How did Britain come to this? The accidental logics of Britain's neoliberal settlement | LSE Event
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ต.ค. 2023
- The post-war political settlement established by Clement Attlee’s government developed systems to tackle what William Beveridge identified as five giant evils of Britain in 1942: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Idleness, and Squalor. By 1979, these systems were failing. In the UK, from 1979, successive governments led by Margaret Thatcher aimed to tackle those failures in a neoliberal settlement based on rolling back the state and empowering markets. This strategy was based on two fundamental neoliberal ideas. First, the social responsibility of private enterprises is to maximise profits within rules of the game. Second, effective systems of governance can harness the attractions of market forces for services that violate the requirements for markets to be effective.
In 'How Did Britain Come to This?' Gwyn Bevan argues that the interaction of these two ideas created an accidental logic in which financialised enterprises have exploited rules of the game to maximise profits. To read, download or purchase a copy of 'How Did Britain Come to This?', visit: press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/m/...
Speaker:
Professor Gwyn Bevan
Discussants:
Dr Abby Innes
Ros Taylor
Chair:
Professor Patrick Dunleavy
#Britain #Government #Events #London
Full details/attend: www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2023/11/...
To turn on captions, go to the bottom-right of the video player and click the icon. Please note that this feature uses Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology, or machine generated transcription, and is not 100% accurate.
How do you know its accidental. If it keeps on happening that’s a pretty obvious sign of being intentional.
The brits obviously don't like working to make money, so vote for the easiest life, after being screwed-over by the last shower that pretended to govern, while partying. As each iteration of incumbents of No.10 prove how incompetent they can be in power, we get the worst possible outcome. How to change it? Well we could reinstate the British Empire, in some post-Putinistic revival of the pre-20th century golden age, where although the people were still poor, unhealthy and facing short and brutal lives, at least the nation was respected, and even feared by the rest of the world. There was always a job when we had an Army and a Navy, and we had a department store to prove it! (Mutters...) "Never should have let those uppity Americans get their independence".
Imo Neoliberalism was an intentional, co-ordinated play by the wealthy in the "West" to control political, economic and societal life through ownership of mass media outlets, corporate donations and support for favourable candidates. The spread of misinformation to distract the populace into arguing amongst themselves about arbitrary matters all whilst the wealthy make their money quietly out of "official" eyes.
Agreed.
Offering a utopia is now standard procedure.
Yes, it is most definitely deliberate policy. The best one can say is that it based upon ignorance, but 45 years of abject failure should have been a clue to them.
What happened to the utility companies is downright evil...
It was a blatant move of the Kleptocracy. That is how confident they are about their actions.
I stumbled on this by accident and must say how fascinating and enlightening these speakers all are. Not only is it academically superb but it is clearly explained. Thanks so much for clearing the real reason this country is in a mess rather than those of us who have been around for seven plus decades just having strong feelings that all is not well.
I've always thought the current situation is a result of Thatcher's meddling nature. However, even Thatcher knew when to back off. We now have a bunch of manipulators that delude themselves that they are Thatcher's followers when it is quite clear that, rather, they are simply stupid. Sadly, I suspect the LSE is not entirely innocent of involvement in this! I hope this lecture is a turning point.
Some truth in what you say . But i ask you ;who is in our side .Bit of a tautology there, no?@@ChucklesMcGurk
You may also enjoy the 4 talks on Britain and neoliberalism at UCL by Damon Silvers.
Thatcher was horrendously dogmatic. Witness her war on organised labour and her merciless targeting of the industrial north. She thought she was right and simply didn't care how bad it got.
Stumbled on it too. Excellent
@@ianhannant7497I accept that countless communities that grew with coal declined with coal.
What a relief to hear such an eloquent take down of neoliberal dogma. The future is bright again!!
It is becoming increasingly clear to all that something has gone terribly wrong. Personally as someone who is 63 yrs old it is a great relief so see the beginning of the end of this simplistic and highly disingenuous political theory that has blighted my entire adult life. Just think what this country could have been if it hadn't been highjacked by these corrupt buccaneers who took over the Tory party and others and pushed this agenda of super individualism and the devil take hindmost.
@@Softy1967
But what are we going to to do about it!??! The next placeholder agent of the banks and big capital is waiting his/her turn. Go look at the Rachel Reeves interview with the FT. It's f*cking bananas. They're projecting a form of nutty fundamentalism. Alternatively, they're just thieves. Things will get bad. They have no shame.
@@Softy1967 yep, ship is holed below the water line, the best they can do is rearrange the deck chairs. It's going to take a while, but the outcome is inevitable...
But is anyone who might be able to change anything listening?
Much of the parliamentary Labour Party seems to have embraced neoliberalism too - so will electing a Starmer government fundamemtally improve anything at all?
Between 2000 and 2023 the UK population has increased by around 15% - approximately 9 million more people.
That's roughly equivalent to 20 cities with the population of Leeds, or 15 cities the size of Bristol.
During those years, if you haven't seen those cities being built (complete not with just new houses & flats, but also with schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, dentists, emergency services, shops, parks, roads, buses, trains, power & water supplies, drainage...etc) then, therin lies the root of just about every crisis people currently face in broken Britain:
Regardless of who has been in charge, or is in charge now, the UK does not have, has never had, any kind of coherent long-term plan - for anything.
Thank goodness you maintained a good tone and politesse by not mentioning immigration. Any suggestion it might be involved is a far-right trope of course.
@@MikeNewlandBy my data it's 12.1 million, not 9 million, and it's immigrants and the children of immigrants, because the native population has decreased by about 1 million people over that tie period.
But miraculously they need housing@@fredmercury1314
@@fredmercury1314and there he is
@@markshirley01Yup, there he is.
The guy who's not afraid of being called racist simply for stating facts.
Several major food retailers in Canada were recently found criminally guilty of fixing the price of bread for decades. Unfortunately the punishment was a slap on the hand, but it shows that even bread sometimes doesn’t work in a market system.
A glaring and obvious result of "free markets."
@@subcitizen2012because we have all forgotten about the rationing, endless queues and unavailability of basic goods under communism.
literally just look at the roman empire- almost destroyed by bread prices several times
@@subcitizen2012 It just shows that free markets are an illusion, bcs competition is immediately undermined by big players colluding. To keep markets relatively competitive and functioning, you need an incredibly vigilant and aggressive consumer protection anti trust system
The famous one was the electric lightbulb cartel. It was not that surprising until one learns the cartel operated both in the West and in factories behind the Iron Curtain. It's the kind of thing that really puts a spanner in the works of a professor like above, who has his neat theories and generalisations, yet much goes on that does not get published in the academic press.
If this gathering was to understand how the UK got into its current sorry state and to inform the public then it would have been best to start by stating that it is neither accidental nor sophisticated...and certainly not difficult to understand.
Manufacturing ie enabling the working class to put food on the table was what had kept Britain in the lead over most of the other Western countries. Britain had a solid grip as a manufacturing nation...ready markets... not to mention the goodwill (of even the recently Independent countries of the Commonwealth)...it just could not go wrong...
So what went wrong? Long story short...study people like Margaret Thacher...the hopelessly insipid Labour and Conservative Parties...Roy Jenkins and his ilk...and yes Enoch Powell...and you will get a much better answer...
It was not for no reason that Gen de Gaulle blocked the UK entry (twice if I recall correctly)...he knew Britain's lead would swamp Europe...
UK politicians threw the country's working class under the bus...and with it the country's prosperity...
"neither accidental nor sophisticated". Certainly not sophisticated. No need for that with such a stupid and poorly educated populace.
The country was taken over by opportunistic carpet baggers going for quick easy money,then off shoring it.
Since 79, the UK has fostered a buccaneering approach to the economy which means that individuals and corporations see their activities are designed to extract maximum profit for minimal effort.Then any gains are sealed off from tax. Depletion by design,
That just describes an optimised market with individuals pursuing productivity and efficiency. Make it sound bad if you like but it’s this mechanism that’s made the western world prosperous and developed.
Fundamentally disagree. Currently market failures mean that @ very small cohort becomes prosperous. Abby Innes explains it well early in her talk. You cannot impose an ideology on society without damaging it.
We got here, in part by the LSE hosting Hayek specifically to overthrow the Keynsian settlement in favour of neo-liberaliam
LSE also teaches "Quantitative Marxism"...
@@C.Duarte5000 i didn't ask about their curriculum. I was we in the LSEs central role in as neo-liberal ideologue.
Should be a opening lecture in every first year class of political science.
And economics!
Blimey
This is **the LSE** !!
Only show this to any students if they plan to vote Labour
Don't let's forget these are unconditionally Left wing theories
Thank God for sensible people. One of the best hour-and-a-halfs I've spent. I know. I need to get out more.
Studying the legacy of this nonsense we've all been for years and years, and this is one of the best singular talks on the subject I've ever heard. When will the nonsense implode on itself finally, or when can we start changing the engine mid flight so we can finally land it and bring everyone home?
Bring everybody home? These isles are swimming in piss and crap thanks to Brexit. Anymore and we'll sink to the bottom of the slurry pit.
00:03 Britain is facing systemic failures in government and decline in public service capabilities.
07:22 Neoliberal settlement in Britain has led to exploitation of consumers and entrenched geographical inequalities.
09:49 The key figure in tackling idleness was John Maynard Keynes.
14:19 Market is efficient for goods/services with low transaction costs, but not for all...
16:34 Neoliberalism promotes privatization and profit maximization in industries like utilities. (and this is really bad)
20:39 Neoliberal reforms and market outsourcing in Britain have led to sewage in the seas and rivers.
22:46 The collapse of Carillion highlights the impact of financialization on subcontractors and pensioners.
26:43 The poorest regions of Britain are worse off than the poorest regions of East Germany, despite efforts to level up..... Lawful Capitalism create great wealth but not capitalistic neoliberalism
28:50 Britain's neoliberal settlement has led to massive inequalities in income, location, and education.
32:57 Neoliberalism's impact on US and UK politics led to Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.
35:23 The neoclassical economics behind Britain's neoliberal revolution is a completely abstract and dehistoricized ideology.
39:46 Financialization in the UK Treasury remains conceptually foreign, leading to cannibalization and centralized private Enterprise procurement planning.
41:46 Public sector outsourcing is fundamentally misconceived.
46:04 Neoliberal economics is a utopia masquerading as a governmental science.
48:26 Trust is vital and precarious to the functioning of society and the welfare state.
52:43 Societal trust and faith in institutions are simultaneously tested and betrayed during the pandemic.
54:46 Public services in Britain lack clear accountability and transparent relationships.
Greed is greed and thus gives bad welfare results.
59:35 The current mistake is still trying to solve problems from 20 years ago.
1:01:48 Neoliberalism led to an overcentralized and overmarketized state.
1:05:25 Neoliberalism has led to a centralized system in Britain which needs a strategic oversight.
1:07:34 The failure of neoliberalism has led to a contamination in understanding science.
"The market is the REVEALED truth" is an Utopia for her. (Judeo Christian theory)
1:11:51 Lack of belief in politicians to bring change leads people to opt out of the electorate.
1:13:54 Citizens face challenges in forcing a new political settlement that serves their interests.
1:18:16 The concerns about corporate power and its effects on democracy due to AI.
1:20:29 The British state is porous to corporate interest but prohibits itself from regulating the private sector.
1:24:54 Revolutionary approach may not lead to emancipation of working classes
1:27:18 Central Europe teaches Britain the impacts of neoliberalism without post-war legacies.
Thank you
@@sonjak8265 no probs!
Appreciated!
Australian Governments reduced public service capability - including policy advice - by outsourcing. Resulted in PwC Australia exploiting the tax advice they developed for their profit. Also had appalling scandals like "Robodebt" where social security participants were given false debts through the use of a failed computer system (think UK Small Post Office scandal). Hopefully new governments will insource & rebuild public service policy advice capability.
It's very difficult to replace decades of in-house technical expertise once the people have left. Recalling them from the PS won't work because many will have retired or moved on to other fields. The disastrous consequences of governments dispensing with in-house expertise, for those, mostly English speaking nations, will be felt for a century
I doubt that Labor will make things better, if anything they will take Australia down the toilet faster, as they love spending other people’s money.
The whole political system in Australia needs a total overhaul as most of the politicians don’t work for the interests of ordinary Australians but for their corporate interests. The corruption within the political parties is far bigger than people realise .
@@MickAngelhereDo some research on "spending other peoples" i.e taxpayers by the LNP and then tell me thetweren't the worst abusers. Everything from Sports Rorts, rigging the AAT, the Regional Growth Fund, the exorbitant amounts paid out to security firms for offshore detention, privatising the Public Service even more and allowing NDIS to be defrauded to the tune of a billion+ plus without any oversight.
If we go back even further it was Howard that privatised employment services, that has cost us billions for very little gain. None in fact.
Here’s hoping the recent announcements of reducing immigration numbers is a start.@@MickAngelhere
I'm afraid that is wishful thinking. The Labor Party since Bob Hawke/Paul Keating ha been Neoliberal LITE. It just went full tilt and with real gusto by Howard and the following Liberal years. As evidence the growing alternative Parties and the dropping off of the major Party's PRIMARY vote. Morrison even for the Liberal devotees was too far, thus the TEALS. Labor hasn't been this low and all because their base is waking up. They better catch on or become a footnote in history.
I remember as a young teenager in the UK seeing the "Labour isn't working" poster on my bus ride to school in 1979. Little did I realize that somebody had hired the advertising space well in advance and had worked out exactly what they were going to show on it (and how, with money, one party could get an advantage over the other). Terrifying to think how this translates into 2023 and how "information" is used today.
So tell me, how does one become rich. ?
@@Stand663you could sell your mother.
@@Stand663....?
I'm 67 years old and live in Australia and I remember very clearly the intro to neoliberalism by the then PM Thatcher and President Reagan. They stated it quite clearly in one phrase and very few took it as a warning, including our PM Hawke, "Trickle Down Economics". Not being an economist but a lover and teacher of History, I knew EXACTLY what that meant. The problem was that half the voters didn't think that would not effect them.Probably being part of the Conservative, hard working and loyal establishment. Tories, Republicans and here our Liberals were suspicious of socialism so went along with the now known to be the biggest con in history, other than the Roman Catholic Church and et alia.
Very interesting analysis , worth looking at the UK energy market as a perfect example of
how to maximise profits by increasing prices, e.g. Nat Grid £4.6 bn and EDF £1.2 bn
And the Chinese State Owned companies involved in the shadows of the UK.
We’ve been ‘trickling down’ and ‘levelling up’, but in reality we’ve just imploded!
Having a correct understanding of the monetary system would help to rediscover/repopularise the capabilities of the state. Spending by a currency issuing state is a political choice, and people need to understand this. The only constraint on public spending are real resources and inflation but political and ideological considerations and vested interests often dominate. Managing our economies with this in mind is key. Economies should be run in the interests of citizens’ basic and well being needs. A concept of enough has to be introduced to the non Government sector through regulation.
You'll note Mr Beverage didn't include 'PRIVILEGE' as one of the evils. I wonder why.
The standard of governance of the UK by its politicians has been going downhill since the days of Harold Wilson, and accelerating downwards at an ever-increasing pace.
I agree - Wilson was our last PM who really cared about the country's welfare. Gordon Brown tried but wasn't able to outfox his opponents and the press the way Wilson did for a while. But then Wilson didn't have Rupert Murdoch to contend with.
Exactly so, Diana. Wilson told the USA that we would not send troops to Vietnam, and our 'friends' retaiated. He also promoted UK technology, which subsequent governments sold out. @@dianastevenson131
Thatcher cared about the country
Unfortunately she was as mad as a box of frogs
But clever and committed
These heavyweights are a thing of the past
@@philstabler6650 now try speaking English
Gwyn Bevan is great, but Abby Innes deserves a Nobel Prize. She's fantastic. I wanted to applaud every few minutes; not only is she right right right RIGHT RIGHT!!!, but she has an extraordinary turn of phrase that defines everything to the highest degree of clarity, pregnancy, and power, and occasionally grim humour too.
Yes!
А дедушке нацисту 98 лет, тоже😂
Agreed. She's an impressive speaker. Ordering her book for xmas!
@@markdisney260 So am I.
I was hoping to read it at the British Library but it seems to have shut down.@@markdisney260
A posh way of saying we're knackered but very interesting thank you
We lurch from crisis to crisis in which the only solution is to transfer huge amounts of wealth to the already wealthy.
The only progress going on is the size of the offshore economy..
Glad I found this...informative and accessible...thx
What this lacks is where the ideas of neo-liberalism came from. The two key aspects of neo-liberalism are (1) free markets and (2) globalistion. Neo-liberalism was in fact something that emerged out of the US politial science community, and in particularly that dealing with foreign policy. Economists were not in opposition because neo-classical economics and neo-liberals share the same common philosophical foundations: a society is an aggregation of rationally oprtimising consumers. The problem is one of constrained optimisation: "limited resources, unlimited wants". The economic heterodoxy was largely behind Atlee, it was Keynesian. A different economics came into domination from the late 1970s in the UK that was more alligned with pre-Keynesian classical economics. They call themselves New Keynesians, but fundamentally they oppose things like prices and incomes policies, which are inherent in social democracies.Superficially they share some policy ideas with the GT, but methodlogically and from the starting points of analysis, they are very, very different.
Thanks for this, I know that these responses can take quite a lot of effort and time. I think your general thesis, or perhaps hope, is that we always need to consider context, and while Gwynn’s talk particularly was engaging and interesting there was little context about the reforming governments of both Thatcher and Attlee. I hope his book gives more background.
@@peterweston1356 Fair comments and thanks for your reply. An importnat discussion we need to have is that we cannot get a valid critique of neoliberalism from the economics profession as essentially as a proper critique of neo-liberalism has to acknowledge what they share, which I would argue at their core are identical philosophical foundations about the fundamental nature of man. Likewise deregulation and hyperglobalisation was something pushed by the neo-classical economics profession, not just neo-liberals, in fact it was difficult to separate one group from the other. Economists talk about market failures, but these are presented as deviations from an idealised market. This is not a satisfactory starting point from which to challenge neo-liberalism.
@@simonsmatthew I’m not very familiar with the economic academic profession so i don’t really feel qualified to comment on your thoughts. What I can say is that if you feel strongly, we’ll power to your elbow in pursuing your position.
I would say it draws on an ideology further back. That is the heyday of the free wheeling 18th Century Liberalism, thus the Neo in neoliberalism. That continued on right through the 19th Century till the collapse of the Gilded Age in America and Le Belle Epoch in Europe. with the Great Depression. The wealthy elite have NEVER given up. They and their voters have always been suspicious of socialism and decades of media controlled propaganda has returned and maintained NEOLIBERALISM to this present day.
Very enjoyable and enlightening, though I think it should have been pointed out that the reading of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor to suggest that markets produce optimal outcomes despite no such intention on the part of the participants has nothing to do with what Smith actually wrote and is simply a myth disseminated by Milton Friedman and other neoliberals. I forget whether Smith used the term three or four times in his work - it was certainly no more than that - and it occurs only once in The Wealth of Nations, where it definitely wasn't intended to mean what Friedman wanted it to - and refers more to state action than to anything that markets do. Jacob Soll gives a good account of this bizarre historical distortion in his recent book "Free Market" (references to the "invisible hand" passage appear in the Index).
In sixty years of academic life, I have never seen a better fit in presentations, each confirming each other with its own original approach. We have learned that the failures and successes of countries in the global South are largely due to governance. But, sadly, we have seen the enemy...
This is wonderful, insightful stuff, that any thinking person ought to be aware of. I have one request for future videos: the sound is full of the echoeyness of the hall; It's boomy and needs more concentration than it ought. Can you capture the microphone speech, rather than the loudspeaker speech, or can you somehow make it more intimate, and less reverberating? It's not the speakers' fault; they're fine. And the audio in the hall is probably fine too. It's just what's getting onto the video sound track I'm complaining about.
The first speaker’s talk was very interesting and accessible.
The lady who gave the second lost me quickly because it seemed to me that she wasn’t really giving the talk for her audience, rather herself. She dressed all the information in the esoteric garb of academia creating what seems to the layman a jumbling word salad. This is a shame because the subject matter is important and needs to be accessible to all. This is my experience with avowedly self centred academics.
Contrast that with the final speaker who delivered her talk clearly and succinctly.
Yeah it was on a very theoretical yet important topic on how law affects society and its understanding of power, justice and equality.
There's a series here on TH-cam that cover this topic on a much more accessible level called "Coding land & ideas".
Nonsense, just because she’s using ornate language doesn’t mean it was unclear. People seemingly proud to promote the fact the standards of English language are being flattened in the interest of Orwellian English and ‘accessibility’ when rich language is an education and a challenge - one we should welcome, as a chance to learn better expression too. There’s also an economy when using technical language - often using simpler words just takes longer.
@@Hyperanthropos Nonsense? I think that you mean that you disagree.
This language isn’t ornate. Stephen Fry uses ornate language and is understood and loved by millions.
This language is esoteric and if her interest is to educate and inform a wide audience then she is being ineffective.
@@leviathon2it did not feel esoteric at all to me, and several others complement her language in the comments here. I really do think what would have passed as expressive is too often torn down as unclear these days, and it is frustrating to me.
Excellent papers. Takes the veil off neoliberalism.
Shame that politics and bog money don't give a damn about a functioning society. Labour is too timid to really bring change. Once they have been in power for a while big money will find that Labour politivians have a price too. In the end big money will get its way again.
labour brings change for the worse
@@bogdanpopescu1401 , I hardly think it can get much worse. Britain is on rock bottom already after this bunch of traitorous grifters have run a cleptocracy for 13 years.
But hold that thought and let's see what happens.
I will be happily leaning back and enjoy the show in the unlikely event of another Tory government.
@@helmutzollner5496
"for 13 years" - so you must believe war criminal Tony Blair is better than the current bunch;
it can and it will get worse;
it will get worse with either party, no big difference between them; it's only getting worse faster with Labour;
The Tory government was literally advised by communists during the covid insanity.
Government is not the solution.
Insane Covid policies, insane climate change policies, unlimited money printing to cover the budget deficits, the last pretense of free speech dropped, unlimited migration, most of it from countries with very different values, irrational foreign policy, it's all a train wreck
@@bogdanpopescu1401I would be very interested if you would expand on this. You could start by specifying what you ultimately consider to be a successful Britain. I am genuinely interested to know.
@@tomrees4812 first of all not a socialist one for sure;
Britain under Elisabeth I and Imperial Britain under Queen Victoria are obvious historical examples of a successful Britain; obviously I am not advocating for rebuilding the Empire.
Thatcher was also successful in turning back the decline for a while.
I think Europe, and Britain in particular, have been in decline since World War I. And it seems to continue into the 21st century.
Anyway, I am not British, and not a big supporter of the idea of the state or of any state in particular. For me a successful state would be one at peace, and in which the people enjoy the maximum amount of freedom from the state.
1. Proportional representation
2. Tax assets not work
sorted, but no party will have the courage to advocate these changes.
"Soviet" does not mean "based on Axioms". A "Soviet" is a workers' council, and so the title of Inne's attempt at blaming a proxy makes no sense at all. B.t.w, in Russia all soviets had been disbanded as early as 1919. There were no soviets in the CCCP (the socialist union of the soviets), as there are no soviets in late soviet Britain. So, in this sense there IS a similarity, after all.
Government has been taken over by large corporations for many years at the political level as well as within public administration functions. The electorate is thus disenfranchised. Restore trust in institutions ? Change the way the political elite retain and hold on to power. Nothing has changed for 20+ years in terms of the political elite who have demonstrated no interest in bringing about regional equality. At 30.25 Sutton Coldfield is spelt incorrectly. The professor's answers to the questions are encouraging. He should be in the cabinet. The second speaker's discourse was unfathomable. The third speaker's comments accessible, informing and eloquent. Thank you.
I think Abby Innes's perspective is brilliant and so unexpected in the comparison she draws.
Good luck with the theories and models and historical references, but a few simpler things would go a long way to bringing things round, such as honour, objectivity, service and honesty.
There is no honour among thieves, tories.
None of your four words above work if you wish to perpetuate a class system.
Very good analysis. Now, how you can inform the public, especially the populace that doesn't speak this highly academic mumbo jumbo jargon and is sliding towards right-wing populism?
I thought it a very good analysis too.
I offer a response in good faith. I think that in a polarising society it is likely one side will think society is sliding towards the solutions proposed by the other side. My thin gruel of an argument is that media of all forms on both sides are committed being relevant to their ‘base’, thus they are are vested to a lesser (I would place the New Statesman, Economist and The Spectator in the ‘lesser’ category) or greater extent (The Daily Mail and The Guardian) of building Echo chambers (made possible by social media) where everyone believes they have the high ground. The lack of quality information doesn’t help with dialogue across the divide either. I hope you have read this far, I am curious about your own thoughts.
I was educated in the English 'secondary modern' system. I can perfectly well understand and follow everything all speakers are saying.
You have a good point. I have read and heard many good analyses of the current societal ills in the past years, but most offer no practical solutions.
Although there are well researched material presenting solutions, (recently have read "When nothing works"" by group of UK researchers, those ideas are not widely known.
My guess is most people understand that there is something wrong with the current system on the fundamental level, but there is no alternative narrative present. Resulting in widely spread apathy and disillusionment of a large proportion of people with politics.
I am not aware of any alternative narrative presented by any political party or anybody else that would empower the masses and incite them to unite and demand change.
Of course, this is , as you have mentioned, the result of a polarised society due to information bubbles.
I would add lack of education in terms how the state/money is run etc.
@@therealrobertbirchallHi, I don't doubt that most people listening to this talk would comprehend the message. But as somebody else commented, "it's preaching to the choir". The real task is to get the message out and educate the public. Presenting just facts to the public doesn't seem to work. Storytelling matters.
By the standards of 2023, much of the politics of the 19th-20th century is ‘right-wing populism’ - it has become the oogey-boogeyman of middle-class technocrat wets who want to keep the party going to their own benefit.
Just got Abby Innes's book dipped in it's the best thing for ages
With our poverty levels why is our government encouraging inward migration from third world at incredible rates. Looking at the effects of migration on European countries one can only conclude that someone knows what they are doing.
Exactly. Isn't it time these idiotic do gooders realised that we are creaking under the weight of people we cannot afford to accomodate. I don't buy the crap spewed about importing skills. We have the skills here. We don't have the leaders to inspire us. The ruling classes trashed our skills leaving us unable to export and compete. My old Geography teacher at Grammar School told us that Britain must export or die. That's a five word Mantra these goons never heard.
Devastating analysis by Gwyn Bevan
These gentlemen have accurately interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.
Entrepreneurial social enterprises proliferate in UK, including migrate to UK the boat way
To enact the political changes needed would require that the corporations and extreme wealth (those that seem to be over represented in parliamentary proceedings) relinquish their control of the political classes. I can remember Boris Johnson promising to reduce the influence of lobbying organisations/'the lobby', tellingly that didn't happen.
As former Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating recently said, "the UK is now an ageing amusement park, sliding slowly into the Atlantic". The fact that most people in the UK refuse to see the problem, prevents them from searching for a solution. A solution which must have a starting point. And as with any country, that starts with a failed education system. In the UK that means the focus on identity politics and not only the lack of critical thinking skills taught to students, but worse, the opprobrium and even criminalisation of thoughts and speech which do not suit the powers that be. And who are the powers that be ? The military industrial complex (MIC) , the think tanks that write papers and draft legislation in service of the MIC and finally the mainstream media all of whom are dependent on the MIC or on the politicians favoured by or rewarded by, the MIC. Good luck reforming that lot. You appear to be doomed.
Well M, you're not wrong. My worry is that the phenomena playing out are no longer issues that can be contained within national borders. The financial, legal, economic and political power structures of the "financialised world we live in today" even include the billionaire-funded political think tanks and 'bad actor' nation states (who are keen investors in the UK). And all are now global forces that are hard for any single nation to constrain, never mind redirect, especially when governed by politicians funded by those same power brokers (with a revolving door between politics and the offices of the power brokers). We need people to be angry about all this... but our right-dominated press in the UK (thanks to a certain Australian in no small part) instead distract that anger with the latest populist fad.
Critical thinking is too narrow a focus for educational reform, since we've already had years of STEM subject focus (Science, Technology, English and Maths) that is predicated on its critical thinking development to create useful skills for the economy. And arguably the UK is a world-leading nation in the quality of its universities and research. The problem starts with values: the humanities and arts are undervalued and our Tory government are strategically under-resourcing them in order to maintain the status quo. Arts are the modern secular world's source of meaning-making, and it's no coincidence that the arts, multi-media and creative worlds (all strong industry sectors in the UK) are biased towards left of centre political attitudes. Graduates too tend to vote for progressive and liberal parties, and we have the highest rates of university attendance ever - another reason education is too simplistic a target for solving these issues.
The fall of empire is rarely pleasant. The BE was fortunate to have a friend across the pond to pass the torch to. But now that friend is fumbling the torch and no other nation wants it, or is even prepared to take on the responsibility. Hence, the torch is extinguished and the entire project of the European west dissolves. Civilizations crumble. No exceptions. Better luck next epoch....
An amusement park that is not amusing to live in.
We have our own public service outsourcing scandals in Australia with PwC exposed by Senators O'Neill & Barbara Pocock
The Military Industrial Complex? It seems to me the only population that doesn’t want the UK to have a thriving MIC are the Russians.
Blackadder on neoliberalism: "There was only one thing wrong with it, Percy; it was bollocks."
What people need and want are jobs good housing a sound non corrupting educational system.Continuty of peace and to be able plan with longevity.Failures in systems are caused by corrupt banks ,corrupt politicians, corrupt copartions who only have thier own interests at heart.The biggest mistake is the fact that the public have givern over to must trust to the above in belief everthing would be ok.People are starting to wake up and see that our current system in inheritly a failure due to corruption.
Thank you for putting the flesh on the bones of what I intuitively thought was wrong with the Conservative Party’s attitude to public services. That party does seem to attract a remarkably stupid breed of MPs - like the one who said libraries weren’t necessary because of all the cheap books available from charity shops.
I think you underestimate them. Not so much stupid but narrowly opportunistic. Conservatives around the World have done exactly the same as if from the same "playbook". Here in Australia and the US, the FIRST order of the day was when our Conservative PM removed the Head of the public service. A man of exceptional qualifications but suspiciously objective. That process was taken to the extreme in the US and now with Trump are about to implode as has Britain.
The discussion of how the system is assumed to work, according to neoliberal axiomatics, reminds me of Arendt's description of totalitarianism. . .
One of the biggest problems I have with much of the language concerning social problems, as it has been corrupted by neoliberalism, has to do with how all notions of value these days generally is framed in economic or monetary terms. This has arisen in part in an effort to duplicate the successes that quantification and mathematization yielded for the physical sciences, following Newton and his successors, in other areas where our level of understanding makes such efforts premature (assuming them possible at all, of course) as in defining and measuring trust and its importance/influence in society, as mentioned here.
Not sure how anything in the physical sciences can feed into politics when politicians have never understood science or indeed numbers for that matter.
@@Paul-dorsetuk It's more about how academic economics is now pursued. When I was graduating the neoliberal turn was already well underway and economics being taught was markedly different than just 10 years earlier. The reductionism and near-fixation on flawed modelling is immense.
It's amazing how scholars in the west can study so much about structures used to govern the world today but never question whether capitalism, democracy, politics, Marxist and imperialist systems are psychologically sound systems to practice in order to manage human existence.
No alternative.
LSE, please, talk about the massive direct and indirect subsidies the financial sector receives:
-US Treasury/Exchequer capitalizing banks via Fed/BoE payments of Interest on Reserves (that's over and above the flurry of liquidity provided by the Central Banks via rounds of Quantitative Easing since 2009)
-Overnight Reverse Repo Transactions with Fed/BoE helping cover the rise in interest on deposits
-(in the US) Bank Term Funding Program, with the Fed taking underwater Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities off the balance sheet of banks at par value for 1 year (since March 2023) and with a good probability of extending it for at least another year.
These days it is a joke to call bankers "capitalists".
I keep hearing how London is richer than the northern regions, that may well be, but not for the many of us poor and ordinary people who live in the capital: many are also impoverished, struggling and are forced to rely on foodbanks and warm banks - even those in work - and many are one pay check away from homelessness.
Richness only applies to gross wealth. Quality of life and standard of living is not factored in.
The Quality of life across the wealth spectrum is pretty poor compared with lots of the North and South West. Air quality, crime, overcrowding, public safety, ad nausem.
Frankly I would not live in or anywhere near London if you paid me treble! But carry on because we don't want you here.
Good public services are everything. If you can't feed your child you're in dire trouble no matter what society or economic system you live in. No clean water, food or shelter = disaster for any human. Our leaders are so very, very out of touch.
Fascinating and informative series of talks but such a pity because of the crazy camerawork and presentation.
Gwyn and Ros use a language I understand . All without hand waving - or was it hand wringing? Not a word from Abby about what to do if devolution to certain areas fails through lack of competent folk stepping forward. Another layer of incompetence, infighting, indecision?
The current government must long for the Good Old Days when Want Disease Ignorance, Idleness - though these days it's zero-hour contracts, job insecurity and long hours for stagnating wages (I take issue with the word "idleness") and Squalor were rife, because they seem to be taking us back there.
"How did Britain come to this?" I may have missed it, but failed family law must figure greatly. That is the system that needs your attention.
It is baffling that an event "explaining" this needs to be held. There was nothing in it which wasn't already widely known.
Welfare state is a way to stabilise the economy by adding consumer spending at the bottom. It’s self stabilising.
2nd speaker = Keynes theory of uncertainty is not only right, but ironically is the only deterministic answer to humans inability to conform, we are after all we are more like cats than dogs.
Letting the Titans maximize their profits..
The Greek must have a play on that somewhere
An interesting talk, thank you all.
I agree, finance should not be considered a privileged domain, rather another social actor.
A system of being lead by the 'Free Markets' is by its nature, irresponsible.
Academic revelation has started to provide enough of the truth to allow a considered sustainable path forward.
The natural selection of an unguided free market system is in my mind, an inefficient administrator, powered primarily by anthropocentric desire.
One change I believe, & I sense many others believe, we could benefit from the creation of a common spirituality.
A post Abrahamic spirituality that is in harmony with academic revelations.
I feel the need to highlight, the mono, in monotheism is the beginning of humanity understanding that we all live in a single space, with one set of rules.
This current anti-globalisation drive is in my mind, misplaced, temporary.
@@i.m.gurneythere's no salvation in superstition. At all.
I could not agree more.
That was proven by the demise of the Gilded Age in America or in Europe Le Belle Epoch. We have just repeated the same mistake because the wealthy NEVER gave up.
Well argued well reasoned and, well, reasonable, intelligent folk making sense. I will read both Abby’s and Gwynn’s book and that may change my concern with all modern western economic reformational theses. ( this note is long for a comment but I am keen to learn. If you have time and patience I would appreciate any thoughtful feedback, thanks).
Without a coherent synthesis of new (renewed ) philosophical/cultural, political AND economic theses no solution will work. Also as someone smarter than me said philosophy and impact on culture is upstream of politics which is in turn upstream of economics. A gardening metaphor may help. Without proper soil preparation a plant will not grow well, badly growing plants will bear meagre fruit. Both Thatcher and Attlee imo arrived a moment in time when the nation was culturally ready and accepting of new political framework (good soil and robust plants) to deliver what was needed, the economic solutions landed well for the first few years. Fruit was borne.
In a culturally polarised society, where one side quietly and sometimes noisily suggest the other side is a extinction cult/religion, and they in turn they call their opposition fascists and N**s, we have very arid soil. You may argue that these folk on both sides are in a minority, yet at a cultural level it only takes a minority to shift a society from one set of norms and beliefs to another. The politics of the ballot box then reflects those changes, and the new economic framework can be implemented by the democratically elected requisite majority.
If I may be so bold as to suggest another book to add to your list: "The Persuaders" by Anand Giridharadas. The book explores how those on the left of politics can better 'win' minds and hearts in the heated and polarised discourse that pervades the modern political-economy. It is an important book, and full of practical insight for those interested to make their difference whether large or small.
Anand is a former NYT journalist, and I think this is his 4th or 5th book. The subject matter is exploring how in the USA left-leaning politicians are finding success, and examining the methods they are using, what works and why. AOC is one of his interviewees for example, and they explore her multicultural and multilingual upbringing and the comfort with/tolerance for dissonance that this created in her, and how this informs her political tactics that are so non-conforming with political norms, to great effect. Another simple idea I loved is that of "calling in" rather than "calling out" which is the notion of inviting people into a discourse rather than highlighting disagreement over 'positions' and is both subtle and effective. All the practices come from real-world success.
I feel that any study of the issues must encompass communication, its role in effecting change, and how it has such an impact on society's collective unconscious, cultural norms and public debate. The issues being raised here do not have simple solutions, but I think we can all take great inspiration from the work of journalists like Anand that shows us the way forward.
@@neurojitsu thanks for your recommendation, and a bigger thanks for offering a case for the recommendation. I have time on my hands and welcome your suggestion. I will put it on my list, which at the moment is not too long. You piqued my interest with reference to AOC who, as I understand it, can sometimes be seen as divisive by some of the centre left media as well of course by the right. So to hear about her strategies for including rather than dividing will be particularly interesting.
The sad truth is that neoliberal economics was always destined to fail. Adam Smith predicted exactly that in 1776. Other economists also nee this, but it wasn't till Keynes came along that a concrete plan to circumvent the worst of capitalism was instituted.
Is Gwyn Bevan related to Aneurin (Nye) Bevan?
No
Employment is no good if your pay is insufficient to afford the basics of life such as food and shelter.
It's easy to explain when all tories are feathering their own nest what do you expect
Unlike Blair?
How anyone can think that privatising public services will lead to a better state of affairs. Profit comes before anything in private companies. Share value, dividends and growth are what privatisation is all about. Why take tax payers money and give it to shareholders instead of investing in better capital equipment more staff and better compensation packages. We have walked into a capitalist nightmare and we deserve what we are getting. Sewage everywhere, late or cancelled trains, declining state schools, crumbling NHS., lack of social housing. ALL because the Tories and there chums have spent decades carving up the UK and selling it off to the lowest bidder. Stinks to high heaven!
Incompetence at this level and for so long!! i would suggest was totally deliberate.
you cant have this level of incompetence without specialist training.
What is being periodically dropped somewhere near the microphone? I can almost always ignore extraneous noises. When I can't, I think that it must be objectively annoying.
Officials can't even procure Fleet Auxilliaries to be at sea for HMS Diamond.
I've always demurred about the idea that the Keynesian settlement came unstuck in the 1970s. This decade was marked by events that could be identified as either poor political choices or external events. Firstly, in 1971 President Nixon dismantled the Bretton Woods currency arrangements (in order to liquidise more dollars for fighting the Vietnam War). This resulted in floating currencies, beggar-thy-neighbour volatility and consequent inflation in some countries. Then the Israeli victory in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 caused the Saudis and the Gulf states to squeeze the oil taps on those countries that they perceived as being the most Israeli-supporting (America, Britain and Holland) and the price of crude quadrupled in a few months and put us on a three-day week with the then militant big unions putting in stonking pay claims to counter the inflation. Edward Heath and his Chancellor Anthony Barber also embarked on the "Barber boom" where credit controls were relaxed and a mini-boom of hot money (much of it for housing) was unleashed and resulted in a mini-bust (as opposed to the mega boom-and-bust under Thatcher and Lawson a decade later). All these things were identifiable as reasons for the problems of the 70s. And by the way, the national finances causing Chancellor Healey to go "cap in hand" to the IMF in 1976, was not actually that serious because Whitehall had got it sums wrong and we didn't need nearly as much as we thought and it was paid off within a few years. This is the slightly more forensic take on the much-maligned 70s, where, by the way, people generally had better and more secure jobs than now and a social security system which bailed them out adequately if they lost their job.
There has been poor investment in our infrastructure and productive capacity, particularly replacing obsolete industry, just transition has been ignored.
It’s not a war. It’s a massacre happening in Palestine. I disagree on condemning only the proximate cause of this situation whilst ignoring everything else about the situation. Displacement, apartheid, settler colonisation, bulldozing homes, shooting people dead, incarceration of children crackdowns on journalists and repeated incursions into the Al Aqsa mosque - which is under Jordan’s administration.
Agreed. It's not a war. Wars are fought by valiant soldiers on both sides. How Cowardly and dispicable are both sides. Why is the peace of the Earth jeprodised by a bunch of bigotted, religious Zealots. Why do the lunatic Americans take sides?
Some of the diagnosis seemed to ring true. The things they propose to do about it sounds disastrous.
Topic is ironic given LSE's fabian origins
"We can construct the society that we want" - we tried that already with thatcher! The reality is that the right wing press have stifled all dissent in the UK. That story about Carillion's contract managers facing university graduates from government departments really struck home. Whatever happened to government hiring the brightest and the best?
nice description of the problem
so ?
Academics do this all the time, ignore what's going on until it's too late and then have a symposium on what happened. Academia is not on your side, it serves the ruling class, and it does this by pretending to be on your side.
And that's enlightened academia. I thought universities - and business schools in particular, - were still regurgitating a mess of Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand - or they were, when I retired four years ago.
Another conspiracy...............
I agree
This is Left wing so it doesn't speak for me at all
Especially the woman wanting to give migrants the vote 😮😮
@@grai Perhaps you don't understand. "neoliberal" is not "left wing", far from it.
@@LordOfLightI didn't say it was I said these academics are all as woke AF
The truth of the problem is hidden in plain sight.
One of the bad thing about an extraordinary leader effect is that their successors are weak and useless ones.
Now you can't even get bare subsistence! And they think we're going forward because we have smartphones! In reality, we're regressing at a fairly rapid pace. Can't feed or house ourselves. Children going to school hungry. It's tragic and our leaders have let us down so badly.
Excellent. The solutions articulated in response to questions were quite outstanding. I believe however that the panel misunderstands revolutions. Most revolutions are peaceful and are based on new thinking, discarding old ideas and paradigms that no longer work and learning from the past. They may be likened to kicking in a rotten door very little resistance from a resolute and determined revolutionary movement. The situation all of the collective west finds itself in now is inverted totalitarianism. The totalitarian dictators are the corporations and their oligarchs who write the laws, own the media and set the agenda in their own narrow interests.
Only a revolution will change that situation. Ideas like proportional representation, devolution, re-democratisation and the removal of the right of a corporation to have equal rights with individuals on their own aren't enough. The social contract has to be rewritten, and understood by the electorates and implemented in a practical way with the flexibility to be reviewed and fine tuned as required by trial and error and with changing circumstances. The social contract must not be a utopian document, but a set of general principles that will guide decision making and legislation. The contract must be based on evidence of what works and what doesn't, agreed values and principles that accommodate the plurality of the population. Nobody should be left out, but no one should get special treatment.
The risk of collapse of the private service industries if Labour goes in too hard is a straw man. If a company running jails goes bankrupt, why can't the government step in and run them with the staff and managers on the companies payroll. It's the owners and shareholders who lose not the government. The money they would have paid the company for the services they can use to pay salaries and costs.
If a company can be privatised it surely cannot be beyond us to nationalise it. Of course the media would scream at this as they are run by the ruling elite, that is why a revolution is required, a government without a revolutionary movement behind it will never be able to stand up to the ruling elites and their powerful institutions.
Each person must look within as to how he has ripped himself and others off over the last 35 years; self centredness, self indulgence, self entitlement and to just take, take and take any which way he can. The end result is before us.
A broken, failed system before.
We must start with ourselves and come out of denial and then begin to make amends by giving it all back.
The issue is that there are now two imperial ideologies - communism and neoliberalism - which are, ironically, in a sense not as opposed as they may appear... The empires involved are those of the Soviet Union and the United States for which Europe has been a battleground.
@@MrRufus302hope so
Presentation starts at 5:00
I know a couple of people who were born and grew up in Tito's Yugoslavia. One speaks of it as a "Golden Age"; I mentioned this to the other and she immediately replied "It was". This is worthy of investigation, for a nation looking for a way out.
It's an interesting view because I'm becoming more convinced by each passing day that democracy as we know it to be isn't capable of fixing our problems .
Our democracy is bought and paid for by those who seek to keep things as they are .
No matter who we vote for since 1979 nothing really changes .
A golden age if you were one of the parties chosen few.
It fascinates me how little there is on the Interweb about '3rd way socialism' per-se. Indeed there is no shortage of videos on TH-cam slating Sweden's former model, but very little balanced discourse. One could be forgiven for wondering if all this isn't quite deliberate...
@@mikemines2931that's the kind of off the cuff, bombastic, simplistic and unargued comment which stymies a real understanding of life in formerly socialist countries - there were huge benefits and advantages to that way of life for oh so many people, as oh so many people here point out.
@@mikemines2931 Neither of my friends come from families who were among the chosen few. Rather, they speak glowingly of the bonds of community and goodwill. Capitalist ventures were also permitted within the political framework. People were generally happy and felt valued.
It should be examined.
Sorry, still no idea whats going on. Way to abstract, vague. I may have one bit. People to include in the new settlement formation? Are the citizens not included?
When is it going away and wha can ordinary people do - besides not participating in it - to hasten its demise?
The BMC should be severely questioned due to their inexplicable decision to change their viewpoints on a very well established set of opinions..also it was very badly expressed..leaving much room for alternative interpretation
more bright white back screens please - it really stands out in my you tube dark mode
What a load of bunkum. Any system has a quantitative demand per the population. It is keeping that balance that advances the economy.
Because a) people voted for it and b) the LSE etc ignored the surveys of akternatives that I was paid to write.
Not 3 questions at a time! One at a time please!
Understanding our taxes don’t in reality pay for anything, that’s not their function, may blow people’s minds. We need a new compelling narrative to maintain the social contract buy in.
Which country should the UK seek to emulate then?
Academics who have never rolled their sleeves and done a day's work in their lives, critical of those who do rock up and do things - whether you agree or not - at least they 'do'.
The gentleman in the middle is a dead ringer for Guus Hiddink sans gray hair.
I've watched their decline from across the pond in oul Ireland. What's happening there is not happening in Ireland lucky us. We seem to be riding the crest while they sink. Personally I don't want that to happen. GB, the working class are the same as us in a majority of ways. That aside, I believe this is the time the Monarchy should step up to the plate, in two way's. First with a cash injection and then with the offer of land. This offer can be worked out between the government and the crown. They have so much to give and the country needs every penny. 👑💰
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Ireland is deeply embedded in that bastion of neoliberalism, the European Union.
If you think the monarchy is there to help the poor, the you don't understand the point of kings. It is to rule over people, not help them. Their purpose is to attain land, property, wealth and power. Then solidify that power over generations. The English working class are only allowed within proximity to scrub the floors, stand to attention or guard the gate.
logic of SE need to be in place before anything else
otherwise....
there will be abject subjectivity
go ahead argue more
nothing really change
for thousands of years already
How could anybody be shocked by the march of Empire? Like it's a new thing. :|
@28:40 this slide shows much more than we might like. Britain's descent into irrelevancy may mirror that of Italy's collapse of empire down to the level of regional Mafias. Only they will be called enterprise zones, but nevertheless run by gangsters (Teesside!). Inner cities will be dominated by gangs preying on businesses. Cameron's Big Society means 'you're having to practice self-reliance and huddling together for protection, i.e you are on your own, pal'
And of course a fake religion will be put in place (Christianity, Holy Roman Empire) to rule over the remains. That religion is The Cult of Gaia demanding conformity and resulting in the steady removal of all conditions for a normal human existence.
@@ChewyBacAaaahA brilliant summary of where we are. I've always been on the left, but even I can see that "Net Zero" will bankrupt the UK whilst making no difference to global emmissions. Populist movements have now realised this and are being labelled "right-wing", "climate denying" etc.