The Future Now

The Corbyn Effect

Finally resurrecting this blog, mainly with cross-posts from the excellent Renegade Inc website where I now have a regular gig. This first piece about the questions raised for progressives by the apparent leftward lurch in British politics.

‘For those who think differently’ runs the tagline above. I imagine most people who visit this site, and those who contribute to it, pride themselves on thinking differently from the politicians and pundits who inhabit the mainstream. In Britain, that mainstream has reached new levels of hysteria this week at the prospect of someone who thinks differently becoming the head of one its key institutions: Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.

If Jeremy Corbyn does succeed Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour Party it will represent a seismic shift in UK politics. And any challenge to the political status quo is a good thing. It’s no coincidence that Corbyn’s apparent success comes hot on the heels of the recent SNP landslide in Scotland. Both are symptoms of the acute disillusionment felt by millions of people with what’s on offer from the established parties.

I’ve always liked Jeremy Corbyn, and I’m mightily impressed by the political skills of SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. Whatever else they represent, they’ve both correctly identified that there are millions of votes for anyone with the courage to present a different narrative; to say ‘there is an alternative’.  Unsurprisingly, as Iain McWhirter wrote this week: ‘Labour members like Mr Corbyn because he seems to believe in something.’

But what does Corbyn believe in? If he becomes Labour leader, can those beliefs be translated into a policy platform which will propel him to power? And if he achieves power, will he be able to deliver on the promises implied in his beliefs? Will he be able to create a society ‘based on justice, freedom, solidarity and equality for all’?

The struggle between minority interests and collective betterment has, since the industrial revolution, seen the balance tip first one way and then the other. But for the last four decades the scales of social justice have been weighed down firmly on the side of minority interests by the juggernaut of neo-liberalism, an ideology apparently so persuasive that few politicians have been prepared even to acknowledge it.

Jeremy Corbyn does speak out against the consequences of neoliberalism and for the possibility of an alternative way of organising society and the economy. But as Chris Dillow points out, while his values are good, his economic programme is somewhat uninspiring. Despite his noble intentions, a future Corbyn government pursuing traditional left policies of redistribution and clamping down on tax evasion is likely to fail.

Now, it may be that after a lifetime spent opposing the policies of both Conservative and Labour governments, Corbyn has had little incentive to work out how to translate his vision into a workable programme of government should the opportunity unexpectedly arise. But, as Dillow says, ‘there's disappointingly little about worker ownership or what to do about stagnant productivity, job polarization, the threat of robotization or the possible transition to post-capitalism.’ To this list we might add: How would he go about reversing the process of financialisation which benefits only a small minority?  How would he rebalance the economy so that genuine wealth is created through the production of things that people want and need, instead of the unsustainable appreciation of non-productive assets?  How would he address the market failings that leave the country woefully short of housing? And what about reforms to the monetary system, still failing fully seven years after the financial crisis, and surely a vital prerequisite for justice, freedom and equality for all?

Redistribution of wealth as a solution to unacceptable levels of inequality and social injustice is simply not ambitious enough. In any case, as the growth figures show, such a mess has been made of the UK economy in recent years that we are not creating enough real wealth to redistribute. The only way to effectively address inequality and economic exclusion is to reconfigure the economy so that everyone can fully engage in productive, value creating work.

That will certainly require the state to legislate, but not simply to raise taxes on the incomes of the well off; instead, to reform the economy so that it provides opportunities for everyone to achieve a reasonable degree of economic security. To his credit, Ed Miliband dabbled with the idea of predistribution back in 2012, but like so many of his better ideas, it disappeared from the view long before the election.

I have no doubt Corbyn’s heart is in the right place, but to achieve his vision he has to develop a narrative around a new set of policies which are less about ‘command and control’ and more about using political power to create a just and inclusive economy of the kind that has thus far only been imagined beyond the confines of the traditional left/right divide.

Those of us committed to buidling a new social order who are not convinced by traditional socialist policies should still give Jeremy Corbyn a hearing. It’s crucial that we break down the current political consensus, and Corbyn gives us our best chance of doing so. His success also gives us the chance to influence the direction of change. It is too good an opportunity to miss.

Nixon in China

This was the first piece I had published on Comment is Free six years ago. It was prompted by ENOs staging of John Adams' opera Nixon in China. Last night, Adams conducted a semi-staged version  of the opera at the Royal Albert Hall. It was a breathtaking performance, garnering this review from Tim Ashley in The Guardian. While the opera, if anything, improves with age, its subject matter, politics and international relations go from bad to worse, just as I suggested back in 2006.

 

English National Opera's revival of John Adams' Nixon in China is visually and musically stunning and, like all good opera, shot through with political intrigue. Its relentless mockery of Henry Kissinger has obvious appeal, but more interesting is the opera's surprisingly sympathetic portrait of Nixon himself. Could there be another side to Nixon, one neglected by historians, or did the librettist take a few liberties with historical truth in pursuit of a good story?

Nixon is remembered chiefly for having to resign the presidency after authorising and then lying about criminal acts ahead of the 1972 election campaign. He also escalated the Vietnam war - bombing Cambodia and Laos - before bringing it to an ignominious end. And it was under his stewardship that Allende's democratically elected government in Chile was overthrown with US support. According to the received wisdom, Nixon was a right-wing Republican of the worst kind: deceitful, conceited and utterly paranoid in respect of perceived threats to American hegemony on the world stage.

Nothing much has changed then: for Nixon three decades ago, read Bush today. Except that a closer look at Nixon's record - especially on the domestic front - reveals some quite astounding differences; differences which illustrate just how far to the right politics has shifted in recent years. If Nixon were running for office today on his 1968 platform, he would be way to the left of the Democratic Party.

Consider his record: he was the architect of détente and initiated the first round of talks on strategic arms limitation. Notwithstanding his folly in south-east Asia, it was Nixon who began the process of making the world safe from nuclear weapons. He established the Environmental Protection Agency - the same agency whose efforts are now undermined at every opportunity by the Bush administration, which refuses to allow the fate of the planet to interfere with America's economic prosperity. He introduced Supplemental Security Income, a programme of support for blind, disabled and elderly people funded not from social security payments but from general taxation. The type of programme that is now targeted by those determined to cut government spending on society's most vulnerable.

Nixon also launched the Minority Business Development Agency, which provides support and advice to minority-owned businesses. He was responsible for the Philadelphia Plan, the first government-sanctioned affirmative action programme, which set targets for greater employment of African Americans by the construction industry. Now, few aspiring statesmen would risk advocating such a radical scheme for addressing inequalities across the racial divide. Then there was the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Similar efforts to improve workplace safety today are routinely opposed by employers perceiving yet another bureaucratic challenge to business profitability.

Perhaps most remarkably, when the oil crisis hit in 1973, Nixon persuaded the nation to drive more slowly in order to save fuel. He introduced a 55 mph national speed limit, which remained in place until 1995. He also persuaded Americans to exchange their gas-guzzling automobiles for more modest and fuel-efficient cars. The environmental crisis today is far more serious than the oil crisis of the 1970s, but would any President now dare suggest that Americans give up their equally oil-greedy SUVs for the greater good?

In the 1970s, Americans were easily persuaded that in the face of a collective crisis, the proper response was personal sacrifice. Nixon was able to bring about this cultural change not because he was an exceptionally moral or inspiring leader - he was nothing of the sort - but because the political context in which he operated was quite different from today's. It was a context in which politicians could make a difference when it mattered, and were sufficiently confident to offer moral leadership on difficult issues. It was a time when most people believed very strongly that there was such a thing as society. It was also a time when politicians could force through increases in government spending on socially valuable public initiatives without risking the global competitive advantage of their national economies.

Ironically, it was Nixon's legacy that finally ended a period of unprecedented political commitment to the possibility of a more inclusive society. He unwittingly began the process of dismantling the postwar economic settlement, which had delivered a quarter century of steady growth, low inflation and full employment. In January 1971 Nixon declared, "Now I am a Keynesian". In fact, just like his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, he had been a Keynesian throughout his presidency. But as well as using deficit spending to reduce unemployment, he also used it to fund the spiralling costs of the Vietnam War.

In the run up to the 1972 election, with the economy struggling under an unsustainable burden of debt and with inflation out of control, he even attempted price controls. But it was too late: the United States could no longer fulfil its obligations as global financial underwriter within the terms of 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, and Nixon let the dollar float free. Thus began a chain of events, which led inexorably, though not inevitably, to the rise of the quite different economic philosophy that directs the global economy today.

As well as tying the hands of politicians in respect of ensuring essential public services are properly funded and enabling them to promote a degree of social equity, the economic changes of the last three decades have severed the link between democracy, which is still conducted at the level of nation states, and the economy, which is now a single global entity beyond the control of national governments.

The significance of these changes and their impact on democracy are glossed over by politicians and rarely questioned in the media. There is great dishonesty about the reasons for the failure of the postwar economic settlement. We are encouraged to believe that the changes of the last three decades were the result of an inevitable process of natural economic evolution, rather than the intentioned policy decisions of a group of politicians and economists driven by the idea that never again should moral and social concerns be allowed to interfere with the capacity of the wealthy elite to make themselves even wealthier.

What would Richard Milhous Nixon have made of it all? He was a deeply complex and flawed individual. He was responsible for untold suffering in south-east Asia and Latin America, but as the operatic recounting of his historic meeting with Mao Tse Tung makes clear, part of him believed in the possibility of a more just and equal world, and, on the evidence of his domestic record, he was prepared to upset the super rich in his struggle to bring it about. Regrettably, the same can be said of few politicians today.

The Four Horsemen are here

The Four Horsemen, a documentary written and directed by Ross Ashcroft, and featuring such luminaries as Joseph Stiglitz, Noam Chomsky, Gillian Tett, Simon Johnson and Ha-Joon Chang has been creating quite a stir at film festivals around Europe, selling out every screening in Amsterdam and Gothenburg.

It will be released in the UK on Wednesday 14 March with a special screening at the Curzon Soho in Shaftesbury Avenue in London's west end. The screening will be followed by a Q&A with the director. Tickets are available from the Curzon Soho, here.

The film, which goes the heart of the current crisis and explains its root causes in the failings of economics, could be a huge hit if it gets the support its deserves.

It will also be featured at the OxDocs International Film Festival in April, when the Film and a Q&A will be simultaneously broadcast to seven cinemas across the UK. At that event, we will also be launching a book to accompany the film, The Four Horsemen Survival Manual, co-written by Ross Ashcroft and me.

If you've grown tired of Michael Moore or feel cynical about Al Gore, make sure you see The Four Horsemen. Website here. Demand it here. Trailer below:

 

        

 

The Four Horsemen are coming

I'm petty sure this film is going to be the documentary hit of the season. So, if you've grown tired of Michael Moore, and feel cynical about Al Gore, make sure you see The Four Horsemen. Website here. Demand it here. Trailer below:

 

        

 

The only sane response

There is an excellent piece by Nina Power for The Guardian on the background to the riots that have consumed London over the last three nights. But the best comes in the comments that follow, from my old (online) friend Ally Fogg, who get's it dead right:

There's a widespread myth that law and order is preserved by police, politicians and other forces of authority. Not true. Never has been. If we all decide to go out and chuck a dustbin through Argos's window and help ourselves, it would take about 15 million coppers to contain it. We actually have about 150,000.

Law and order is kept by a collective acceptance of mutual goals. If, as a society, we look after each other, offer everyone a share and a stake in the common weal, maintain some semblance of a Rousseauian Social Contract, then the vast majority of people will mostly stick to the rules without ever needing to see a police officer.

When people lose that sense of being looked after, no longer feel part of society, no longer feel like they have any kind of share in any kind of collective, the ties that bind begin to be broken.

Rioting, especially the type of vandalism & looting we've seen in London, is a sure sign that the social contract is unravelling around the edges. In the days and weeks and months to come, we shall see how far it has frayed.

There are few things more dangerous to a society than a populace with nothing left to lose.

My own initial thoughts on the riots, in part inspired by Ally's analysis, are now up over at the Renegade Economist.

Who is Terry Smith anyway?

He’s the Chief Executive of Tullet Prebon, one of the largest inter-dealer money brokers in the world (according to Wikipedia), and of late has become one of the BBC’s favoured independent commentators on the current ructions in the financial markets.

At least I assume the BBC regard him as an independent commentator or else they wouldn’t have paired him with George Magnus on the Today programme this morning. Magnus, after all, is senior economic adviser at UBS; they are two of a kind.

And when the other two contributors to a ten minute segment are Robert Peston, with whom, as Smith helpfully reminded us during the interview, he used to work; and Evan Davis, who jumps through hoops daily to avoid giving the impression there might be an alternative to the current economic system; then you know the direction the discussion is headed.

It’s worth analysing the unchallenged statement with which Smith was allowed to conclude the segment: "There is," he said, "a political crisis rather like the thirties. When I look around, what I see is a paucity of leadership to deal with the crisis."

The comparison is accurate: an out-of-control financial system has once again brought the world economy to its knees with the connivance of politicians who lack the courage to stand up to the feral beast. Back in the 1930s, politicians flailed and disseminated with the same disdain for their democratic mandate as their successors today. Until, that is, a leader of unique courage and determination emerged: Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Strangely, Smith didn’t mention Roosevelt, nor did Davis see fit to ask him about the four-time President. Perhaps, like most of their audience, they know full well that it was Roosevelt’s New Deal that saved the world from the ravages of financial capitalism. But to acknowledge that universally held truth would open up a can of worms that everyone at the BBC would, in the current climate, prefer to keep shut.

In any case, Terry Smith doesn’t need any lessons from history: he knows there’s no alternative to austerity. He went on to say:

"Somebody probably needs to bring to the notice of the population, in the developed world, in the west, that for about the last twenty to thirty years, they’ve been living beyond their means. They’ve borrowed too much to sustain their standard of living, they haven’t saved enough, and that successive governments have made them wilder and wilder promises in terms of pension entitlements, retirements ages, health care and education, none of which are sustainable now. Public sector jobs have burgeoned in order to maintain employment and I’m afraid that particular modus operandi has got to come to an end because there isn’t any third party whose going to finance this."

Somebody probably needs to tell Terry Smith that people don’t want a third party to finance their reasonable aspirations. They want an economic system that allows them to do it for themselves. While he was building his business into one of the largest inter-dealer money brokers in the world, ordinary people were struggling to make the best of an unbelievably bad economic deal.

Why shouldn’t we all be able to look forward to adequate pensions, earlier retirement, and decent healthcare and education, as long as we’re prepared to work for it. Why are these aspirations no longer sustainable? Because, for the last three decades, the economy has been restructured to reward the interests of those who own capital and land, and against the interests of the majority of people who own neither.

Given the unwillingness of BBC journalists to challenge the establishment view, balance demands that people with a clear vested interested should at least be pitted against someone with an opposing viewpoint. Will Hutton would do. Or, if the BBC wants fully to insulate itself against claims of political bias, it might ask Ann Pettifor, or even pick up the phone to New York and get Joe Stiglitz or Paul Krugman (Nobel laureates both) on the line. All have a far stronger grasp of the realities of the financial system and its impact on the lives of ordinary people than those the BBC routinely puts up to feed us the establishment line.

Progress report

I have a piece over at ethicaleconomics.org assessing progress against the criteria set out in my book, The Possibility of Progress, since it's publication in 2005. It concludes that while little progress has been made, and a great opportunity spurned, in the failure of progressives to make capital out of the financial crisis, there is still room for optimism. Progress depends on getting more people to engage with idea that there is a alternative to the current set-uo.

And, on a not unrelated theme, the lastest post in my series about unearned wealth is now up at the Renegade Economist. This week I look at the pernicious effects of speculation.

 

Renegade Economics

As you may have noticed if you've clicked on the link above, I'm now penning a weekly column for the excellent Renegade Economist website. This is a new(ish) initiative by a bunch of young and creative individuals who, in a nutshell, want to change the world.

I'm especially pleased to write for them, because, as you will know if you've been following my scribblings on this site, or over at The Guardian, I, like millions of others worldwide, share that simple aspiration.

My first contribution consists of a ten-part series on the theme of Unearned Wealth: the basis of minority power and privilege, the flip side of which is the appalling poverty and hardship suffered by upwards of a billion people, and the chronic insecurity endured by many of the rest, even in the developed countries.

I hope to demonstrate the link between unearned wealth at the top, and the denial of viable economic opportunities at the bottom. The mechanisms by which the wealthy consolidate their position are an intrinsic part of an economic system that has emerged, and continues to evolve, largely in response to grossly unequal power relations in society.

Historically, those relations were defined by aggressive warfare, colonial conquest, slavery, the subjugation of women and many other injustices which, as we celebrate the achievements of modernity, we are proud to boast have been condemned to the dustbin of history.

Except they haven't, really: there's still no shortage or warring, much of it connected to the desire for greater economic power on the part of the already economically powerful, as it always was. Traditional forms of colonial conquest are now frowned upon, but it's okay if you seek the same outcomes through an economic system which is heavily biased in favour of the rich countries, and, specifically, the richest people within those countries.

Slavery is a thing of the past, we are pleased to console ourselves, except it is estimated that there are up to 27 million slaves in the world today, people who slip through the safety net through which we try to regulate an economic system that eschews all considerations of value except financial ones, and certainly has no time to consider the value of human life. And, while in many countries, women have a better deal than their mother's or grandmother's generations, statistics abound that show the struggle for genuine equality to be far from over.

Doom and gloom it may all be, and while it's important to be realistic, it is still possible to be optimistic. The transformation in levels of moral awareness and understanding over the last century is unprecedented: more people today express a strong preference for a different kind of world, and a firm belief in the possibility of improvement than would even have considered the question a hundred years ago.

We now have to find a way to channel that growing collective aspiration for a better world into concrete, coordinated action. And for me, that begins with spreading the word about the constraints placed on our moral aspirations by an economic system whose motives are diametrically opposed.

I'm well used to accusations of utopian idealism, of people saying it'll never happen. But as I pointed out in my book, The Possibility of Progress, one of the biggest obstacles to creating an inclusive and just economic order is the pessimistic belief that nothing can be done. Of course it can be done, if enough people want it to happen and believe in its possibility.

To this end, over at the Renegade Economist, I shall be examining the various sources of unearned wealth; the way they are connected through our archaic system of money issue; possible fixes to tackle unearned wealth as both a cause and a symptom of the current crisis through changes to the tax, financial and monetary systems; and the prospects for achieving these objectives through the existing institutions of democracy.

The first, introductory, piece in the series, is here, and this week's piece, looking and land rent, is here. A new article will be published each Wednesday, and next week's will examine the pernicious effects of speculative investment.

A frankly disgusting woman ...

... is, apparently, what Peter Oborne has just called Rebekah Brooks on live television. I had been resisting the temptation to write anything about the enormous rolling snowball that is the News of the World phone hacking story, but as it looks like becoming the biggest news event of the year, and one that could have far-reaching consequences for David Cameron and his government, then perhaps I will.

The first things to be said is that I seem almost alone in being neither shocked nor surprised by the revelations. Don't get me wrong, the actions of whoever hacked into the voicemails of Milly Dowler, the relatives of the victims of the 7 July bombings and the families of dead soldiers are quite beyond the pale; they have no place in a civilised society. More generally, such activities are illegal and grossly improper.

But, let's be honest, gross impropriety is the stock-in-trade of the tabloid press, especially, though certainly not exclusively, those titles owned by News International. And it's the routine behaviour of the tabloids that frequently causes me to doubt whether we are justified in calling our society civilised.

In the race to the bottom for readers, the tabloids (including most certainly the Mail and the Express), have shown, time and again, that they'll do anything they can to tap into the apparently insatiable popular appetite for gossip, scandal and revelations of the private lies of so-called celebrities. This is what they do. They have no scruples. They are generally partial with the truth, and they frequently tell obvious lies. Yet they are regarded as legitimate, reputable organs of journalism.

And, of course, they are influential arbiters both of public perceptions and tastes, and political and economic power. You might argue that we get the press we deserve, but it would be foolish to underestimate the way public opinion is shaped by the distorted way in which the news in presented by large parts of the media.

News Corporation is a vehicle through which Rupert Murdoch, his family and his senior executives wield far more political power than any elected government. Which brings us back to our own (barely) elected government:

In respect of his associations with Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and others, in today's Daily Telegraph, Oborne, writes that

Mr Cameron allowed himself to be drawn into a social coterie in which no respectable person, let alone a British prime minister, should be seen dead.

So are we to infer that the Prime Minister suffers from terribly bad judgement? Not according to Oborne. He was warned repeatedly not to associate himself with what is know as the Chipping Norton set, by no lesser figure than the editor of The Guardian.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mr Cameron has no moral compass whatsoever. he is able neither to recognise people like Andy Coulson for what they are, nor to understand the the political implications of associating with them, once, as it inevitably will, the truth comes out.

As for Rebekah Brooks, I must confess to not having followed her career especially closely, but if the clip of her admission to a parliamentary committee that she had made illegal payments to police officers is anything to go by, then she seems hopelessly out of her depth. Nah: she decided to make a career in tabloid journalism, and she rose quickly to the top of the greasy pole. Frankly ...

This won't bring the government down, but it could, as Oborne points out, be the equivalent of Blair's Iraq War, Thatcher's Poll Tax or Major's Black Wednesday. In which case it may well signal the beginning of a long and painful end. Which is bloody good news for those of us hold slightly higher moral ambitions for our society.

Sponsorship opportunity

I'll be running 10k around the streets of London this Sunday in aid of Anthony Nolan, the charity that saves hundreds of lives each year by matching stem cell donors with blood cancer sufferers whose lives depend on a transplant.

It a great cause. If you'd like to support it, you can sponsor me via my Justgiving page which is here:

http://www.justgiving.com/markbraund2011

And if you'd like to find out more about the brilliant work that Anthony Nolan does, watch this excellent video:

        

Come on you scientists

Here's an interesting article by Michael Brooks about the reluctance of climate scientists to get involved in the campaign to take action against climate change.

Perhaps they should be forgiven for keeping their heads below the parapet, given the hysterical, anti-intellectual reaction to the now virtually unassailable evidence for the human contribution to the causes of climate change. But here described is the inspiring passion of one scientist, NASA's James Hansen, who has decided enough is enough. His motivation?

he can't bear the thought that his grandchildren might hold him responsible for a burned-out planet.

Why is it that so few people, especially parents, apparently have no conscience about the impact an overheating planet will have on their children's and grandchildren's life prospects? While the media must take much of the blame for our collective denial of this immense threat, the head-in-the-sand approach of many educated, otherwise intelligent people is deeply concerning.

Such is the extent of our collective delusion, that it's not inconceivable that a city such as Amsterdam could be lost to rising sea levels in the next few decades, while the population of a nearby city like London, similarly threatened, will sit idly by, watching events unfold, delusionally safe in the belief that 'it couldn't happen here'.

As Books points out,

In April 2010 a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that nearly 98% of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change. The voices of dissent reported "for balance" come almost exclusively from researchers who are not publishing in the field.

Perhaps only scientists can make the point that current reporting of climate change is anything but balanced; that is represents the partial view of short-term, minority vested interests which are deeply pathological in their motivation, at least if you care about the collective future health of human civilization. Happily, as Brooks concludes,

while most scientists have learned keep their heads down, a few are beginning to argue that what a scientist knows must inform his or her personal opinions and values.

This is progress. It has always struck me as most dispiriting the way decent, thoughtful  people leave their moral compass behind when they go to work. So, for example, you end up with devoutly Christian bankers happy to pay themselves millions in bonuses derived from a financial system which leaves the rest of us in perpetual insecurity.

Only when more people allow their personal values to inform their decisions about how they lives their lives, especially in respect of the work they do, will sufficient momentum be generated to tackle climate change, and the mounting economic problems with which it is associated. But we have a long way to go.

London 2012

Six years on from the surprise announcement that London would host the 2012 Olympics, the wheels seem to be coming off the organisers’ well-oiled PR machine.  

Until quite recently, preparations for the games were a model of organisation and efficiency. But the cracks were beginning to show long before the ticketing debacle. (Surely a little market research would have indicated the likely scale of demand and enabled the organisers to better manage expectations?)  As a result, many Londoners are starting to think that the only legacy of London 2012 will be the disappointment of not being able to participate in any meaningful way, and the memory of disruption and inconvenience.

Residents of east London have been told the marathon route will not, after all, pass by their front doors en route to the Olympic stadium; instead the organisers have opted for three laps of a circular route around central London.

Then there was the news that more than 700 children born on 20^th December 2004, who had been promised a role in the opening and closing ceremonies, are only to be offered involvement in relatively minor regional events.

And this week sees a series of protests in Greenwich as trial events in preparation for the equestrian competition are held in the historical royal park.

The idea of using Greenwich has been controversial since it was first muted.  The original bid document included a map drawn to a scale that made the park appear twice its actual size. Nobody seems to know if this was intentional, but critics have pointed to the size of the park as being one reason why it’s not suitable for a cross-country course.

There was a period of consultation before planning permission was granted, but it always felt like a done deal. Admittedly, original plans to close the entire park to the public for six weeks in 2012 were revised; it will now be closed for four of the busiest weeks of the year.

But disruption caused by preparations for this week’s trial event has far exceeded assurances: Local residents were told that ‘Some entrances to the Park would be closed before the Test Event and some sections would not be open to the public. Most areas though will remain open.’  In fact, for the last month large parts of the park have been inaccessible, and for the last fortnight, two thirds has been  completely fenced off,  forcing school groups, dog walkers, picnickers, runners and sunbathers to share a ridiculously small space.

We were also told that “There will be 2,000 tickets for the stadium for each day and an additional 5,000 for the Cross Country on 5th July.” I tried to buy some, but they were only available to residents of Greenwich borough. Regular park users who, like me, live to the north of the park in Lewisham, have not been offered any.

The organisers claim there was no alternative to spending £42 million to create a makeshift equestrian centre in Greenwich, but the necessary facilities already largely exist in Windsor Great Park, where many more spectators could have been accommodated. But Windsor is not in London, the organisers argue, and a great distance from the Olympic Park. Well, so is Eton Dorney (rowing) and Weymouth (sailing); indeed there’s a long history of Olympic events being held beyond the confines of the host city. How easy it would have been to make London 2012 more of a national celebration.

Londoners, who have been forced to make a compulsory contributions to the cost of the games through a levy on their council tax which will end up costing most at least £300, were given no advantage in the scramble for Olympic tickets, and have also to bear the brunt of disruption both this year and next.  

I shall continue to try to feel upbeat about the games, but I already have a feeling that London 2012 may end up being a far less enjoyable experience than Beijing, Athens or Sydney, when I could at least take the dog for a walk in the park unhindered before settling down in front of the TV to watch the best athletes in the world.

Ray Davies: Genius

What a privilege it was to be at the Royal Festival Hall last evening for what must have been the gig of the year, if not the decade. I may have to revise this statement in the days and weeks to come, but it surpassed even the sublime Leonard Cohen at the O2 in 2008, a concert about which I went on at length, here.

Alexis Petridis had everything right in his review for The Guardian, but he didn't give much of a sense of what it was like to be there. I can't remember such an atmosphere at the RFH, and I must have been a hundred times over the years: Baba Maal at his peak, even the great Ray Charles didn't set the place alight like the ex-Kinks man did last night.

To combine a rock band, the London Philharmonic Orchestra and a 92-voice choir - the exceptional Crouch End Festival Chorus -  and produce something greater than the sum of the parts was a remarkable achievement. And to be able to play so many of the best songs from the last fifty years, and still have the likes of Waterloo Sunset, You really got me, Sunny Afternoon and Lola in reserve for a glorious multi-encore just goes to show what a great songwriter Davies is.

It'll remain with me for a very long time, not least because the first half was given over to the first ever complete live rendition of the Kinks' 1968 classic The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society. Simply superb.

As long as they gaze on the Waterloo sunset, they are in paradise. Four thousand delirious souls were in paradise last night, as the sun set over Waterloo.

There's not much on Youtube yet - no doubt because most of those present were far too old to own a camcorder, or know how to operate the equivalent iPhone app - but there is this: Days indeed!

 

        

AV, Royal Wedding Invitations and Cats and Dogs

In today's Guardian, Martin Kettle presents the strongest set of arguments I've yet heard for voting yes in the AV referendum on 6th May. In the increasingly obsequious behaviour of David Cameron and his cronies, we are beginning to see the true colours of the modern Conservative Party - colours their PR machine has done well to tone down thus far - come shining through; and it's a particularly nasty shade of blue.

As Kettle concludes,

if you want to harm the coalition, vote yes to AV.

If you want to bring the quickest possible end to this dreadful government; one which understands nothing of economics and cares even less about the most vulnerable in society, a vote for a change in the voting system, however modest that reform may be, and however imperfect the alternative on offer, then vote 'yes' to AV.

And, if you're still not sure how it works, what difference it will make or why it's just a little bit fairer, watch this excellent video:

        

More of the same

This well-argued piece by two revered economic thinkers, Lords Skidelsky and Desai, in yesterday's Guardian is interesting for two reasons.  First, these two not-quite establishment figures suggest two rather radical interventions: stamped money and a recovery loan to mop up money sloshing around then economy but which remains unused because the normal credit mechanisms are still not working properly.

Neither of these sensible suggestions wil be taken up by the current ultra-orthodox administration, nor will they attract support from the Labour opposition which, in economic terms, remains stubbornly orthyodox itself.  But it's interesting that these eminence grises are willing to put their heads above the parapet and suggest such radical interventions.

On the other hand, and the second reason the article is interesting: their analysis of the continuing economic crisis fails completely to acknowldege the structural inadequacies of the economy as currently confugured. The solutions they offer are temporary fixes to get things back on track. Which is why this comment after the article by RossCopeland is so good.  He sums things up perfectly:

Messrs Desai & Skidelsky, you seem to have failed to grasp a quite small but nevertheless quite essential fact: Capitalism has moved way beyond being able to, in the most general of terms, serve to improve the lot of the majority of people in society. As an engine of industrialisation where money was largely made by producing things and selling, capitalism created real wealth in that material goods were produced that in many cases served to make life easier. Indeed, capitalism combined with strong unions served to improve the lives and living conditions of all citizens, both materially and qualitatively, particularly in the period between 1945 and the mid-seventies - I wouldn't really include the 80's since that when an illusion based on credit was offer whilst the system was being restructured.

The trouble was, by the mid-70's there was very, very little profit to be made from the manufacture and sale of consumer goods, capital had to find another means by which it could better capitalise - let us not forget, the essence of capitalism is making money, not producing goods.

The "liberalisation of the financial markets" - the removal of restrictions on capital movements - at the end of the seventies/beginning of the eighties provided financial (banking) and, later, corporate capital with new easier means of generating new capital: currency trading. Soon came derivatives "trading", LIFFE was born and the hub of the capitalist world became the international finance "markets". The production of goods became somewhat of an entertaining sideshow, wherever possible replacing people with machines and where people were still needed, having the work done cheap-labour countries. A system came into being that sees company share prices determined less by the quality of the merchandise the company produces and the sales they generate, than by the speculation on their future share value. It's worth noting, I think, that one of the things that serves to increase the value of a company's share is the laying off of large number of workers. The ability to soak up government handouts and avoid paying taxes also play a big role.

As we all know only to well, the concentration of capital in financial speculation eventually led to what we are still, very euphemistically, calling the "financial crisis", which was nothing other than the final bursting of a totally over-inflated bubble. A bubble that had long lost any connection it may once have had with reality, money that never existed anywhere in real form of any kind 'disappeared'. Thankfully (irony alert) our governments rushed in and bailed the finance gamblers out with our money; yes, that's right folks, our money! Money taken from the tax-payer, money intended for the provision of public services was diverted to replace the imaginary money the gamblers had lost playing futures roulette. So whereas Capitalism once improved teh lives of the average person, we are now having to finance both gains and loses, a point Osbourne's budget makes only too clearly.

This is all a rather long-winded way of saying that this is a system we should neither be trying to revive nor should be trying to prolong its death. Time to wake up, enough is enough is enough, to quote Chumbawamba. The current global political economy is not one that works, if we take works and meaning that it serves to improve the quality of life for the majority of people. It is a system that finds it acceptable to see tens of thousands of people die as result of hunger every day although we produce 4 lbs of food for every person on the planet every day. It is system that creates wars and engenders conflict in pursuit of profit; it is a system that is, ultimately, destroying the very planet on which we live. It has also all but destroyed humanity's major strength: that we evolved as a social animal. Only through working together did we survive.

Yes, Hayek was wrong, woefully wrong. Keynes' ideas allowed for manufacturing capitalism to raise the standard of living for most people, however, since we're now in an age of finance capitalism, Keynes has little significance. So yes, we need another approach, personally I'd look to Kropotkin for a few ideas. I might also take a closer look at Mondragon, the Spanish co-operative. It is clear that we need a complete re-appraisal, a new direction. We can, however, only start looking for a solution once we've recognised that we have a problem, once we've accepted that what we have doesn't work. Only then can we sit down together and work out a 'new way'.

I'd like to make it clear before the silly comments flow, that I'm not advocating some kind of Soviet state-capitalism, neither am I saying that making a profit is a bad thing. I'm saying it's time to sit down together and work out how we can devise an economic system that is fir for and worthy of humanity.

The truth about the deficit

Richard Seymour, who blogs at Lenin's Tomb, has this excellent piece over at comment is free today, in which he gives an good summary of the economic history of the UK since 1945, and in particular the relation between theory and (political) practice.

And Richard returns in the thread to give this excoriating rebuttal to one of the many ignorant commenters who blindly follow the Tory line that Labour fiscal policy is responsible for the deficit.

Here's the comment that provoked Mr Seymour to such eloqeunce:

When in reality all these cuts are doing are reversing the huge, unaffordable and unsustainble increase in public spending which occured as Gordon Brown got into his 'how much money can I piss up against the wall' phase.

And here's his reply:

I'm sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. I am no supporter of New Labour, but there are a number of you claiming that they engaged in a massive increase in public spending and it's just rubbish. In New Labour’s first term, a priority was to establish credibility with financial markets by reducing the public debt. The debt was reduced by a total of £34bn in the last year of the first time - a larger total reduction than all the cumulative debt reduction of previous governments for fifty years. Capital expenditure in most departments of government fell precipitously for the first years of the New Labour administration, and overall public spending fell from over 40% of GDP in 1997 to 38.1% in 2001. Even with successive fiscal problems in the ensuing years and a subsequent need to borrow to plug black holes, by 2004 Gordon Brown had reduced the debt from 44% of national income to 34%. By 2005, the combined spending on debt interest and unemployment benefits had fallen by a half. In the latter half of the 2000s, public spending rose to above 40% again, reaching 41.1% in 2007-08. Only with the credit crunch and following recession did it return to levels last seen in Thatcher’s first two terms, rising to 47.5% of GDP for 2009-10. This has been the result of a combination of two factors: stimulus spending, and the sudden contraction in the private sector. The deficit that arose resulted from the reduction in the tax base as unemployment soared and the economy shrank, and the massive bail-outs for the financial sector.

So can we at long last drop this ridiculous, outlandish myth that New Labour was some sort of tax-and-spend socialist administration?

Can we also drop the myth that the Tories are doing this out of necessity? These are elective cuts, and they serve specific class interests - ie those of business, and particularly of finance capital. The deficit is not historically very large, it does not mature very soon, the yield on the debt is low, and it would be far more plausible to pay it off with an investment-based growth strategy than to follow the Republic of Ireland's route to oblivion.

Of course he's dead right, both factually and in terms of his interpretation of what the coalition government is up to now. 

Against competition

So David Cameron thinks we can become a ‘country based on values of mutual interest’, and one ‘not defined by what we consume but by what we contribute’, all without making any substantive changes to the way we organise the economy?

This should give Ed Miliband and his new team plenty to get their teeth into. But if Labour is to be a credible opposition it needs to distinguish itself from the coalition on the economy. It has to counter Cameron’s attempts to rewrite recent history, and explain how established economic arrangements are responsible not only for the deficit, but how they deny many people the means to secure their essential needs, and leave most of the rest struggling to make ends meet, even in boom times. No amount of civic pride or voluntary commitment can plug the holes that the market economy makes in the fabric of society.

But if Labour is going to set the economic agenda, it needs to go back to first principles. And it might start by challenging the assumption, most recently voiced by Vince Cable, that competition should remain the principal driver of economic progress.

We have a rather confused attitude to competition:  At school we are taught the importance of kindness and cooperation. We are encouraged to consider the interests of others alongside our own. This has always struck me as a peculiar preparation for a world in which economic security is dependent on our willingness and ability to compete against others.

To be successful in a competition-based economy you have to bring something to the game: You must have access to economic resources: land and capital in one form or another. You also need a decent education, and either organisational and entrepreneurial skills, or a marketable talent.  But the means to acquire each of these is denied many people. Competition thus divides society into competitors and spectators, with the spectators taking little pleasure from watching the overpaid stars of the economic premier league.

Even the most vocal supporters of the current order admit that a competitive economy produces winners and losers. The losers, even in rich countries, end up living miserable lives. In poorer countries many of them die, often before reaching adulthood.

In rich countries, a safety net is put in place to prevent people dying as a result of their failure to compete successfully. But this puts additional pressure on the winners to compete even more vigorously in order to generate the income and profits from which to pay the taxes required to fund welfare programmes.

Competition also fuels the ‘race to the bottom’ whereby firms have continually to cut costs at a greater rate than they cut prices, so as to maximise profits and deliver ever greater returns to their shareholders. If they fail, investors take their money elsewhere and businesses are brought down despite the competitive efforts of their employees.

As Alex Callinicos says, competition causes ‘not only terrible economic crises but also the increasing destruction of the natural world’. It also creates unnecessary duplication and waste: firms have to compete for the same markets, often investing large sums in research and development, only to fall at the last hurdle.

Economists have decided that competition and the threat of insecurity is the only way to motivate people. After three decades in which this assumption has been tested to the full, we seem further than ever from cracking the secret of an economy which offers decent life chances to everyone. Competition doesn’t suit the personality of many individuals, partly because our early years moral education is effective and partly because we have a natural empathy with others.

Of course people need to be motivated and incentivised, but many already find ample motivation working in the voluntary sector, in health or education, or in social enterprises where concern for the well-being and life chances of others is the principal driver.

In his book, Evolution’s Arrow, John Stewart shows how all the great evolutionary leaps forward, in both the biological and cultural spheres, occurred when previously competing organisms or entities stumbled upon the realisation that their individual interests are best served by ditching the old, competitive ways, and discovering new ways to cooperate towards mutual ends.  Might we be on the cusp of such a leap today? There is certainly plenty of evidence that we can be motivated by values more noble than the threat of failure in economic competition. 

Last week Ed Miliband said he would make his party ‘a force that takes on established thinking’.  Here’s one piece of established thinking that a courageous and intelligent Labour leader might take on, or at least start a discussion about.

A genuine alternative

I have a new piece on the Guardian's Comment is Free today in which I make the case for the new leader of the UK Labour Party placing Land Value Tax at the centre of a radical agenda in opposition to the coalition government.

Why the wrong turn in policy?

It would be good to think that Paul Krugman has it all wrong in this piece for yesterday's New York Times.  But I have no doubt that history will prove him right.  The policy switch from reasoned, evidence-based stimulus to irrational, dubiously-motivated deficit reduction is very likely to plunge the world into what Krugman calls the Third Depression.  And while he suggests that it won't be as bad a the Great Depression of the 1930s, he makes a strong case that it will rumble on much longer, rather like the Long Depression which began in 1873.

In attempting to understand the switch in policy, Krugman suggests it is:

the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.

I think it's also a function of the complete inability of most politicians to empathise with those who will be hit hardest by the swingeing cuts in public spending that are already being implemented.  The sad truth is that most people who enjoy economic security care little for those that don't.  And they have no problem setting the rules under which we all have to live.

The lunatics are back in charge

So says Larry Elliott in today's Guardian in respect of the deficit cutting craze which is sweeping western governments and ramping up the chances of a double-dip recession.

Elliott's analysis is spot on.  He also quotes Nobel laureate Paul Krugman who describes the policy of public spending cuts to reduce budget deficits at a time when demand has all but disappeared as 'utter folly posing as wisdom'.

And he asks where the two very well-qualified economists in the government, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable are in all this?  Principal corrupted by power: what other explanation can there be?

Britain is not Greece ....

... whatever George Osborne says. If you want to know why, read this excellent piece by the new Labour MP for Leeds West, Rachel Reeves.  As she concludes,

Nothing that took place in Greece during the last few weeks should mean we need to take £6bn out of the economy right now – which, just as Labour and the Liberal Democrats argued throughout the election campaign, is risking the economic recovery. To claim otherwise is an excuse for making cuts that the Conservatives always wanted to pursue.

Isn't it great to find a new MP who brings expertise in a crucial area to the parliamentary Labour Party?  Ms Reeves may be one to watch.

The world has chosen

.... well, the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank heads has chosen.  And it's not good news, unless you're fortunate enough to be a member of the wealth-laden global elite.

As the FT reports today, the G20 meeting in South Korea has decided no longer to support the fiscal stimulus packages designed to kick-start economies post-recession. 

The report quotes the French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde as saying,

There’s a large majority for whom redressing the public finances is priority number one. For a minority, it’s supporting growth.

Ironic really: the majority support a change in policy so as to address the budget deficits that are currently spooking the financial markets - a policy which suits the interests of the moneyed minority that brought the global economy to it's knees in the first place and guarantees further pain for the struggling majority.  While a powerless minority continues to support the only strategy with a chance of getting economies back on their feet, and thus providing opportunities for those most in need.

The financial markets win out over democratic principles once again.

A very worthy cause, please help

Once again I'm runnning the British 10k around the streets of London on 11 July to raise money for The Anthony Nolan Trust.  You can sponsor me here: http://www.justgiving.com/mark-braund.  Please do, your support really will save lives.

Coalition government and the prospects for LVT

If the claims of David Cameron and Nick Clegg are to be taken at face value, here in the UK we now live under a radical transforming government unprecedented in its progressive ambition. 

Of course, there is nothing in the coalition agreement to justify the hyperbole, but there may be a glimmer of  hope. For the first time since long before the last coalition was dissolved in 1945, the cabinet now boasts three members who are on record as supporting the principle of land value taxation (LVT), a radical and potentially transforming policy if ever there was one.

Read the full article ...

Markets versus democracy

Ruth Sunderland has it right in this piece in yesterday's Observer.  As she says of the financial markets,

We may sometimes despair of our leaders but it cannot be right that they are trampled by unaccountable and unelected traders, acting purely for their own profit and with no thought for the wider social good.

It's very encouraging to read such words in a mainstream publication. The question of how the activities of traders in the financial markets can be reconciled with the idea of democracy requires further investigation.

Osborne knows better than Keynes

Dean baker, who recently came third in the poll for the Real World Economics Revere Award for Economics, has this very clear piece over at comment is free which explains the risks of cutting back on public expenditure before the recovery is fully established.

As Baker says:

In a period of high unemployment, like the present, governments can literally just print money. Not only will this put people back to work, this process can also lay the basis for stronger growth in the future by creating better infrastructure, more energy-efficient buildings, supporting research and development of clean energy and improving the education of our children.

Alternatively, as the Tories seem determined to do, they can contrive a needless double-dip recession. Then, when the economy eventually does recover, the well to do, having been largely insulated from it's worst effects, can, once again, clean up.

But let's not be too hasty to judge.  Perhaps Cameron and Osborne really believe £6 billion in cuts now is the best thing for the UK economy.  Yes, I'm sure they are sincere. After all in their world view, the economy is designed to protect the interests of minority wealth and privilege. Conservatives will always look after their core support.

Unemployment will reach 3 million by Christmas.

Not all Brown's fault

Last post in defence of the record of the ex-Prime Minister: Martin Wolf makes a good case for why Gordon Brown is not entirely to blame for the economic mess the country currently finds itself in. Brown's mistakes, according to Wolf, were too readily to accept the advice of economists, and, of course, to believe the good times would last forever.  The first can be excused, the second can't really.

Gordon Brown again

Further to last Thursday's post, I thought this piece by Anthony Seldon was a very balanced summing up of Gordon Brown's contribution to British political life.   I agree with Seldon that history will look kindly upon his time in office, and with his concluding remarks:

Not a great prime minister, but a man of deep intellect and passion whose ambition and temperament often got the better of him, but who served his country with honour and good judgment at a time of grave national crisis.

Backtracking already

I fear Conor Gearty has it right in this article at comment is free today. He describes the process by which Conservatives throughout history have suddenly forgotten their proud liberal credentials upon being voted into office.

As Gearty writes:

The Conservatives have a long record of deploying state power to crush dissent to which their attacks on the poor and on organised labour have invariably given rise.

While I am happy to applaud their decision to drop the ludicrous and expensive ID card scheme, as Gearty says, there's no mention of repealing the Labour-introduced power to hold suspects for 28 days without charge.  As he also points out, the one Tory who really cares about, and understands, civil liberties, David Davis, is nowhere to be seen in government.

Dominic Greive, who should have been Home Secretary, but isn't, said in the Telegraph a couple of years ago, that 28 days is 'much longer' than it should be, and promised a review.  It won't happen, and we can expect much more backtracking on civil liberties over the life of this government.

Gordon Brown

I find myself agreeing with almost everything in this balanced piece by Neil Clark at the First Post.  While, in many ways, Brown was bound to fail in an era in which presentation and style is everything and substance counts for little, Clark reminds us that he could not have inherited at a worst time.

And while he must take some of the blame for failing to address, or even acknowledge, the root causes of the financial meltdown in advance, it's very difficult to imagine another Chancellor doing things any differently; certainly not one from the Conservative Party.

Who cares what bankers think?

The Guardian is quoting David Buik as follows:

David Buik, City commentator at BGC Partners, warned that few bankers would support the breakup of their businesses into smaller retail and investment-banking divisions.

"Lovely bloke he may be, but the thought of Vince Cable, as Treasury secretary, bringing influence to bear over the banking system and its constitution fills me with horror. This is nightmare material and I must head to the chemist for some barbiturates! I never voted for this and nor did millions of others," said Buik.

But millions of others did.  That's the whole point of democracy.  Companies like BGC represent the interests of their shareholders, their staff and those wealthy enough to take advantage of the brokerage services they offer, ie a tiny percentage of the electorate.

I really can't see it happening on George Osborne's watch, but let's hope Vince Cable is somehow able to remind bankers and brokers that their job is to add value to the real economy, and not simply extract wealth from it to channel into the bank accounts of the super-rich. 

Tory government, record unemployment.

Rather fitting that unemployment should rise to a 15 year high on the first day of a new Conservative government.  It was the previous Tory administration, after all, that introduced the idea that structural unemployment was a price worth paying for a 'successful' economy.

Of course, the new government has little scope for measures to bring this dreadful figure down.  Expect 3 million unemployed by Christmas.

The rural and 'burbs party

Can't help but agree with Alex Salmond that an opportunity has been missed.  I like Salmond and agree with him on most things: I just don't support the splitting of the United Kingdom into its constituent parts.  As an internationalist, the division of existing nation states into smaller units goes against the grain. 

That said, under the last Tory administration, the Scots were treated abysmally.  If I was a Scot, I'd be pretty pissed off that David Cameron was now my Prime Minister.  The BBC is suggesting that Danny Alexander will be Scottish Secretary, which will doubtless be described by the media as a conciliatory move. The reality is that Cameron has no choice: without the Lib-Dems, the new government would have no democratic legitimacy in Scotland. 

And with Labour making strong gains in the local council elections in London, and many London Labour MPs defying the polls to hold on to their seats, the Tory party is now a party of rural and suburban England only.

Feeling slightly sick

Well, that serves me bloody well right.  My first ever vote for the Lib-Dems and we end up with a Tory government, and Nick Clegg, whose true clolours are gradually being revealed, as Deputy PM.  The thing that makes me most sick, obvioulsy, is that George Osborne is Chancellor; although it looks like Vince Cable will be on hand at Cabinet to keep an eye on him. 

With the exception of Clegg and David Laws, I really can't see the other senior Lib-Dems fitting comfortably into a Cameron/Osborne led government.  And if reports that the Tories have agreed to accommodate Lib-Dems plans to take earnings under £10,000/year out of income tax are true, and both parties are agreed on the need for substantial deficit reduction this year, then there must be a good chance it will all end in tears.

My other fear is that the only senior Tory I have any time for, Ken Clarke, may lose his cabinet post to Vince Cable.  Will he accept a more junior role I wonder?  I can't imagine he would go to the Treasury as Chief Secretary having already done the top job, unless he has instructions from Cameron to keep a close eye on the oh so scary George Osborne.

Time for a change

Sounds like Gordon Brown will resign as PM soon.  I guess Labour have proved themselves incapable of forging any kind of 'progressive' alliance.  We shouldn't be surprised: although in some respects they have held back the tide of Thatcherite neo-conservatism over the last thirteen years. they neve tried to strike out in a different, genuinely progressive direction.  And Gordon Brown is as responsible for that as Tony Blair is.

So where should progressives look now?  Labour have to rebuild from rock bottom: this will take time, and I'm not sure the party or the wider movement has the progressive philosophy or foundations to do that successfully.  And the Lib-Dems - in many ways more progressive than Labour - have lashed themselves to Cameron's Conservatives.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the Lib-Dem ballast in Government can restrain the natural tendencies of the Tories to deliver (unreserved) rewards to their traditional support base while neglecting the hard working majority of ordinary Britons (and, of course, those for whom work opportunities cannot be found under current economic arrangements).

I guess there's the possibilty of a Tory split at some point in the future, with the hard right disowning Cameron for failing to deliver a majority, and having to make concessions to his coalition partners.  But let's wait for the details of the coalition agreement.  While I hate the thought of Cameron as Prime Minister, there has been too little to celebrate over the last 13 years.  It is time for a change.

Brilliant

There are a great many reasons not to like Alistair Campbell.  I suspect Armando Ianucci's Malcolm Tucker is probably not that far from the mark, certainly in his less manic moments.  I also think Campbell behaved appalling over the 'dodgy dossier' of allegedly fabricated intelligence that was used by Tony Blair to justify joining George Bush's illegal war against the people of Iraq, and in the aftermath of the tragic death of Dr David Kelly.

On the other hand, Campbell's willingness to discuss his own mental health problems, and his unstinting commitment to charitable causes suggest there is something more to the man, and yesterday was surely his finest hour.

It must be every politician's or pundit's ambition to humiliate a patronising senior correspondent on live television.  And this is exactly what Campbell did to Adam Boulton yesterday:

Of course, Campbell is dead right. The media bias in favour of David Cameron has been obvious throughout the campaign. On the BBC Nick Robinson has been guilty at times (thoygh surprising good at others), and the Sky coverage has been continuously slanted in Cameron's favour.

This is only to state the bleeding obvious: Rupert Murdoch's newspapers are explicit in their support for the Tories. In the United States, his Fox News makes no pretence to be objective in its coverage. Why then, should anyone be surprised that people on the left find Sky's coverage to be biased, and their attempts to deny it disingenuous.

It seems to me that Adam Boulton, as well as appearing the worst for drink - Campbell is a teetotaller remember - doth protest too much.

Perchance to dream

With a Lib-Lab pact now looking a distinct possibility, some who would otherwise support such a 'progressive' coalition are beginning to wonder if, given the economic problems facing the country, this would not be too much of a poisoned chalice.

Aditya Chakrabortty, whose excellent articles are gracing the comment pages of The Guardian with increasing frequency, has this very entertaining take on the situation.

By way of a reply, I left the following comment:

Unless, of course, a new coalition government stumbled upon a leader with the vision and the guts to explain to the electorate why the pain of draconian cuts is necessary, who and what - an economic system principally designed to deliver minority wealth and privilege - is ultimately responsible, and how such an dreadful situation could be avoided in future.

[wakes from dream .....]

Given the probable list of candidates for the post of Labour leader, and thus Prime Minister, this is, of course, most unlikely.  The only potential candidate likely to take this approach is the very able Jon Cruddas.  The bookies have him as the 16/1 outsider.  Not impossible.

Not so wide of the mark, perhaps

In the wake of Gordon Brown's resignation, I see Alastair Darling is second favourite, allbeit a long way behind the odds-on favourite David Miliband, to be the next Labour leader.

My prediction of 16 April no longer looks so wide of the mark.

It's getting better all the time

So Gordon Brown has agreed to step down to allow formal negotiations with the Lib-Dems to begin. Entirely proper that he should remain as PM until the Labour Party elect a new leader, but let's hope they can do that before the party conference in September.

A progressive coalition moves closer.  Let's hope Labour don't blow it.  This is the best hope of for electoral reform, of locking the Tory Party of minority wealth and privilege out of power for the foreseeabale future, and of creating a context in which genuine progress towards a more just and inclusive society can begin to be achieved.

In a nutshell

Philippe Sands sums it up nicely over at Comment is free now.

Getting quite exciting

I still don't like Nick Robinson, but he does seem to be the best connected and thus best informed of the political corespondents: some good news.

Should I stay or should I go now?

Who knows exactly what's going inside the cabinet office at the negotioations between the Tories and the Lib-Dems? Whaetver they're talking about, it looks like we'll know this evening whether Nick Clegg is going to hand David Cameron the keys to No 10.

That it has taken so long, suggests to me a chance that things are not going Cameron's way.  In which case, presumably Clegg will be calling on Gordon Brown later tonight.

If that does happen, what approach should Clegg take, and how should Brown respond?  Most commentators seem to think that a Lib-Lab deal will be conditional on Brown either stepping aside now, or agreeing to do so within a give timescale.  I think his decision should be based on whatever gives the best chance of sustaining a progressive coalition as long as necessay to bring in a new voting system.

The key question is, even if Brown has seen the light and is prepared to offer a referendum on PR, would he be able to deliver all his MPs for the Commons vote that would enable a referendum?  I don't know the answer to that question.  But I think it's the best (indeed only) chance that supporters of PR have to make progress towards their cherished goal.

Although Brown is tainted by failure (some real but most drummed up by a hostile media) I tend to agree with Ken Livingstone.

There are only two grounds for arguing that Brown should stand down: that he didn't win the election, or that he doesn't command the loyalty of his party.  He didn't win the election, true, but neither did he lose it sufficiently badly to be ejected from office (had that been the case he would have gone to the Palace on Friday morning).

And, as all the Labour MPs returned on Thursday were elected under Mr Brown's leadership, they owe him a debt of loyalty.  And they should not be afraid of PR.  The best arguments for electoral reform are (a) that it would force politicians on all sides to become a lot better at selling their policies and vision to the electorate, and (b) it would mean that a Tory government with minority support could never again be elected.

I think Gordon Brown should promise a referendum on PR as soon as possible.  An election under a new system should be held within a year.  Give the voters another opportunity to dispatch Brown from power if they want to.  That's how things should work in a democracy.

Alex Salmond to the rescue?

A perfectly timed intervention from the excellent Alex Salmond. As Jackie Ashley reports here, Salmond has changed the parliamentray arithmetic by proposing a progressive alliance for electoral reform including the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Alliance Party and Green MPs which with Labour and the Lib-Dems would have 329 seats in Parliament, enough to force through electoral reform as long as all can agree on the specifics of the new system.

Recriminations begin

This article from Simon Heffer to today's Telegraph provides plenty of reasons why the Tories are not fit to govern.  Of course, Heffer is right to argue that Cameron's strategy of turning himself into Blair II failed to get the Tories elected with a majority.  But his preferred strategy, of remaining more typically Tory, and taking, for example, a tougher stance on immigration and Europe, would have delivered the Tories even fewer votes.

The fact that intelligent people like Mr Heffer still don't realise that there is no majority in this country for the party of minorty wealth and privilege just goues to prove how out of touch they remain.

Closest to the post?

Below is my comment after Deborah Orr's rather defeatist piece on Comment is Free yesterday:

But put the two losing parties together, and not only do you have two sets of largely complimentary policies, you also have around 52 per cent of the popular vote.

In PR terms, as Jonathan Powell pointed out on the BBC today, we have an outcome which is quite normal on the continent. Don't let the Tories and the right wing press persuade you that a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance would be undemocratic: it would be the only democratic outcome. Well over 50 per cent voted to keep the Tories out of power. It would be a travesty if Cameron still wheedled his way into No 10.

And what do people think will happen when we finally get PR? Exactly this!

Having given my vote to Clegg, after considerable soul searching, I'm disappointed that he appears really to believe that the party that comes closest to the post in a first past the post electoral system has the right to try and form a government first.  36 per cent of the vote is not enough, Especially when Labour and the Lib-Dems, with 52 per cent between them, have much more in common in terms of policy, values and philosophy the either do with the Conservatives.  Tories keep saying that the people have voted for a Conservative government because they got more votes than anyone else.  36 per cent of people did, but in a democracy that is not sufficient.

Post election thoughts

Some random thoughts as they come to mind:

Looks like Labour and the Lib-Dems combined will end up with around 52 per cent of the popular vote and the chance of getting a working majority (just) in the House Of Commons.  If that's the case, and given the closeness of Labour and Lib-Dem policies and the distance of both from the Tories, then the only democratic outcome is a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition.

If such a coalition comes is agreed, then this could and should lead to reform of the voting system.  A scenario not dissimilar to that advocated by Will Hutton in Sunday's Observer comes into play.  And the best thing about it, it that it gives progressives the chance to ensure that a minority Conservative government, promoting the interests of minority wealth and privilege, will never again be able to assume power.

Nick Robinson is on the BBC suggesting that Labour insiders are preparing the way for Gordon Brown to stand aside if that is a condition of a coalition with the Lib-Dems.  Given his party's poor performance, Nick Clegg is out of the frame for PM.  But which senior Labour figure might get the keys to No 10. 

That Joanne Cash in Westminster North is a very poor loser.  She had a hissy fit on camera, apparently blaming the press for her defeat.  The worst kind of Tory (they're not all bad).

Glad Sarah Teather won Brent Central.  She's a really good egg.  Shame about Susan Kramer in Richmond.  She came to my book launch - I really like her.

Brilliant success for Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion.  Under PR I would have voted Green, indeed I voted Green in the local council elections.  If the next election is held under PR, there should be a good chance of more Green MPs to come.

I don't have a great deal of Time for Richard Lambert of the CBI, but I was pleased to see him tell Andrew Neil in the small hours that "Britain is not Greece".  Lambert knows better than most, that the threat from the financial markets can be fended off by cautioning against panic.  Democracy cannot be held to ransom by the financial markets who represent the interest of a tiny minority.

Brown has just announced that Alastair Darling will be participtaing in a conference call of G8 finance ministers later today to discuss the currency crisis.  If the Tories had won last night, George Osborne would be sitting in his place.   Just the thought of it makes me feel sick.

Although I still can't stand the thought of cameron in No 10, I do think the argument in this piece by Lance Price has some merit.  He suggests that Labour and the Lib-dems should go into opposition together and, essentially, let the Conservatives hand themslves.

Jonathan Powell has just told Jeremy Paxman that this is only a crisis if we turn it into one.  He's dead right - we have to trust the politicians to find a way through this.  Tony Benn thinks another general election will come sooner rather than later.  I hope there is another general election, but only after a refendum and legislation to change the voting system.

Majority government?

Because of the UK's daft electoral system, we haven't had a majority government (ie one that has one at least 50 per cent of the popular vote) since 1945.  But if Martin Kettle is right, tomorrow we could see David Cameron trying to force his way into government despite his party being well short of a majority of seats in the House of Commons and still further short of a majority of votes.

Kettle suggests that even if Brown offers Clegg a significant role in a coalition government, Cameron could block such a move by declaring himself to be the winner, with, according to Kettle's scenario, just 300 Tory MPs in the commons against a combined total of 330 Labour and Lib-Dem MPs. This outcome would require the shares of the popular to be around 37 per cent for the Tories and 55 per cent for Labour and the Lib-Dems, combined.

If Cameron tried and succeeded to form a government on this basis, then not only is it hard to see such a minority government surviving - bad for stability in a time of ongoing economic difficulty - but it would be archly undemocratic and, quite frankly, immoral.

At a time when so many people are calling for electoral reform this would prove that the political system is corrupt beyond repair, and that the Tories care nothing for democracy.

Why has it taken so long?

Just caught up with Gordon Brown's speech to Citizens UK on Monday which everyone has been raving about.  If this is what Brown really believes, then why did he fail, so badly, to deliver on his vision while he was in power? And don't forget he had massive influence before he became Prime Minister.  And why should we give him another chance?

Perhaps only because, whatever the disappointments of the last 13 years, it's all too easy to imagine how things would have been had the Conservatives been running things, and how bad they could quickly become if David Cameron wins tomorrow.

On the other hand ...

... perhaps Anthony Barnett has a point.  He argues that only if the Lib-Dems score more votes than Labour will they be able to form a coalition with Labour having first forced Brown and Mandleson to resign, enabling them to put Clegg forward as Prime Minister.

But it sounds like Barnett would only support a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance if Brown and Mandleson are out of the picture.  Now, I would like to see them out of the picture, and I would be happy to support Clegg for Prime Minister if his party gets more votes than Labour, but I don't think it's necessarily true that a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance is only viable if the Lib-Dems get more votes.

If the Lib-Dems come a close third in terms of votes, as still seems possible, then Labour and the Lib-Dems would have at least 55 per cent of the popular vote between them.  Their policies, and their values and underlying philosophies, are much closer to each other's than either is to tp that of the Conservatives.  A Labour/Lib-Dem alliance, whichever party comes second, would therefore have a serious popular mandate, and should form a government led by the chosen candidate of whichever party scores more votes.

If Anthony Barnett had his way (and I say this with some reservations as I agree with him on most things) it appears the chance of keeping the Tories out would be sacrificed because he couldn't support an alliance with Brown and Mandleson.

I'd rather have a cabinet including Clegg, Cable, Huhne, Brown and Mandleson than one which included only Tories.

At the end of the day it boils down to whether Barnett is right about the Lib-Dems not making an alliance with Labour if they come third in the popular vote.  I think they'd be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  For this reason, for the next few minutes at least, I'm voting Labour.

The best hope for progress

While it's difficult to disagree with anything George Monbiot wrote in yesterday's Guardian - the New Labour project has failed the progressive cause so miserably over the last thirteen years - I still find myself agreeing with Jonathan Freedland today: however negative it feels, the priority must be to keep the Tories from forming a government.  With the polls as they are, this means ensuring the Labour vote holds up sufficiently to make a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition viable.

Under PR, I would be giving my vote to the Greens.  As things stand, while I have considered voting for the Lib-Dems, not least because Messrs. Clegg, Cable and Huhne are all on record as supporters of Land Value Taxation, Clegg's refusal to rule out a deal with the Conservatives, who, as Mary Riddell wrote in yesterday's Telegraph, could never meet his minimum requirements, persuades me to support Labour.

For the record, while I support voting reform and the introduction of some form of proportional representation, I don't see it as a panacea. There are certainly more pressing issues which wouldn't necessarily be addressed by changing the voting system.

It remains the case that the best context for the kind of transformative economic and social change the UK desperately needs, is the establishment of a coalition government between Labour and the Lib-Dems.  Don't get me wrong: if this is achieved it will be no guarantee of progress, but it will provide a more favourable environment for change.

If Labour score more of the popular vote than the Lib-Dems, then Gordon Brown will have a claim to remain as Prime Minister, though I hope he will stand aside.  If the Lib-Dems come in ahead, then Clegg should be Prime Minister.

If Cameron somehow manages to obtain the keys to No 10 with less than 35 per cent of the popular vote, then the result will be completely unjust.  But Labour, who had thirteen years to change the voting system to prevent such an outcome, will only have themselves to blame.