There are three types of politician.
The first type is only in politics for what they can get out of it. They are far too commonplace, but they are not the subject of concern here.
The second is a local politician. They are concerned with the well-being of a place. They do not worry about bigger pictures. Their duty and desire is to improve their locale. They do so within the constraints of the nation-state in which they operate, presuming there is little or nothing that they can do to change such limitations.
Third, there is the national politician. They too are ultimately concerned with the well-being of a place, but the manner and way in which they must operate fundamentally differs to that the local politician. There are, of course, international constraints on the way in which a national politician must operate, but they are quite different in nature to the constraints on the local politician. Mostly that is for three reasons.
Firstly, the national politician has responsibility for a population as a whole, and not a part of it. They cannot pretend that they can remove a problem by pretending it will go away. The unemployed, the sick and the elderly do not, for example, very often leave any country in sufficient numbers to solve the policy issues that they create. The national politician cannot ignore such issues by pretending they will just go away in that case.
Second, the national politician has many more tools in their armoury than the local politician. The national politician can, for example, create money, change the general level of taxation, and heavily influence interest rate policy even if they will go along with the pretence that they are not directly responsible for it, and that can also try to control migration with various national consequences. None of these options are within the control of the local politician.
Third, the national politician can change the law, most especially if they are in government. The local politician can, at best, only tinker on the periphery of this issue.
These differences create profoundly different requirements of the national politician when compared to the local politician. The local politician can be small-minded, and might even best succeed if they are. Perforce, the national politician cannot share that trait.
Similarly, whilst the local politician can ignore the externalities of their decision-making, presuming that any unfortunate consequence of what they might decide might conveniently fall ‘elsewhere', the national politician can do no such thing, largely because ‘elsewhere' is, more likely than not, still going to be in their domain. The consequence is that whilst the local politician need only think about the primary consequence of their actions, the national politician has to think about the second, third and maybe more tiers of consequence of what they decide.
The ultimate difference is, however, on the scale of responsibility that the politician must accept. The local politician always has an excuse for their failure: events, they can say, always turned out to be beyond their control. For the national politician, that is not a possibility. Even if something like Covid was not within a politician's control, the power to react to it in an appropriate fashion clearly was, and that responsibility cannot be ducked.
Why say all this? Again, I have three reasons.
First, we need to be rid of the self-interested politician. This remains by far the best reason for wishing the Tories out of office. Far too many of them are only in politics to feather their own nests. An anti-corruption stance is enough in itself to justify the desire to be rid of them.
Second, and more importantly, we have too few good local politicians now. Many areas need champions. They do not get them.
Third, and most important, is the fact that it seems that the politicians we now get at national level simply have not graduated from the level of local politics. They have no clue that it is their job to look at the big picture. The idea that they have responsibility for more than balancing the budget (a very real responsibility for the local politician when local authorities cannot create their own money or tax at will) appears to be beyond their understanding. In addition, second, third and further consequences of their actions appear to never feature in their decision-making, or we would hear so much more about multiplier effects when economic decision-making is discussed. And the idea that many of the supposed constraints of which they complain (“There is no money left”) are in fact matters entirely within their control if only they understood how the economy really works is beyond their apparent imagination, let alone knowledge.
It is that lack of knowledge that is what is most worrying of all. In its place there is a willingness, and even a desire, to accept constraints on their actions imposed by banks, the City, the mainstream media and their own belief that all they can do is dependent upon the goodwill of markets when if they were truly up to the job of being a national politician they would know none of this is true.
In an age where we need politicians of stature we are getting adequate local politicians in charge of national affairs. So widespread is the problem that they themselves appear unaware of this.
What is to blame? Most obviously it is an education system that (via the Oxford politics, philosophy and economics degree above all else) teaches that markets dominate economies, governments should back away from interfering to the greatest extent possible, and there are no externalities (i.e., those second and third tier consequences of decisions that very obviously do exist) because markets can always price them.
All of those assumptions, implicit in almost all economic teaching now, are profoundly wrong. We are living with the consequences. The failure of Starmer to understand the significance of the two-child benefit cap and the need to remove it is a perfect example of that.
Can we break from this poverty of thinking? Our survival depends on us doing so. For that reason, I hope that we can. But on this occasion, I am not an optimist. Hayek and Friedman are winning and there is no obvious sign of change on the horizon right now.
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:
Surely even some of those politicians thinking the private sector has primacy would leave University with a t least some capacity to query conventional wisdom?
Across Europe – there are variations on the balance between public and private – with many having much stronger public sector than here.
Many politicians probably behave the way they do- because the UK’s non constitution gives many incentives for them to do so.
The UK non-constitution gives absolute power to a PM with a parliamentary majority on the basis of as little 30% of the popular vote, and gives plenty of incentives for big money to buy policitians
Now that the era of ‘good chaps’ politicians is over – if it ever existed – the constitution has to be modernised. There has to be rules, not only limiting PM powers, but on referendums etc. – so the catastrophy of a lies-based Brexit can never be repeated. There has to be PR as in nearly all other modern democracies.
I think Labour are committed to reform or abolition of the Lords so whatever they set up to look at this could also look at other consitutional reform –
My guess is that fewer than 10% of econiomics graduatres end up questioning what they are taught – because there is a big penalty for doing so
An analogy
You can’t have world class (yes, i know, so trite) football team without the entire pyramid of lesser football teams all the way down to local level. Same in politics, tories have gutted local politics of real power and resourcing since thatcher and now the national team(s) are showing the consequences. Crippling the unions has also restricted the talent pool.
Good analogy
I agree with a large percentage of this essay.
I understand the distinction between local politics and national politics and that the distinction is a false one. Politics is politics, whether local or national (let alone international). Corbyn was right to focus on local politics during his time as Leader and Starmer has shown that he too understands that local politics, developed with, but beyond, local politicians, should be a necessary focus of national (and international to some extent) politics.
That much we agree on.
It’s the constant assertions and implications that Starmer doesn’t understand any of this. But the by-elections, if there is a swing to Labour, may show to what extent he has more awareness than you give him credit for.
In particular, your example of this lack of awareness is a poor one.
If you’re right about his lack of his understanding the significance of the two-child benefit cap, I would be the first to join in. But it isn’t about understanding the anti-social significance of the the cap, it’s about his awareness of the current economic chaos being left by 13 years of the Tories, across most of their national (England) and international mismanagement (glaringly revealed by the even bigger disaster of leading a move away from the EU (I will not use the “B” word!).
You will not agree with Starmer’s reality of succeeding the Tory Micauberisn. That doesn’t mean he himself is a Micauber, and hopefully he will prove that if he gains office.
I believe in his socialism as I believed in Blair’s and certainly Wilson’s. They plied their socialism in the context of the world they knew well. Wilson was the essential pragmatist; Blair was a bit more self-serving but delivered identifiably socialist politics amongst the rest. Starmer will inherit what Blair did and have to deal with it.
I am sorry – but you don’t seem to get it
Local and national politics are utterly differemt things is what I am saying
You are right, of course, that I’m uncertain about the economics of all your arguments. But I do understand the relationship between local and national politics. They are certainly not the same and if I gave that impression, it was faulty. But they inevitably have to have a relationship, even if it’s local to national rather than top down.
Until reasonably recently (few years before pandemic), I’d been prepared to accept that Labour made statements because they had economic myopia, hadn’t been in power and were a bit lost in the face of crushing election defeats. The level of opposition as the Tories ratcheted further right was a concern. But at least their heart might be in the right place — and they would gain competence ….
The last few years, months and days have demonstrated that even their heart isn’t in the right place. They are now part of that 4th type of politician: the self serving, economically incompetent and morally bankrupt type.
Nice analysis & reasoning.
However, the problem is how to cut the gordian knot, I don’t see any Alexander in sight and in any case, such an entity is undoubtedly the wrong sort.
Likewise, Corbyn, ethically spot on, but from an operational point of view vis-a-vis the nation sate, just a local politico. Maybe one needs a combo of politicos that are good at generating narratives (for the population – telling them the whats and whys) and some experts that the politicos are willing to listen to.
Oddly, I have just described roughly how things work in the Netherlands – delivery is often left to experts. (I met some in 2016: “Mr Parr we are inundated with enquires from Japanese and Korean companies to move from the UK to the Netherlands – said with pity btw).
Won’t happen in the UK, Reeves & co have been groomed to the Nth degree and are not open to change.
I am not sure the issue is “local politicians failing to ‘step up’ to become national politicians” – after all, many MPs completely bypass the local route (at least in any meaningful way)…. and they are no better.
Politicians do not understand economics because their very election depends on them NOT doing so. Unfortunately. the voters still think in “household terms” and any attempt to stand on a different platform is pilloried in the media – a media that may/may not understand but whose proprietors are very happy with general ignorance on the subject as it furthers their goals.
We need a politician with the understanding, nerve and charisma to alter voters’ understanding. We need the BBC to fulfil its “education” remit – not with a special programme but it its general news coverage.
I suspect I will have a long wait.
Since we have become a far more over centralised country, I think it fair of you to put the emphasis on the importance on the lack of competence in Westminster. And you are also right to say that Westminster is now a trough for opportunists.
But don’t think for one moment that the ability to work with the centre or across political boundaries at the local level is unimportant. And that that capacity is not welcome or potent if the local politicians end up in Westminster.
For me its not a local versus national orientation problem. It’s national politics itself which I see as an impediment to getting things done. Westminster has become the killing-zone for new ideas.
For example, I’ve had both local Tory and Labour Councillors enthusiastically signing off schemes of delegation for new social housing. They’ll do this because they can see the benefits of doing so for their city and their voters (and for them!).
It’s what those transitioning from local to central/national politics run into in national politics level that for me is the problem. I think that they just come up against a culture inhibited by lies and untruths (whose chickens only come home to roost in local areas, on the front line).
National politics is dominated by a mess of self contradictory received wisdom contained now unfortunately in its departments (the Treasury, the DoT etc).
Take taxation for example – politics has now become a competition between those who promise to charge the least, at the same time as we know that expenditure does not need to be funded by taxation. But taxation is still needed because it has a as yet un recognised (in politics) role in controlling inflation and curbing the ambitions of the wealthy (whose greed and gerrymandering in politics is simply ignored).
Another thing national government funding is obsessed about is value for money. The national government version of VFM is a misnomer, it’s about getting as much local output as you can get for as little outlay as possible – nothing more than that when it is getting local authorities to apply for funding streams that used to be just allocated and have been reduced over the years (look at how the grant rates for social housing grant are now so niggardly that even Homes England has trouble getting the money out of the door. I can tell you that any such grant is super-onerous on the LAs/HAs that apply for it – it’s a full time job in itself to apply for it and administrate it as a grant. Why not just simply give it as budget for each area for goodness sake?).
National politics also seems dominated by the lobbying industry as well, which is dug in like a tick and has the ear of the national political apparatus in a way that local people nationwide do not.
Through successive reductions in taxation, privatisations etc., public services have been diminished with the hope that the market can provide adequate replacement services and use their resources to meet society’s needs. The attraction of this is to de-politicise services and makes it easier for national politicians to effectively by-pass the ‘how do you pay for it (taxation)’ question. But that has rebounded on us all very hard.
Time has reified what some of us were initially concerned about – that the privatised utilities and services have just become cash-cows and their assets or market position turned into financial liquidity for private individuals.
But even though the awful truth has finally come home about the fact that our society has been stripped and is still being stripped of anything of value (think water and the railways), out national/central politicians do not seem able to change tack. Why?
1. Because it is an admission of failure. Big egg on one’s face.
2. Because it is still the aim and objective of capital to assert its authority and turn back the clock (revanchism) through political funding and association.
3. Because it does indeed enrich national politicians and civil servants.
4. Because rejecting what has happened and doing something about it is a lot of hard work. It must seem overwhelming.
5. Because it is presented as ‘modernity’.
It is so much easier to destroy something than to make it. Making money – getting rich quick – has left us as a society (and politicians are part of society) bereft of the ability to think long -term anymore. Parliament is now nothing but an auction house for the public realm, with still much more to be given away yet.
This then for me is the sickness that inhabits our national, over centralised politics.
Where I differ from your account (and there is much to agree with I assure you) is that I’m focussing on the system – not the people in it. The system always dictates the behaviours. And the present system is not created by politicians. It’s created by independent ‘experts’ called economists who champion ‘objectivity’.
Good people are good people. Until they get into parliament that is. And then they are made to conform. Like they try and make us all do.
I recognise the local and national ‘types’ of politicians. Those who do a good job of representing their local area, even though sometimes their politics might not fit. Then those who bring real knowledge and passion about a particular field. Burnham, Corbyn and Farron maybe in the former category and say Jess Phillips and Caroline Lucas in the latter. And of course some do a bit of both.
What I think we have too many of are those who are just politicians, determined to climb the greasy pole, interested only in power for power’s sake and the potential rewards that brings. Bringing no real knowledge or passion for any particular field or local area. If they make to MP, parachuted in to a constituency. Probably starting as SPADS and attaching themselves to whatever political hot potato will promote them, or whichever politician seems to be on the way up.
Perhaps that’s a reflection of our current political system with two dominant parties and no space for voices and ideas that do not fit with HQ. Another argument for PR.
What do you think Andy Burnham should do?
Should he stay where he is or stand as an MP again and run the labour party?
Do you think of him as a national or local politician?
Local
A good local politician
He was not impressive at national level
Since Jeremy Corbyn has moved past the Overton window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window ) my vote would currently go to Clive Lewis to lead the Labour Party, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Lewis_(politician)
If he survives in the party
Clive Lewis should have been suspended before now, going on their criteria. I’m surprised he hasn’t been.
I go for Rebecca Long Bailey, who doesn’t appear to be in the firing line for anything yet. Kate Osborne is good, too. Time we had a woman at the top.
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/07/19/real-change-needed-starmers-policy-rollback-opposed/
Kate Osborne might be out after the summer break.
I’ve just been watching Owen Jones interviewing Jamie Driscoll.
Driscoll is another good local politician who will have a lot more power than any north east MP, particularly as he is running on an integrated transport policy, as well as local jobs and poverty allevation.
The north east mayor will be fighting for a population of 2.4 million.
It won’t be long before the whole of the north from the Humber/M62 upwards is controlled by those who want to be independent of the two main parties.
Andy Burnham has told Starmer he needs to do a u-turn on the two child policy. (Is that a complete circle?)
Could it be that in many important respects, the “national political tone” sets the “local political tone”. I cite as evidence the dire state of buses in Glasgow:
https://novaramedia.com/2023/07/14/privatisation-is-killing-glasgow-and-no-ones-coming-to-help/
National polit-sickos have drunk deep from the cup of “private-good, public-bad” and it would seem this has filtered down. I offer an extract from the article to show how pitiful the whole thing has become:
“When the private sector fails to deliver a critical public service, the state must. That once commonly held view, indeed expectation, has been steadily traduced, allowing those in political office to evade their responsibilities. The result involves a degree of farce and a degeneration in the quality of public life. The managing director of First Bus, for example, has posited the idea that bar workers could be redeployed as bus drivers after finishing their shifts in the hospitality sector.”
“Chief-Rat” Thatcher (a monica she was proud of) has much to answer for. (& yes I appreciate that the above is slightly tangential to the thrust of the blog – but – it shows that, as you assert, there needs to be a divison between what works locally and what nationally. Bus competition on local routes! only a rat could think that up)
Kid Starver now has the Labour Party exactly where he wants it the Myopic Apologists Party that daren’t say boo to goose!
Unfortunately as highlighted by Jamie Driscoll, Labour many labour politicians also seem corrupt.
See disturbing linked article in The National from the following. I am now even more fearful for the NHS.
Support for me shows deep disillusionment with Labour
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/18/labour-voters-party-support-resignation-mayor-jamie-driscoll
For some reason the old Maoist phrase “Capitalist Running Dogs” sprung to mind thinking about Kid Starver who can’t even figure out that there’s more than enough scope to increase the tax take/remove tax subsidies from the wealthy to cover help for more than two children especially when the country is having to allow substantial immigration to fill jobs. Indeed given the big government spend necessary to tackle climate change there’s also scope to reduce consumption of certain items through increased tax. Again a complete paucity of thinking by Kid Starver typical of a Tory!
Incidentally – you hit 1,000 comments here this evening
I think you’ll find the the phrase Mao used was “帝国主义走狗” which is translates as “Imperialist Running Dog” rather than “Capitalist Running Dog” — there is no distinction in the Chinese between the singular and the plural. It’s not particularly Maoist as there are records of its use in the Qing dynasty and today you can hear it used to describe members of the CCP. They don’t like it!
I fear you are too kind. The “in it for themselves” politicians are working for the political donor class – the multinationals and their billionaire owners, and pushing their agenda. The Tufton Street Tories are exactly that type and the past 13 years clearly show the damage they can do. We need politicians with the integrity to reject the seductions of donors’ cash AND be able to see the bigger picture.
We won’t solve this until we change our relationship with politicians and parties.
Too many see themselves as loyal foot soldiers to blindly follow and vote against their own interests.
In democracy our vote should be powerful. There to be earned.
This takes an educated and informed electorate.
Step one is recognising that sheep voting is not a virtue, it’s part of the rot.
People are going to sheep vote Labour believing “GTTO” is paramount.
I disagree – current policy will lead to disaster. Disappointed voters who believed somehow Labour must just be in power and they’ll change. Disappointed angry voters are vulnerable to populism. NatCon Braverman wing) will storm in. (Tories=May, Conkip=Sunak)
We truly are at dangerous point.
We must stop sheep voting
We don’t sheep vote for labour in the north east any more.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/18/labour-voters-party-support-resignation-mayor-jamie-driscoll
Lots of labour councillors have resigned and become independent in Northumberland and North Tyneside. His crowdfunder has reached over £100,000 with 4900 donations. That’s a lot of votes he’s going to get.
We need more like you. Spread the word!
My daughter retired recently . She was a mental health nurse all her working life. She moved from the South Coast to a small ex mining village near Doncaster where my Dad was born. One of the first things she did afe=ter settling in was to volunteer at the local food bank. She is very good at making friends and soon developed a social life. Northern people are much more friendly than their southern counterparts. Soon the conversation turned to politics. What she found is the visceral dislike of the Labour Party.. The village had a large colliery until 1990 . The Labour vote was overwhelming. That ,my daughter tells me is gone. She was ,like me a Labour member until the Corbyn assassination. If that transformation is repeated there might be some shocks in store for some MPs. When I read comments about the prudence of setting out a plan for government giving voters hope being a bad idea I despair. We are in the worst crisis since 1945. A manifesto containing ideas for a better life. Replacing fear of poverty, bad health, insecurity ,homelessness and inequality turning voters off is simply weird and dishonest. There can be no steady course if there is no clear vision of the destination you are making for. A leader has to have a general body of principles which make up his philosophy. Without this politics is merely a job like any other. Starmer’s aim is to grow the economy . Even a callow student of economics knows that there must be a priming of the pumps. The private sector won’t do it. It never has and never will. Public investment is the only way to achieve what I believe the voters desire. That is what happened in 1945 when the Attlee government created an economic miracle . I don’t believe the UK public are constantly worried about financial prudence. They are capable of being inspired. I don’t trust a word Starver says. When I saw him with Blair I almost vomited. Blair is a proven liar and according to UN officials is a war criminal .