tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post5157696344087064726..comments2024-03-17T00:10:44.022+00:00Comments on From Arse To Elbow: The Nature of the Political FirmDavid Timoneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-43472879674472456852017-11-22T15:40:23.291+00:002017-11-22T15:40:23.291+00:00The "weirdo billionaire" thesis has meri...The "weirdo billionaire" thesis has merit, but I don't think it fully explains the situation, not least because of the emphasis on "weirdo". Though Alex Harrowell makes the point that modern capitalism has often rewarded crazies, their disproportionate influence is no greater than the nut-jobs of an earlier era (think Howard Hughes or James Goldsmith), while the same dynamic has given prominence to soi-disant liberals like Richard Branson or George Soros, not to mention the Wall Street types who supported Hillary Clinton.<br /><br />Where the idea has merit is in respect of the changing rationale for the toleration of political funding by private interests. Despite the appeals to free speech, this is ultimately the result of a choice to treat politics as a market in which producers respond to the preferences of rich consumers, so it is very much a product of neoliberalism. In other words, it is a commitment to pay heed to billionaires as a class, rather than just the necessity of humouring the fruit-loops.<br /><br />While the UK hasn't gone anywhere near as far as the US in this regard, the ideological atmosphere has changed, with the result that British politicians increasingly defer to the idea that the judgement of the rich is of superior value (if the market has made them rich, then surely the market is telling us something). This is the tendency whose emergence Robin traces through Burke, Nietzsche and Hayek, and which had become hegemonic by the mid-90s and New Labour.<br /><br />The problem today is that the rich as a class are divided, hence the rabbit-in-the-headlights behaviour of the government. This is not just a big vs small capital split, nor does it straightforwardly map onto globalists vs nationalists (cf James Dyson). It appears to be a fracture within the neoliberal tradition, essentially between Ordoliberals and classical liberals, which means it turns on the role and extent of the state. <br /><br />This, I think, is a direct consequence of the aftermath of 2008-9, which revealed both that the state was always behind the curtain and that it commanded real power. Though they were protected and then further rewarded (e.g. QE) by the political class from 2009 onwards, the rich found the experience humiliating because it called into question not only their value (the judgement of the market was shown to be rigged) but their justification for dominance in public policy.<br /><br />I think this has boosted the influence of the classical liberals to the point that it has become destabilising. While small-state rhetoric has been employed instrumentally by conservatives of all stripes, most have been insincere, hence the state never shrank. The Tories' problem is that they're now being driven not only to decouple from the EU but to radically prune the national state as well (hence the gleeful vandalism), which is actually anathema to many of them. David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-20458399017045909482017-11-22T09:25:35.612+00:002017-11-22T09:25:35.612+00:00Perhaps it was as Alex Harrowell argued – that ris...Perhaps it was as Alex Harrowell argued – that rising inequality has meant that the Tories are no longer representative of British capitalism, and instead are <a href="http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2017/11/19/the-theory-of-the-eccentric-billionaire-and-why-politicians-got-so-awful/" rel="nofollow">hostage to the whims of weirdo billionaires</a>...George Cartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170378024031141482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-58133090939695648332017-11-21T21:34:55.142+00:002017-11-21T21:34:55.142+00:00"In Coasian terms, what recent months have sh..."In Coasian terms, what recent months have shown is that UK government ministers aren't very good at doing deals, even allowing for the unhelpful barracking of the Brexit ultras and the Tory press. Where their ability to secure an external deal has been constrained by circumstance, that has often been the consequence of the self-defeating issue of orders internally, such as the premature invocation of Article 50 and the calling of a general election. But this seems all the more baffling when you consider just how successful the UK was in doing deals with the rest of the EU over the last 40 years, from the famous rebate to exemption from the euro and the Schengen Agreement."<br /><br />To obtain these concessions in the past UK governments certainly engaged in brinkmanship, but ultimately acknowledged that this had to ultimately be followed up with negotiation and some concessions. Now it seems to be all-or-nothing statements and assertions of national martyrdom. <br /><br />I'm not sure why this has become the case. Possibly the media influence had become more pervasive, corrupting public opinion in turn? Or the increasing reluctance to relate to the EU as anything but a scapegoat took its toll? Or Tories in the 80s and early 90s at least retained some diplomatic skills from the days when a powerful labour movement made negotiating a necessity? Or is narcissism becoming omnipresent in modern politics? (or modern life in general?) <br />Ben Philliskirknoreply@blogger.com