Plus ca change . . .

When British people voted for change last Thursday, it seems to me that two events of the past year were motivating them: the expenses scandal and the bankers' bailout. Thus we would have expected to be governed by people who would take a strict approach to financial shenanigans and who would better represent us, in the sense of being people like us, people who have experienced difficulties paying their bills and who understand how to use a bus.

The shape of the cabinet indicates that this is very far from the case. Apart from token Teresa, they are fairly uniformly white, male, and public-school educated. Worse still, of the Liberal Democrats included, two have made their money in the financial markets and the third - apparent darling of the chattering classes Vince Cable - is a former Chief Economist at Shell.

Here is a brief summary of the education, age and gender of the cabinet appointments made so far, plus any experience they had outside politics (where relevant):

David Cameron: PM –Eton, Oxford University, born 1965, male

Nick Clegg: Deputy PM – Westminster, Cambridge University, born 1965, male

William Hague: Foreign Secretary – local comprehensive, Oxford University, born 1961, male

George Osborne: Chancellor – St. Pauls, Oxford University, born 1971, male

Theresa May: Home Secretary - grammar school, Oxford University, born 1956, female (employment background in banking)

Ken Clark: Justice Secretary - grammar school, Cambridge University, born 1940 (corporate directorships and commentator on financial markets)

Liam Fox: Health Secretary – St. Bride’s High School, Glasgow University, born 1961, male (worked as a GP)

Vince Cable: Business Secretary – grammar school, Cambridge University, born 1943, male (Chief Economist at Shell)

Chris Huhne: Energy and Climate Change Secretary – Westminster, Oxford University, born 1954, male (made a personal fortune on the stock-market)

David Laws: Chief Secretary to the Treasury - independent school, Cambridge University, born (investment banker and former Vice-President of JP Morgan)

If it weren't for Liam Fox, you might think this country had only two universities.

Far be it from me to compare UK plc with a company or even a local authority, but if you were to engage in any sort of unbiased selection process to choose people to run a large and struggling economy at a time of crisis you might wish at least a significant proportion to have some experience that was relevant. The cabinet we have are PR men, economic advisers and professional politicians. They have nothing between them that could possibly act as preparation for the sitution they find themselves in.

But what they do share, and this is far more important in these days when a politician with principles seems so last century, is an adherence to a neoliberal philosophy and a sense of entitlement to power and privilege.

If you're surprised by the pedigree of those Liberal Democrats who have made it into the cabinet then you need to think back to the coup that took place in the party in 2004. This revolved around the Orange Book, co-edited by David Laws, which claimed to 'reclaim Liberalism' but in reality moved the party sharply to the right. The contributors are almost all key players in today's Liberal Democrat Party, including all those who are now Cabinet members. Presumably the movement of the Liberal Democrat Party away from its heritage of imaginative, alternative policies - such as land tax and citizens' income - is not unrelated to the party's presence in the Cabinet today. Tweet

Blood, Sweat and Tears?

Let's just imagine, for one moment, that we do not understand how international finance works, that we accept the notion that we have no control over our money supply, that we are victims of the depradations of global currency speculators. And then let's take an even more frightening step and imagine that we might be an economic strategist for one of the mainstream political parties. What on earth would we do about the economy? What would we have to say to the Chancellor once behind the closed doors of No. 11?

I have two suggestions about how we might tackle the debt problem within a conventional economic framework. I believe both could make the bitter pill easier to swallow, because they treat people like grown-ups and because they are based on an understanding of justice as fairness that has been singularly lacking from our politics since 1979.

While growth-addicted politicians have been luring the UK's citizens into debt-fuelled consumption for decades, the evidence is that this has not greatly enhanced our well-being. The gadgets and air flights have led to dislocation and the breakdown of the relationships that really guarantee our well-being. Citizens might be prepared to accept less money and less stuff on one vital condition: that they believed the inequality that has accompanied the expansion of our economy for the past 30 years were to be reversed.

At the global scale, we call for a Contraction and Convergence - reducing energy consumption to a level that the planet can survive, and sharing this equally between all the world's people. At a national level I would suggest a similar approach to tackling the debt. If there must be public-sector pay restraint, then the lowest paid should still see increases, with the cuts coming to the best paid. This would address the deficit while simultaneously reversing the inequality that is so pernicious to social health. For the private sector, a maximum wage differential and considerably more progressive tax system could effect a similar convergence of incomes.

Just as we argue for the global contraction and convergence as a way of enabling our economy to fit within planetary limits, so we could consider the need to reduce the need to reduce government spending as part of a policy of a managed reduction in economy activity. As argued by the degrowth movement, this help us to 'put the economy in its place'. Over the next decade we could take what Marshall Sahlins eloquently calls the 'Zen road to affluence', valuing our selves, each other and the beautiful world we share, rather than burning oil and cash to provide ourselves with more stuff.

Whether we have a government of national unity or a weak government of one or two parties on May 7th the task facing whoever moves into No. 11 will be the same: reassessing what a successful economy is and moving away from the growth-and-consumption beano, fuelled by debt, that has been the hallmark of UK plc since Big Bang in 1986. If enacted with justice and in order to rebalance our relationship with nature this could offer a great opportunity. Tweet

Putting Capitalism in its Place

Canvassing is always a salutary experience since it teaches you that people are far smarter than the pundits give them credit for. This reminds me of my once-held belief that we would be far better off if we engaged in some sort of periodic job exchange scheme, where every ten years or so our politicians would become hairdressers and vice versa. Except for the quality of our haircuts of course.

This morning, while waiting in a queue at the cashpoint, I had a very interesting conversation with a local voter. He was critical of politicians' reluctance to admit exactly how much our public services were going to be cut. I responded by pointing out that, had we not experienced an extraction of value to our banking sector, we would not be needing to cut at all.

My mention of the word 'capitalism' was not well-received. I had to explain that I was not for a centrally planned system where every bicycle would be made in Conventry and sold through a state-run and utilitarian shop. My concern was rather that capitalism should be pushed onto a socially benign path. Here we were able to agree.

Capitalism needs to be contained within social limits. If the prevailing economic system benefits only a very small proportion of the citizens of a country - or of the world - than that system clearly needs radical revision. Although I might style myself as 'anti-capitalist' it only takes a few moments to consider the history of societies where social ownership is ubiquitous to realise that we may not be ready for that yet.

It seems to me there are three criteria which we can use to examine whether a capitalist business is socially acceptable: its size, the scope of its activities, and the extent of its profits. All three can easily be enforced by a just taxation system combined with an effective Office of Fair Trading. And our economy would also benefit from greater diversity, so that there were more social businesses, social enterprises, and co-operatives.

However, the economic system that dominates the UK in 2010 is not capitalism in any recognisable sense. It is a financialised system of exploitation where, rather than using money as a medium of exchange to facilitate the exchange of goods, a tiny minority are using money corruptly to extract the overwhelming majority of the wealth of the world for their private enjoyment.

My cashpoint friend seemed reluctant to consider how the monetary system might be used to suck our money out of us, so that we will face losing the services we value and the quality of the society we share. The issue feels too big; most do not have the courage even to consider it, much less to dare to argue for something better.

We should resist the intimidating behaviour of the masters of capital, whether exercised in print or via credit-rating agencies. Capitalism is not working: we deserve something better. Just because these issues are not raised as part of the election campaign should not lead us to think that we have no right to debate them. Tweet