Skip to main content

Cat Out Of Bag

Lord Young did us all a favour by telling a bald truth about the current economic situation in his recent comments to the Daily Telegraph, where he claimed:

 "For the vast majority of people in the country today they have never had it so good ever since this recession – this so-called recession – started, because anybody, most people with a mortgage who were paying a lot of money each month, suddenly started paying very little each month. That could make three, four, five, six hundred pounds a month difference, free of tax. That is why the retail sales have kept very good all the way through."
This revealing revamp of Harold Macmillan's famous boast of 1957 infuriated David Cameron because it punches a hole right through his stealth strategy. The brutal truth that Young let out of the bag is that this is now indeed two nations: those who have jobs and own their homes, versus those who rent, are in low paid jobs or are not employed. This glaring inequality is not, as so many on the Left persist in believing, merely the legacy of that "Thatcherism" for which Lord Young was once a spokesman, but more so of New Labour's "intense relaxation" about income inequality.

We're not a nation split exactly in half - perhaps 66% live in Lord Young's "never so good" part while 33% languish outside it. But although Young's statement may be true of the current situation, with historically low interest rates, that doesn't mean we've reached a sustainable prosperity, any more than we had under Gordon Brown's credit boom. Take a look at the statistics for home ownership throughout Europe and the picture is blood-curdling. The countries with higher ownership than the UK are Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Hungary and Romania, all countries in desperate straits and hardly models we'd wish to copy. The countries with lower ownership include Germany, Holland, Sweden and France, all of which are in far better shape than us in almost every way. So just how good do we have it?

Young has indeed let the predatory cat out of the bag - he also admitted that Osborne lied about the severity of the deficit to protect the pound. Under a disguise of social liberalism this is a goverment of economic predation, intent on rolling back state expenditure to further the interests of the 66% at the expense of the 33%. From a utilitarian point of view - and that's the vote winning point of view nowadays - that might be seen as a rational course, but I doubt the 33% will see it that way. There may be a lot more fire extinguishers thrown from a lot more roofs before this is over. 


  1. I suppose it was merely a matter of time before this essentially tory government revealed its true divisive colours, but I was surprised that it's happened so soon, and despite Cameron's faux indignation they're now nailed firmly to the mast. But then in a cabinet stuffed full of millionaire career politicos (a fact which the well-cushioned media establishment curiously avoids alluding to), doubtless we'll get more of the same in the coming years.
    My own political disillusion now increasingly inclines me towards those with the fire extinguishers, but I fear that our innate national reticence will limit their numbers, unless or until the jobless figures rise above 15-20%. But then again, as Lord Young also revealingly pointed out, "the loss of 100,000 jobs (in the public sector) is no big deal", so we can assume that there'll be no tears shed in Downing Street when that happens.

  2. Oops, it looks as if he just resigned. I don't think that means Job Seekers Allowance though...

  3. I pretty much agree with everything you have said.

    I'm not sure about the 66% bit though, my guess is that it will be much lower as wealth and debt are opposites. In my experience there are a lot of people who are only making ends meet because of low interest rates. The grubby secret of the middle classes has been the number of households who have been in receipt of Working Family Tax Credits. It came as a shock to me in recent years as somebody who isn't a parent (and at my age isn't likely to become one) the number of people I know who have quite substantial homes and a couple of cars yet WFTC and Child Benefit has kept the wolf from the door.

    That is now ending and what happens when the masses in the middle run out of room to manoeuvre because of job losses, pay freezes and loss of benefits.

    The property price bubble and house porn fetish has fuelled the lie that home ownership and the debt to achieve it is a sign of a free society.

    Never mind 'Arbeit macht frei'.

    'Debt macht sie ein sklave zu kapitalgesellschaften'. Debt makes you a slave to corporations.

    What happens next is anybodies guess. It will be interesting to see just how angry people become.

  4. I take your point about that 66% figure - that's about the percentage who own houses, but a mortgaged house is only capital while interest rates are low, a temporary phenomenon. I suppose negative equity is a sort of poverty.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A New Age of Sabotage

I haven't posted much recently because every time I think of something to say, the extraordinary pace of events makes it sound lame by the next morning: New York under water, Obama re-elected, News International in the dock, rockets falling on Tel Aviv, and that's even before we reach the Mayan apocalypse on Dec 21. However I've finally plucked up courage to wade into the torrent of the miraculous-horrific thanks to a fortunate discovery on the web. In this previous post I confessed an increasing interest in the radical Norwegian-American economist Thorstein Veblen, but that interest was quite narrowly based on reading only three of his works, namely The Theory of the Leisure Class, The Theory of Business Enterprise and his important essay The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and His Followers. This wasn't just due to laziness but to the difficulty of obtaining many of Veblen's books, which have been out of print for a long time.

But I re-read Veblen's Wikiped…

Trump of Doom?

Thought for the day. The type of economy we call social democracy depended for its success on a willingness of the majority of the population to cooperate as well as compete with one another, giving up a portion of their income in taxes to be spent on various public goods like medicine, education and transport. If the population loses its willingness to make these reasonable sacrifices then it becomes impossible to maintain a social democracy.

The UK population was so willing for at least 30 years following WWII, to a large extent thanks to the experience of necessary cooperation among the generation who fought that war. But over the *last* 30+ years that willingness has been steadily eroded by many factors, including (but by no means confined to): greater individualism stemming from precisely the relative affluence and economic freedom that post-war social democracy conferred; successive economic crises (some related to oil, some to financial recklessness); industrial decline, outsou…

Social Democracy Uber Alles

The outcry over the revoking of Uber's London licence shows that the service it provides is popular, and it's unquestionably a significant, innovative use of new technology to improve transport. On the other hand the outcry from drivers about lack of benefits and job security show that the application of technology is being used (not uncommonly) both to increase exploitation of the labour force and to flout legal regulation designed to protect labour and customers. The outcry of Black Cab drivers against Uber ignores the fact that people flocked to Uber not merely for convenience (though that is considerable) but because Black Cabs had priced themselves out of the market with the last big price hike.

Put all this together and it's clear that all the parties need to get together and find a workable solution, which is highly unlikely to happen because of the vastly different political atmospheres between UK and USA, and a general lack of adult leadership on both sides. I ca…