services, the list goes on). On the other side the number of dissenting voices is growing. I am constantly amazed at the huge numbers of dissenting organisations the length and breadth of the Country. I should admit here that I am a Green Party member, but also a pragmatist who recognises that, as we speak, the Labour Party represents the only achievable alternative to this evil agenda. Labour, we are told, do not have the confidence of the public when it comes to the economy. But most people don’t understand the economy. In advertising they say ‘sell the benefits’, and that’s what Ed Miliband must do! The public don’t want the nuts and bolts, they want a vision of how their lives will change for the better. If Ed Miliband only realised it ‘he could knock it out of the park’ in the next twelve months.
For the rest of us we all have a responsibility to put politics and social justice firmly on the table in our daily lives. Challenge, Debate and Inform!
I agree with your description of the malaise. And one should always hope and strive for a better way. But would I trust most of the bloggers here or people similar to them to run a company, run an organization, run a government, manage an economy?
No I would not. We need leaders and practical people, and sorry to say most might probably be Tories (to give a label). The mirror image of bashing benefit scroungers is bashing the Toffs. One example of non practical politics is Tax Credits, great benefits (for myself included)but absolutely hopeless implementation. But change is not so hard, I know of a few relatively simple practical changes in government and the economy that could make quite a difference – a few focused campaigns would do the trick.
But you might trust a Tory MP?
Worrying
This country, that is to say the real economy of this country was built by nobodies. Hard-working nobodies with gumption and skill base and a knowledge of the real world they were living in, but nobodies none the less. Not privileged, not Oxbridge educated, not graduates with a PPE. They are not celebrated neither are their names remembered.
Years later the fruits of their labours were acquired by the wealthy, the speculators looking for ROI, they were incorporated, they were subsumed. And that’s where it all began to go wrong.
Your doubt about the abilities of the bloggers on this page forgets one thing… passionate people are capable of extraordinary achievements.
As for our MP’s of every political hue, to be frank I wouldn’t trust most of them to sit the right way on a lavatory.
Stephen
“But would I trust most of the bloggers here or people similar to them to run a company, run an organization, run a government, manage an economy? No I would not.”
Well you never know they might not be blinded by dogma and might be prepared to listen to alternative views and not be blinded by dogma and party politics! Running a country is not same as running a company. For example when a business lays off workers they become someone else’s is problem…a country however can’t sack the unemployed…
“We need leaders and practical people, and sorry to say most might probably be Tories (to give a label).”
Sorry we’ll have to disagree on this … today real leaders and practical people seem to be in short supply in business. If you insist I’ll compile a list of multi-nationals that have demonstrated lack of real leadership! Let’s start with RBS, BP, Group 4……
“The mirror image of bashing benefit scroungers is bashing the Toffs.”
Maybe if the toffs that have got their hands on the rudder of “HMS UK” actually demonstrated real leadership qualities instead of faux ones eg George Osborne delegating to Chloe Smith and setting her up for a Paxman grilling that he should have faced. George Osborne again,trying to set up Mark Carney as a “fall guy”. to take the flak if the UK economy crashes in two years time.
David Cameron blowing hot air on tax avoidance and then conspicuous in the lack of concrete action to tackle the problem!
“One example of non practical politics is Tax Credits, great benefits (for myself included)but absolutely hopeless implementation.”
Perhaps this was the only solution given that businesses were unable to provide a free market solution?
“But change is not so hard, I know of a few relatively simple practical changes in government and the economy that could make quite a difference — a few focused campaigns would do the trick.”
Perhaps you would care to share your ideas, because I can’t help but suspect they are just more inconsequential sticking plaster. With all the challenges of AI, growing world population, limited planetary resources, etc etc I can’t help but believe that nothing short of a revolution in thought is required in order to address them.
“We need leaders and practical people”
Which automatically excludes practically all of our current elected reps, for who “bred to rule but not to think” would be the explanatory phrase.
The problem is our focus on education as qualification.
Imagine you were looking for a Prime minister from a pool of 1000 people. In theory you would interview all of the candidates through a series of aptitude tests. But assume you chose to short-listed only the 10% that went to public school. Of that 100 candidates you only selected the 10% that went to Oxbridge. That would leave you with 10 applicants. From that subset you decide to interview the 10% that had elected to go into politics. That remaining one candidate is your only interviewee. That’s exactly how our system works.
In ‘A day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch’ Solzhenitsyn made the commented that ‘education doesn’t make you smarter’. It’s true it simply makes you educated. If anyone can show me a university that offers a degree in ‘common sense and life experience’, I will send my sons there! Throughout my lifetime I have worked with a variety of people, from all sorts of backgrounds. And I can honestly tell you that many of the best educated were thick as the proverbial pig poo. Conversely kids from troubled backgrounds that I have had the pleasure of working with have demonstrated powers of perception and sagacity that would put most of our political ‘elite’ to shame.
i couldn’t agree more martin! During my years in teaching, I was often amazed at the perceptiveness of kids from ‘difficult’ backgrounds who often showed real ‘nous’ regarding the nature of the education system and the world around them. The socio linguist Basil Bernstein did a lot of research that showed how manipulation of language was the ‘skill’ that gave you social status.
Witness Lord freud, the architect of the incompetent bedroom tax policy. Seven months into it he’s noticed there are no one-bedroom houses for people to move into….!!!!! A GCSE project group could have told him this in advance! It all beggars belief and is very disturbing. No doubt, when it comes to the derivatives market and currency manipulation, Lord Freud positively shines but creates social policy that wrecks lives.
I am reminded of the comment to Billy Connolly by the late Jimmy Reid.
“Behind every one of these Windows is somebody who might be a horse-jumping champion, a formula one racing champion, a yachtsman of great degree, but he’ll never know because he’ll never step on a yacht, or in a formula one car. He’ll never get the chance”
Reid was of course right, and we can count the cost to the children of the working classes, who no longer even bother to aspire to escape their circumstances. What we are unable to calculate is the cost to the nation of all that squandered human potential, unless it is by the mediocrities that govern us.
My wife often says I need to go to the university of ‘common sense’ – if only I knew weher it was 🙁
So while I went to uni I have no sense. She went to the school of hard knocks and is in most ways (except maths my specialst subject at uni) much more perceptive and sensible than me in many many ways.
” No doubt, when it comes to the derivatives market and currency manipulation, Lord Freud positively shines but creates social policy that wrecks lives”
I wouldn’t say shines:
“Whilst working in the City of London he was called by a colleague the “Fraud Squad” because of his ability to “heavily promote new share issues that subsequently tanked.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Freud,_Baron_Freud
“Freud began his work on welfare reform knowing, by his own admission, nothing about welfare. In fact, it seems fairly safe to say that he continued in this vein, as he continued to make utterly ignorant claims about the system in order to justify government cuts”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/lord-freud-welfare-poor-risk
In fact he seems a to be the epitome of modern economic politics, a person who knows who he needs to know, knows how to get where he wants to be, and doesn’t mind climbing there over other peoples bodies.