They said it couldn’t be done. It would cause mass job losses and economic melt down. It undermined the morals of the poor. So screeched a whole bevy of right wing “news”papers, magazines and think tanks when Tony Blair’s Government introduced the UK’s minimum wage policy in 1999.[1] We’ll let the excellent Philip Inman of the Guardian give you the details. Our own gloss will be a little more historic.
Scholars scrabbling over the rubble of the Great Crash of 1929 soon discovered one simple, outstanding truth. The boom of the 1920s had held a fatal weakness. Wages stayed low, while tax reforms had ignited an unstable credit and spend boom among the rich. Demand was suppressed, and as the factories filled with unsellable goods, the stocks of the companies that made them were seen to be based on sand. The resulting crash became much worse, for the poor had no reserves to build in the good times to see them through. The message was an is clear to all of us who have managed to move beyond the simple verities of first year undergraduate economics. Helping the poor makes everyone richer.
So to all the pearl-clutchers, and to those who have their own reasons to conveniently believe in free market economics, we would observe this. Study the history of things like minimum wages, working hours directives and the abolition of serfdom. You disparage them not at your own peril, but at everyone’s.
In his masterwork Reflections on the Revolutionin France, Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke identified the dangers of fast, uncontrolled change.[1] He also laid out the well-run, well- policed state as the only basis for a secure and prosperous life. The imperfection of human nature required that all should be safeguarded from each other. That in turn requires armies, police forces, and where necessary laws to safeguard the existing moral and social order. It is an honourable tradition; the experience of the French Revolution showed that it worked. And many contemporary Conservatives can site it- justifiably, for example in the restriction or even prohibition of seriously dangerous substances, such as alcohol, nicotine or cocaine. And for this reason, millions of ordinary, decent Conservative voters trust only this party to restrict the highly dangerous, possibly addictive drug cannabis. Read the Daily Mail if you don’t believe us.
Which is why it seems odd at first site that former Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss should seem so opposed to a Conservative Government’s attempt to restrict the sale of vapes. [2] The explanation is, of course, that Truss belongs to a second Conservative tradition. That free markets are the only certain guarantee of human happiness. That restrictions and red tape are not only the sure brakes on enterprise, they are an immoral intrusion on the freedom of the individual. Again, an honourable tradition, rooted essentially in the works of Smith, Ricardo and Hayek. And proved right in the experience of the Russian Revolution and the tragic, genocidal decades which followed it. Which is why think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute advocate the legalisation of cannabis [3] Impeccably Conservative-well they were such inspirations not only for Truss, but for her predecessor Margaret Thatcher as well.
For any law, however much it claims to be for the public good, is also Red Tape. Any regulation is a restriction on someone’s freedom somewhere. To exalt the monarchy, as many Conservatives do, is at once to exalt the state. and thereby an endless flow of taxes, regulations and laws. Someone has to pay for the Monarch’s dinner-so why not everyones? A true belief in the efficacy of markets would allow the universal sale of vapes everywhere, to anyone. To oppose that is to admit that the goodness of free markets is not true everywhere, at all times. And a law that is not universal at all times cannot be true, as science shows. (Example: the atomic number of Iron is the same wherever you go in the Universe) So-should a Conservative before or against the free sale of vapes?
“He’s going to be your President too.” These wise words were spoken to us by a much older cousin concerning the US Elections of 1968. And they have stayed with us ever since. Even if you are British, German, French or Australian, the forthcoming US Presidential election concerns you very closely. Which is why this article by Robert B Reich of Newsweek has caused us considerable disquiet. All the more so, because Newsweek has always been scrupulously neutral in its reporting, if anything leaning right of centre. [1]
It acknowledges just concerns about Biden‘s apparent physical frailty (well covered already), but then tuns to a considerable evidence list that suggests that the 45th President of the United States, and current Republican frontrunner has some substantial questions to answer about his own health, to say the least. Without stealing Robert’s thunder (we ‘ve given you the click) we will make this tiny crib as a taster
“………….In October, Trump warned his supporters that Biden will lead America into World War Two. He has also claimed that Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group, is “very smart.” That whales are being killed by windmills.……….
World War Two?-uh, haven’t we sort of had that already? Whales and windmills? You don’t need a PhD in either Zoology or physics to question that one.
Yes, this blog is written in England, by persons who do not hold US citizenship. But we do share the planet with a country which holds a colossal nuclear arsenal, one which could destroy the world many times over if it were activated in a moment of narcissistic rage. We humbly beg our friends over the pond to please, please think very carefully, both now and in November.
According to one tale, the great Chinese statesman Zhou Enlai was asked “What are the consequences of the French Revolution?” To which he replied “it’s too early to say.” Like many good stories, it’s probably apocryphal; but it illustrates a wise truth. Don’t rush to judgement. In historical terms, the UK decision to quit the EU in 2016 was a seismic event at least as big as the French Revolution, or China’s own Cultural Revolution. Nine years on from the ballot, and three from that final sundering, can we make out anything at all?
Superficially, the case against Brexit appears to be overwhelming. GDP is down by anything between 2-5% each year.[1] Business investment and capital formation have taken a severe hit [2] Life expectancy, that key indicator of a thriving society, has actually started to fall is some areas. As for the much wished-for trade deals with the Leavers’ beloved White Commonwealth, these are either highly disadvantageous the to UK (Australia, New Zealand) or non- existent (Canada). Meanwhile the UK Government rushes to subsidise factories here, there and everywhere, with money which might be better spent on Defence or transport, all in the name of keeping a residual manufacturing presence. Case closed? No. Firstly because the analysis is too simple. Secondly, because we think that humans are not, primarily economic animals.
For starters, the above-quoted statistics are UK-wide. They disguise the fact that certain regions have weathered the Brexit storm better than others. Northern Ireland (membership of Single Market) and London and the South East ( residual proximity to the Continent) are two cases against. As for the life expectancy figures-these are a long term trend, and probably owe their origin to the years after 2010 when Remainers Cameron and Osborne introduced their programme of austerity.
For the second argument: let’s go back to basics. The European Union was founded first as a peace project, and only secondarily as an economic one (it was the failure to grasp this which led to the UK’s disastrous negotiating strategy-but that’s another story). The EU has indeed kept the peace between those ancient enemies Germany and France. But with the rise of Vladimir Putin, the days of peace are over-everywhere. As for prosperity-was it really all it was cracked up to be? More food seems mainly to have led to higher obesity. More money meant more fast cars, more items of throw-away fashion and easily- forgotten holidays. All of these may have to be dispensed with if our economies have to be diverted to defence. So-was Brexit simply an act of foresight, preparing the British people for the hard times that lay ahead? And there is one other factor, which we think is more important still.
When the UK coal miners struck in their bitter dispute of 1984-1985, they firmly declared one thing. It was not about money. It was, they said, about preserving community, belonging and their sense of identity.[3] And these feelings are rooted very deeply in the human psyche. Probably far deeper than a desire for shiny kitchens or luxurious furniture. These are the profound sentiments that Brexit touched upon-and we ignore them at our peril. History has not been kind to those mineworkers and the children, it is true. But it still remains to pass its judgement on the children of the Brexiteers. Let’s wait and see.
We have made no secret of it. This is a Whig blog, written, researched, and edited by a senior staff whose political and philosophical affiliations are all to that most progressive and enlightened segment of mankind. (what the rest of them in this building think, we have no idea) But where did the name come from-and what about that of the Tories, the very antithesis, nemesis and inveterate opponents of all that we hold most dear?
According to the admirable Lord Lexden, writing in House magazine [1], the earliest origins of the word “Whig” go back to the bitter constitutional debates which followed the English Civil War. The “Whigs” were generally in favour of some kind of Constitutional Monarchy along modern lines, and feared the autocratic tendencies of the Papacy. Their opponents (unjustly, of course) mocked them as “Whiggamaires” a kind of horse rustler from the wilder lands of Scotland. They labelled their opponents, who wished to see the succession of the devoutly Catholic James as “Tories” after lawless Irish thieves, whom they described as
“popishly affected, outlaws, robbers, such as our law saith have Caput Lupinum, fit and ready to be destroyed and knocked on the head by any one that could meet with them”.
A little strong,perhaps.
Now you might say that the programmes of both parties have changed a bit since then. But, is there just an underlying kernal of truth somewhere in the recondite reaches of History? Perhaps of psychological type and preference?. To be a Whig was to be essentially looking to the future, and to reach, gropingly, towards new ideas in governance, science and belief. To be a Tory was to cling to what was, toexalt Authority and Custom as the supreme arbiters. Has anything changed?
“When facts change, then I change my mind.” So said the great economist JM Keynes. It should be the guiding principle for every scientist and scholar. Now, some readers will recall several blogs we have made on immigration ( LSS June/July ’22;Nov ’22). We still think we were right to raise this issue. Because it seems to be of neuralgic importance. But we ascribed the basic cause to the movement of people from poor economies to richer ones. We have now seen good evidence that this belief, although not entirely wrong, is so simple as to be almost misleading. And we are now going to present you with that evidence, so you can judge for yourselves.
Of course immigration does indeed flow from poorer societies to richer ones, But not from the absolute dirt-poor countries. The bulk of immigration comes from middle income countries. According Hein de Haas. a Professor of Sociology who writes in the Guardian, anyway. [1] And why do they do it? To fill jobs in short contract, essentially unregulated labour markets in the host countries. The second link, from Nature Briefings, should allow you to drill down more into Professor Haas’ work (we hope the link works!) It’s called Prejudice Colours our View on Immigration, a title that says much:
Many of us have opinions about immigration, but most of us don’t fully understand it, suggests sociologist Hein de Haas in his impressively wide-ranging book How Migration Really Works. By busting myths that surround human mobility, de Haas provides a welcome corrective to common misconceptions, writes reviewer and migration scholar Alan Gamlen. “But with migration patterns shifting as the world rocks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s unclear for how long his conclusions will hold true,” writes Gamlen.Nature | 7 min read
There’s a lot of humility to go around for all of us here, not just LSS. Like, even when you think you have the answer, it may turn out to be only part of it. That sudden sweeping generalisations can be utterly wrong. Yet there remains one small observation in which we were right, You get very little immigration from richer countries(e.g. Switzerland, Denmark) to poorer ones(e.g UK) And we still think that, in there somewhere. lies the answer to all this angst.
Learning, Science and Society 