In praise of ‘anti-business snobbery’

February 23, 2012 4:52 pm

This afternoon, David Cameron gave a speech condemning what he called “anti-business snobbery”. This comes after months of self-pity in the business community over rescinded bonuses and the ‘responsible capitalism’ agenda.

This is likely to find a receptive audience in parts of the Labour right, many of whom have spent much of the past 18 months trudging around assorted conferences and events wearily rolling their eyes and waving uninspiring documents that urge the Labour party to match George Osborne every step of the away in his quest to be “relentlessly pro-business”.

The trouble with all this, and with the Prime Minister’s speech, is that in modern day parlance ‘pro-business’ is more often than not a proxy for the total abdication of critical faculties in the face of anyone with a bit of money.

Running through Cameron’s speech is the familiar premise that what is good for business elites and profits is always and inherently good for social progress and the economy at large. This logic has run through the approach politics has taken to economics over the past 30 years, as successive governments went weak at the knees at the sight of anyone calling themselves a ‘business leader’. The corollary is that all the state can do is remove countervailing forces to the ‘creative destruction’ of capital and just shadow it in awe – skill workers up appropriately, provide a basic safety net, and so on.

But all this is just not true. Three different phenomena that have emerged in the past ten years prove it so. Firstly, the unchecked growth and detachment of the financial sector from the real economy, leading directly to the financial crisis, deficit and drying up of credit for small businesses. Secondly, the separation between ‘wealth creation’ and wage growth, and the resulting explosion in inequality and damage to domestic demand. Thirdly, the slow polarisation of the labour market whereby middle income jobs are increasingly outsourced or replaced, leaving a bulk of low-paid, un-unionised jobs at the bottom and a tiny professional-managerial elite at the top; in short, a ‘social mobility’ ladder with the middle rungs knocked out of it. On top of all this, energy and train companies have turned their respective markets into effective cartels.

Some of this is the result of technological change it would have been hard to prevent. But much of it is a result of decades of deference to ‘business leaders’, an unshakeable faith that what is good for them is eventually good for the rest of us, and the hands-off approach to the private sector and globalisation which flows from it.

But none of the resulting damage should even come as a surprise to any progressive. It is in capitalism’s DNA to maximise profit and short-term ‘shareholder value’ by pushing down labour costs and wages. While there remains no coherent alternative to capitalism, this profit motive is regrettably necessary – but it should not be allowed to go unchecked or unquestioned. The business community is an interest group like all the rest. If we let their leading lights dictate economic policy, we’d be reducing the top rate of tax and abolishing the minimum wage. Does anyone outside of top two tax brackets think this is really the route back to prosperity?

It is the job of the CBI to scaremonger and threaten – on the rare occasion the left has the confidence to persevere we find it is a rouse, as it was with the minimum wage in the 1990s. It’s only an outburst of ‘anti-business snobbery’ which forced Tesco to pay a wage and offer a job to the unemployed – I haven’t noticed their business model collapsing overnight. Similarly, the austerity agenda (complete with cuts in corporation tax) endorsed by our business establishment has proven a total failure.

A fair and functioning economy needs entrepreneurs, yes, but it also needs workers on decent wages with decent security and job prospects. This is a caveat we too often neglect when we fetishise ‘wealth creators’. Real wealth creation should be a collaboration. If someone wants to found the next Apple or Dyson, fine – good for them – but it is the role of the state and organised communities to ensure they pay tax, good wages and don’t try to monopolise the meaning of public good. If that makes me a snob, then sign me up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

    The state monopolises the meaning of the public good already. Why shouldn’t businesses? 

  • JC

    I think you delude yourself by believing that a company is more than the interests of its shareholders, be they privately held like Virgin, public like Tesco or mutual like John Lewis. Also, be aware that jobs are a cost of doing business, a concept often forgotten.

    The state should provide the conditions for business to be successful (low taxes on profits and employment, simple tax laws so avoidance is not possible, well defined trading laws and easily managed employment law). This is not to say that companies should not pay tax or that people can be sacked because their face doesn’t fit, but that if it is too expensive to hire a worker in one country, they are more likely to hire one in another. Note that the more regulation is placed on a business sector, the higher the cost of entry to that sector, thus reducing competition. Also be aware that capitalism does not equal a free market.

    It’s really more about the type of businesses we want and how to create the best environment for them to flourish.

    On the other hand, you may prefer everything to be in the public sector.

    • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

      Agree with all that JC.  Being anti-business is, essentially, being anti-jobs.  The private sector is the economic powerhouse of the country, and without the revenue it generates we would have no meaningful public services or money to invest in projects that can better our society.  The author wants ‘decent wages with decent security and job prospects’ but seems unaware that you have to be pro-business to create the environment where such things are possible.

      A few hundred very well paid bankers have distorted how many people view business, and what they view business to be about.  Of course, most business people are not millionaire bankers.   Being pro-business does not mean you have to have zero regulation and ignore the need for businesses to behave responsibly – but it does mean you need to provide a strong and stable fiscal environment that will allow them to thrive, create jobs and  ensure as a country we remain competitive in a fiercely competitive global trading environment.

      This article reports untruths and questionable opinions as facts (see the opinion on CBI as an example).  Whilst I absolutely believe Labour should ensure people of all backgrounds and disciplines are represented, I also believe we should be encouraging far more people who have set up businesses and created jobs to come into the party, so that over time it can better understand business and how it actually works.  Then the empty rhetoric praising ‘anti-business’ views can finally be put to bed forever.  There is, afterall, nothing anti-Labour about being pro-business.

      • JoeDM

         Whatever our politics, we should all be encouraging people to work in the wealth producing sectors of the economy.    After all, these are the ones that are actually earning the surplus that pays for our NHS, Pensions, Defence,  etc……..

      • http://www.futureeconomics.org Diarmid Weir

        ‘The private sector is the economic powerhouse of the country, and without the revenue it generates we would have no meaningful public services or money to invest in projects that can better our society.’

        It is no better to put the cart before the horse than the horse behind the cart – and in any case what about the connection between them – people?

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          sorry I don’t really understand what you’re getting at

          • http://www.futureeconomics.org Diarmid Weir

            Was an attempt to condense a longer point.

            Private sector v public sector is all guff. It’s about people doing stuff with the resources available – how they are organised and how they are motivated. Frequently the best results will be neither from central government, nor from organisations that simply exist to maximise the difference between their monetary inflows and their monetary outflows.

  • madasafish


    If someone wants to found the next Apple or Dyson, fine – good for them – but it is the role of the state and organised communities to ensure they pay tax, good wages and don’t try to monopolise the meaning of public good. If that makes me a snob, then sign me up.”

    Trouble is : the UK education system produces people qualified basically to do unskilled jobs..

    Apart from the private schools that Labour activists decry. And would rather close than build upon the successful system they have

    This article summarises everything wrong with current Labour thinking: thinks Britain is insular, assumes people would rather do business here than elsewhere and has no idea of how to run the education system needed to produce the workers needed for modern industries. (that is apart from merchant banking … largely staffed at senior levels by public schooled employees)..

    Fairness is not an attribute usually found in growing economies: most are grossly unfair with rewards going ONLY to those who work. See the US, Korea, China etc.. 

    Of course Germany is an exception: their education system actually works.

    • treborc

      In Germany education does not change because the government changes, they keep it simple, they know what works and they keep at it. They do not have governments which swears the education system will get better, it’s already good.

Latest

  • News Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

    Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

    It was good to see the vast majority of Labour MPs voting for marriage equality yesterday, although here are some special mentions – Iain McKenzie, Frank Roy & Mike Wood - voted FOR after voting against in the 2nd reading Anne Begg, Gordon Brown, Bill Esterson, Pat Glass, Michael Meacher, Ian Mearns, Yasmin Qureshi, Virenda Sharma, Shaun Woodward - these MPs didn’t vote in the 2nd reading, but all voted FOR this evening (not all abstentions, a number were unable to attend [...]

    Read more →
  • News More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    Ed Miliband is addressing Google’s Big Tent, and is expected to attack them over tax avoidance. So the slick Downing Street operation presumably want to get out ahead of that, right? Not quite. Here’s a selection of the headlines from Tuesday’s papers: ‘Stop moralising about tax avoidance, PM told’ – Guardian p.23 ‘Tougher tax rules would cost jobs, minister warns’ – Financial Times p.3 ‘Cameron avoids showdown over Google tax row’ – Times p.15 ‘No taxing questions as PM lets [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →