From Russell Brand to Nigel Farage, anti-politics is all the rage

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/17/russell-brand-nigel-farage-anti-politics

Version 0 of 1.

Lord Freud has upset a lot of people. He is worried about people so severely disabled that their labour is “worth” only £2 an hour. The minimum wage, he muses sadly, makes such people unemployable. How much better things would be if only the market could be left to make these decisions unimpeded by the state.

How much better indeed. The market would make the necessary adjustments in such an eventuality, in the magical way that only the market can. The market would provide housing, food, transport and energy for the people on £2 an hour – by finding people “worth” even less money per hour to supply it. The extremely severely disabled, perhaps? Who knows? Only the market.

Except that even Lord Freud does not have quite that level of faith in the market. Rightwingers profess to be upset that the wider context of his comment has been reported less widely than his shocking soundbite. The idea is that the state should offer a greater subsidy to companies willing to employ highly disadvantaged people, as is the case in a number of other countries.

Frankly, since the state already subsidises the pay of people whose only disability is that their employer is unwilling or unable to pay them a living wage, it’s not the most terrible political idea I’ve ever heard. It was a political mistake to suggest that anyone’s time is “worth” only £2 an hour. But Lord Freud has apologised for that. Nonetheless, his remark will haunt him for ever.

To some people, all politics are vile, and remarks like Lord Freud’s are the proof of it. “Anti-politics” is all the rage on the radical left, with Russell Brand its Great Leader. This is fairly absurd. Nothing is more anti-politics than free-market neoliberalism. Anti-politics is what got us into the mess we are in now.

Lord Freud’s remarks, calmly examined in context, reveal all that is outrageous and disgusting not about one man and his views, or about one political party, but about market liberalism. Essentially, Lord Freud’s comments point out how fully he and his party choose to look after the interests of the market, which is more than capable of looking after itself, rather than the interests of vulnerable people, who aren’t.

Who picks up the pieces when the market has been allowed to exploit the workforce to the fullest extent possible? The state. How does the state pay for this in a low-tax, free-market economy? By running a stonking great deficit. Who benefits from that? Lenders – the same lenders who are already benefiting, first, from being able to employ people at wages they can’t live on, second, by not being expected to pay the tax needed to subsidise these inadequate wages and, third, by lending also to the people who are hard-up because their low wages make them unable to pay the rent.

The low-paid are the people keeping this rickety wagon on the road, even as their pay continues to decline. And so are people living and working in less developed countries, whenever possible. When this isn’t possible – say, when a severely disabled person needs care here in the UK – one good way of keeping wages down in a free market is to maintain a ready supply of immigrant workers.

A YouGov poll commissioned by Prospect, published in the magazine’s November issue, places “Tighten immigration” at the top of a list of things that Britain’s government should do over the next few years. That, of course, is at the top of Ukip’s list, too, because anti-politics is all the rage on the radical right as well, under its own Great Leader, Nigel Farage. Farage doesn’t blame the market for low and falling wages. He blames politics. Again, that’s fairly absurd.

Farage recognises, however, that there is not a great deal in the way of politics going on in Britain. But can he really believe that this is because Britain is now run from Brussels? He tells the people whose votes he seeks that EU immigrants are keeping their wages down and robbing them of state support that should by rights be theirs. But it’s the market that sets wage levels and the market that insists it will not tolerate high taxation. And, sure, it’s good that the UK has a minimum wage. It’s good that Labour hopes to increase it. But the political message sent by its puny amount is that even this must be a tentative intervention.

A severely disabled person’s time can be said to be “worth” £2 because an entirely physically and mentally competent person’s is “worth” £6.50. Lord Freud’s party, of course, fought tooth and nail against a minimum wage being set at all, and many in it still become hysterical at the idea that it should be increased. But why? It’s the state that has to subsidise these inadequate wages, the same state that rightwingers believe is “too big”. If the private sector is so efficient, why does it rely on poverty wages topped up by taxpayers? Because politics facilitates it.

Lord Freud argues that work is good for people. And it is – but not work on which those for whom you are doing it place such small value. Lord Freud used to work in the City, where bonuses for performance are routinely added to high pay; they are not expected to see work as virtuous in itself. That’s for the little people, whose choices are few.