I am always wary when reading opening paragraphs of articles of this sort, as seen in the FT this morning:
Barclays chief executive CS Venkatakrishnan has called for the UK to create an economic development agency to drive long-term growth and depoliticise industrial policymaking.
My reason is quite easy to explain. It is that there is no such thing as depoliticised policymaking of any sort.
And that, of course, is not what the CEO of Barclays is calling for. As he noted:
“Like the Bank of England or the Office for National Statistics, this agency should transcend changes in government and drive a common, national ambition for long-term UK growth,” he added.
The last thing anyone could call the Bank of England and the Office for National Statistics is apolitical.
The Bank of England is engineering a recession in the UK with its wholly unnecessary and dogmatic dedication to monetary policy.
The Office for National Statistics overstates the UK national debt by a trillion pounds and overstates the supposed cost of government interest payment, both to support an austerity agenda.
These are agencies with a decided political agenda.
What CS Venkatakrishnan is really saying is that he wants agencies that pursue his agenda to be in place, regardless of the elected choice of the country, to which my reply is no, thank you very much.
While I am at it, might I also suggest he look at his own industrial policy? His bank is closing its branch in Ely, where I live, this April to add to closures nearby in Downham Market, Littleport, Soham and Newmarket (the last, also to happen this year). That is not an economic policy: it is a display of contempt for the customers of his bank. That is what this man is really all about: he embodies contempt for people.
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:
It is all part of the highly political objective that is at the core of neoliberal ideology, to insist that economics is a science; as long as it is neoliberal. Only neoliberals and totalitarians think economics is a science; oh, and regrettably, mainstream economists. Indeed it is the least plausible of all social sciences; not only has it the poorest predictive record of all social sciences (so bad it does not even claim to predict; it ‘forecasts’, the tell-tale of faux-science, and even executes that badly – OBR fails frequently, and is still heavily supported by Government as a definitive source of reliable and authoritative wisdom). It is all little better than a scam.
At one of my first lectures at the University of Glasgow in 1962, the lecturer began by saying: “All things being equal . . .”
And I thought: “Stand by for a load of crap . . .”
The subject was Political Economy.
These days poltical ecinomuy does not begin with that..
Economics does
There the crap continues, unabated
‘Political economy’ feels like a tautology
We have had our local branches of Lloyds, Barclays and Santander all close recently
as you say in a display of contempt for the customers of our town.
They are just trying to make more profit by cutting costs and services regardless of the impact on their customers.
I think Banks should have a statutory duty to have branches in every high street.
Or perhaps there is an opportunity for the government to place a national government owned bank and post office in each high street and take the profits for the people of UK.
As a small business owner its really frustrating and very annoying.
When politics/government becomes a shambles it is always tempting to “de-politicise” because, as we know……
democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others.
“Everything is art, everything is politics” Ai Weiwei
Sounds like he is trying to gain independence from any oversight so he can pursue his own agenda.
That would mean no accountability, no transparency, and no responsibility.
That’s one more step further to the Right, and something to be very suspicious about.
Barclays has decayed from being a Quaker founded traditional bank to what we have today, one that serves only the interests of its management and shareholders. Though a few years ago I checked and the top 400 staff in Barclays got more than the shareholders. Plus endless scandals and fines.
Phillip Augar’s book The Bank That lived a Little is a good summary and easy read.
Those old Captain Mainwarings would be turning in their graves. They did at least have some ethics and knew their customers. The banks sacked them all in the 90s and now know next to nothing about their customers, business or personal, and care even less. They are incapable of serving the economy, only their own self interest.
A massive shake up to the banking system is essential if we are to have a green economy that works for everyone.
(Richard will like the letter attached…)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/28/barclays-banks-quaker-roots?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
🙂
Some years before I got my dog-collar, I was a senior manager in a major bank’s short-term trading room in The City. We recruited top-notch graduates. One graduate candidate came for interview; he had a glittering CV, and frankly I had no idea how to interview him. So … to the curved ball … ‘Tell me, John, what do you think banking is about.’ John, ‘Well, Mr Davies, in three years’ time I expect to be earning £x000s, and in five years’ time £x0000+++s, and soon after that as much as you, Mr Davies.’ Me, ‘John, I’ll repeat the question ..,’ which I did. And he started to repeat verbatim his previous answer. I interrupted and said that he hadn’t answered my question, that we would go no further with his application and said that security would show him out. At the door, I said, ‘By the way, John, the answer is that banking is about making sure the customer gets their money back on the day they’re expecting it.’
Very good
Rev’d Davies,
I do not know the date you joined your bank; but that aside, how on earth did you succeed with your application and pass the interview?
Given the success of modern electronic communications is it not time for Electronic Democracy?
The electorate vote on all policy, downgrading the executive power of Westmonster. It is more than technically possible, now.
Electronic Democracy puts the people in charge of the politicians. They won’t like it.
Email-Votes; Everybody votes with the same subject line.
Why are we waiting for the toryZ?
A Petition of 25 million could force an election. Not next September.
The people decide. It is not policy until the people vote it to be policy.
No thank you
Chaos infuenced by the Mail would follow
John S Warren has it right from the top and FWIW Clara Mattei says the same thing in ‘The Capital Order’.
CS Venkatakrishnan’s stance is one of mono-cultural orthodoxy and nothing more.
Agteed PSR
Whenever anybody says “let’s get the politics out of it, and deal with things on the basis of the facts” my hackles rise.
Because this is EXACTLY the same ploy as “the hidden curriculum” in education = the underpinning assumptions and givens really shaping the argument.
By ALL means let’s have rational and scientific examination and assessment of alternatives – indeed, I wouldn’t want it any other way – always providing we come to that exercise aware we also bring to the table our own prejudices and assumptions, which we must be alert to recognise, if our final assessment is to have any merit.
Finally, of course, CS Venkatakrishnan’s approach overlooks one thing – or rather, makes the category error of confusing politics with Party politics.
By all means let us try and keep Party politics our of the equation, but politics itself is nothing more than the process of negotiating real interests that are at variance with one another, in such a way as to produce agreement between the parties (lower case – definitely NOT Parties) that broadly satisfies everyone.
As such, the father who tells his daughter not to be home too late, or the mother who tries to get her son to tidy his bedroom are BOTH acting politically, even if only on a domestic level. Because politics is about life, so CANNOT be excluded from the equation.
Thanks