A Macron-Merkel Plot to 'Destroy' London?

The world has been so intrigued by the bizarre conduct of President Trump that far too little attention has been paid to the oddity of the French president. Mr Trump has been ridiculously intrusive in sharing his rapidly-changing views with the media and in the Twittersphere: M Macron has been tight-lipped to an unusual degree; and there have been many reports of his contempt for the media. He has been reported as saying - to his own staff - that there is no point in him giving interviews and press conferences because his intellect is so far superior to the norm that people simply will not understand his statements and his answers to questions. His path to office has been engineered by the old establishment of the 'higher schools', who experienced the agony of the Hollande regime and were determined to seize upon the national consensus that politics had reached a nadir. Thus they presented a new sort of candidate from a new generation: a man with few friends and a most peculiar private life. His allies engineered a parliamentary landslide, and he appears to be in an unassailable position with a clear popular mandate - to be 'different' - backed by a parliamentary majority.

With these assets, he is attempting - as half a dozen of his predecessors did - to attack the established position of the trade unions and of the farming interest, and to try to change the culture of work generally in France. Given the fact that recorded French 'productivity' is very much greater than the British, and not far inferior to the German, it is unclear why he thinks that such disruption is desirable or necessary; but he is having a go anyway: and it fills column inches in the press.

His career record includes a few years with a major international bank, where he greatly refined his spoken English and learned how far ahead of French practice in banking and finance are the systems in new York and London; and how much bigger are the financial markets in those centres - and in Singapore - than in Paris. He also gained a perspective an the depth of support that the London finance sector has, from a huge array of specialist lawyers and a raft of support professions such as actuaries, arbitrators, loss assessors and adjusters. Some English-speaking critics reckon that he has developed a profound envy of these markets, and that he came into office with a determination to push Paris as a rival to those centres even though the ancillary trades there are massively under-developed.

Doomsters in London have now come up with the idea that he has decided to use the Brexit opportunity to diminish London massively: and that he has enlisted Angela Merkel and the gnomes of Frankfurt to his plot. This is seen as the hidden agenda behind the determination of a loyal, ambitious and deeply egocentric Frenchman, Michel Barnier, to use his role as EU negotiator with the UK to delay and diminish whatever settlement the UK can achieve with the EU. This sort of conspiracy theory can be very powerful in times of massive uncertainty; and the absence of any such plot  - as with any negative argument in politics - is ultimately impossible to prove.

Mrs Merkel grew up, graduated and worked in the German Democratic Republic, and presumably had to learn Marxist dogma sufficiently to be allowed into university and into a research post. There is very little evidence that her education since 1990 has included any significant familiarisation with serious political economy. Her chancellorship has been supported by strong and well-informed ministers who have dealt with economic affairs and with business: she has read appropriate speeches, but no significant initiative has been attributed to her [other than the catastrophic decision to open Europe to mass immigration, which will mark her rule throughout future history]. It is possible, but improbable, that she has actually committed to any scheme systematically to attempt to smash the London market which - as is being stressed today - is an irreplaceable asset to world trade that even Germany and France rely upon heavily.

As a boy growing up in Lancashire, I became used to hearing older people say: "The French will never forgive us for saving them in two world wars", whereupon a minority said: "the First World War, yes: they don't like admitting that they needed us. But in the Second they hated us for disrupting their comfortable collaboration with the Nazis: remember, we bombed them and fought our way through France. DeGaulle was very much in a minority until the Americans put him in power."

It would be no surprise to discover that Macron grew up surrounded by the French mirror-image of such sentiments.

The Present State of Economy and Society

Official statistics are compiled by honest professional people, and tell the 'truth' in simple numerical terms. But much can be done to interpret them, either favourably or unfavourably, according to the wish of the interpreter. Hence, although the United Kingdom now has the highest proportion of its available adult citizens in employment since 1975 [one of the three years during which the mixed economy was tested most severely] it is sobering to note that in almost every way the present pattern of employment is massively more fragile than was that which NeoKeynesian inflation undermined. The effect of the inflation of prices, especially after the oil price hike of 1973, was that production was interrupted by strikes when the authorities took action to suppress wage rises in their clumsy attempts to cap the wage-price spiral. In each period of pay 'restraint' government costs rose while government revenues declined, and the balance of payments with the rest of the world became strongly negative. In those circumstances, the Labour government [which relied on minority parties to retain control of the House of Commons] sought a loan from the International Monetary Fund; and the conditions applied to that loan [in retrospect] can be seen as a demand for the state to bring in Monetarist policies to replace they failed pseudo Keynesianism that the Economic establishment had applied.

The Labour Party was torn apart by the consequent dissent from the new policy, with the trade unions - the traditional paymasters of the party - doggedly opposed to the government. Consequently the Conservatives won the 1989 general election. The new Tory leader, the largely-unknown and completely untested Margaret Thatcher, embraced monetarism enthusiastically; and she deplored the less-than-half-hearted attitude towards her radical policies from most of the Tory establishment [including most of her cabinet]. They had been broadly content with the mixed economy and were scared by the new radicalism. Mrs Thatcher and her close cohort dismissed the majority as 'wets', and became more intent on radical change in the economy. As to the social consequences of disruptive economic policies, Mrs Thatcher was simply to say 'There is no such thing as Society'.

The people who could be identified as the 'enemies' of the new Monetarist policies began with the Economists, 364 of whom signed a letter to the TIMES condemning her policies from a standpoint of NeoKeynesianism [and who succumbed thereafter, with amazing speed, so that those who remained in their 'profession' become locked in to the new Econocracy by the millennium]. Next among the 'enemies' were the trade unions, that had frustrated the attempts by the Labour government of 1974-79 to control the wage-price spiral. Here the Thatcher gang decided on a radical solution: if you close the coal mines and a large section of the iron and steel industry [including shipbuilding] you take the cash and the members away from the unions, leaving them as shell organisations with no real power. These radical solutions were adopted; and the majority of the electorate was unmoved by the pleas of miners and steel workers whose communities were largely isolated geographically and socially from the cities where banking, finance and smart retailing were providing more nice, clean jobs for the middle classes. While the traditionally unionised areas continued to return Labour MPs from constituencies with very high percentages of the industrial and ex-industrial population, other urban centres and the less-densely-populated majority of constituencies were content to return Tory [or, in some cases, irrelevant Liberal] MPs; and thus the wrecking job was done.

It is now more than thirty years since the steelworks of Sheffield, the pit sites across the country with their unmistakable winding-gear, the massive cranes on the dockyards to the Tyne and the Tees and the Upper Clyde, and other symbols of the most basic and essential industries were first left derelict; then cleared away. It is hard to believe that Meadowhall in Sheffield was once the world's leading steel and engineering centre, or that the placid banks of the Upper Clyde were once the proudest shipyards in the world.

No thanks to successive governments, pharmaceutical and biological companies have developed lucrative new products; creative industries [including computer games] have developed magnificently and - despite the idiocies that created the financial crisis of 2007-9 - the financial services based in London lead the world in expertise and innovation. So Britain has high spots, and remains uniquely innovative; but fools in government have congratulated themselves on 'attracting inward investment' as one after another the innovative firms [along with the intellectual capital] are snapped up by aliens. This almost-constant alienation of the most valuable assets that the British continue to create means that the balance-of-payments becomes increasingly adverse, as British consumers have to pay foreign firms to access British inventions, even if they are manufactured here.


The final knell of heavy industry has been sounded today, with the news that Tata is selling its steelworks in the UK to Thyssen-Krupp: whatever promises are made [and especially if we really do leave the European Economic Area] Port Talbot will go; and with it the last evidence of heavy industry will be consigned to the film archives and to history books.

Political Credibility

M Macron is due to win today's election to the French National Assembly by a landslide. A party that did not exist - was not even publicly predicted - two years ago is expected to win a massive majority in the legislature. Its leaders then propose to go head-to-head with the trade unions in order to 'modernise' [i.e. Thatcherise] the economy. Their plan is to make hiring and firing of employees easier, to challenge the shortness of the standard working week; and generally to break the power of the unions over strategic decision-making by French firms.

M Macron is presented as having virtually 'appeared from nowhere' to create his 'France on the March' movement which would take the presidency and capture the Assembly; but in fact he is the epitome of the French establishment. Napoleon developed the old monarchy's technique of finding people of modest origins and developing them for high public office - by way of selective higher education, where appropriate - and then rewarding them with lands and titles if they succeeded. Macron stands firmly in that tradition. The child of teachers in a solid provincial middle class, white town he was selected for the highest level of 'administrative' education. Then he served in a series of government posts before moving smoothly into banking where he perfected his English while gaining an insider's knowledge of the 'Anglo-Saxon' dominated transatlantic banking system.

Then he was considered ready to be given middle-ranking ministerial office in the floundering Socialist government, from which he moved smoothly to the destiny of revamping the failing party system and achieving a populist following. Although the older-established parties ran candidates and campaigns against him, the field was effectively surrendered to him in circumstances where the rest of the established political class was becoming genuinely afraid that the National Front might otherwise win power.

Even his highly unusual matrimonial arrangements marked him out as special and memorable, without being open to censure.

The whole plan has worked all-too-smoothly to this point. Now the President can dust off his outdated Econocratic textbooks and set about trying to implement his mission. I am not a betting man, but if the bookies were to offer odds I may well be tempted to punt a few pounds against him.

Old and Useful?

Britain has passed half a century dismantling industry, and pensioning-off the people who understand it. I spent almost half of that time in Sheffield, mostly when it was still a city that provided jobs for more than 75,000 highly skillied artizans and several thousand of the world's leading metalurgical, ceramic and glass scientists. To see that accumulation of expertise dissipated was as big a tragedy as it was possible to experience in any economy. The world continues to need those skills: demands are growing for expertise in using old and new materials for ever more challenging applications in millions of structures and machines that are required to operate in space, in deep mines, under the oceans, in radioactivity and within the human body. A profoundly ill-advised view that 'smokestack industry' was a thing of the past prevailed, most notably in the nineteen-eighties. The twerps who adopted that view assumed that Lancashire mills which operated on the unsustainable [and always incredible] business model of importing raw cotton for processing and re-export were on a par with innovative firms that developed new forms of special steels or carbon fibre: the whole range of industries was considered dispensable. That delusion cost the country dear as the immaterial business of casino banking took pride of place in the limited perspective of the government, taking precedence over the solid virtues of the world's leading insurance market and the world's most effective system of commercial law. The City of London is important because it is of huge value to the real economy, especially for the things that it did well in 1700 and 1800 and 1900 and even in 2000: though by then sleight-of-hand betting had taken the top fashion spot and was by far the most lucrative area of 'finance' which attracted very clever people who made bonuses on the turnover that they could conjure into being; literally without the use of any material commodity other than computers and electricity.

While 'the City' only ever accounted for around the same proportion of the turnover of the economy as the construction sector, it was much more highly rated by bedazzled politicians: most notably Gordon Brown and his acolyte - who was duly promoted to be 'City minister' - Ed Balls. Having thrown off the image, and most of the substance, of being a trade-union dominated organisation the 'new' Labour Party embraced the adventurism of those who were later to be reviled as 'casino bankers'; while it still depended on finance from the unions. Tony Blair escaped criminal investigation into the means that had been used by his agents to obtain donations from people who were coincidentally ennobled, but when he had gone from office and his peculiar means of funding dried up almost completely the unions conspicuously remailed Labour's major funders. But these latter-day unions were very different from the unions that had ineffectively opposed de-industrialisation and the destruction of their own members' jobs in the 'eighties. Between 1985 and 2005 trade unionism ceased to be a significant force in the private sector even while the former nationalised industries passed into the private sector.

The new area of strength for 'organised labour' was in the expanding public sector, where [unlike most firms owned by shareholders] government departments and state agencies provided accommodation for union officers and allowed staff time off work for union activities. The coalition government has decided - probably correctly - that the future economy will not be able to bear the cost of the pension payments that had been provided for in state employees' contracts; so those entitlements are being reduced and the unions are planning to defend their members' contractual rights. This campaign by the unions attracts minimal sympathy, and virtually no support, from the mass of the population who are experiencing declining living standards while they learn that part of the increased cost of living is raised taxation from which [among many other things] civil service pensions are funded.

When trade unionism was based in industrial plant pretty simple arguments could be advanced about the division of the income that the operation generated. Political Economy taught that there were three factors of production: land, labour and capital. For industrial production, for wholesale and retail trade, and for catering and entertaining establishments, land was bought or rented by the providers of capital for the business and the cost of land was accounted as part of the fixed cost of the firm [which varied with the location, so that operators of shops on Oxford Street in London paid vastly higher rents per square metre than did the owners of wareouses on the fringes of Pennine mill towns]. Once the site was paid for the construction and adaptation of the buildings on it were components of the capital stock that the owner had to provide, along with the machinery inside and around the premises, the materials to be worked on, the fuel to power the operation and the services [such as water supply and lighting] without which it could not operate. The vast contribution that capital made to any business i the real economy was visible and could be recognised. But that investment was useless unless people possessed of the necessary skills, experience and strength made themselves available to work there. By an iterative process of debate, dispute and discussion -sometimes involving strikes, lock-outs, mass sackings, reinstatements, arbitration and intervention by the courts - mutually tolerable rates of pay to employees and rates of return to capital were settled. Workers realised that capital equipment and investment were necessary, even if the plant was owned by a socialist system, and they conceeded that any capital stock must be maintained by constant refreshment. Capitalism - as a system of economic organisation - recognised that a willing workforce was best to manage and so employers were in broad terms willing to agree with unions on fair terms and conditions of employment in that place at that time. The skilled gained relative to the unskilled, the fit relative to the less fit. The physically weak who were not able to compensate by developing intellectual skills were ill cared for by the system, as were the mentally less able. There was much unintended cruelty in the operation of the system, but there was also an opportunity for the majority to find a level of remuneration that they deemed acceptable.

In the present postindustrial era pay [for the employed] is the outcome of various forms of negotiation and 'comparison' of one category job description with another. It is widely accepted that jobs in the public sector are generally better paid that those that can be said to be broadly their equivalent in the private sector: and all sources agree that pensions expectations for public sector employees are better at almost all salary levels [except the most highly paid categories of business executives] than in the private sector. There are a few tens of thousands of people in Britain, a few hundreds of thousands in the European Union, perhaps a couple of million in the world, whose transcendant skills, talents and experience enable them to command whatever remuneration they demand. There are many others who are almost as well talented as the topmost elite, who are able to demand superior pay for their work. There are others who have created inventions or works of art that become so popular that the creators are massively enriched by the proceeds from their willing users: and yet others who have seized  the ownership of capital and access to natural resources by political manipulation [or even criminal activity that no state can prosecute] that legitimate commerce and industry need to buy from, to the enrichment of the owners. Much 'unfairness' is evident in the contemporary distribution of incomes and of wealth, especially in instances where executives fail to deliver the expected results for their employers and still walk away with huge remuneration. The widespread awareness of indefensible income differentials has created a sour mood through almost all of society, to a degree that it can poison progress in economic development.

The point to which this argument is trending is that if Britain is to adopt the one big Strategy that is readily accessible to the economy, it must recruit the people who can manage the greatest leap forward in marine technology in human history and it must take the risk of paying them whatever is necessary to engage them in the task.

My last blog set out trhe bare bones of the Strategy. Britain has the opportunity uniquely to exploit - in a sustainable manner, for the indefinite future - the massive surface area of the earth's oceans that are currently recognised internationally as the coastal waters surrounding the imperial lagacy of oceanic territories. To vindicate this Strategy The UK needs first the naval and military forces that can enforce the assertion of sovereignty, over the long term.  Then it would be absolutely essential to build the industries and develop the technologies on which the Strategy absolutely depends  for economic viability. It is inescapably necessary to recall scientists, engineers and artizans who were dumped unceremoneously from their careers up to four decades ago. To attract people from their retirement, or from the alternative careers into which they have settled, or to bring many back from the foreign states that benefit from the skills that Britain spurned, will require payments up-front from the hard-pressed national budget; of salaries and potential bonuses that are enough for the purpose. Some patriotically minded individuals  might chose to return some of their remuneration to the state; but that option should be left to them, it cannot be assumed that people who have been rejected will suddely embrace the political class who will be bidding for their skills.

Unless the nation can be motivated to recognise and to support the proposed Strategy, the concept does not have a hope of taking off. A first step in demonstrating that it can be implemented is to show that Britain's Got Talent: not just in ephemeral popular entertainment but in all the areas that must be drawn in to the greatest and most grimly serious venture in the nation's history. The young have been denied most of the skills and all of the experience that existed on the shop floor and in the works laboratories in Sheffield, Birmingham, Glasgow and hundreds of other urban centres throughout the United Kingdom. One motivation for Scottish Nationalism is a reasonable desire to cut free from the corpse of a failed state: and the best motive for Scots to remain in the United Kingdom would be the probability of benefit from participating in the Strategy.

I have been privileged for several years to support a charity called Age Exchange that [among other things] brings elderly people into contact with the young, including many who have no extended family and therefore no familiar folk traditions or reference-points outside their immediate experience, to let them begin to understand what life was like within living memory in the places they now inhabit and thus open up some perspective. Something similar needs to be done on a national scale to enable depressed young adults to believe that the capable and experienced people exist who can help them to develop themselves as contributors to a technical wonderland that can be the envy of the world: while it brings them a world class standard of living.

This is all feasible technically and organisationally. The political will to bring it into effect is much more problematic.