Boris Johnson made a speech last night that will, I suspect, come to define his career. As the Guardian put it:
Boris Johnson has launched a bold bid to claim the mantle of Margaret Thatcher by declaring that inequality is essential to fostering "the spirit of envy" and hailed greed as a "valuable spur to economic activity".
In an attempt to shore up his support on the Tory right, as he positions himself as the natural successor to David Cameron, the London mayor called for the "Gordon Gekkos of London" to display their greed to promote economic growth.
He also claimed :
that it was "futile" to try to end inequality.
and:
mocked the 16% "of our species" with an IQ below 85 as he called for more to be done to help the 2% of the population who have an IQ above 130.
Now I am aware that the Telegraph noted that he tried to moderate these views, reporting that he said:
I hope that this time the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed —- valid motivator though greed may be for economic progress —- as for what they give and do for the rest of the population, many of whom have experienced real falls in their incomes over the last five years
and
But I also hope that there is no return to that spirit of Loadsamoney heartlessness - figuratively riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless.
But the Mail seems completely in tune with the Guardian interpretation of the speech, of which I cannot find a full text as yet. Indeed, they quoted this chunk, which seems key to me:
‘I am afraid that violent economic centrifuge is operating on human beings who are already very far from equal in raw ability, if not spiritual worth.
‘Whatever you may think of the value of IQ tests, it is surely relevant to a conversation about equality that as many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, while about 2 per cent have an IQ above 130.
‘The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top. And for one reason or another — boardroom greed or, as I am assured, the natural and God-given talent of boardroom inhabitants — the income gap between the top cornflakes and the bottom cornflakes is getting wider than ever.
‘I stress I don't believe that economic equality is possible. Indeed, some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity.'
What Johnson is clearly saying is that some have a natural right to earn more. And that some are destined to be at the bottom of the pile. And he thinks we should accept that. He also thinks, based on other quotes, that it is philanthropy that should be allowed to deal with the consequences, not tax. And that base instincts like greed and envy should be encouraged.
This is, of course, the politics of envy. And it is class warfare. But it is both declared from a perspective of the person sure he is the winner and sure that he only needs the support of the winners to maintain his position as the 'top cornflake'.
It's the politics of the person who forgets that cornflakes only come in packs: you can't buy them singly. And the broken ones at the bottom of the pack could very easily have started at the top.
This is the politics of abuse.
This is why those with concern for equality, for opportunity for all, for economic justice, for the right to live a fulfilled life whoever you are, have to make clear that this is unacceptable, and always has been and always will be.
But at least Johnson has told us what we're up against and we can name it. For he is not the embodiment of the politics of envy. He merely expressed what so many around him think.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
YOu are being silly.
Not everyone can run a company, there aren’t enough jobs in the World. Instead there are some who can make things and fix things etc. Are they academic, no. Do they do an important job, always.
We are now in the season for shopping, we need people to work in the warehouses and on the shop floor.
We are also in the season for parties. The end of the year is near. I for one am looking forward to next year. Who would work in the Kitchens or serve the drinks. Not CEO’s they cant do that work. They are no good to do such great jobs.
If everyone was intelligent enough to be brain surgeons, then who would do the work of many that we need.
No one, not me for sure, denies the importance of the work so many people do
What I protest about, and rightly so, is the behaviour of those who look down on the shop floor, kitchen staff and warehouse and condemn those there for lack of will
That is what Johnson did
To me,what we have here with Boris Jonhsons postulation is blatant snobbery,and then to couple it to a reference to the amoral movie character Gordon Gecko,who as I recall was a stock market speculator,who did time for insider trading.
I would also add that there are a lot of valuable dirty dangerous,and often skilled jobs,that neither you,I or very many others,would not want to do,because of the awful nature of the work. Maybe Boris should try a few.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03k5kzp/Panorama_Amazon_The_Truth_Behind_the_Click/
@ Peter
Peter, with respect, I think it is you who are being silly, as is neatly encapsulated in your opening sentence “Not everyone can run a company, there aren’t enough jobs in the World”.
The first half of that sentence argues for meritocracy on the basis of capability; the second half recognizes that there aren’t enough jobs being made available, (because of crack-pot neo-liberal austerian dogma, I might say) so that not everyone has a chance to compete.
So, turning to our “movers and shakers”, our business aristocracy (or any other aristocracy, for that matter) do you REALLY think that all of them would have made it “on merit” in a truly level playing field? Do you think some of the low-life incompetents who have made it to the top (even of the “greasy pole”, I might add – mentioning no names, but the initials C and O spring to mind) without the help of privilege and string-pulling and sheer nepotism or favouritism? Would Boris Johnson be Mayor of London without his helpful connections? I think not: he might, instead, be usefully washing up somewhere, or sweeping the streets – at least doing a really useful job, rather than pierrot show he usually engages in.
As an aside, I would mention that all of this was tackled in that taboo-breaking play of J.M. Barrie’s “The Admirable Crichton”, written in 1902, which shocked Edwardian England by suggesting that “the natural supremacy of the upper classes” was a fiction.
And that leads me on to the really important point, which is this: Right-wing thinking rests on two key pillars. The first is what I call “the double double standard”, which runs “WE are allowed double standards, you on the Left are NOT”.
This lesser pillar really rests on, or is supported by, the more important pillar, which is “the argument from nature”, which says that Right-wing thinking derives from human nature, and so is natural, and that all other thinking is aberrant. I’m sure some of you will have encountered versions of this – the way in which taking time off work to be a Tory Councillor isn’t “politics”, but doing the same to be a Trade Union Rep is! The Vicar who mentions Tory policy in a sermon is “doing what’s natural”, where mentioning Socialism is “bringing politics into religion” (as the Pope has, thank God, recently done!)
And this “argument from nature” has a really significant corollary, which is that it allows Right-wingers to assert “Whatever is, is right”, in some ghastly, Panglossian world, where nothing need be changed (however much it may actually have changed, or be changing) because everything is as it is, and those who are most rewarded are justifiably so rewarded, as are those who are excluded or demeaned justifiably so demeaned or excluded. Which brings us back to Boris the Buffoon, mouthing his Panglossian bilge to justify his comfortable existence, because the deck was fixed in his favour.
Finally, picking up on that last point of mine – “however much it may actually have changed, or be changing” – the really defining difference between Left and Right is that Right-wing thinking concentrates on the surface, and what is, because it suits their brief (only changing things when that “what is” threatens their brief).
Left-wing thinking, by contrast, seeks for underlying connections, real motive forces, and real causes and effects, not being content with “what is”, but seeking to answer the “why?” and the “how?” – Marx’s whole output could be seen as an attempt to answer those two questions with respect to economics in society, as could Richard’s “The Courageous State” – and herein lies the real hatred of the Right for the Left: that it cruelly demonstrates to the Right the fact that the Emperor has no clothes, and that they are, in truth, “stark bollocks naked”.
I particularly like the arguments in the middle section
And the conlusion
We need spear-carriers. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be well provided for. It’s a confused argument which suggests otherwise. Boris appears similarly confused with IQ figures, by the way. It’s the American system where the top 2% starts at around 130, here in the UK we typically use the Cattell B scale where those scoring 148 or above (from a possible 161) are invited to join Mensa.
Which also ignores the reality that the majority of successful people have an IQ significantly lower than the maximum.
A high IQ does not mean a person is actually going to get anywhere.
Hopefully the conservative grandees will recognise an a##e-licker a mile away (you listening Boz?)
The devil is very cunning. The silliest are all too often the most intelligent and dangerous.
…join mensa. Like J Saville (IQ 150, for what its worth). One flake who sinisterly floated to the top.
FWIW, I don’t think IQ remotely measures intelligence. It measures itself.
A long long (sadly long) time ago when I’d just left University I applied for a job that demanded you do an intelligence test. In advance of the test I bought one of Prof Eysenk’s books & did all the tests. To my amazement, my IQ rose by 5 between the 1st & the 10th test!
I didn’t, obviously, increase my innate intelligence, I just got better at doing IQ tests.
IQ tests give some vague measurement of where someone is, intellectually, on the spectrum. I doubt they are any better than, e.g, playing chess with a person. My mother used to place great store on crosswords until an intellectual (Freddy Ayre ?)explained that “being good at the Times crossword shows you’re good at the Times crossword, not anything else.”
Personally, I think if everyone was taught the rules of chess then competitive chess would give a much better indicator of intelligence than these silly IQ tests.
Quite so Richard.
I read the Guardian account of this extraordinary speech just after receiving an email announcing the launch of a new political movement in France which could hardly be more opposed to Boris’ politics of envy and greed. The new party – “Nouvelle Donne” – grows out of the “Collectif Roosevelt” which was founded 18 months ago.
Those of you who read French may be interested in their (provisional) charter, notably their 7 fundamental principles elaborated here: http://www.nouvelledonne.fr/chart
Best to read in the original, but very roughly they assert:
– there is no lasting peace without social justice
– too much inequality in the distribution of money & power generates violence
– eradicating extreme poverty, fighting precarity and indecent housing are objectives of civilisation
– societies are built with respect and in the interest of the people, regardless of their level of development; the fight against hunger in the world should inspire international relations and agreements
– technical progress & productivity gains should re-become factors of social progress, emancipation and diversification of human activity
– indefinite material progress is neither possible not desirable; ecosystems & biodiversity must be respected and climate change addressed
– we need to invent a model of society based on the blossoming & emancipation of individuals and the prosperity of peoples & citizens
Grand sounding principles which seem to reflect many of Richard’s ideas for a courageous state. This is perhaps the first time I have seen the germ of a political party clearly contesting the received wisdom of the pursuit of unending unconstrained (and unsustainabe) growth (with GDP as sole indicator of progress), something which has long seemed evident to me.
Remains to be seen what, if anything, will come of it in practice – but I will follow with interest.
Good luck to them
They are right
“……technical progress & productivity gains should re-become factors of social progress…..emancipation and diversification of human activity – indefinite material progress is neither possible not desirable…..”
How does that work then…ever greater use and demand for technology on the one hand yet then also calling for much less material progress…….?
How about a world of more equal less work – as great thinkers once imagined we’d now be enjoying
That of course is predicated on better redistribution of income
I think this was the most right-wing speech made by any Conservative politician in the post-war period, and indeed it would be to the right of many UKIP politicians. Boris’s most obvious grab at the leadership yet – this is probably the start of his 18-month campaign to take charge after Cameron (who has already been written off by most Tories) crashes and burns. William Hill currently have Boris at 5/1 for next Tory leader. I’m not a betting man but if I were, those look like good odds to me.
I think you’re right. We’ve not seen the last of this venal, bilious neoliberal shower yet – they’re only just getting started.
I think you are correct as this seemingly affable guy is populist and liked by Londoners especially in the suburbs possibly bored with political clones. However behind that lies a real right wing threat who partly owes his success to the London Evening Standard’s unrelenting attacks on Ken Livingstone and the strategist Lynton Crosby whom pleaded for millions of Londoners to return Boris when the rest of the country moved away from the Tories in 2012; he won 4% ahead of Labour in a large city which normally favours Labour.
What one has to wonder – while he struts around the world stage or media circus London’s problems never go away. Under his watch of course we had the London Riots(2011) and the growing inequality is now very stark, the worsening gap is in income, property and wealth. The endless road congestion this Autumn is unbearable, the fares in this region probably the highest in Europe and the quality of life well below that of the rest. His opponents have been all together too soft and are letting the cuddly image set a rather ugly agenda supported by a very Right Wing press.
If the Tories elect Boris I’ll probably die laughing! Oh, what a happy day!
I do wonder, from this speech, if he’s all that bright, which surprises me as I’d always assumed he was a bit brighter than the Tory average.
You get loads of people like Gideon & Toby Young who seem incapable of understanding the place their parentage has played in the position they currently hold. For all his faults, David Cameron has always seemed to understand that he is where he is essentially because his family were loaded & he went to Eton.
If he’s deposed for a Boris who thinks his innate brilliance would’ve shone out even if he’d been brought up by a single mother in Harlesden then God help us all!
Anyone can quote out of context. If you haven’t read the full speech yet, I’m slightly baffled that you’re making such strong statements about it.
I referenced alternative views with care
You did, indeed – but you then drew some very strong conclusions from the extracts you have seen. Given the colourful and often flowery nature of BJ’s speeches, I think it would have been prudent to read the speech in full before doing so to ensure that you’re providing an accurate commentary on the speech as a whole. But maybe that doesn’t concern you.
Please point out what i got wrong and stop being a pedant
“class warfare”
“What Johnson is clearly saying”
“it is both declared from a perspective of the person sure he is the winner and sure that he only needs the support of the winners to maintain his position as the ‘top cornflake’”
I didn’t say you had it wrong, I said they were strong statements to make about a speech you haven’t even read in full (and therefore cannot tell whether the snippets you have read have been taken out of context).
I’m not sure why you are suddenly calling me a pedant again. All I said was a prudent man would read something in full before telling other people what it “clearly says”.
Prudence is the excuse for inaction of the defender of the status quo
We need a “Thomas Paine” for the 21st century. Someone to promote a “Bill of Rights”. This should set out one’s rights in “Global Society” and also one’s obligations to it. This would apply to all on this planet.
For example, broadly and simply, everyone should have the opportunity to work in a job that provides more than a subsistence living (regardless of their IQ). This would be matched by the obligation to take the work offered.
Those that manage to reap the most from society have an obligation to put the most back into it.
I’m tired of the fact that the richest are raised to almost “idol” status. It is a measure of Global Society’s moral bankruptcy to allow billionaires to exist while others starve to death.
I accept that we are not all equal some are smarter stronger etc than others, however all born in this world should have equal opportunities to develop.
No one though is an island and even the most driven entrepreneurs require other people to fulfil their dreams, whether it is to buy or sell their produce!
People don’t need a job to access money, not in a country with its own central bank where a basic income can be provided. No-one should have to endure a subsistence standard of living whether they work or not.
Bill I know you have a point.
We all though need to have a challenge in order to develop. This is for the sake of humanity. Otherwise with AI just around the corner we’ll be on the path to extinction…
I haven’t specified what would constitute a job….weren’t for example artists and performers hired in the “Roosevelt’s New Deal”?
The job could take the form of a passionately followed hobby. With the advance in non-AI robotics, why should most of humanity be consigned to drudgery, while the elite 0.1% enjoy stimulating activities?
When AI arrives, we’ll face all manner of ethical dilemmas and the last thing we need to do is allow the unprincipled grasping elite dictate terms here otherwise most us around at that time will face a dystopia to awful to contemplate.
You do need superior intelligence to be poor & survive in extreme circumstances.
http://www.nuruinternational.org/blog/agriculture/untapped-potential-and-intelligence-of-the-extreme-poor/
“In world averages, the US has the highest national income, but an IQ average of only 98.”
http://sq.4mg.com/IQdifferences.htm
“When food itself is a problem, how can I find money for paper? I may require four reams of paper every month.”
S Ramanujan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
I remember krishnamurti saying that what we took for ‘intelligence’ was really ‘capacity.’ Intelligence is the ability to see connections between things and the impact things have on each other. Johnson is citing gutter cliches derived from evolutionary biology which have little to do with how human worth is assessed. The ‘greed is good’ mantra goes back to the 80’s and has led to a culture of breathtaking vacuity. Johnson is an empty vessel and thug, two requisites of being a neo-liberal. The superficiality of the man is beyond belief. Perhaps Eton should be put on special measures!
Only an economically illiterate person would seek to find merit in greed. Greed is not, now never has been, and never will be an effective motivator for positive change. Only a bigoted person would choose to ignore the fact that much, if not most, of the post 2007 economic malaise was caused by greed. Much of our industry was destroyed by greedy asset strippers. Greed lacks both moral precepts and long term vision. It makes me laugh when commentators refer to ‘untrammelled’ greed. As if there is any other kind.
Of all the companies that emerged during the nineteenth century the most successful were those that were founded on ideas of mutual interest. The history of Titus Salt’s factory Saltaire is fascinating reading. And of course Cadburys and Rowntree’s showed just what can be achieved when entrepreneurs are motivated by higher principles than selfishness or greed.(I think it’s fair to say they had a reasonably successful business model).
In a way I rather welcome Johnson’s comments. They finally show him up for the ignorant and bigoted man he really is. Proof, were proof needed, that all that expensive education doesn’t make you smarter, it just makes you educated. After all you could send a chimp to Eton but the best you can hope for is an educated chimp.
it’s worth pointing out that the fact that Johnson can even come out with this stuff is symptomatic of the swaggering confidence of the neo-lib project and that it must believe that the pliable and defeated populace(s) will swallow it hook line and sinker -as Philip Mirowski points out, this is the most grotesque evidence yet of the total failure to oppose neo-liberalism on the part of the ‘left’ as well as alternative capitalism.
Link to speech :
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/factsheets/original/131127181634-BorisJohnsonMargaretThatcherlecture.pdf
It’s odd, isn’t it, that any criticism of the enormous wealth of the very few and any suggestion that life at the bottom could be a little less ghastly is always derided as ‘the politics of envy’.
It has seemed to me for some time that the real politics of envy comes from the right, and Boris is confirming it.
Witness the scorn poured on the woman who took the DWP to court for being threatened into working for free in Poundland, instead of working for free for a museum where she could use and develop her skills. Some of the attacks on her basically boil down to ‘how dare she get a degree and have ideas about the kind of work she could do: who does she think she is?’
Odd that this attitude coexists with a belief in aspiration.
Well said, Sarah – there is a bizarre envy of those on benefits and in social housing partly because social housing escapes, so far, the landlord/mortgage scam slavery and so many are doing jobs they hate with no sense of meaning and purpose behind it all! Johnson is an ignorant oaf who is so egotistical he has to think that people must envy him and his ilk – he can’t even conceive that people co9uld could find value and meaning in life in other ways!
I think Boris, real name Al let’s not forget, the Boris character is an affectation, was just ingratiating himself with the City boys by suggesting that anybody bright would be like them. He wants to see London as a nation in its own right, I suspect, along with others, with himself in some kind of prominent position. Hence his advancement of Boris island – what self-respecting nation doesn’t have its own airport?
Sadly Bill, London is already a nation in its own right in this sad ex-Londoner’s opinion.