Thatcher Failed To Make It Personal

Whether you loved or loathed her, you have to be impressed that 23 years after she was hunted out of office Margaret Thatcher's funeral is as divisive as a Poll Tax riot.

Clearly Britain has failed to 'move on' from the Thatcher years, which suggests to me that the work she started was on the right track but is seriously incomplete. I mean, if her policies had been just plain wrong-headed or disastrous, Britain would have dropped them like hot coals - or the notion of 'light touch' banking regulation. Instead, we're still trying to balance Thatcher's blast of economic reality with its personal and social impact.

Whatever your politics, it's clear from all the recent commentary that Thatcher was focused solely on improving the way the failing British economy 'works'. She spent her energy arguing relentlessly with people about the nature of the problems, their causes and the improvements that should be made to resolve them. The resulting policies obviously appeared 'right wing', but this was largely by comparison with the dogmatic lunacy espoused by the economic lemmings in charge of the Labour Party and trade unions at the time. Their policies seemed predicated on the private sector operating as a charity for the public sector, rather than economic sustainability. Thatcher's opponents were not arguing either on the same rational terms or with the same rigour. Her disciplined approach ruthlessly exposed dogma, from both left and right, and homed in on the most feasible economic solution. Then she rammed it home...

While Britain's reward was increased productivity and employment, far too many of its people were ill-equipped to cope with this fairly brutal brand of politics. Thatcher is infamous for the quote that "there's no such thing as society" which is often unfairly given without the qualification she gave it. But even the full quote reveals a serious flaw in her approach:

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."  Women's Own, 1987.

Thatcher's words "and then" raise the issue of when, which we naturally interpret as 'when we have enough for ourselves'. But enough is never enough. Our society is obsessed with personal rights and entitlements, rather than the duties and obligations which must be performed if those entitlements are to be delivered. After all, who ultimately bears the responsibility for delivering everyone's rights and entitlements if not each of us personally? Thatcher was right to the extent that the state cannot perform our personal obligations for us - ultimately, it can only act as a facilitator for our own endeavours - but it was a mistake to assume that society would automatically benefit if each of us looked after ourselves as a first step. Perhaps this was as much a flawed belief in the 'efficient markets hypothesis' as that of Alan Greenspan (and Gordon Brown) a decade later.

At any rate, we are now faced with the fact that, in Thatcher's own terms, we are not looking after a fairly large number of our neighbours. While it's worth noting that Thatcher's governments produced consumer-oriented legislation such as the first Data Protection Act (1984), the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act (1985) and the Consumer Protection Act (1987), it took British society several more decades to establish even a basic sense of 'customer service', and most of the UK's institutions are still not designed around the 'customer'.

In my view, we will continue to struggle with significant social imbalances until we grasp the idea that society and the economy only 'work' if each of us - whether acting as individuals or employees of corporations or the public sector - acts in ways that are sustainable for both ourselves and society at the same time. It's not a matter of looking after ourselves first "and then" our neighbours, as an afterthought. Our activities have to be aligned to be sustainable. And only by focusing on our duties and obligations to everyone else will we secure our own rights and entitlements. That is the fundamental concept behind what I would call “the Personal State”. It's time we built it.

Image from DelhiNewsRecord.

There Must Be Dancing In The Streets

Oblivious to their economic plight, UK citizens are preparing to spend up to £10m celebrating the immortality of former Dear Leader Madge. Much of the cost stems from the involvement of a mass North Korean dance troupe famous for leading their country's Founding Day performances.

While state radio broadcasts were briefly interrupted by dissidents singing hymns to mortality on Sunday, Dear Leader Dave, who will himself be immortalised in due course, defended the move during an 11 hour state television broadcast:

"We respect and admire the North Korean people for their unquestioning loyalty to immortal leaders. It's true that £10m represents a year's salary for the 1200 street performers involved, but feigning joy on a mass scale is something we need to learn from them, even at such a cost. Remember, too, that this was the specific wish of former Dear Leader Madge."

UK worker collectives also expressed their support for the immortality celebrations, with a re-enactment of the Jarrow march. Comrade Leader of the Union for Exported Manufacturing Jobs, Eduardo Millibando, said:

"This may seem a lot of money to my members, who have lost generations of employment opportunities, but they will be grateful that the nation has learned these dance steps for mass adulation when it is the turn of former Dear Leader Tony to be immortalised."

North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, welcomed the exchange, adding, "we are also especially pleased to have won the contract to build the next generation submarines for Britain's Trident nuclear programme. This realises Britain's foreign aid ambitions, while meeting our own desire to become a nuclear threat to the entire universe." 

The Future Is Not Behind Us, It Lives Locally

For every old saying there's an opposite. Today's conflict lies in the adage that "those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Yet "our history is not our destiny." This leaves a fine line between useful historical insight into how the world works and steering solely by what we see in the rear-view mirror. The distinction becomes critical as we lurch ever more quickly from one financial crisis to the next.

So what lessons from recent history will help us move foward, and which should go in the scrapbook? Here are 5 that I think are worth taking forward, in no particular order:

1. Clearly, the Internet is not a fad. Consumers are the winners, aided by facilitators in their battle against our creaking institutions. Yet e-commerce is still only 10% of all retail. And we are still in the 'primordial soup' phase in the evolution of our tools for extracting meaning from the great, chaotic swirl of data. So this trend has a lot more mileage in it yet and will sweep across more service sectors - if you can buy it online and have it delivered it won't be sold in high volumes on the high street. In fact, it might even be made locally...

2. In addition to democratising services, the Internet is also returning the means of production to local communities through e-enabled machines. Remote/home-working is replacing central workplaces and 'factories' are getting closer to customers, requiring a rethink of corporate systems, processes and supply chains. Huge production plants and sole-occupancy office towers will gradually become a thing of the past. High streets may well regenerate to support this trend, or as a result of it.

3. Cities with at least 3 private workers for every public sector worker see the most growth. Give that some thought if you live in a city near the bottom of this chart. This chimes with findings that economies (regional and national) whose public spending exceeds 35% of their GDP struggle to grow. You have to feel sorry for Northern Ireland...

4. The public sector is very inefficient and needs to act locally - public institutions are already being relentlessly affected by lessons 1 and 3 above, and 2 should increase  the pressure. Civil servants really have no alternative but to spend public money more wisely. Meanwhile, we'll help drive down the cost of government by dealing with the government online. Big government offices must surely go eventually. Fortunately, the moves to devolve more power to local government coincide here, but I don't think we should be fooled into thinking that's part of any real plan to future-proof the UK...

5. The UK's financial system is seriously inefficient at allocating money to people and businesses. The fact that we all rely heavily on a few major banks for whom lending to small businesses is not a core activity is part of the problem, but innovation and competition are constrained by our outdated and rigid regulatory framework and the related incentives. Crowdfunding, or peer-to-peer finance, platforms are springing up all over the country, and are increasingly focused on specific sectors, activities and locations.

In short, if I were a civil servant (see 4) based outside the south east of England (3), I would start an Internet-based service (1) that efficiently provides low cost finance (5) to help localise the means of producing stuff using e-enabled machines - or buy my own 3D printer and start renting it out (2). Now. 

Image from KC Anderson.

Submarine Welfare

The Tory spin machine was in overdrive today, with the Chancellor linking a fatal house fire to excessive social welfare payments, while the Prime Minister used the recent bout of North Korean toy-throwing as the kind of "extreme threat" that justifies Britain's entire nuclear submarine programme. Hell, why don't we just pay for Trident straight out of the welfare budget and be done with it?

Given the gravity of the UK's economic predicament, you might have thought our political leaders would be sticking to hard facts, rather than inciting moral panic. But you'd be wrong. Party politics is all about cynically exploiting fear and greed:

"while narrowly targeted policies will fail to draw on the strength of middle-class political pressure to defend welfare, policies with wider coverage actively recruit the sharp elbows of the middle class." Source: The Solidarity Society: why we can afford to end poverty, and how to do it with public support. Fabian Society, 2009

That's right, the Tories have been tearing pages out of the Left wing playbook, even if they're trying to work the same trick in reverse. Blame all bad stuff on the welfare state, so most voters will want to spend less on it.

Ironically, the Left seem to think they got this idea from the Right, as explained by Rhiannon Lockley in her “Red Book” essay on "Understanding the Psychology of the Working Class Right Wing": 

 "...the key achievement of propaganda is to make the belief being transmitted internalised to the point where its origin is lost and it is accepted as natural and self-discovered by the individual... The volume and diversity of negative messages about scapegoated groups in the right-wing media today does much to achieve this, and it is also supported by the factual style of reporting which presents arguments as definite rather than exploratory." 

The truth is, they're all at it... endlessly spinning and scapegoating instead of solving the root cause of real problems. And we're paying for it. Big time.

So how do we get these people to focus on the real issues? Where do we start?

I think we need to play them at their own game. And the best place to start is closest to home. We should link all our ills to government waste - not the welfare budget or the healthcare budget, but the £166bn that the public sector wastes on itself - nearly a quarter of the UK's entire annual exenditure. Every time a politician strays from a discussion of the hard facts in any area, we should ask them how he or she is going to spend less on travel or communications costs, or office space or, dare I say it, expenses.

Once they demonstrate an ability to get that basic level of waste under control, they can graduate to discussing how to control state taxation and spending in other areas. But the bizarre rants of North Korean leaders and random criminal acts, however tragic, should be a long way down the list.   

Labour Is Still Pushing Financial Capitalism

When Gordon Brown (remember him?) repeatedly proclaimed the "end of boom and bust" he was declaring his belief - along with that of his fellow group-thinkers - that capitalism had found a way to become sustainable. But his support for unbridled growth in everything from investment banking to the Private Finance Initiative eventually revealed he was hooked on financial capitalism, rather than the 'real' capitalism of employment and productivity. Look at how ISAs, for example, have become a drain on the 'real economy'.

Ed Milliband has been trying to repair Labour's image with some lipstick apologies here and there, but old habits die hard.

Recently, the party released "An Enterprising Nation", a report by its Small Business Taskforce. To be fair, there are some good insights into the problems faced by small business, as you would expect from the membership of the taskforce. But, surprisingly, the report contains no proposals for short term solutions, or even medium term solutions. One suspects that either the collective intelligence had already fed all those ideas into the government, or the left wing political establishment doesn't grasp the need to foster an environment in which new businesses can start and thrive today.

Academic as they may be, perhaps the worst of Labour's long term ideas is that of a US-style Small Business Administration. It's an idea I first heard from them in November 2011. And as I pointed out then, the SBA programme had already gained a somewhat unhealthy reputation through David Einhorn's book "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time." Heavy application of the Labour lipstick has now branded this idea the "Spark Umbrella" (a nod to the many local German savings banks, or sparkassen, to which this programme actually bears no resemblance).

Basically, the idea is to saddle the UK with 20 lending vehicles, or "Sparks", funded with £10m of public money (naturally) and £90m drawn, no doubt, from the traditional City suspects. Each Spark would fund its lending to local businesses by selling the loans to the "Spark Umbrella" which would in turn finance the loan purchases by issuing bonds to investors eager to package those bonds into  another set of bonds to sell to... anyone stupid game enough to buy them.

Sound familiar? 

The only way not to end up carrying the can for this, would be to emigrate.

But the UK already has an artificial, publicly subsidised channel for small business lending that limits innovation and competition in the retail financial markets. It's run by the UK's major banks. So we don't need another publicly guaranteed channel to crowd-out sustainable private alternatives. 

I mean, who would start a local lending business knowing that the government was about to launch a publicly funded competitor?

The government should foster an environment in which the private sector can generate alternative finance options, not simply create markets that are ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer.

The fundamental flaw in the Spark Umbrella is its reliance on securitisation (or vertical credit intermediation) to try to overcome the riskier nature of small business lending. That model is hugely expensive in terms of issuing and underwriting bonds that are prone to being mis-priced, particularly in riskier markets, as we have seen. It also creates huge scope for moral hazhard, and traditional financial institutions, intermediaries and speculators are likely to be the only potential winners - as Einhorn's book reveals. There is certainly no guarantee that the loans to small businesses will be competitive with other potential alternatives.

Anyone pointing to the US for solutions also has to understand that, like Germany, it enjoys a much more varied set of small business funding options than the UK, as Breedon reported. So it's possible that the SBA won't have crowded-out US private finance businesses in the way that Spark Umbrella would in our bank-dominated market. 

It's also worth noting that Spark Umbrella is purely debt focused, whereas only 3% of UK small businesses finance themselves by issuing shares.  

Of course, we already have a rapidly growing set of alternative financial services platforms that are beginning to solve the problems that the Spark Umbrella will not. Peer-to-peer lending and crowd-investing provide finance to borrowers and entrepreneurs in small amounts directly from many people at competitive rates from the outset, using both debt and equity finance. There is no need to create new markets for these platforms to grow. However, the government has been dragging its heels on the removal of regulatory barriers and perverse incentives, and that does represent an opportunity for opposition parties. 

True, the government has directed some of the Business Finance Partnership funds through peer-to-peer finance platforms. But that funding goes directly into the businesses who borrow - not through countless intermediaries in the financial markets. Labour needs to recognise the difference.

Horizontal vs vertical credit intermediation from Simon Deane-Johns