He finally noticed Saturday 12 May 2012  Two reactions are provoked by Charles Moore today and his piece on managerialism. The first is that, unlike many of his colleagues, he occasionally produces work of some little depth, which is actually worth reading. The second is an intense sense of frustration, almost verging on despair, that only now, when the Great Charles More doth deign to reach out and grace us with the fruits of his vast intellect, do we get any serious discussion in the legacy media of this important phenomenon. This is certainly an issue which has troubled us for some time, with multiple references in diverse pieces. If I was to pick one piece, it would be this, written in June 2006 by my erstwhile editor, referring to the managerial attitudes to governance which infect the EU. We were, in fact, discussing managerialism its many forms right from the beginning of this blog, and many times since, but we would not even begin to claim paternity. The concept has its own Wikipedia entry, where it is most closely associated with an American academic by the name of Robert R Locke, who defined the term in 1996: What occurs when a special group, called management, ensconces itself systemically in organizations and deprives owners and employees of decision-making power (including the distribution of emoluments) - and justifies the takeover on the grounds of the group's education and exclusive possession of the codified bodies of knowledge and know-how necessary to the efficient running of organizations.On this side of the Atlantic, one of the more prominent British students of managerialism is academic and blogger Cris Dillow. He publishes the Stumbling and Mumbling blog and, in 2007, wrote, The End of Politics: New Labour and the Folly of Managerialism, a neglected book which deserves far greater attention. Our modest contribution on this - arising mainly from my erstwhile co-editor, I hasten to add – is to point out that the European Union embodies much of the managerialist ideology, for which reason it is the antithesis of politics and democracy, and though which it does much of its damage. Returning to the Moore piece, I have to admit that he also provokes a certain amount of irritation, as we see The Great Man addressing the issue of managerialism almost as if he was its discoverer. The sub-text is that only through his wisdom and knowledge are us mere mortals to be acquainted with such matters. In fact, the Moore thesis is fairly pedestrian and laboured, as he argues that the defence services contractor QinetiQ has been over-run by managerialists, this intelligence being provided by "a man got in touch with me" who works for the organisation. This provides The Great Man with his "hook", on which to complain that the ideology has spread throughout government – a point made in depth by Cris Dillow five years ago, and my many more besides. Not to be outdone, Moore calls in aid Lord Slim, "who brilliantly led the British Army through the Burma campaign", using him to tell us that: "Managers are necessary; leaders are essential". Says The Great Man, "We now have unprecedented numbers of the former, not so many of the latter". What Moore does not tell us – and it is an important omission - is that the Slim quote is culled from a speech delivered in 1957, the same year as the Treaty of Rome which founded the EEC. The problem, although newly discovered by Moore, has been with us a long, long time, with my erstwhile co-editor writing in July 2007 that "the idea that managerialism rather than messy politics is the answer was the mantra of the sixties and seventies". It is a mantra that took root in the Monnet version of European political integration and has been driving it from the start. However, we should not complain that, after all this time, The Great Man has finally noticed something that has been apparent to so many of us mere mortals for so long. To borrow from Boswell's Life of Johnson, to have a journalist of Moore's stature preaching on the evils of managerialism is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all. But now that The Great Man has taken ownership of the problem, others of the great and the wise may take note of his discovery: "The inexorable march of the managerialists is creating resentment and social division". Clever boy Charlie! Nice spot! What do we do now? Richard North 12/05/2012 |
The game's afoot Saturday 12 May 2012 "The Daily Telegraph understands that the German government is increasingly resigned to the prospect that Greece will crash out the euro over the summer and that the eurozone is prepared". And so we learn that: "Diplomats point to over a trillion euros in cheap European Central Bank loans since December and new powers for the eurozone’s bail-out fund to guard Spanish and Italian banks and bonds from contagion". The paper is probably right … so right that, on the basis of the signs then apparent, we forecast in February that Greece would crash by the autumn. That is no big deal – the signs were and are easy to read. But how typical it is of the legacy media to indulge in this pompous self-aggrandisement, making out that it is the only one that knows what is happening. Three months down the line, The Daily Telegraph "understands". All the same, it looks as if things are nicely on schedule. The eurocrats will get their summer break, the riot season will be safely past and then it's down to business, printing all those nice new drachmas. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 12/05/2012 |
Getting it wrong Saturday 12 May 2012  Only last month, Reuters says, the Environment Agency was telling us that the drought affecting parts of the country could last until next year. Rains over the spring and summer were unlikely to replenish low water levels. Indeed, that is the truth. In its drought report for March, the Environment Agency declared: Significant further groundwater recharge is now unlikely. As plants start to grow and it becomes warmer, soils will dry out further. The scenarios the Environment Agency and water companies have modelled show that even with above average rainfall there will still be significant drought impacts. The low groundwater levels will lead to low river flows and drying of wetlands that rely on groundwater, with widespread effects for the environment and all water users. We are therefore anticipating a severe drought in spring and summer 2012.And after the rainiest April in 100 years, that is no longer the case. But the event is one to savour. This is the same organisation, one of the select few that our masters trust, which is confident it knows what is going to happen to the climate in a hundred years time. Also for the record, the climate change model tells us to expect wet winters and dry summers. But, in 2006, after two dry winters, standpipes were being threatened. Then, in 2012, after two dry winters, standpipes were again being threatened. Thus, in eight years, we have had four dry winters. This is a scenario that is not exactly fitting the model. There is, it seems, getting it wrong and getting it wrong. Then there is climate change. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 12/05/2012 |
Baffling and incoherent? Friday 11 May 2012  Alex Massie, also writing in the Speccie, takes this at face value, because James Forsyth knows all about these things. Nevertheless, he is distinctly underwhelmed, noting that this is a tactical ploy designed to strengthen the party base, forestall grandstanding by Boris Johnson and to protect the Tory right flank from UKIP. Despite this, the clever James Forsyth tells us that the precise form of a referendum has not been decided, other than it will not be a straight in/out plebicite. Rather, the manifesto might propose renegotiating Britain's membership of the EU and then holding a referendum on the result, or holding a referendum asking for permission to go to Brussels and renegotiate. In the former case, that would be a repeat of 1975, whence we would find all the established parties, including the Tories, campaigning to accept the new terms, even – one assumes – if they are as meaningless as they were last time. However, the clever Mr Forsyth believes that this referendum will be a Good Thing. Given public opinion on the matter and the continuing crisis in the eurozone, Britain's relationship with Europe looks certain to have changed by the end of the decade, he says. We will either have the equivalent of a country membership of the Brussels club or we will have left altogether. Massie, to give him credit, pours cold water on the "country membership" idea, arguing that renegotiation is unlikely to succeed. But it is equally unlikely that Cameron would allow himself to get into the position where he had to support our departure from the EU, he thinks. On that basis, Massie finds the plans for a referendum, "baffling and incoherent".  Harry Phibbs in the Wail, however, has no such reservations. He applauds the Spectator "scoop". If voting Conservative at the next election meant having the chance to decide, it would result in the Conservatives taking votes from UKIP but also many votes from Labour and the Lib Dems, he writes.Rather taken with the idea, he adds that it could be "the deal-breaker with the electorate". It could be the issue that brings about a majority Conservative government rather than a coalition or a return to Labour. What is more important, it could mean the British people at last restored to self-government. Joining in the fun comes the Economist, which recalls Mandelson and his support for a referendum. It then picks up on the Tory Boy Blog, which offers a detailed analysis of why the clever James Forsyth is "on to something". But then, the house of cards comes tumbling down. Peeking from behind the Murdochian paywall is a tantalising little snippet (above), letting us know that little Willie Hague is going to deny everything. Why oh why does one listen to the chatter? These plans are not so much "baffling and incoherent", as completely fictional. The clever Mr James Forsyth has been wasting our time. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 11/05/2012 |
Political theatre Friday 11 May 2012  On the face of it, I don't see any good reason to pull back from our earlier dismissive stance. A lot of this is political theatre, something which French presidents do extremely well, especially when newly in office. Although they now wear clothes and stand upright, alpha-male politicians still feel the need to perform ritual boundary marking. The difference is that they now spray words rather than hormone-laden urine at the edges of their territory. Supposedly on the agenda as a serious issue is the demand from Hollande, addressed notionally to the Germans, for a renegotiation of the fiscal compact. Ramping up the rhetoric, he is threatening to block the treaty unless he gets a watering down of the "stringent austerity measures". The obliging Merkel is playing "bad cop" to Mr Hollande's "nice guy", giving him the opportunity to prance and posture, having his spokesman Benoît Hamon doing his ils ne passeront pas bit that plays so well with the French public. "We want to renegotiate. Angela Merkel is defending her position but she cannot bypass the will of the French people", declares the Hamon. "If nothing moves, the treaty will not be submitted for ratification". Part of the game, of course, is that everybody takes this theatre seriously, with the legacy media having to report it as if it was news, rather than as the marginally more sophisticated Punch and Judy show that it really is. But when push comes to shove, Hollande doesn't really have a leg to stand on, and he knows it. Current analyses shows that public spending in Germany (2011 figures) is about 45 percent of GDP, against 56 percent in France. If France would only follow the German example and drift its spending down by the ten percent difference, it could trim over €200 billion from the bottom line, cut taxes by €100 billion and still come out with a balanced budget. Key to that would be to bring the public payroll down to the same levels, proportionately, as Germany – putting 1.5 million civil servants on the dole and slashing wages by 23 percent. That is the premium paid to French employees, over and above the levels paid to German officials. Fashionable it is to take swipes at the "arrogance" of the Germans, when they are bankrolling the EU and holding the fort for the euro, only to have the French cream off the dividends, they do have a point. According to the OECD, in 2009, 62 percent of the difference between German and French spending levels was due to the differential in pay and perks given to French public employees. Not only are the wages, on average, 23 percent higher than German, Kermits enjoy a 35-hour week, costing €25 billion more than the German have to pay. Absenteeism is twice that of the private sector, at a cost of €12 billion. On top of that, German officials have no special health benefits, while French pensions are higher than those of German officials, who have the same rules as private sector employees. And French officials retire on average 2.9 years earlier than their private sector counterparts. Their pensions are 70 percent higher, for the same rates of pay. Public sector pensions costs France €30 billion more than they do for the equivalent numbers in Germany. And right across the board, differences abound. By sector, French spending is higher than Germans in education (1.8 percent of GDP), health (1.4 percent), housing (1.3 percent), culture (one percent) and defence (0.7 percent). Hollande, therefore, can dance and prance, telling us he wants to "reshape European construction toward growth". But this is for internal consumption. He is protecting a corrupt, featherbedded public sector that is draining the vitality from the French nation. Doubtless, the Germans are fully aware of what is going on and will be singularly unimpressed. We have no reason to be any more impressed. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 11/05/2012 |
Politics fatigue Thursday 10 May 2012  And although insiders insist that Cameron's position as leader of the Conservative party is safe, the fact that it is even being discussed represents of significant change in his standing. Before we get too engrossed in the issues, however, the note from Witterings from Witney reminds us that British politics is not the centre of the universe and that huge numbers of people find the soap-opera narratives immensely tedious. Autonomous Mind has been saying much the same thing in a different way, but also dissecting the man "devoid of any principle", who has much to further the destruction of the political system. With the legacy media being part of the problem, it now matters less what their commentators say, although it is still interesting to see Iain Martin tells us that the coalition is coming to the end of its life. Then we have the Financial Times accuse Cameron of a lack of grip: "Adversity has now begun to reveal underlying cracks in the administration", it says. "If these are not repaired, they could threaten the integrity of the whole venture". In days gone by, that might have generated speculation about an early general election. But the fixed term robs us of that potential entertainment. There are three long years to go before this administration is scheduled to grind to a halt and we are finally rid of it. That leaves us just EU affairs to get excited about. Ambrose, as ever, paints a picture of darkening horizons. Colossal misjudgements are now being made in Berlin and Frankfurt, making an unhappy ending more likely by the day, he says. But perhaps the most significant news of the day is that an estimated 30,000 police officers marched through London to protest about proposed changes to their pay and conditions, while prison officers stages an illegal walkout. If The Boy can't even keep the plods and screws happy, he is in serious trouble. Meanwhile, people with whom I could always rely on to talk politics are switching off in their droves. But at least we're not yet like Iran, where a cartoonist was sentenced to 25 lashes for drawing a caricature of an MP that was deemed insulting. If they could, I'm sure some of out little darlings would import that law, although so prevalent now is politics fatigue that many could hardly be bothered to lampoon our MPs. They do such a good job themselves, unaided. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 10/05/2012 |
Posts
