What’s wrong with agreement?

Published on June 29, 2017

Business is tough. Sometimes it seems like an endless series of battles. Marx saw the battles between Capital and Labour leading inexorably to the end of capitalism via glorious revolution. But some 150 years later we’re still bumbling along. Despite the upheavals of 1917, 1926 and the ‘70s, the fact of the matter is that free enterprise continues to function in its own mysterious way. Day by day, organisations and workers strike agreements which fail to perfectly satisfy either party. I think this is the sign of a good negotiation – one in which each party suffers the most hurt that it can withstand.

But when it comes to politics, it seems that the war has different rules, that agreement is utterly unacceptable and the only way to be is in opposition to the other view. So nothing is ever resolved -each side tries to dominate the other, which it does for a time. Then the balance tips too far and the reasonable minded electorate, few of whom have extreme views, vote for the other side to re-balance the costs and benefits.

It’s said that politicians are too busy dealing with current issues and crises to take time out to think about what they should do. But if they did, maybe they could see how business works and try it? I mean it’s not as if the current system is a rip-roaring success is it? It’s not as if everyone in the Conservative party agrees with each other in every aspect, nor the Labour party, or even the EU. If we accepted this as something to be worked with rather than against then maybe we would come up with a better, more long lasting result?

  • Instead of low tax or high tax we could have tax that had a rational approach to income, expenditure and capital; • Instead of low pay and high pay we could have remuneration that rewarded talent and social utility;
  • Instead of protecting people from owning equity, because it’s risky, we could encourage a balanced approach to saving for a deposit on a house (short-term) and retirement (long-term);
  • Instead of soaring house prices we could create a Royal Commission to reconcile young and old, investors savers and occupiers, while maintaining a green and pleasant land;.
  • Instead of tweaking our education syllabus in line with the latest trends, we could ensure that students (and adults?) are schooled in the intangibles that are now intrinsic: finance and software.

Staying wedded to economic theories needs to be jettisoned too. When I hear Paul Mason saying that he would compromise so long as his economic theory isn’t, then my response is: why? Which economic theory HAS worked? Marxism? Keynesianism? Monetarism? Neo-classicism?

This radical approach to governing may need a new system. Maybe we will vote more frequently, (we’re getting enough practise)? Maybe we’ll vote on-line? It may need entirely different politicians, as is happening in France. Agreement is less exciting than conflict: whoever cheered a drawn match? But excitement is not the aim of governing, and those who claim that it is are the epitome of populists. Holding two apparently contrary ideas at once is said to be the sign of wisdom, often the product of maturity that comes with experience. As a long established democracy, are we mature enough to reconcile our differences and to accept as much pain as we can, on both sides, as the price for stability?

Or is centrism simply too radical?