The Future Now

Make unemployment a moral issue

Chris Dillow's piece in last Friday's Times tells us all we need to know about the British economy at the end of a decade in which we took one faltering step forward in respect of promises to make poverty history, and several leaps backward as structural weaknesses went unaddressed and the economy collapsed, as was inevitable.

Dillow's expertly-argued point, that far from the 2.49 million figure touted by the government, real unemployment in the UK is more than twice that figure (and was over 4 million even before the downturn) should surely prompt the question "is there no better way to organise things such that everyone who wants to work can find a decent job?"

The solution is not simply a question of minor policy adjustments, nor the degree of state intervention in the labour market:  As Dillow points out, in the light-touch United States the real rate of unemployment is even higher.  He thus concludes that mass unemployment is inevitable, and his analysis of historical trends certainly appears to support that conclusion.

But isn't it about time we started to think about poverty and unemployment in the same way that the abolitionists thought about slavery; or the suffragettes about votes for women, or campaigners for civil rights about racism: all things that are morally wrong and therefore unacceptable in a civilized society?

It's only because those involved in these great historical struggles for justice and equality refused to accept the status quo, that society has made such progress in the last two centuries.  But in respect of similar injustices that are part and parcel of the economic system, nobody seems able to make the moral case for change, or offer a coherent plan.

Anti-capitalists may know what they are against, but where is the intellectual wing of that movement?  And why no effort to target the millions of ordinary citizens, disenfranchised economically, and disillusioned politically, who know they're getting a rough deal, but are still told there is no alternative, two decades after Margaret Thatcher was booted out of No 10.

There could be an alternative if only people in sufficient numbers became aware of the possibility.  But currently, despite our living in a 'mature' democracy, a small minority of citizens continue set the political and economic agendas.  Yes, the rest of us are given a choice at election time, but only between different versions of the same, minority-favouring, recipe.

As anyone with an understanding of classical economic theory will know, unemployment arises when people are unable to gain productive access to one or more of the factors of production (land, labour and capital).  You don't need statistics to realise that the distribution of land, and access to capital, are both skewed heavily in favour of the already wealth.  It could be argued that everyone at least has control over their own labour, but even that is little help if you lack the right skills to sell in a competitive labour market.

Most of those who want to work but can't find jobs are denied access to these essential  factors of production by others who have secured for themselves an unfair share.  Until society recognises this, and until we move away from an economy which actively encourages the maldistribution of economic resources and opportunities, then a large swathe of the population will have no hope of betterment. 

Having let another decade slip by without progress, dare we allow ourselves a little hope for the next one?

Thank God for Deborah Orr

It's great to see Deborah Orr back at The Guardian, good again to read her on newsprint, rather than online, which I often forgot to do when she was at the Indie.  This week she really excels herself with this piece on the economy.

As she says,

The transition from a manufacturing to a skills-based economy, started under Thatcher in the 80s and continued so enthusiastically by New Labour, has been a failure. Its triumphs would be rubble were it not for the scaffold of bail-out support that has been erected around it.

I once heard it said that a human being could survive perfectly well by consuming just bananas and Guinesss - in the correct quantities of course - those two commodities containing all the nutrients the body needs. 

In terms of nourishing the mind, the same could be said of Deborah and her husband, Will Self.  A diet consisting exclusively of her columns and Self's novels and short stories would, I believe, provide all the literary sustenance an enquiring mind could possibly need.

Steve Bell excels himself, again.

Whatever you think of Gordon Brown and the current travails of the Labour Party, it's difficult to disagree with the sentiment expressed in Steve Bell's latest cartoon for The Guardian.

If the choice is between the the Brown government and the obsequious, self-serving Murdoch clan and their various media organs, I know who has my support.

Alan Turing: a crime against heroism

Good to see Richard Dawkins supporting the campaign to get an official apology for Alan Turing, the code-breaking genius, and father of computing, who commited suicide after being prosecuted for being homosexual.  This after he had done probably as much as anyone to save the world from fascism.

You can sign the online petition here, and I urge you to do so.

Michael Jackson

Difficult to remain completely untouched by the death of Michael Jackson.  A deeply troubled soul of course, but a great performer with a wonderful voice who also made a serious contribution to the world of contemporary dance.

Richard Williams sums it up especially well in this piece for the Guardian.

In training

That's right, I'm in training for the British 10k run on 12 July with a target time of 50 minutes, which is pretty ambitious given my current personal best of an hour and a half.

And, of course, I'm looking for sponsorship.  I'm running for the Anthony Nolan Trust which last year saved more than 700 lives by arranging bone marrow transplants for people with leukaemia.

It's a very worthy cause, especially as bone marrow matches can only be found for about half of those that need trasnplants, so Anthony Nolan needs more money to save more lives. 

So go on, please sponsor me, by visiting my justgiving page.

Thanks

Mark

Brown survives

As Jonathan Freedland says in today's Guardian, in the end Gordon Brown survived the various attempts to unseat him, and the worst election result for decades because,

the plot to replace Brown lacked two essentials: an alternative candidate and an alternative programme.

And this statement pretty well sums up the state of UK politics.  There is widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the country, indeed the world, and the failure of politicians to provide a lead.  None of the main parties have a credible way out of the current crisis - a crisis which is economic at it's root, but which infects all branches of society and culture - because none of the main parties understand, or are willing to admit, the underlying causes of this deepening malaise.

But then the electorate is not much better.  What do they do after the economic order imposed by politicians of the right brings the world to its knees and they get chance to vote in elections to the European Parliament?  Most stay home, and those who do bother to vote give their support overwhelmingly to parties of the right.

It's surely time for a radical new poltics of the kind espoused in the UK by the Green Party, or by Compass on the 'left' of the Labour Party.  But how we get this imperative to register with the majority of ordinary people, or with mainstream politicians, I really don't know.

We get the government we deserve?  You bet we do. 

On the current political crisis

It looks like the crisis engulfing Gordon Brown's government will rumble on into next week, with the European election results not due until Monday.

As I write, a cabinet reshuffle is underway:  Allan Johnson to Home Secretary, Alistair Darling staying as Chancellor, Jack Straw remaining at Justice.  All this, along with David Milliband's decision not to support his friend james Purnell's resignation, suggests that Brown is safe for now.

Although I have become completely disillusioned with Labour, even more so under Brown than Blair, I have to say this is probably a good thing.

However bad things are under labour (and I don't think, actually, they are that bad - see below).  The likely alternative, a Conservative government under David Cameron would surely be worse.  The best chance of Labour winning the next election (and I accept that prospect is very slim) is to delay the election as long as possible.  A change of Labour leader now would precipitate an early election which Labour would undoubtedly lose.

As for how bad things really are:  Sure we are in the middle of the worst recession for nearly a century, and yes, Gordon Brown is as culpable for that as anyone else.  But politicians of all parties were happy to preside over and defend a hideously unjust economic system, a system that gives most advantages the a few during the good times, and heaps hardship on the many when things go bad.

As far the expenses scandal: there are clearly some MPs who have no integrity, and some of these are morally, and quite possibly legally, corrupt.  But they are a minority and the worst offenders will lose their seats.  But, their behaviour pales in insignificance when compared with that of many bankers and others who have been awarding themselves obscene bonuses for many years, as they have brought the ecnomy to its knees.

If you ask me, the biggest culprit in all this is the media, so desperate to break a story, that much of the time it is driving the news.  Coverage of politics is now an exercise in reality TV. Thanks to the media, politics has become a soap opera.

I hope Gordon Brown survives, but I also hope that for the final year of this government he has the courage of the convictions many progressives believes he still holds.  After 12 years in which a supposedly progressive government has been singuallary conservative in its policy making, he still has the chance to make a difference.

Look across the water Mr Brown:  You can set the agenda.

Resurrecting the American Dream

The good folks who hosted my recent visit to the United States have just posted a recording of one of my lectures on youtube.  So thanks to them, and here it is:

Fuelling a new world money supply

I have a new piece on comment is free this morning which assesses the motivation behind the recent proposal by the governor of the Chinese central bank for a new global reserve currency. 

I also point readers towards Richard Douthwaite's pamphlet, The Ecology of Money, which contains a much better proposal to link such a currency to energy use.

The lessons of Boris

Johann Hari has this excellent piece in today's Independent.  It's an accurate assessment of the pluses and minuses of the Boris Johnson's first year as Mayor of London.  His conclusion: not withstanding some surprising policy initiatives on the part of the mop-haired one, Johnson remains a largely unreconstructed right winger.  Hari suggests we should be very worried about the prospect of David Cameron winning the next election.

Money for nothing

My latest piece for comment is free, which addresses the need for monetary reform in the wake of the G20 summit, and was published on Sunday while I was in Belgium, has attracted a large number of positive comments.  Very encourgaging.

Building progress out of the meltdown

I have a new piece over at Comment is free this morning in which I argue that, in the absence of any political appetite for the kind of structural reforms needed to get the economy back on track, instead of investing in an over-capacitied car industry, we shoud be investing in much needed social housing.

Progressive America

I'm just back from an inspiring trip to the United States where I was invited to speak on the subject of Ressurecting the American Dream, at Missouri Sate University and Drury University, both in Springfield, Missouri.

The talks were well received and I was exceptionally well looked after by my American hosts.  By way of promotion, this piece was published in the Springfield News Leader, and I also did this radio interview.

I had a stimulating and constructive meeting with members of the League of Women Voters and the Senior Democrats, which confirmed my belief in the crucial role that older people have to play in shaping the future of politics - so much wisdom and experience of life.

I was very impressed by the progressive spirit of many I met, and the enthusiasm with which they are embracing the possibilities for progressive change in America, and therefore the world, following the election of Barack Obama.

Thanks to everyone I met, and to all those who came to the talks.  The talk itself will soon emerge as an article which, once published, will be accessible from this site.

The brutalisation of society

The truly great Billy Bragg has this piece over at Comment is Free just now in which he correctly describes the consequences of Margaret Thatcher's victory over the miners, who began their famous strike 25 years today.

Whatever you think about miners' leader Arthur Scargill, and he certainly made many mistakes and suffers deep psychological flaws, everything he claimed would come to pass were the Tory government to get its way has done so.

Hearing the obsequious Lord Tebbitt talking about the context of the strike on the Today programme this morning was really quite vomit-inducing, so it's good to see the Bard of Barking putting the record straight.

Goodwin's Pension

As you can probably imagine I have little time for Sir Fred Goodwin and his ilk.  People like Goodwin reconfigured the banking system for the benefit of a wealthy elite of which they were proud to be part.  Ridiculous pension arrangements were part and parcel of the system by which these people made their undeserved fortunes.

But they could not have done it without the acquiescence of government, and in Britain for the last twelve years that government has been a Labour government.

For John Prescott to absolve Gordon Brown of all responsibility, as he did on the Today programme this morning is, quite frankly, and to use language with which Prescott would himself be comfortable, taking the piss. 

Bankers and politicians thought they could get away with it.  The former because many among their number feel themselves entitled to obscene remuneration for running business which produce nothing of tangible value.  The latter because, for reasons which they really ought to explain, they refuse to challenge the wealth, power and privilege of a tiny minority. In their failure to do so they prove themselves totally lacking in democratic credentials.

If there are no legal means by which Goodwin can be forced to return his pension pot, then perhaps we taxpayers might be reimbursed through a charge on the future earnings of everyone who has served in this government over the last decade.

The banality of democracy

This excellent piece by Pankaj Mishra in today's Guardian highlights the shortcomings of our democratic institutions as mechanisms through which just outcomes might be arrived at. Mishra asks:

can the institutions of electoral democracy, liberal capitalism and the nation-state be relied upon to do our moral thinking for us?

The evidence from many of the major trouble spots around the world, as well as the 'more mature' democracies, is that they cannot.  And, as he points out, the prospects for global society of democracy continuing down the same path, are extremely frightening.

A paradigm shift in economics

These concluding paragraphs from Anotole Kaletsky's column in today's Times should stir the passions of any self-respecting progressive:

So economics is on the brink of a paradigm shift. We are where astronomy was when Copernicus realised that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The academic economics of the past 20 years is comparable to pre-Copernican astronomy, with its mysterious heavenly cogs, epicycles and wheels within wheels or maybe even astrology, with its faith in star signs.

The academic Establishment will resist such a shift, as it always does. But luckily economists understand incentives. They should now be given a clear choice: embrace new ideas or return their public funding and Nobel prizes, alongside the bankers' bonuses they justified and inspired.

Alas, as you might expect from the always stimulating, but rarely anything but conventional Kaletsky, the rest of his piece says little about the nature of this paradigm shift.

The problem is that in order to be a successful academic economists, you have to toe the establishment, neo-classical, line.  This narrow form of economics, which forms the basis of all economics text-books and teaching makes a set of assumptions about the foundations of the economy, and proceeds then to examine how this particular kind of economy works.

Any economists that values their career will not question these assumptions for fear of rocking the boat.  As Keynes said  'In the City, it's better to be conventionally wrong than unconventionally right."  The same applies to academic economics.  And it largely explains why we're in the mess we're currently in.

What is needed is a rejuvenation of the discipline of political economy, of the kind practiced by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Henry George, Joseph Schumpeter. J.K. Galbraith and E.F Scumacher among others.  Political economists need to wrest back the discipline from the econometricists that have come to dominate the profession.  Their assumptions must be assessed against ethical criteria.  We need to ask the question, 'what kind of economy and society do we want?' and then set about devising economic structures and institutions fit for the purpose of delivering that moral vision.

Brian Hodgkinson's book, A New Model of the Economy, is a good place to start for any economists that want to be in at the start of the paradigm shift.

The BBC gets it right for once

The BBC's decision no longer to use Carol Thatcher to work as a 'roving reporter' on its peak time The One Show suggests the corporation might finally have got its balls back.

In a conversation in the green room after a broadcast, Thatcher referred to an unnamed black tennis player as a golliwog.  Despite being given ample opportunity to apologise publicly, she has declined to do so.

This is not a case of political correctness gone mad.  This is a well-known public figure (if only because she is the daughter of a former prime minister) making a blatantly racist statement in a room full of TV people and journalists.

Thatcher's response - that she only used the term jokingly - is typical of many of her ilk who simply don't understand the power of language to reinforce prejudice.  Despite great progress, there are still millions of people with deeply racist attitudes.  When they hear a well-known public figure use such language it can only serve to reaffirm their outdated and bigoted beliefs.

There are only two positions in the debate about racism and racist language.  Either you accept racism and see such language as harmless fun, or you oppose it and condemn language that gives succor to racists.  Thankfully the BBC has seen fit to do the former.  In doing so, it redeems itself, slightly, for its refusal to give airtime to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza.

Against Israeli Policy, Against anti-semitism

Jonathan Freedland has an excellent piece in today's Guardian about the double standards of those on the liberal/left in respect of the tendency of some to associate all Muslims with acts of terror, and all Jews with Israeli government policy in Gaza. 

Nobody should be subject to abuse, assault or attacks on their property because they share religious beliefs with others who commit atrocities. 

In Britain, there remains a nasty, simmering anti-semitism that seems to surface at regular intervals. It is a prejudice which appears to go beyond the fear/dislike of 'other' cultures that seems to underpin many people's attitudes to members of the Muslim community. 

Anti-semitism must not be tolerated.  But the absolute rejection of anti-semitism is perfectly compatible with condemning Israeli government policy in Gaza, which I do unreservedly.  I also condemn Hamas for firing rockets at civilian populations, although I do think the plight of the Palestinian people is as close as any population could get to having just cause for resort to military action against an oppressor.

Forward to the past

I have this new piece over at Comment is Free this morning.  Part of the series entitled, Who owns the progressive future, it suggests that rather than rehearse old arguments between left and right, we should instead look for inspiration to some as yet untried ideas of the past, with reference to the thought of Karl Polanyi and Henry George.

Bring on the Tory Tubbies

I've always been a huge fan of Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell, both for his If series, and his topical cartoons which appear on the comment pages.  But today the great man excels himself, as you can see here.

Stylistically unsurpassed

I have to admit to being a little sceptical when my wife announced that subsequent to a rather heated conversation with a group of friends over the musical abilities of The Stylistics, we had been brought tickets to see those iconic peddlars of 70s soul at the Indigo2.

Last evening, the eight of us pitched up at the Millenium Dome (as it shall always be know to me) to take our seats in that rather impressive smaller venue for what turned out to be a surprisingly enjoyable show.

Alas, only two original Stylistics now remain.  The original falsetto lead, presumably unable any longer to hit the high notes, departed several years ago and now tours as The New Stylistics.  His replacement, former Delfonics frontman Eban Brown, was superb.

Having only been consciously aware of their 1975 chart-topper, I can give you anything, but my love, it was remarkable just how many of their other songs had been etched into my impressionable young memory more than thirty years ago.  It turns out they had 10 UK top ten hits between 1972 and 1976, among them many of the best Philadelphia soul tracks ever recorded.

Last night their singing was impeccable, their backing band, The Style Orchestra, was top notch, and their orange suits were just perfect.  But perhaps the highlight of the evening was seeing so many middle-aged people having the time of their lives. 

Here's the original line-up singing You make me feel brand new back in 1973:

A first step to understanding

A final post on the Baby P affair.  This excellent article by Anne Karpf should be required reading for everyone who thinks more could be done to prevent child abuse and filicide.

No brave new world, yet

Depite all the talk of a new Bretton Woods, there is remarkably little reporting of the outcome of  this weekend's Washington summit in this morning’s press.  But then it was never likely that the Washington summit would make real progress towards addressing the underlying causes of the economic crisis.  There is little in the final communique to suggest that any real lessons have been learned.  Nobody is questioning the fundamental nature of the global economic arrangements that have brought us to this point, nor is anyone prepared to admit that the system of global finance, which is supposed to support the real economy, has morphed into monster that routinely undermines it.

There is a simple reason for this depressing lack of action:  Despite a string of bank failures, mounting unemployment, and general acceptance that the forthcoming recession will be long and deep, too few people in the countries that matter have yet to feel sufficient pain to force politicians into the kind of common-interest negotiating position that inspired the post-war economic consensus.

The Crooked timber of mankind

Further to yesterday's post about the tragic death of Baby P, Simon Jenkins has a very good summary of the case in today's Guardian.  As he says:

The implication must be that Baby P died for the same reason that street crime rises, educational performance stagnates, and mortgage debts go haywire. When the human element in any frontline service gives way to quantifiable process, something crucial is lost. The belief has long been bred in the bone of the children's minister, Ed Balls, that any computer can solve the world's ills at the click of a mouse. It is a dangerous lie.

Not shocked

There is much one could say about the horrific neglect and murder of Baby P in Haringey, North London last year; a case that has only now come under the media spotlight because of the legal requirement to await the outcome of the trial for murder of the child's mother and two other men.

What irritates me most, however, is the way politicians and pundits alike talk about how shocking it all is.   When I hear those words I know immediately that nothing will be done to address the underlying causes of the happily very rare instances of extreme child neglect and abuse.

Then there's the blame game.  Someone must always be responsible and held to account.  For David Cameron, it is the government.  For the lamentable Jeremy Paxman (whom Minister for Children, Beverley Hughes, dealt with admirably on Newsnight, I thought) it is politicians in general.  No one, of course, lays any part of the blame at the state of a society in which people like the parents who murdered this child can aspire to parenthood without having first learned the fundamentals of humanity.

The reason, I suspect, that people are so shocked by these dreadful events, is that they have a the false impression that the world is, bye and large, a good, safe, warm and  comfortable place.  For the majority of citizens globally, and for sizeable minorities even in the rich countries, this is palpably not the case.  If 30,000 children under five die each day from preventable causes, then we've got some considerable way to go before we can be proud of the world we have created.

It is probably impossible, ever, under any conditions, to keep all infants safe from the actions of psychopathic parents.   It is however possible to create social and economic conditions in which more young people grow into adults and undertake parenthood with the a level of emotional and psychological maturity that would minimise the possibility of abuse or neglect.

It would also be possible, if we chose not to fix society, to properly fund, invest in and motivate social services departments and people who work in them, to sort out the mess that inevitable follows without on occasion, failing to act in time.

If we really want to protect every single child from parental abuse we have either to change society beyond all recognition, or massively increase social services funding.

We could settle, on the other hand, for being thankful that such events are so rare, and remind ourselves, as Professor Colin Pritchard noted yesterday,

that children in England and Wales are less at risk than in most developed countries. The baby murder rate is highest in the US and only Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden have lower rates than England and Wales.

But please, let's be a bit more grown up about the warts-and-all reality of human existence.  Dreadful thinks happen, thankfully not that often; and unless we are really prepared to address the underlying causes, at huge cost, we really should stop pretending to be shocked.

What is the economy for?

With UK unemployment nudging 2 million once again (and that's the official count - if we apply the measurement criteria used back in the 1970s, it's now well over three million) it's time to ask again a simple question: just what, and more to the point, who, is the economy for, and what ends it is supposed to serve?

It's not - or should not be - rocket science:  the economy consists of those mechanisms and institutions in society through which its members secure for themselves the means to survival and satisfaction in life in exchange for their labour.

For the last thirty years, however, the objective of full employment has fallen off the radar of economic policy because the neo-classical school of economics that has come to dominate the political and academic establishments has persuade people in large numbers that economic policies focussing on continuous growth and low inflation offer the best hope for economic advance. 

This argument is now revealed as a gigantic con-trick, pulled off by economists and politicians, ably aided by much of the mainstream media, in the service of the interests of elite wealth and privilege.  Democracy, meanwhile, appears quite unable to defend majority interests.

I'm not arguing that the state should take responsibility for directly creating jobs for those whom the market doesn't provide.  But there needs to be a moral basis for economic policy, and key among the values referenced should be a commitment to an economy in which everyone has access to the resources and opportunities necessary to make a reasonable living for themselves. 

By starting from that belief, and ensuring it remains the over-riding goal in policy formulation, it should be possible to restructure the economy along more just and inclusive lines.  Presently however, there seems little chance of such progress.

Please get lost in the jungle

The only good thing about Brian Paddick signing up to appear in the upcoming series of I'm a celebrity get me out of here is that it should put a permanent end to his political career.

His candidacy for Mayor of London under the Lib-Dem banner did untold damage to that party's future electoral prospects at a time when Britain desperately needs a strong third party to counter the conservatism of Labour and the Tories.

The new series will likely have two things in common with the mayoral election campaign:  Paddick will lose badly and in the process will piss everybody off, including most of his putative supporters.

Apart from having to endure the slimy Ant and Dec, the new series should make entertaining viewing though, peppered as it is with the usual mix of ego-driven attention seekers, and ex-soap and pop stars trying to revive their flagging careers.

Ester Rantzen really should have been put out to grass long ago.  And quite what Martina Navratilova is doing there I don't know - surely she doesn't need the money.

Mandelson to the rescue?

Whatever one may think of Peter Mandelson, he still show signs of being a top-rate political operator.  He has today called on the Prime Minister to save the threatened UK post office network arguing that in the current financial crisis, the Post Office's trusted brand could become the focal point for renewed confidence among savers and borrowers.

If the post office were to be decimated, as has been the likely upshot of current government policy, it would represent a hammer blow for hundreds of rural communities.  In suggesting, not only that they should be saved, but by coming up with a commercial rationale for saving them, Lord Mandelson might be doing both the government and the country a massive favour.

Pope Clitoris the Umpteenth

If you want to discover the provenance of this unusual headline, you will have to go and see Terence Davies' Of Time and the City, a wonderful combination of film, music and poetry now on general release. 

As Peter Bradshaw, who gave it five stars, says in his review:

What a lovely film this is, and what a welcome comeback for one of Britain's greatest film-makers.

Here's the trailer:

Don't cheer too loudly

I have a new piece over at Comment is Free this evening urging caution in the wake of Barack Obama's victory.  I certainly believe his success makes the world a better place, but the kind of progress which would make a real difference to the lives of millions of excluded and disposessed people worldwide, will take more than the election of one man, however remarkable.

Simon Schama, Magnus Pike and the typical blowhard

Alongside the obvious pleasure at Barack Obama's victory in this week's presidential election, there was much to smile at in the election coverage.  The sight of Jeremy Vine on the BBC struggling to get his touch screen controlled map of the United States to work properly will have brought pleasure to many people who, like me, spend hours cursing such devices for their inability to deliver a simple train ticket.

But the highlight of the last week has to be Simon Schama's pre-election rebuttal of a rather unpleasant American gentleman on Question Time from New York.  Against my better judgement I really rather like Schama, although as you can see from the clip, without his own production team to restrain his bizzare limb, and indeed whole body, movements, he is rapidly turning himself into a new Magnus Pike for the noughties.

The Possibility of Progress

The chances of creating a more just, inclusive, sustainable and human world are a little better after the victory of Barack Obama.  America is a country full of contradictions, but as Mike Tomasky - who now deserves a vacation as much as the cadidate himself - observes here, it could not have happened anywhere else.

When America has a good day, the rest of us can afford to celebrate the fact that the United States remains the world's only superpower.  I have my doubts about Obama: anyone who achieves his stunning level of success must necessarily have kept very quiet about any plans to change the world. But, for those of us who know how urgent the need for substantial, structural change is, an Obama White House provides a much better context in which to make our case.  As Tomasky concludes, it's been a good night.

Let's not get too excited

If, as now seems very likely, Barack Obama is elected to the Presidency today, it will be an historic moment.  But what it will mean for United States policy - both domestic and foreign - remains unclear.  The world moves very slowly, especially in respect of building a more inclusive and sustainable global society.

There's been little in his rhetoric to suggest Obama is a radical, and in any case, as veteran US commentator James Ridgeway points out, the realities of congressional inertia and the country's continuing dependence on foreign oil suggest that while the place might look very different to outsiders, it will take some considerable time before any real progressive gains are made.

Small is beautiful

I have a new piece over at Comment is Free this afternoon looking at the social and economic impacts of the contrasting histories of the UK and Italy.

Something for nothing

I have another piece at Comment is Free this morning.  This one looks at the financial crisis in terms of the huge discrepancy between consumption and production that has become the norm over the last decade of so.

Economic justice by the book

I have a new piece over at Comment is Free this afternoon, this one inspired by John Stewart's excellent political novel, The President.

What is wrong with these people?

Until the Labour Party expels people like the barbarian Andy Burnham, it will not have my vote.

Getting away from it all

Although Sir Simon Jenkins can be bloody irritating at times, he can claim to one of the few polymaths of our time; remarkable given that his principal trade as been that of a newspaperman.

Despite our having obvious and deep political differences, I am happy to admit that he is probably the finest columnist at work in the English language today, and I offer this sublime piece of writing from today's Guardian as evidence.

This film is so good

A good time to take our minds off the turmoil outside, I think. Happy to be able to report a wonderful cinema going experience this week.  I've loved you so long (Il y a longtemps que je t'aime) has to be one of the finest films in a very long time.

Kristin Scott Thomas is unbelievably good in the lead role.  Even if the part was written for her, as Peter Bradshaw suggest in his excellent review, her performance was still breathtaking.  I have always thought her to be a very fine actress, but this is the first role to make the most of her unparalleled abilities.

Having awarded last year's best actress Oscar to Marion Cotillard for her portrayal of Edith Piaf, it seems unlikely that Scott Thomas will be in the frame this year; not only is the film French, it will doubtless be considered too art-house, and its subject matter too uncomfortable.  But if there were any justice in Hollywood, she would walk it.

Special mention also must go to her co-star, Elsa Zylberstein, who was almost as good.  Go see the film at least twice.  In the meantime, here's the trailer:

Taking housing seriously?

Only hours after I concluded here that Labour's plans to address the housing crisis are dead in the water, Margaret Beckett, one of the party's most experienced former ministers has been handed the housing portfolio. Well, it has been a day of surprises. 

Beckett's predecessor, Caroline Flint, never quite recovered after suggesting that access to social housing should be conditional on tenants actively seeking work.  Her plans were derided by the Child Action Poverty Group as "insulting and stigmatising to people facing major barriers to employment".  Shelter said the proposals would only "add to the thousands already homeless."   After that her eight month tenure coincided with one of Gordon Brown's flagship policies falling off the political radar.

The new minister continues a now established tradition women being appointed to the housing portfolio. But compared with her recent predecessors, Hilary Armstrong, Yvette Cooper and Flint, she is by far the biggest political hitter to be handed the brief.  If this is a sign that a rapidly regenerating prime minister has remembered what his priorities are, then all well and good.

Beckett has proved herself an adept politician, performing rather better in a series of challenging roles rather than many of her colleagues.  She is certainly a survivor, and on the basis of today's news must still have an appetite for politics despite 34 years as an MP.

But will she be able to succeed where so many have failed, and make a difference to a housing crisis that has proved quite immune to a period of sustained economic growth, and which now seems bound to worsen under the toughest economic conditions in decades?

That depends on how much power she is given and how much influence she can exert.  I have never understood, given the fundamental importance of housing to people's well-being and to the wider economy, why it has been passed, repeatedly, from one department to another.  It's time the housing minister was given full cabinet rank.  That would be a sign that the government really is serious about tackling homelessness.

Yesterday the prime minister was rumoured to be putting together a standing committee of close advisers to tackle the financial crisis.  Equally necessary is a cobra-style committee to tackle social injustice.  If, as head as of a beefed-up Department of Housing and Homelessness Beckett were to chair such a committee, and it drew in education, employment, drug abuse, pensions, care of the elderly and parenting as well as having input into economic policy, then not only would Labour demonstrate to the electorate that it was returning to its principled roots in a meaningful way, it would also put pay to Tory efforts to paint themselves as the party of social justice.

Society's shame

I have a new piece at Comment is Free this morning.  This one looks at the ongoing housing crisis.  Once again the Guardian's standfirst sums it up very neatly:

Millions live in sub-standard housing. Labour hasn't delivered, the Tories are bereft of ideas and even the voters don't care.

Stop selling you idiots

Having opened about 50 minutes ago, the FTSE is going through the floor right now following the failure of Congress to approve the US Governments bail out plan last night.

Talk about burning down your own house.  If only people would stop selling shares, especially bank shares.  Most bank shareholders have already lost money; the best way of recovering at least some of those losses is to sit tight, and prevent the crisis deepening any further.

Plummeting share prices no longer remotely reflect the value of companies; there's now a very good case for suspending trading - especially in HBOS shares which are continuing to fall despite a rescue plan having been agreed.

What we are seeing is the gross irrationality of the market at work, and that reflects the gross irrationality and amorality of most of those who play the markets.  The people who run the markets effectively run the real economy upon which most of us depend for our livelihoods.  Psychologically, they are precisely the wrong people to be in charge.

It looks like things will get worse before they get better.  And improvement will be a long time coming.

11am update:  Well, either this post had a rapid (and unexpected) impact, or we are now seeing the flip side of the erratic behaviour described above.  In London shares have rallied, apparently on rumours that the US bail out plan can be saved.  Interestingly though, as Joseph Stiglitz points out this morning, growing numbers of economists believe the Paulson plan won't work.

A nuclear damascene conversion

This is a very interesting piece from Mark Lynas in yesterday's Sunday Times.  Mark is a leading environmental campaigner and long-standing opponent of nuclear energy as a solution to the environmental crisis.

Recently however, having studied evidence about the new breed of nuclear reactors currently being developed, he has changed his mind.  And, predictably, he has been ostracised by much of the green community.

Like Mark, I have long opposed nuclear energy on grounds of safety and cost.  But I have have always hoped that the time might come when science would succeed in addressing those concerns, and there would no longer be any moral or financial objection to nuclear.

I haven't yet studied the evidence Mark cites, but he knows his stuff; there must be something in it.  The fight against climate change needs all the help in can get, so we should at least give him a hearing.  It's too easy to cling onto comfortable, long-held convictions, but they won't necessarily help save the planet.

Mark's website is here.

Solving the banking crisis

I have a new piece on Comment is Free this morning looking at the banking crisis and its connection with the crazy way private banks are allowed to create money as debt simply to turn a profit.

Cityphilia

With impeccable timing, The London Review of Books has put John Lanchester's superb essay Cityphilia (originally published in January) back on its home page.  If you haven't read it, you should.  You're unlikley to find a better analysis of the origins of the current financial crisis, and its implications for wider society.

Broken Society

Playwright David Edgar has an excellent piece in today's Guardian in which he reminds us it is the Tory policies of the 1980s that are responsible for the current crisis and for many of today's social problems.  He argues that Cameron's new Tories should not be allowed to escape responsibility, even if new Labour could have done much more to repair the damage.

Good riddance

This piece by the always excellent Chris McGreal in today's Guardian explains why the resignation of Thabo Mbeki is long overdue.  Like many though, I fear it will take more than a change of leader for South Africa to escape its current predicament.  The country is a perfect example of how economic growth can do absolutely nothing for society, if its fruits are not widely distributed.

The few who knew

Former Labour leadership contender Bryan Gould - one of the few successful politicians of recent times whom, having experienced the sham of national politics first hand, threw it in and returned to his original career - has this very good piece on the inevitability of the current crisis and the naivety/stupidity of those, like Alan Greenspan, who apparently never saw it coming.

As Gould says,

This is a crisis that has been thirty years in the making. Its approaching outline has been visible for a very long time. Only those who did not want to see (and that includes almost all the so-called expert commentators and actors in the drama) could have failed to register the warning signs.

It really is as much a question of psychology as economics.