This odd book is about being a tramp. Decades ago, the experience of being a tramp was not an unusual one. Nowadays, being homeless is unfortunately common, but the tramp era has largely passed in the UK. The confused narrative of Charlie Carroll partly explains why this is the case.
Mr Carroll never felt homeless because he had a home to fall back on. He never felt futile because he had a book to write. Nor did he feel without power. As a result, he was confident enough to speak with Jeremy Paxman, Boris Johnson and the police. While Mr Carroll endured considerable deprivation and fear, his literary experiment remained just that.
The hostility of Mr Carroll to the Occupy Movement is illuminating. As someone who pitched a tent near St Paul’s, he was in a great position to try to engage with the politics of the protest. However, Mr Carroll is always reluctant to engage in the economics behind increasing homelessness. So it is no surprise that there is no real attempt to get to grips with important debates about capitalism, austerity and the financial crisis.
The text is an interesting one to read, but Mr Carroll went on an arduous journey that taught him more about survival than it did about life. He wrote down what he saw and heard, but he did not reflect on the biases which shaped his work. As homelessness has mounted across the UK since his publication was released, his book has dated quickly. This is because he looked at broken individuals instead of trying to understand the evolving society which had shaped their awful lives.
During the New Labour era, there was a lot of talk about the Northern Way. The idea was that significant public and private investment could help to bridge some of the massive productivity gap with London. Regional development agencies should collaborate and a better transport infrastructure would facilitate the economic development of the northern regions.
While the discourse of a Northern Powerhouse is louder than the softer noise about a Northern Way, the basic ideas about partnership and governance have not received the upgrade which might have been expected. The focus on city-regions might seem to be innovative, given the abolition of the regional development agencies, but the ineffective lobbying for a modern infrastructure grinds on.
Millions of people in the North of England suffer from an inadequate transport infrastructure. Those who use buses and trains regularly suffer a lot from the legacy of privatisation. Meanwhile, some of the staff on the services have felt obliged to engage in frequent strike action. There does need to be a fresh settlement for passengers and workers in the region.
Changes in the car industry are likely to impact on the way people travel. Electric cars may well have an impact on pollution levels. But there needs to be an upgraded imagining of the northern transport infrastructure which sees beyond money and cost-benefit analysis. As environmental problems mount, new vision will be required to build a sustainable future.
This vivid drama, inspired by Shakespeare, has a claustrophobic quality. It explores the complexities of identity and concealment. At the same time, it questions the social role of money and debt. Whilst the action takes place centuries ago within the Venice ghetto, the themes of persecution and assimilation remain relevant. Naomi Alderman has constructed something which might last.
It was Prime Minister Theresa May who aimed to charm the Conservative Party Conference of 2016 with her troubling assertion that, “If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere.” It is one thing to question the logic of economic globalization, it is another to define cosmopolitanism out of existence.
In the modern world, identities may be multiple and fluid. This does not mean that we are unaffected by identity-related awkwardness. But it does mean that there is an escape from the manipulative control of those who want to put us in a box. As individuals we might not manage to get out from the prison of debt, but we can help others to discover that other worlds are possible.
This text, subtitled Making Sense of the Modern Economy, is composed of material produced by The Economist. Karl Marx once described the publication as “the European organ of the aristocracy of finance”, but it has changed with the times. Instead of featuring a series of debates among entitled and affluent experts, the focus is on defending and promoting a particular brand of liberal economics to a wider audience.
This 3rd edition is of real interest because it looks at the period after the financial crisis. It also aims to deflect criticism from those economists who may have been partly responsible for the meltdown. Furthermore, it seeks to portray the evolving discipline in a positive way.
Perhaps the aspirations of the writers were too high. Namedropping famous economists and providing plenty of data was never going to restore confidence in a profession that had taken such a battering from reality. Some of the pronouncements lacked any empathy for those impacted by the Great Recession. And a description of studying the economics of prostitution in New Orleans managed to seem uninformative and unpleasant:
“In many respects, the paid-sex industry is much like any other business. Pricing strategies are familiar from other settings. Despite evidence of a myopic attitude towards risk, there have been plenty of examples of that in the finance industry too.”
Academic Martin J. Smith wanted to explore the reality of the British core executive (1999). He was critical of those who viewed the top of the state in terms of fixed powers. More power does not necessarily flow to the Cabinet when a Prime Minister is weak. Nor does authority automatically pass to civil servants or special advisers if the politicians are in trouble. Power is not a zero-sum game.
Obviously, the complexities of Brexit and the general election result have combined to make Theresa May vulnerable. However, during a reshuffle a prime minister can use their power of patronage to reassert their authority. Nevertheless, changing the composition of a team can lead to a lack of discipline from disgruntled individuals on the backbenches down the track. As May lacks an overall majority without the influence of the DUP, she cannot afford to offend too many delicate egos. Furthermore, a refresh should not be purely symbolic. In a democracy, a government must have a compelling agenda to generate renewed support for its policies.
Due to some of the friendly media, May will probably get some praise for being able to carry out a reshuffle at all. However, this political capital will dissipate if her new team does not do more than simply look the part. Many voters feel utterly disenfranchised. Large sections of the electorate think that the social fabric of the country is being torn up. While the fortunes of the unbalanced economy will prove to be important for the fate of her administration, May must hope that she can learn not to shoot herself in the foot going forward.
Basic commodities have been important to socialists for a long time. And the prosaic coat has featured in debates about nineteenth and twenty-first century socialism. When Karl Marx wanted to understand the inner mechanisms of capitalism in 1867, he turned to the coat:
“The coat is a use value that satisfies a particular want. Its existence is the result of a special sort of productive activity, the nature of which is determined by its aim, mode of operation, subject, means, and result.”
He added the slightly underwhelming observation:
“Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.”
In the modern day, populist Bernie Sanders has been accused of wearing an expensive coat. It may have been a slow news week, but the politician does not seem to have committed the crime of the century. His supporters would probably purchase him an even more expensive coat if it would aid the veteran orator. Backers of Sanders will know that it is the contents of a coat that are significant. As long as a coat has a real use value, we should not worry too much about its exchange value.
“It is often said that the definitions of an Islamic government are imprecise. On the contrary, they seemed to me to have a familiar but, I must say, not too reassuring clarity. “These are basic formulas for democracy, whether bourgeois or revolutionary,” I said. “Since the eighteenth century now, we have not ceased to repeat them, and you know where they have led.” But I immediately received the following reply: “The Quran had enunciated them way before your philosophers, and if the Christian and industrialized West lost their meaning, Islam will know how to preserve their value and their efficacy.”
One of the most cited academics in the world, Michel Foucault, was misled by the Utopian rhetoric of the Iranian Revolution. Foucault was opposed to Marxism, and was desperate to see something that was fresh emerge from the wreckage of imperialism. Decades later, the temptation for Western observers to impose their own thoughts on the struggle in Iran is strong.
The current protests may well have economic roots. But they have serious political implications. It is not for Westerners to understand what these might be. The media is not a reliable source of information about what must be a confused picture on the ground.
There is an imperialist pattern of intervention in the region. Those who see fast profits to be made will always rush to judgement. Reflective people would do well not to be dragged into the position of Foucault. It is easy to misread situations at a distance, regardless of how progressive one thinks one is.