Old establishment, new establishment – both have failed

Posted by on

“The “British establishment” today is somewhat removed from its origins in the class system and privilege. In government, explains researcher Aeron Davis, the change started in the 1980s when Oxbridge types began to be displaced from the upper rungs of Whitehall, as an emphasis on “meritocracy” and expertise represented by grammar school education, the professions and PhDs took hold. Then came change in the business world, where “flabby, inefficient old money was being run out of town by a new energetic breed succeeding on merit”. Thus the country’s elites became more disparate.

“Neoliberalism, the ideology of small state, free markets and low taxes, held promise of binding together these modern elites – but “after decades its flaws and contradictions are becoming too large to deal with,” writes Davis. “I have come to believe that the establishment is no longer coherent or collective or competent. Its failings are not only causing larger schisms, inequalities and precariousness in Britain; they also threaten the very foundations of establishment rule itself.” (Guardian, 27 Feb 2018)

I agree that the people who took over in the 1980s and 1990s have done a great disservice to the country. Neoliberalism has been a disaster, and no one in power has had the wit or common sense to abandon it and actually rule for the whole nation. The result is endless cut-backs for the poor, those who want to be actually educated, and those who use the National Health Service, to name a few issues, demoralising the nation.

Now watch as the Tory Party, during the next year, replaces May with a throw-back to the old Tory Party of wealth, privilege in the form of Jacob Rees-Mogg – very rich, very conservative and an apparent believer in the idea that tax is theft and the poor are poor for a good reason. More about Rees-Mog on another day, but my point is that the failure of the “new establishment” will not produce a liberal reaction but, very likely, return Britain to the days of the old establishment again and an effort to finally end the welfare state. This is the objective, and Brexit is just a means of getting there. How can one maintain peace of mind watching these dismal events I have difficulty in discerning.

I can’t bear it

Posted by on

A Chinese family was shocked when the pet dog they had raised for two years turned out to be a black bear. The family bought what they thought was a Tibetan mastiff in 2016. They realised their mistake when it wouldn’t stop growing and started walking on two legs. “The more he grew, the more like a bear he looked,” said Su Yun, who lives near Kunming, Yunnan province. “I’m a little scared of bears,” she added.

Australia ain’t what it used to be. The great Brexit delusion.

Posted by on

Twenty-six years of unimpeded growth and waves of immigration into Australia have created a diverse and prosperous nation that is completely focused on Asia. Its traditions may be western, but Australia is becoming emotionally detached from its former rulers.

Too many members of the Conservative Party in Britain think Australia and the other Commonwealth nations are waiting to renew the old, close relationships. In fact, Australia’s dynamic services-focused model is what most liberal Brexiters desire for the UK. While the UK made itspath in Europe, they made theirs elsewhere. Prioritising links with the British Isles is no longer part of the plan. A stark reality check is on the way. Australia is seeking to make a decisive break by becoming a republic.

A prominent Australian republican is quoted as saying, “Progressives see Britain’s hereditary monarchy as completely at odds with our sense of a fair go. Australian Conservatives think about Australia’s independence and maturity, as well as it s divergent economic interests. Britain’s entry into the EU single market was painful for our business and Brexit can’t reverse what happened.”. Regardless of whether Labor or rightwing Liberals win federal elections on 2019,the party leaders, Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull, are both staunch republicans and are planning to have a referendum to end the Queen’s (nominal) reign there. Poor Queen!

I used to go to Australia on business back in the 1980s and realised then that the emotional tie with Britain was tenuous-to-non-existent, to say the least. Aussies had the reputation of giving English businessmen a particularly hard time, and I was advised to try to deal with expatriot Brits who were courteous and helpful. They were absolutely right!

It boggles the mind how Brexiters can be so totally out of touch, living in the past, harping on a lost empire, which our debating society at school decided was dead and gone in the 1950s. Many Australians were thinking the same thing at the time. Should young Brits now be focusing on China or India? Just suggesting it makes you realise that Britain shouldn’t be leaving the EU at all!

Are Oxford and Cambridge prejudiced?

Posted by on

David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham in North London, has recently acquired data on admissions to Oxford and Cambridge universities. It shows that the vast majority of those who get in to the UK’s two best universities are from relatively wealthy families. A disproportionate number are from London and the South East. And while ethnic minorities as a whole are well-represented, black students are underrepresented, making up only 1% of of offers from Cambridge between 2010-2015.

For Lammy, the reason for this is simple. Oxford and Cambridge are prejudice. But the problem with prejudice is that it is very difficult to prove and quantify. And while anecdotal evidence of bigotry should not be discounted entirely, it is difficult to see UK higher education institutions being intentionally discriminatory. Partly because discrimination is illegal, and any university would be significantly harmed were it to be found guilty of it. And partly because there is an incentive against discrimination. If universities do not prioritise merit above all else, their cohort of students will be worse.

The main reason some sorts of students are overrepresented compared with others is because they attend better schools, something which no university can change. To a lesser extent, socioeconomic underrepresentation at Oxbridge is due to wealthier students applying for less competitive courses, most famously Classics. Once predicted grades and the relative competitiveness of courses is taken into account, those who are accepted into Oxford and Cambridge are broadly representative of those who apply. Thus, Lammy’s accusation of Oxbridge discrimination is tenuous at best.

However, Lammy’s proposed solutions are not nearly as unreasonable. He calls for a centralised (as opposed to a collegiate) admissions process, the creation of foundation years programmes with lower entry requirements (many universities already do this), the direct contact of disadvantaged pupils to encourage them to apply, and weight to be given to a student’s background when deciding who to give offers to- something which the world-beating Ivy League universities do.

Of course, Oxbridge is welcome to do all of that, though socioeconomic considerations should not be so significant as to be given greater weight than academic success. But ultimately, universities ought to remain independent from government control. The last thing Britain needs is for higher education to be politicised the way standard education already has been. Running things by government diktat is nearly always inferior to delegation and local autonomy. Students ought to be free from being used as political football. So although the universities may implement Lammy’s recommendations, they should not be compelled to do so.

Ultimately, the problem with British education is that even within the state comprehensive school system, wealthy children considerably outperform their poorer counterparts. To a limited extent, this is inevitable: wealthy children benefit from pushy parents, private tutoring, and perhaps better genes. This is just as true in areas with selective grammar schools as in those without. Sadly, I don’t know how this gap can be closed. Funding could always be increased for schools in poor areas, but it’s difficult to see that making that much of a difference. I can only suggest that poor children should be encouraged to be as ambitious and successful as possible; the current stigma against wealth and intelligence in many schools, including the one I went to, must end. But until state schools in deprived areas up their game, the privileged nature of Oxford and Cambridge students will continue.

Trickle down economics

Posted by on

Republicans, unbelievably, are once again forcing trickle-down economics on the United States, despite the idea being almost unanimously derided by reputable economists and financiers. It’s almost as if Republicans are unaware that the latest experiment in trickle-down has practically bankrupted the state of Kansas and has done little or nothing for North Carolina. But they can’t leave this bogus ideology alone.

What does work economically is to put cash into the hands of the poor and not-so-poor, because they immediately go out and spend it, either on better health insurance, a real holiday, new clothes or something better than fast food. The bouncy resulting profits still eventually accrue to the donors of Republican Congressmen in the form of dividends – it just takes a little more time to filter through. In the meantime poorer people have bigger incomes and, very importantly, feel better about the world, less abandoned and more accepting of immigrants, maybe. But somehow Republican politicians have an ideological aversion to the less well-to-do. They yatter on about the latter, but seem to secretly despise them as “losers”.

I am advocating what actually works to boost an economy. Call it TRICKLE-UP. It benefits everyone. Meanwhile, a banker I spoke to the other day tells me the money in banking circles is on a crash in the last quarter of 2019 and an end to an improving economic cycle originating with the previous Administration. For what it is worth you have been warned!