On community spirits and Thatcher's legacy

With the funeral of Baroness Thatcher getting closer, the country seems to hark back to the times of division and hatred. I wont wade into the debate whether Thatcher did more good than bad (or vice versa) but instead would like to impart a brief observation. Reading the obituaries (reverent and irreverent ones) I noticed that some attributed the loss of community spirit to her policies. 

This reminded me of the nostalgia for socialism and its ‘collective spirits’ shared by many in the former communist countries where democracy and freedom have allegedly brought about the demise of the feelings of friendship and mutual support. However, I cant help but wonder about the conspicuous lack of strength in those communities if they only existed in the good times. If Thatcher wrought so much misery on these communities, wouldn’t her time in government increase the strength of those community spirits, rather than bring about their decline? 

Happy times?

It seems that, after all, those communities were not so much cultivating the spirits of mutual support, but fostering a sense of exclusivity, where individuals had to submit to the rule of the collective. In this sense, perhaps the decline of the community spirits heralded the inevitable rise of individuality and personal freedom. Clearly, as some ‘communities’ imploded under Thatcher, people had to re-forge the foundations of society anew, a laborious and challenging process. Yet the product was not atomism, as some commentators have written. It was individual liberty realised, as Hegel would have said.

Baroness Margaret Thatcher - RIP

The death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher has just been announced. She will undoubtedly leave an enormous gap in British public life. Her contribution to British politics has been huge. She also worked tirelessly to bring down the Iron Wall in Europe. Her efforts to defeat socialism in Eastern Europe will never be forgotten.

Coming from a humble family she fought British establishment, even and especially in her own party, radiating a confident belief in herself and her powers. She changed the face of Britain for the better and will be missed.

Welfare - the ship is turning ... slowly

Today some of the most radical changes to the welfare system in Britain come into force. They are the culmination of long and arduous efforts by Ian Duncan Smith, the Welfare and Pension Seretary, who tirelessly worked for more than 8 years to find a way to reform the system. While in opposition, IDS worked with politicians from all sides of the political spectrum to identify the problems of the welfare system and create broad support for his reforms. Being appointed Welfare Secretary in 2010, he set about to reform one of the most convoluted and complex benefits systems in the developed world. The challenge was enormous. The previous Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown had introduced tax credits to working families which meant that billions of pounds of public money were spent on propping up the income of families who were actually in work but not receiving sufficient income to sustain their lives. It effectively trapped people in low paid, part time work while the taxpayer topped up the wages of those hardworking families. For those out of work, there was little meaningful support, and, in some areas, generations of families live on welfare benefits.

Perhaps the most effective Welfare Secretary of post-war Britain?

The biggest challenge for IDS however was how to sell this reform to the public. Previous reforms in other countries, though successful, like in Germany under Chancellor Schroeder (a Social Democrat) proved to be deeply unpopular. IDS early on distanced himself from value-laden language and honed in rhetorically on the problem of 'making work pay', i.e. to create a differential between benefits payments and work related wages. In effect, his reforms were tackling the incentive structure for work.

In an interview this morning with John Humphreys from the BBC, he robustly defended the benefits changes (the full interview HERE). Humphreys intoned about the immoral effect of benefits changes but IDS pointed out that the effects of benefits changes will be to improve the situation of those out of work in the long term. He thereby found a way to reject the 'moral outrage' of those on the left and in the Church establishment, while using their language to defend the reforms. This two-pronged approach, appealing to the sensible majority by emphasising the incentive structure of the reforms, and pointing to the ethical underpinning of the changes, makes his reforms uniquely likely to succeed. Over the years, despite a merciless onslaught from some of the left, he never used disparaging language about those people at the bottom of society but spoke clearly of the need to give them the right support. He might just turn out to be one of the most effective welfare secretaries of post-war Britain.

The end of Blairism

David Miliband, the poster boy of the moderate wing of the Labour party and former foreign secretary, will resign his parliamentary seat tomorrow, the Daily Mirror reports. David Miliband is the older brother of Ed, the current leader of the Labour Party, who pipped him to the job in 2010. David M actually won the vote amongst the party faithful and the MPs of the party, but Ed was elected on the narrowest of margins with the help of the block votes of the trade unions.

Stepping down - David Miliband

David Miliband's resignation will certainly be a harsh blow to the moderate wing of the party, and undoubtedly, his brother Ed is now free to complete the move to the left which he has planned over the last two years. With David M leaving politics, all Blairites have either been sidelined or pushed out of politics by his brother's team.

The fraternal dissonance between the brothers pretty accurately mirrored the strife between the two party camps, one surrounding Tony Blair, the other around Gordon Brown. The irony is lost on no one that those who coalesced around the most successful Labour Prime Minister in history, Tony Blair, have now lost control over the party, whereas the group around Gordon Brown who failed to win a single general election is now fully in charge.

Separated at birth? Wallace and Ed Miliband

At the time of the leadership election, observers were aghast at the viciousness with which Ed Miliband attacked his older brother and maneuvred himself into a leadership position with the support of the unions. David Miliband's resignation will close the chapter of New Labour and finally confirm that the middle ground in British politics is being vacated. It leaves the Labour Party with a largely unelectable leader who has been (unfavourably) compared to the plasticine character of Wallace. It is now up to David Cameron to convince his party that the middle ground is up for grabs to win the next general election in 2015.

Why banks don't lend to businesses

Amongst all the smoke about the current budget, the problem of bank lending to small and medium sized businesses does not get much detailed debate. The trenches between the government and the Labour opposition are drawn roughly along the lines of trying to incentivise the banks to lend, or order the state owned banks to lend. The latter position is taken of course by many Labour politicians and union leaders who like to bash bankers for the damage done to the economy during the balance sheet crisis of 2008/9.

The Business Secretary Vince Cable has stubbornly tried to get away from these caricatures of the problem and recently outlined once again why banks are not lending. Apart from the de-leveraging that banks are currently doing to prevent any future bailout (and are required by European and British law), the main reason for their failure to lend is actually their weak presence in the local economy. British banks may have become major global players and draw much of the profits from foreign investments, but, despite their protestations and adverts to the contrary they have failed to foster strong community relationships with small and medium sized businesses in the local economy. It is here that local knowledge is generated which would allow banks to accurately assess risks of investments, and make informed choices about the financial support they grant to local businesses.

Not quite so local

This lack of local knowledge is not something that happened over night. In fact, Britain has long cultivated a different banking culture to that of Germany where banks are highly diversified and engaged in the local economy through investments. British banks have mainly drawn their income from investments in the commodity and financial markets whereas the investment functions often fell to entrepreneurial and venture capital. To turn this around and to create a more diversified banking sector is a major undertaking, and it would start with promoting more competition in the banking sector in Britain.

The unsavoury coalition to gag the press

The Prime Minister has now withdrawn from the cross-party negotiations on new regulations for the press. His argument is simple: the other parties want to muzzle the press and although there certainly have been infringements of the rights of innocent people over the last decade, the press has now accepted that a strong regulatory system needs to be put in place. Labour and the LibDem want a licensing system where journalists have to apply for to a statutory body to be able to work in a media outlet. The Prime Minister has rejected this.

There are two main reasons why I believe Cameron is right on this issue. First, with all due respect to victims of press intrusion, I don't think the victims of injustices have an overriding privilege to write legislation. The Hacked Off campaign director Brian Cathcart has already said that he does not 'want to know anything about' the freedom of the press. That does not bode well for free and responsible media.

The second reason Cameron may have called an end to the cross party charade is that the people ganging up on the press have less than honorable motifs. The motley crew of those who want to gag the press consists mainly of politicians who have misbehaved in public and faced the fallout of their misdemeanours in the press. They now think it is pay back time. Amongst others, there is Labour MP Chris Bryant who placed pictures of himself in a semi-naked state on the internet which were then published (I spare you the visual evidence). No wonder he would like to gag the press. On Wednesday, he (decently dressed this time) argued that the press should be regulated by the government through statutory law. That would put Britain on a par with Russia and China.

There is no doubt that the press needs a strong regulatory framework to operate in. What we don't need is to end 300 years of media freedom. The best thing Labour can do to reform press behaviour in this country is to come off the fence and support the libel reform law that they are trying to scupper in the upper house.

On good writing

There is a scene in The Wire (Series 5) that stuck in my mind ever since I've seen it. The editor of the local paper, the Baltimore Sun, calls one of his reporters to the main desk. 'You say in your piece that 12 families were evacuated from the building' he says. 'You cant evacuate people, you evacuate buildings. To evacuate people is to give them an enema!'

He is right of course and the little joke reveals the pitfalls of the English language. For me as a foreigner, writing in English has always been a struggle, though an enjoyable one. Learning a language from scratch in your adult years usually means to learn it systematically from the vocabulary and grammar up. And so you try to immerse yourself in rules and regulations of a distant linguistic universe until you realise that, actually, the real learning process is based on phrases and the individual memories of the context in which they are used, rather than putting words together according to grammatical rules.

Perhaps it is the sheer time and effort I had to invest into learning the English language that I now often regret seeing examples of poor linguistic skills. There is of course a close link between cultures and spoken language and I am aware that communities fashion their own dialects that may significantly diverge from 'High English'. However, I do believe that newspapers and journals should be held to the highest linguistic standard. The 'New Yorker' is an excellent example of journalism at its best: short sentences, clear meanings, and a rich vocabulary. It is simply a joy to read.

A Guardian 'blooper'...

In Britain however the picture is mixed. The Guardian, of all journalistic products, is becoming sloppier in the care it takes to eliminate typos and slippery meanings. The main reason may be its slow but steady shift from news to opinion. Over the last decade the paper's columns are increasingly filled with opinion pieces rather than news. What's the difference?

I strongly believe that news items are subjected to a more rigorous method of eliminating ambiguities and unclear language. Libel laws and the commitment of journalists to truth and impartial news production ensure that copy editors and proof readers finecomb every sentence in news items. This also goes for the BBC, where apparently lengthy discussion can ensue about the use of a single term or a word amongst newsroom staff.

Yet, opinion pieces are largely exempt from the strictures of newsreporting. And I suspect communicating personal views and opinions frees writers from what they may feel undue linguistic rigour. But as news outlets increase their reliance on opinion pieces rather than newsreports, the accuracy of our language suffers.

If this line of argument was not clear enough, then I can only apologise and evacuate myself to the next blog entry.