Corbyn's maximum wage cap exemplifies his ignorance

This article originally appeared on United Politics on 16/01/2017

Nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Von Hayek once famously remarked 'if socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists', a point Jeremy Corbyn took it upon himself to demonstrate this week when calling for a maximum earnings cap.

During a media blitz ostensibly to 'relaunch' his opposition, he appeared on Radio 4's Today Programme, ostensibly to talk about Brexit and immigration. After taking almost the complete opposite position to what had been briefed on those issues the day before, he then made an offhand comment about imposing a maximum earnings cap in the name of equality.

"I would like there to be some kind of high earnings cap, quite honestly. I can't put a figure on it and I don't want to" he told Today. "I would to like to see a maximum earnings limit, quite honestly, because I think that would be a fairer thing to do."

Needless to say, this became the headline of the day, and dominated his subsequent media appearances. And for good reason too, a maximum earnings cap would have profound effects on our economy.

If you limit the amount people can earn, you immediately put a limit on their productivity. If there is no incentive to work beyond a certain point then people will cease to do so. Why would anyone currently earning £10m do the same work for £1m? They'll either do 10% of the work, or go elsewhere where their efforts are rewarded.

The argument seems to go that nobody is worth that sort of money. But that assertion is not backed up by reality. For example, Steve Jobs' death wiped $17.5bn off of Apple's share price. The value a competent CEO can add to a firm is why shareholders are happy to pay them such high sums.

This is a point seemingly lost on Corbyn. During an interview with Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC he referred to the lower levels of employees as "those that are actually doing the work" belying a belief that CEOs don't actually do all that much bar, well, smoking cigars and diving into swimming pools full of gold coins presumably.

Despite Corbyn's assertion that income inequality is running rampant, the statistics show otherwise. The crash of 2008 made us all poorer, but it also made us more equal. Data from the ONS shows that income inequality, far from being on the rise, is at it's lowest point in 30 years.

Regardless, his pursuit of egalitarianism within company ranks is, and I struggle to find a diplomatic way to put this, sheer idiocy. For example, he proclaimed his disgust at the high wages earned by CEOs compared to 'shopworkers' et al.

I'm sure many people have sampled the delights of retail work at some point in their lives, this writer included. But the idea that my 8 hours a day stacking shelves, ordering stock and serving customers required the same level of skill and attention to detail (or indeed the same level of giving a toss) as the CEO is ludicrous.

Moreover I'd wager you'd be hard pushed to find a shop worker who knows what their company bigwigs are paid, much less care. Their concern is for themselves and that they're being paid fairly for the work they carry out. If they feel that isn't the case, they seek employment elsewhere. Such is life.

But, as much of a cliche as it is, Corbyn's wage cap is the politics of envy encapsulated. This is not even a Robin Hood approach, where 'excess' earnings are redistributed. Just a straight up, 'no, you can't earn that much, it's not allowed.' It is spectacularly authoritarian, born out of the fallacy of the fixed pie.

Of course, if Corbyn actually means to confiscate any and all earnings above a certain level then we're now talking about an income tax level of 100%. The fact this is being suggested by the leader of the opposition on national radio and not by a pimply sixth former in a debating society shows just how devoid of serious thinking Labour have become.

Inequality doesn't matter. What does matter is overall poverty levels. If the poorest man is getting richer then it is of little consequence that the richest man gets richer still. In fact, some research suggests that growth occurs more readily when there is more inequality.

A rising tide lifts all ships, but Corbyn's approach would drain the ocean. A cap of the likes he advocates would see a mass exodus of talent, and thus tax revenue from this country. The public services, and public sector employees, who's funding and wages rely on those tax revenues would soon find themselves without income.

Not only would it strangle economic growth, it would also halt progress. Why would the tech wunderkind with a killer app bother to pursue the idea if the fruits of his labour and rewards for his ingenuity are destined to be disposed of by the state?

It is incredible that such an ill-conceived idea has been seriously suggested by a prominent UK political figure. It's closer to communism than socialism. The most surprising thing of all though, is that Corbyn can still surprise us with his ignorance.

Labour's real problem? Britons don't want socialism

This piece originally appeared on Conservatives for Liberty on 24/09/2016.

Labour will today elect their new leader, or more likely, the old one. Far from unseating Jeremy Corbyn, the coup, vote of no confidence, and Owen Smith’s leadership challenge, have merely served to galvanise the membership, all of whom overwhelmingly seem to back the right honourable member for Islington North.

Much has been made during the contest about Corbyn’s lack of leadership, and his poor handling of those of his colleagues who don’t reside on the far left of the party. There is no doubting that Jeremy Corbyn has been completely ineffectual as Labour leader. His bizarre ‘letter from Mrs Trellis’ approach to PMQs basically gave David Cameron free shots on goal, with no follow up questions to attempt to pin the PM down.

Corbyn was widely praised for his ‘best performance yet’ when challenging Theresa May over her grammar schools policy recently, yet watching it back it’s hardly an evisceration. He’s merely set the bar so low as to have any halfway competent performance seem spectacular by comparison. Where Labour has put pressure on the government, on issues like Tax Credits – aided by Tory backbenchers mind you – it has apparently been accomplished without much, if any, input from Corbyn.

Whilst this infighting and incompetence has undoubtedly helped Labour’s collapse in the polls, it merely distracts from the real problem Labour faces, namely that Brits, by and large, don’t want socialism.

Make no mistake, that’s all that’s on offer. Owen Smith has skewered himself between trying to earn the support of the PLP and the membership, leading to his entire pitch essentially boiling down to ‘I’m exactly like Jeremy, but with leadership.’ When it comes to policy, they’re very much just slightly different shades of red.

Smith pledges to borrow £200bn to try and boost the economy. Not to be outdone, Corbyn raises to £500bn. The two appear to playing economic chicken whilst the electorate at large look on in bewilderment. Labour’s own report into why it lost the 2015 election came to the conclusion that one of the reasons was that the party couldn’t be trusted on the economy. Yet they’re now deciding between two potential leaders who are so far left they make Red Ed look like the Iron Lady.

Moreover, far from being anti-austerity, voters overwhelmingly supported the cap on benefits and welfare cuts. In a Populus poll for the Financial Times back in April 2015, a massive 75% of respondents supported then Chancellor George Osborne’s £12bn planned welfare haircut. Whilst voters are in favour of a strong safety net, they’re very much of the view that one should earn your own way in the world if you’re able to do so. This flies in the face of Smith’s commitment to an ‘equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity’.

Then there’s the issue of zero hours contracts. Both Corbyn and Smith have continued to back Miliband’s policy – again rejected at the last election – of banning the use of them. This is despite a majority of people on zero-hours contracts reporting that they’re happy with the arrangement and the flexibility they provide. The same survey also showed that more people on zero-hours contracts are happy with their work/life balance than those on fixed contracts. Yet again Labour’s big statism is in conflict with the electorate’s desire to negotiate their own terms of employment.

Perhaps the biggest dichotomy on show is Smith’s stated desire, should he somehow find himself in power, to keep the UK in the EU. The vote on June 23 saw more people vote to leave the EU than have ever voted for anything else in the history of this country. They did so to move power one step closer to the individual and one step further away from the state, yet, with a couple of notable exceptions, the authoritarian tendencies within Labour rejected this notion, and now Smith has decided to make ignoring this overwhelming democratic mandate a key part of his leadership campaign.

The latest bug-bear of the Left is the potential re-emergence of grammar schools. Vehemently opposed by Jeremy Corbyn, and the source of his vigour at PMQs, the policy also saw Owen Smith denounce the Tories as ‘turning back the clock’. But the move to give parents more options when it comes to their child’s education is, once again, a popular one. 62% of parents would get their children to sit a grammar school entrance exam, according to Yougov, and more people are in favour of expanding the provision of grammar schools than scrapping the existing ones or maintaining the current stock. When it comes to centralisation versus liberation, Labour are once again backing the wrong horse.

It is this belief in increased state control, over the economy and much else, which ultimately dooms Labour. Despite what Corbynistas will have you believe, their man hasn’t led Labour to a lead over the Conservatives at any point during his leadership. An average of polls compiled by Britain Elects has the gap at it’s narrowest, a couple of points, in April. But Labour’s position was already deteriorating by the time Hilary Benn was sacked from the shadow cabinet, triggering the mass resignations which ultimately led to the vote of no confidence.

This is because on the whole, the British electorate wants the government to leave them alone and get on with it. This is why they rejected Miliband at the last election, rightly judging that his micro-managing economic policies could spell disaster, and why polling has shown they are consistently rejecting Corbyn. Until Labour realise this, and reject the socialism espoused by Corbyn, McDonnell and their comrades on the Left of the party, they are doomed to electoral oblivion, regardless of who happens to be leader.

Russell's Revolution

This blog is, not so much a riposte as my thoughts on Russell Brand's editorial for this month's New Statesman magazine and subsequent interview with Jeremy Paxman which was doing the rounds on t'interweb this morning. I recommend reading the article at least before continuing otherwise you might find your eyes glazing over with incomprehension at what the hell I'm dribbling on about.


Let me begin by saying I'm a big fan of Russell Brand. I love his style, as is evidenced by the frequency with which big men with gold chains and Le Coq Sportif tracksuit bottoms on shout 'fuck me it's Russell Brand' at me in the street, I love his stand-up and other comic misadventures but most of all I admire his intellect and his eloquence. In the latter regard he reminds me of a rather more flamboyant, pop-star dating, ex-junkie Christopher Hitchens. As much as I'm a fan of his comedy it's when he takes a more serious approach on matters, whether it's society's approach to drug addiction, politics or spirituality that I find him the most engaging. That being said, we don't always share similar views and whilst I found his editorial for New Statesman, which he is guest editing this month, a very thought provoking read, there were a couple of points with which I found myself pulling a face in disagreement and others, though they were less numerous, where I expressed our disparity of views in a more vocal and expletive-ridden manner.

The first countenance contorting revelation in the article is that Russell doesn't vote. Someone in my twitter feed cynically opined whether this was because he's now holed up in Hollywood but the Paxman interview reveals that he never has and never will. This irks me somewhat. I'm very much of the opinion that if you don't vote, if you don't engage, then you can't really complain about what you get. Brand though, sees voting as an act of compliance to a broken system, in which there is nothing to vote for and no real alternatives, and to a certain extent I find myself agreeing with him. However, whilst it might seem a groaningly obvious choice of source for a quote, Churchill is said to have remarked that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" and he's right. Democracy sucks, but it sucks marginally less than the alternative systems. Though it's not entirely clear what alternative Brand is offering. He's certainly unhappy with the choices we've got (and generally speaking, who isn't) but he gives no real insight as to what he'd prefer. He rightly protests on Newsnight that it's kind of difficult to devise a whole new political system on the back of a beer mat in the pub, though I daresay the public houses of Britain are rife with such things of a Saturday evening, but can anyone genuinely come-up with a fairer system than the democratic principle of one man, one vote? Sure it's not perfect and occasionally has the air of being gaffer taped together with the speedo wound back and sawdust in the transmission but generally speaking it does work in so far as that the people of any given constituency get the candidate they voted for. I'd say to Russell if you don't like the choices at the ballot box and care so passionately about people and politics, stand for election yourself, tell people your values and principles and let them decide if they agree enough to have you represent them. 

Brand's right in that apathy is the biggest obstacle to societal and political change but nothing will work better to change that apathy into the rage he desires than people increasingly feeling like their voices aren't being heard or they aren't being properly represented. Uniquely in the UK I think, the British people will put up with a hell of a lot but eventually we will say enough is enough and go about changing things fairly, effectively and for the better. It wouldn't surprise me to see more and more independent candidates standing in elections to come and is in fact something I'd love to see. The biggest problem with the current system for my money is MP's voting in the interests of their party rather than in the interests of the constituents. So bring on the independents and do away with the whips, those whom we democratically elect to represent us should ultimately answer to us and not their party leaders.

Brand's right in that apathy is the biggest obstacle to societal and political change but nothing will work better to change that apathy into the rage he desires than people increasingly feeling like their voices aren't being heard or they aren't being properly represented. Uniquely in the UK I think, the British people will put up with a hell of a lot but eventually we will say enough is enough and go about changing things fairly, effectively and for the better. It wouldn't surprise me to see more and more independent candidates standing in elections to come and is in fact something I'd love to see. The biggest problem with the current system for my money is MP's voting in the interests of their party rather than in the interests of the constituents. So bring on the independents and do away with the whips, those whom we democratically elect to represent us should ultimately answer to us and not their party leaders.

There is an air of anarchy in Brand's arguments, which I applaud and would urge him to run with, but sadly this is forestalled by his leftist ideologies. His passion for socialism and desire for the redistribution of wealth particularly is by it's very nature authoritarian. He decries Cameron and Osborne for taking the EU to court in defence of bankers bonuses and whilst our initial instinct is to rally against this, do we really want to give the government, whether it be Westminster or Brussels, the power to decide what and how private businesses pay their employees? Big business may be bad (though I don't fully subscribe to this view) but if you value freedom and liberty then big government is certainly worse. Indeed, many of the problems people have with big business stem from them being able to manipulate big government in their favour. The answer is not to make government bigger but to reduce it so it's an ineffective tool for businesses to utilise.
I share Brand's view that we need to look after the poverty stricken, not just in this country but the world over, and the planet that we find ourselves clinging to, but I reject the notion that we need the government to tell us how to, or indeed make us, do this. If you'll indulge me in a little intellectual posturing by paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, those who sacrifice liberty for security will ultimately have neither. The argument can be made that the selfishness and individualism that Russell decries is perpetuated more by left wing socialism than right wing libertarianism. All too often we hear of the suffering of our fellow human beings and immediately cry 'what is the government doing about it?' Well balls to the government, what are YOU doing about it? If the plight of your fellow man worries you, why look to those in suits in the house of commons to alleviate? Go help! Donate to a charity, volunteer, take the responsibility you're trying to shirk onto the shoulders of your elected representatives for yourself. (A, frankly perfect, example of this idea can be seen in this video, in which Piers Morgan challenges Penn Jillette on his libertarianism. Morgan expresses his outrage that so many people are living in poverty in America to which Penn fantastically responds "and I assume you're helping them." He goes on to correctly say that if 1 out of 7 Americans are living on food stamps then that's 6 out of 7 Americans that can help them. Now, can you remember what I was saying before I opened those parenthesis? Oh yes, socialism). Socialism isn't the compassionate option, it's the lazy option. If the idea of a city fat cat earning millions whilst some families rely on food banks rightly offends you, don't look to government to intervene, particularly if you believe them to be completely self-serving, appeal to the millionaire's humanity and ask him to contribute to private social programmes that will help those less fortunate. Believe it or not, just because someone happens to be rich, that doesn't make them a cold-hearted bastard. Globally, the bastards are an incredibly small number. If you take the 6 billion people on the planet, rounding off the numbers, and take away the bastards, I fully believe that you'll be left with 6 billion that are good. I don't find myself leaning towards libertarianism out of selfishness but because I believe people will help each other without the need for the government to tell them to do so. I'm not cynical enough to be a socialist, nor do I want my compassion outsourced to a government welfare programme. If we do need a social paradigm shift, it's not towards left wing, big government socialism, but towards right wing, libertarian, humanist principles.

Which brings me to the other main point I found myself profusely disagreeing with Brand on. He renounces atheism as a stumbling block to social co-operation. The paragraph in full says:

"The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation. The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation."

This is the part that got me worked up and had me gripping my cup of tea with a little too much gusto. It's no surprise however, given Brand's desire to invoke a higher governing power in a bid to solve the world's problems, that he would see atheism as a problem, rather than the ideal mindset with which to tackle said issues. By acknowledging that in the absence of a divine babysitter we have a personal responsibility to the planet and each other, we can properly motivate ourselves to tackle the ecological and societal problems that humanity faces. It's far easier to see the suffering of our fellow primates and be OK with not doing anything about it if you believe that a mystical sky fairy will take care of them. Atheism, and more specifically, humanism, is the more effective and more compassionate option. Russell's right when he says we need a new, unifying ideology, but he's 100% dead wrong when he invites us to search for a new common mythology with which to motivate us. Why do we need a mythology to unite us at all? Isn't the fact we share a planet and a gene pool enough? The most effective way to solve any problem is to take a purely rational, materialist, logical approach. We must tackle the issues we face ourselves and not palm off the responsibility to a governing power, celestial or otherwise.