There is an obvious follow in thought to my suggestion that this election is not over yet, posted this morning. And that is to speculate on what happens next. That does not mean I have given up on this campaign. It means instead I am willing to think what outcomes now might mean, and hope that such matters are worthy of reflection upon before the vote takes place. In part I also need to do this thinking anyway since I am taking part in a discussion tomorrow that I know will include a question on who might win the 2024 election.
I general accept nothing is fixed in politics and that forecasting can be a fool's game, but I think there can be an exception to that rule. The general rule holds true when the broad political consensus is stable. For very long periods at a time (1945 - 1975, 1980 - 2015, for example) that is true. During these periods the over-arching political narrative (social democracy, and then neoliberalism) survives and all that changes is the party delivering the consensus view, with argument as to priority and not substance, dominating debate.
At epochal moments that changes. 1979 here, and 1980 in the States, was an epochal moment. And we are overdue for another one. At these moments forecasting is more important, I suggest.
The current almost unchallengeable truth is, I suggest, that the era of neoliberalism is over. This was apparent in 2008 even if its protracted expiry has been painful. But now its death is regularly foretold. The FT has declared capitalism in need of a reboot. The US Business Roundtable has declared that profit maximisation has ceased to be a useful, let alone desirable, business ethos.
That this is true is very apparent. Business is not delivering shared prosperity. Its products are destroying the planet. In the process inequality, with all the dire social consequences that can flow from it, is increasing. Those most impacted by all this - who have been denied so many of the chances that this mode of political organisation was meant to deliver - are a growing part of the electorate and so, of course, of society at large. And as we now know this factor of age is, in itself, the most likely indicator of political opinion in the UK
The failure of the logic that the pursuit of self interest and the profit motive would naturally bring prosperity for all is going to have massive ramifications for politics. I would suggest that this failure is what will underpin the next epochal change.
It is readily apparent that Johnson is seeking - and may get - election on the basis of a single objective, of getting Brexit done. That objective is inexplicable. The consequences are unknown. The supposed identity that drives some to support this objective is that of a, quite literally, dying part of our society. And that those who want to ‘get Brexit done' do not know how to do so or what it means is more apparent than ever.
But what is also apparent is that this incomprehensible goal has been grasped at by the Tories precisely because they have no idea what else to do or say. This is clear from Johnson's behaviour in the election, in which I would suggest he is failing badly.
His manifesto says almost nothing, expecting almost meaningless Brexit references.
He is being kept away from the public.
When he does appear it is apparent that those forced to share his company do so reluctantly.
He is avoiding press conferences.
He ducked a leaders' debate.
And it is not clear he will be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
I accept, he remains ahead in polls. But that does not change the fact that he is having a bad election campaign. A man who will not partake in the election he called must, by definition, be suffering in that way.
So, why is that? The answer is that he has nothing to say. There is no Tory policy. And the harsh, neoliberal, pro-market policies that it could for so long rattle out as evidence that it was on the side of those who, by its definition, were succeeding in society, are now being rejected by those very same people. And that leaves the Tories high and dry.
Just as it also leaves the LibDems high and dry as well, since so many of them, from Ed Davey onwards, appear to be wedded to the same mantra.
And let's also be clear about it; this leaves the SNP's Growth Commission based policies in a difficult place as well.
None of these parties can claim that they must now keep government out of the economy to ensure business has a free hand to do what it wants if it's now the case that business does not want to fill the available space that government might leave, which it is readily apparent that it will not do. Nor can any government say that it must do so to permit market forces to deliver what only those markets can do to best effect when business says that it now recognises its role as being simply a part within the society that the government is turning its back on by promoting market forces above all else.
So, if you want to understand why we must have epochal change it is because the business community, now only too well aware that they cannot solve the biggest challenges that we face, whether they be poverty, climate change, inequality, falling productivity as conventionally defined, or prejudice in its many forms, is saying that this epochal change is required. It would have been convenient to claim that the change is being driven by the left. But it isn't. It's being driven by business admitting that it is unable to use what is literally its business model to address these issues. Critically, what it's also recognising in that case is that someone else has to do so. And if the partnership it is seeking is with society then the only partnership option it has is with government.
The consequence is that business is saying it's time to move on.
And it is business that is saying that the solution is not further to the right, because that is not where society is.
And it is business that is also saying, as it has done throughout the Brexit debate (minor exceptions apart) that they see the role for an internationalist, broadly based outlook for society.
I say that to make clear that what business is actually signalling is that populism is ver clearly not the way to go. If business has an influence left, and clearly it does, they're using it. And the message they're delivering is to look to new models of integration in society.
That, I suggest, is epochal change.
I'd also suggest that it is not a signal for old style socialism. There is no indication that, outside some very obvious cases for natural monopolies, that there is need for radical change to the structure of overall business ownership. There is need for it to be more accountable. There is a need for better pension arrangements. There is most certainly a need that taxes be paid. And the transformation that climate change demands must be imposed if necessary. But beyond that? I suggest there will be a need for a strong private sector, playing by the rules, in whatever comes next in society.
But there will also be a need for stronger government too. I once called that vision of government ‘The Courageous State' because in this approach government believes it does have the right to determine that action is required and to actually deliver the necessary change itself if it is apparent that it is the appropriate agency to do so.
In that case we will have a bigger state sector.
We will have different taxes as a result.
And, I hope, different forms of democratic accountability.
As well as different forms of delivery of state services, which are adaptable to need more than at present.
But that these are the foundations for the new epoch appear obvious to me.
As obvious as the fact is that at this election no one from any party has been able to present that vision. Or in some cases anything even vaguely approximating to it.
The consequence is that we will face a period of almost inevitable continuing failure after the election. Too many (but not all) politicians are still dedicated to a form of politics that no longer really reflects almost any real interest in society. They are bound to fail as a result.
But, I suggest that societies eventually get the politics that they want. And if that is the case a new epoch will emerge, driven by a demand from business, from people, and from enlightened politicians and thinkers, all of whom will demand a new paradigm. We just have to get on with it very quickly. That's the overwhelming need. And we have to work to make it happen. But I think it will.
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:
Certainly food for thought here. Will there be some sort of economic crisis/collapse a la 1929 or 2008 or worse? If business cannot make a profit and many go bust “entrepreneurs” will not be able to step into revive profitability in a major economic downturn. Many of our economic and environmental problems are due to the vast size and power of multinational companies whose unaccountable activities lead to ever increasing carbon emissions and pollution, price rigging, monopoly or cartel price fixing, profits stashed away in secret off shore accounts and many other factors that militate a against a fair and genuinely sustainable system. It will need extremely powerful government intervention to right this situation. Society may have to look at alternative economic models, many of which may seem “utopian”. There is a huge problem here. Our present first past the post electoral system militates against new idea and policies. My preference is some sort of Green/Left government open to new ideas.To transition to a sane, humane and ecological system is a long term objective but immediate radical changes are needed now.
Thanks Bill
Bloody Hell!
It must have been a good coffee that you had! I wish coffee could do that for me! Great stuff. And I think that you are right. ‘Fuck business’ will echo in eternity to the Right’s detriment.
Anyhow, I thought I’d share this – not to bring down the mood – but it’s just that there are some issues still troubling me about how the Tories have treated our democracy and this post I think says out loud what I have been thinking.
It sets up the areas we are going to have to be very vigilant of. And I think that the onus will have to be on democrats of all political persuasions to stick together:
http://blog.spicker.uk/british-democracy-faces-an-existential-crisis/
Thanks
I may feature that on the blog tomorrow…
It’s going to be Neoliberals vs the rest in Parliament soon. I anticipate at least some floor crossing.
I think personally the right or the hard right know society wants to change and a new paradigm is coming. This is why they are all hell bent of resisting it as much as possible. They are lying, cheating, pushing fake news, breaking laws and sitting on damaging reports, threatening broadcasters who show them up for the cowards they are. They are clearly not democratic, and akin to fascists with a big F. If bojo wins he will continue to attack the institutions of the state, till they fall to his whim. The media have already fallen because they too feel the cold wind of change, so they side with the hard right to ensure the system stays in their control for a little bit longer. People eventually will be locked up for minor issues and rights will be dumped.
The climate change debate without Johnson, was like seeing how politics used to be in this country. They were civil, with disagreements but not no one was out to get the other guy by lying or cheating. I thinking no wonder Bojo and Farage did not turn up, they would of eaten alive. Bojo of course would of fluffed it and tied to bully his way through the debate with no substance. Sending is his dad was pathetic and shows he is very weak. What it showed most of all was how worried he really is.
I suspect the polls will narrow as the public see all the lies, and his bullying. Bojo’s lack of honesty is clearly having an affect on the public perception of him and the tories. The british people are not fools and they are seeing through his bluster. The terrorist attack is a case in point where Bojo blamed labour for the attack. The people are not that dumb, what i mean, is the british people know who has been in power for the last 9 years and they can count. The nurses number debacle and the secrets NHS docs are a case in point. People are worried about what the tories represent, i think labour might just get into power and it’s the epoch you want Richard.
[…] I noted yesterday, we face epochal change. What Paul Spicker is making clear is that there are those who will seek to challenge them by […]
[…] By Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been described by the Guardian newspaper as an “anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert”. He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics. He is a member of the Progressive Economy Forum. Originally published at Tax Research UK […]
[…] By Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been described by the Guardian newspaper as an “anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert”. He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics. He is a member of the Progressive Economy Forum. Originally published at Tax Research UK […]
” he has nothing to say. There is no Tory policy.”
A close parallel is with the Ruth Davidson strategy in Scotland in the 2017 election. Tory election publicity was all focused on her; irrespective of the constituency it was distributed in and the message was ‘No, to another Indyref’. Despite being on record as saying she thought it was Scotland’s right to choose, the election message was ‘no to indyref’.
No other policy proposals were presented. None. She won thirteen seats (and to listen to MSM broadcasts you’d think she had a majority) Kirsty Walk disgraced herself with a display of unalloyed delight at the count in Glasgow. Shameful given her position with the national broadcaster.
Boris Johnson is playing a very similar strategy. It’s a one issue campaign. That his slogan is meaningless is not the issue. It’s simple and people will decide for themselves what they choose it to mean as indeed they have done all along with the Brexit fantasy. I’m afraid he will get away with it.
People are demanding change in the form of disruption. They should be careful what they wish for. If enough people are too ….stupid (?) gullible (?)…. to see that Boris’ prescription is for more of the same but harder, he’ll be PM on December 13th as soon as he’s kissed the Queen’s hand. She won’t mind it will keep her own family woes out of the headlines. 🙁
Boris and what appear to be his increasingly obvious mental health issues are likely to be his downfall. Nothing’s cut and dried where he’s concerned. He’s the disaster capitalist’s strongest hand and their weakest link at the same time. How does one retire a PM on mental health grounds, I wonder? How do you relieve the PM of his duties? What provisions, if any, have been made?
Bill Kruse says:
” How do you relieve the PM of his duties? What provisions, if any, have been made?”
The ‘men in grey suits’ have their ways.
If Boris is elected into office as PM and doesn’t play nicely he won’t play for long.
Tory Part leaders are expendable, and Boris Johnson more so than most. And he knows it or he’s a fool.
It’s difficult to imagine what he knows or doesn’t know. Perhaps his grasp of things is as flimsy as his promises, as transient as his stated opinions and intentions which, as we’ve seen, change very much according to – what? We know not, merely that they do. How are we to know what he perceives as real then, when he routinely disagrees with his own self? Deffo something going on there which isn’t right.
[…] I noted yesterday, we face epochal change. What Paul Spicker is making clear is that there are those who will seek to challenge them by […]
In a way, I don’t think much will change if Boris or Jeremy gets elected. Events will overtake both of them. A economy based on ever expanding growth is colliding with climate change and there will only ever be one winner.
The whole existing economic model is going to collapse one way or another.
3% growth doubles the size of the economy in 21 years. Without growth, government finances collapse because the debt repayments rely on the economy ever expanding. If we have the growth to sustain the debt, then climate change increases.
As David Attenborough said ” if you believe you can have never ending growth on a finite planet you are either mad or an economist” (or words to that effect)
Or a banker
Thank you Richard – even by your standards, an excellent piece.
The point I take from it is the need for a new politics with which Id agree. Not for the first time I’d argue that the inability to see things in more than a one dimensional, left-right spectrum is a big part of the problem. Tired, cliched old arguments about Labour vs Capital, often with each side conflating socialism/communism/Marxism or capitalism/neo-liberalism/‘business’.
Or trying somehow to split the difference with so called centrists being insulted by both sides. Maybe because they do not have some tired old, discredited ideology to cling to and wave around. Neither the left nor the right has a great track record on massive issues like the environment or LGBT and BME rights. Both have been championed by emergent groups that have not fitted into the old left/right groupings. Both threaten the old power structures and social order.
The elements are there and you can see them coming from the likes of Marianna Mazuccato, Will Hutton, Radix, Richard of courseand doubtless others I’ve not named (more suggestions very welcome). People who are not hidebound by dead Economist thinking and are prepared to work across existing outdated and unhelpful boundaries.
But the City and the commentariat is hidebound by that thinking and that is an issue
[…] This is why a new economic epoch is inevitable. […]