I have this morning turned yesterday's long thread, and those from the two previous weekends, into a PDF, which should be easier to read:
If printing this (and it's really intended for screen reading) the layout really requires two pages be printed per A4 sheet.
I have added this new introduction to the thread:
I wrote the text of this pamphlet on 24 and 25 March 2022 as a reaction to Rishi Sunak‘s Spring Statement (or budget), made to the House of Commons on 23 March 2022.
I got my first public comment on this statement in early. Alongside Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs (with whom I rarely agree) I have been offering budget commentary on the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 for more than a decade now. We go live almost the moment the Chancellor sits down.
Oddly, we were the first guests to apparently appear live in the studio with Jeremy for two years, having been just about the last to do before Covid lockdown in March 2020, and now we were back. Jeremy noted that this felt like a Blues Brothers reunion, aided by the fact that we all happened to be wearing blue jackets. His pleasure in having familiar guests in front of him was apparent.
What I reminded Jeremy of as a result was that in March 2020 my comment to him on what turned out to be the first of the many Sunak statements made that year was that Sunak had completely misunderstood the scale of the crisis that he faced with regard to Covid at that time. What I suggested this time was that Sunak had completely misunderstood the scale of the crisis that he now faces with regard to mass poverty in the UK.
In comments between the three of us, which were not broadcast, I went further and suggested that the real Crisis was that Sunak did not appreciate that the challenge that he was really facing was the end of globalisation and the neoliberal politics that has underpinned that economic process. Quite simply, what was happening was that the old was dying and that the new was waiting to be born. It's a phrase that I did, of course, borrow from Gramsci, but that does not in any way change its relevance: this is what I think is happening.
I headed from BBC Radio 2 to the studios of LBC in Westminster later that afternoon. I was on the Andrew Marr show on that station between 6.30 and 7 pm that evening. In a discussion with Andrew before the show began, I made much the same point, that we appeared to be at the political point where everything had to change. I admit that, like Jeremy before him, I am not entirely convinced that he agreed with the argument, but equally, he was very clearly interested in it. Indeed, in his particular case, I am fairly sure that his own departure from the BBC was motivated by the desire to have more freedom to explore the changes that he very obviously thinks need to happen.
At the close of the Andrew Maher show I enjoyed a slightly surreal experience. At 6:58 the program changeover to bring in the following show began. I rose from my chair, took off my microphone, and passed them over for Rishi Sunak to use because he was my replacement as the studio guest. We shook hands and spoke briefly as we changed places.
It was on the train home afterwards that I realised I probably needed to write a little more about the reasons for the failure of Sunak's Spring Statement that day. The universal condemnation of that statement right across the media, including in newspapers normally totally loyal to the Conservative party, the next morning was unusual, to say the least. However, almost no one was picking up the consequences of what Sunak was saying. It was easy for the media to concentrate on the immediate impacts of his negligence. Tales of real, and impending, poverty were everywhere. However, extrapolation of the consequences of Sunak's choice to strip large parts of the UK population of almost any disposable income over the which they might have any real choice as to how they might spend it was almost entirely ignored. As a consequence, I realised that the thread in this pamphlet needed to be written.
Writing a long Twitter thread is not a new activity for me. I have previously published a collection of them entitled ‘Money for nothing and my Tweets for free'[1]. In the run-up to this Spring Statement I had published a couple more that had attracted a lot of attention. One explained the cause of the inflation we are facing, and the other the scale of the resulting poverty. These are now appendices in this pamphlet and provide background information to the main argument within it.
I admit that I did not plan to write a thread as long as the one that follows. Nor did I expect that many people would read it once I had published it. No one should really write a Twitter thread of around 6,000 words, or expect anyone to get to the end of it, but they did. This note is being written on the morning of 27th March, just over 24 hours after the thread was published. The stats for the opening Tweet in the thread are as follows at this moment:
Some people said in response to the thread that it should be a pamphlet. I agree. That is why I have produced this version.
Others said it read more like a book plan than a Twitter thread. Those doing so are right: this thread had a dual purpose. Many of the themes in this thread need significant elaboration. My publisher will have a copy of this note soon after it is published.
These points are, though, incidental. The key issues are those noted in the thread. My sense that Sunak's apparent total indifference to the crisis developing around him, about which he claimed he could do nothing, has only grown. In a sense it is epochal: it does, I think (and hope) mark the end of an era.
Anyone who has been following my blog since it began in 2006 will know that I have rarely been happy with neoliberalism and all its consequences, from tax havens onwards. Those a little more observant will also have noted that I have rarely promoted solutions that might be described as socialist. There are three good reasons.
The first is that I do not see conflict-based dogmas that are used to underpin a political creed as a solution to the problems that we face, which I think require cooperation, and socialism is a confrontational creed of this sort.
Second, I do not think the public ownership of assets is in itself a panacea. It is all too obvious that mismanagement, from simple incompetence to outright corruption, can exist in the public as well as the private sectors and for that reason I see any change of ownership as being a little relevance in itself in many (but not all) cases. The exceptions are based on need driven by market failure, or the simple absence of market-based solutions, and not dogma.
Third, I had to think that there is real value in the partnership between the state and private sectors, so long as each does what it is best at, and plays within the rules laid down by ethical, liberal democracy where the needs of all are paramount.
What is described in this thread is, then, something which as yet does not really have a name. I might use social democracy, except that seems timeworn. I am also, candidly, not too worried about that absence of a name as yet. That's because I'm not really very interested in labels. I am interested in consequences.
At this moment the consequences of Sunak are mass poverty, failing public services, injustice, and failure to tackle climate change. He can only plead guilty to all those things. The evidence on the ground is that there is no defence available to him on any of these allegations. He is, quite literally, destroying the whole fabric of society as we have known it with a casual indifference that is callous and very painful to both witness and experience.
I wrote this thread to say just that. I suspect there will be more to come that will explore the issues that we must address in more depth.
Richard Murphy
Ely, Cambridgeshire
March 2022
[1] Available as a free download, here https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/04/14/mfnamtff/
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:
Richard congratulations
your synopsis will clearly ruffle a few feathers/ attract downright hostility
presumably you will have considered this & will have an ” oven -ready ” rebuttal/response —
within or outside your book ?
Kelton had ” myth/reality ” chapter headings
actually your book synopsis comp;ements ” the deficit myth ” adding a broader template
looking forward to a new Political Economics double undergraduate text Kelton – Murphy ( ladies before gentlemen )
Yes…..
Society is very lucky to have you Richard.
Such public spirit is now more valuable than ever.
To stick the boot in now with your thoughts and reactions being so well organised intellectually is the right thing to do as draining as it was.
You know, I was struck by the footage of Sunak visiting the garage to buy some petrol the other day (as if to convince us that you can still buy it). It was only when the camera followed him out of the shop that I realised how small he must be when he virtually disappeared behind the shop fixture/shelves on the way out.
His lack of physical stature matches his lack of intellect and empathy. Indeed, he is nothing but a glove puppet for the administration he is part of – a cruel, indifferent and corrupt one at that. He is just a tool isn’t he?
‘The Small Assassin’ I thought as he paid for his petrol, took his wallet and a small can of Coke and made self consciously for the door.
I was struck by the fact that he does not know how to do contactless payments
I’m calling this now, Sunak will resign from the cabinet, step down as MP, and leave the country. He’ll bleat about how he has been treated, and try to make himself out as a victim; possibly going as far as citing race as a factor in his public excoriation.
Where would he go?
I could see him decamping to America or Canada.
That added preamble is interesting for your political ideas, which I rather agree with. Certainly nationalisation carries something of a religious fervour among parts of the Labour Party (rather like Brexit with many Conservatives) which obscures the fact it is not good or bad of itself – it is just a matter of services and infrastructure which are essentially monopolies not being exploited for profit but managed effectively for general benefit, whether that management is public or private.
In a perfect political world the third party would be the natural home for such pragmatic views, away from the blinkered ideologies of left and right. However an electoral system which effectively squeezes out any chances of success for reasoned centrist views unfortunately makes it very difficult for such ideas to become policy.
Interestingly the USA, usually held as the exemplar of capitalism, has a long record of such a system with their anti-trust laws regulating utility companies. Arguably the UK’s problem is that the previously nationalised industries weren’t sufficiently subject to regulation once privatised. And nowhere’s approach has been updated to include the online world, which has led to a lot of quasi-monopolies being able to dictate prices and inflate profits.
Hi Richard,
I started a video news and features service for the manufacturing sector in 2020. We believe very strongly in the need for what you describe as a meaningful partnership between the government and private industry, and this week will be exploring what could and should be done in terms of industrial policy with industry minister Lee Rowley and with the shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds. (I wrote on the subject on LinkedIn earlier this month https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shaping-britains-industrial-future-nick-peters)
Like you, I believe we are at a critical point in our history. It will be interesting to see who in politics is prepared to face up to that and, crucially, start talking to the public about it in a grown up fashion, because we are entering very difficult times.
On April 7th we will be debating the outcome of the Rowley and Reynolds interviews at a virtual town hall meeting. Guests include Vince Cable and Will Hutton. If you would care to join us, please drop me a line. We would very much like to have you with us.
Nick
“Second, I do not think the public ownership of assets is in itself a panacea. It is all too obvious that mismanagement, from simple incompetence to outright corruption, can exist in the public as well as the private sectors”
Speaking as a socialist I agree. But.
When I look at the privatisation of monopolies by the tories and the utter failure of the regulators to, erm, you know, regulate in the interests of citizens/serfs then I’d suggest that the public ownership of most monopoly infrastructure should be a given & the bloody politicos should pay a bit more attention to how it is operated.
When the electricity distribution network operators were privatised it was claimed that flab would be driven out of the industry. Shortly after privatisation there was a consolidation and a number of UK DNOs were taken over by other companies e.g. UK Power Networks by the French State aka EdF and the Midlands bunch (Central Networks) by EON who later off-loaded it to Western Power/PPL (yankee company).
I had a very interesting conversation with the guy in Western Power who front-ended the Central Networks take-over. “Mike nothing had changed since privatisation” was the phrase that stuck in my mind. So, more than 20 years after privatisation nothing had changed in Central Networks. This begs the question, if nothing changed why bother privatising?
The sewage and water companies (a national scandal – one river in the Uk is fit to swim in – ONE!), rail, a rolling joke – particularly given that “Inter-City” was regarded in the 1980s as the sine qua non by most mainland European operators of how to operate an efficient inter-city service. Bus “services” a joke. The United Jokedom.
So no, public ownership is not a panacea, but it was so far superior (looking pre-1990) to what now occurs in the UK (where financial manipulation seems to be the norm with respect to “players” providing public services) as to make the case forever for public ownership of monopoloy services and the assets that they control. & I’d include the NHS in this.
I agree that natural monopolies need to be in public ownership – there is market failure, as I noted
But, they have to be managed in the public interest – and that could not be guaranteed right now
Mr Parr,
Water in Scotland has not been privatised. It is not perfect, but I doubt if anyone outside the lunatic fringe (except the Scottish Conservatives perhaps because whatever Westminster does must be right) would exchange what we have in Scotland for the English privatised water system.
Water not privatised in Scotland?
I didn’t know that.
‘If nothing changed why bother privatising?’
Because market fundamentalists can take any operation and look for ways to turn each relationship or synergy therein into a revenue producing transaction that is chargeable.
That’s why. It’s pure profiteering.
As Michael Sandel pointed out in ‘What Money Cannot Buy’ (2012) creating markets can fundamentally change peoples and organisations co-operative relationships and not always for the best. I’ve seen the negative results in railway services and social housing.
Surely, he didn’t comtemplate doing this on his own. He must be being backed up by some subset of Tories. Who is egging him on and backing him up is an interesting question, as I don’t think he has the brains to think of all this himself.
Nationaization, properly done and properly regulated, is the best way to regulate the prices of utilities, as the government has the funds to keep them at reasonable levels whatever the market pressure to increase them.
I agree re utilities
But only if not run with a profit maximising logic
Completely agree.
Basic food provision needs to be nationalised too. It’s going to be scarce anyway soon so we can’t afford as a society for the supply to be further throttled by a small group of supermarkets wanting to keep up their profit margins. We also can’t afford for it to be limited to monofarming as while that produces food which is plentiful it’s rubbish in terms of nutrition and damaging to the environment.
But this is the whole problem with neo-liberalism. To such people money is the highest good and maximisation of profits is the central tenet. Surely this has to be stopped for utilities, which now include food supply, and political parties have to be called to account for their promulgation of neo- liberal thinking.
Called to account by whom though? In which venue? When all political parties have the same outlook the solution is unlikely to be political and we, conditioned since early age to be the wretches that we are, can think of nothing else. Let’s hope the next few years prove illuminating as well as turbulent.