22 Comments on Fair point

Samantha Earle on Fri, 27th Jan 2012 5:29 pm


Indeed! We certainly do need a clear idea of what fairness is; perhaps a solid framework is what has been lacking. I feel that we, globally, not just nationally, should be aiming for a more egalitarian distribution (of rights, justice, access to well-being). One of the major criticisms of egalitarianism is that fairness for fairness’ sake is essentially meaningless, in that no one actually benefits. However, this, I feel is only true when when there is no limit to the currency of justice/rights/ well-being. On the contrary, planetary boundaries, collapsing economies, for example, suggest there is the currency of well-being is ‘capped’.
Once this is accepted, proper distribution becomes a matter of practical, not just conceptual importance.

Alex Fox on Fri, 27th Jan 2012 5:40 pm


Matthew – I think you’re right that we need to articulate a new and more solid idea of fairness, in terms of a balance between rights and responsibilities and I enjoyed your blogs over Christmas. Part of the difficulty of finding a new settlement between state, individual and family is this is that we have a tendency to see responsibility in purely monetary terms, as the subject matter of your axed C4 interview suggests: are people being paid/ claiming from the state too much money?

We need to recognise that there are many ways of taking responsibility. One consequence of failing to do that is effectively to exclude people who cannot work, or need state support in order to work, such as many people with learning disabilities, from the definition of ‘responsible citizen’. Another group excluded are unpaid family carers, particularly the 1.2m who cannot work because they care for more than 50 hours per week. Likewise those who are retired and likewise children. All these groups (between them, a significant proportion of the population) have huge amounts to contribute: in the case of carers, they contribute care valued at more than the per annum cost of the NHS (ie £100bn+). Young people contribute more than their parents through volunteering, despite the media obsession with ‘selfish youth’. But many in those groups need state support in one way or another (schools, the NHS, social care) and may not generate hard cash for the economy.

The current battles over bonuses and benefits must be had, but I believe the deeper solutions will be found in ideas which don’t reduce easily to cash values, such as mutualism, inter-depedence and reciprocity.

Zio Bastone on Fri, 27th Jan 2012 8:04 pm


‘Without such an account we risk ever louder cries of rage as angry people look for someone to blame for their current problems and future prospects.’

But isn’t this what insiders always worry about, the need to change the narrative from above in order to stay the same? I’m sure they’re saying much the same sort of thing in Heliopolis even now.

Pascale Scheurer on Fri, 27th Jan 2012 11:33 pm


I agree with the problems you raise of defining ‘fair’, but don’t agree that we should give up on it, or that it’s not possible to agree a common definition. I think you risk taking a postmodern position in this respect – one which serves the world’s current winners.

I had a similar conversation with a poet this week about the problems of using the word ‘ethical’ (“the bottom line is no-one wants to be told they’re not a nice person”) and also recently about the urgent need to reclaim the jargon of environmentalism.

An interesting solution is to invert the term and try to define that instead: I would argue that we all know what ‘unfair’ means. Similarly for ‘ethical’:

“Unethical = having a lifestyle that you know full well depends on other people living lives you would never want for yourself and your family. Child labour, sweatshop wages, debt peonage, contaminated water, war etc.”
[http://wp.me/p14kSc-6x]

Yes, defining these terms makes people uncomfortable. I am glad you are publicly attempting to do so.

junius on Sat, 28th Jan 2012 11:17 am


Your obsequious reliance on ‘political leaders’ to articulate what ‘fairness’ should mean forgets that the current mess we are in with social inequities and injustices is largely down to the activities and failings of ‘political leaders’.

If you had appeared on Channel 4 News perhaps you could have used your inside knowledge of the New Labour Governments at the time to reveal and clarify the mechanisms (eg. UK Investment Holdings, which is made up only of bankers) and contractual arrangements agreed for bankers bonuses covering the two largely state owned (Scottish) banks? This has resulted in much of the current furore. You might also have commented upon the behind closed doors meetings between Gordon Brown and senior management of Lloyds Bank whereby they took on the debt ridden HBOS. This is now the subject of legal actions in the US by Lloyds shareholders over alleged concealment of HBOS debt liabilities.

It would also be useful if you did not routinely refer to all benefit claimants as ‘poor’ given that official disclosures over recent weeks have shown a minumum of 190 families in receipt of benefits of £60,000 or more per annum (tax free). If the public are angry about this it is over the politician generated injustice, not a matter of finding scapegoats for their own problems.

Brian Hughes on Sat, 28th Jan 2012 12:46 pm


Alas the Michael Portillos, Melanie Phillipses and Claire Foxes of this world are wont to reject the bleedin’ obvious even* when it’s backed up by respectable research. Anecdote**, gut-feelings and arguing from the particular to the general*** seem more to their taste.

The cheer-leaders for the wealthy are succeeding brilliantly in deflecting the fairness debate away from anger about the very rich onto anger about the very poor. Were he still with us, the Daily Mail’s founder would be so proud…

* or possibly especially

** as in – I met a black man once who though x therefore all black people think x or I know a chap at the golf club who works in a bank and he says…

*** as in – one family on benefits lives in a house worth £2m therefore all people on benefits are living in luxury at our expense.

Steve Jordan on Sun, 29th Jan 2012 5:04 pm


Surely we have to rewind to the concepts of austerity and “we are all in this together”. The age of austerity is a media shorthand for minor reduction in living standards for most people and significant reduction for some and no reduction for others. Managing your domestic budget a bit more carefully is not austerity in my book! So it is the “feeling” of being in an age of austerity rather than the actuality that is getting at most people. If you then couple that with the manifest untruth, we are all in this together then most people feel things are unfair. All economic systems are “unfair” to some, the question is are they unjust? It seems that most highly paid people tend to support to an American market model because it justifies high pay (without limit). The rest of us don’t quite buy that and wonder why the Germans are successful without the same level of individual avarice.

Shelagh Young on Sun, 29th Jan 2012 8:06 pm


You might have noitced the extent to which “fairness” is being integrated into the SNP’s pro-Independence rhetoric. The notion of Scottland being a “beacon of fairness” was a central theme this week (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/23/scottish-independence-social-union). CurrentSNP policies are not up to making a difference in any real sense but they have certainly taken yet more ground from under Labour’s feet by sounding like the party for ordinary people. I feel very cynical – rather as I do when Coalition members in Westminster speak of a better form of capitalism as if working for a bank and getting some shares is the same as being a partner in John Lewiswhich it most certainly is not.

It seems we are being encouraged to misunderstand what capitalism actually is (i.e. it is not the same as the “market” or the free exchange of goods and services) and I worry that we are being encouraged to accept a skewed idea of what fairness is too. This seems to me toi be at the heart of the benefiot caps debate.

Robert Burns on Mon, 30th Jan 2012 7:21 am


If anyone is looking for a universal definition of ‘fairness’ they better not hold their breath while they look for it.

‘Fairness’ is an entirely subjective thing. But, with that said, consider the following:

When everyone is feeling prosperous no one gives a damn about high executive pay and bonuses.

However, when the salaries and bonuses of several thousand people distort national pay inflation figures and depress the pay and living standards for millions of others something is definitely ‘wrong’ – ‘not fair’.

Further, when institutions holding the savings and pensions of millions of citizens fail through mis-management and wipe out those savings and pensions but still pay annual salaries and bonuses to senior managers measured in millions of pounds each then something else is definitely ‘wrong’ – ‘not fair’.

Also, when money paid to the state by millions of citizens through the tax system for the maintenance of the state and the provision of public services is used to bail out these mis-managed, failing organisations then something else is definitely ‘wrong’ – ‘not fair’.

Shelagh the last paragraph of your post suggested you know something about capitalism the rest of us don’t, what is it?

Perhaps you’d be good enough to define capitalism for us?

While you’re at it how about sharing your understanding ‘fairness’ with us?

We have had some bitter lessons about capitalism played out for us over recent years, they are:

a) When capitalism operates through over-sized institutions it ceases to be responsive to the concerns and needs of it’s host society;

b) When capitalism ceases to be responsive to the concerns and needs of it’s host society it becomes toxic to that society.

To quote you Matthew: “Bleedin’ obvious”.

Edward Harkins FRSA on Mon, 30th Jan 2012 9:34 pm


Mathew I found this interesting piece in the WSJ entitled, ‘A new theory of moral sentiments’. It is a thought-provoking piece on the perceived poor prospects for entrepreneurship. The author – equally fascinating – argues that the omission of morality and probity from thinking in economics and business is a threat to the standing of entrepreneurship.

“… in 1759 Adam Smith earned his reputation by publishing “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” in which he accounted for the emergence of sympathy and moral judgments. It was only in the 20th century that ethics disappeared from economics, partly as a result of the increased mathematization of the discipline.”

“… unless we revive a sense of dignity and approbation for entrepreneurship and innovation, we might easily kill the goose that lays the golden eggs of our prosperity.”

Good piece, marred only by an irritating conflation of ‘England’ with ‘Britain’, when it anyway should have been the UK, by the (American?) author.

Edward Harkins FRSA on Tue, 31st Jan 2012 1:22 pm


I’ve re-discovered the link to the WSJ article, ‘‘A new theory of moral sentiments’;

http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline%2Ewsj%2Ecom%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970203806504577180870680679332%2Ehtml&urlhash=lfps&_t=tracking_anet

Rob Francis on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 12:02 am


Fairness is one of those things that we’re all signed up to – whether you’re on the far left, far right or everything in between, you would claim your vision of the world was ‘fair’. This makes it an attractive label but a pretty meaningless one. There are indisputable, empirical ways of evidencing whether a particular action has created or reduced someone’s wealth, helped or hindered their education, made them more or less healthy. But there is no such luck with whether an outcome is ‘fair’.

As I argued in a blog post just over a year ago, concepts of fairness are rooted in deeply held moral judgements which vary enormously according to political and ideological differences, and which place very different emphases on resources spent / resources accessed / outcomes achieved etc.

http://opmblog.co.uk/2010/11/25/whos-fairness-is-it-anyway/

Edward Harkins FRSA on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 11:10 am


Rob I find myself agreeing when you stated: … concepts of fairness are rooted in deeply held moral judgements which vary enormously according to political and ideological differences”.

Towards that latter days of the last Government there was, at least among the party foot soldiers at constituency level a perception of a ‘cloned’ message coming out from London HQ that ‘it was now all about fairness’. That was, unhelpfully tied in with senior MPs and advisors seemingly pandering to populist and reactionary views about ‘people on benefits’. It all became conflated in the minds of many (myself included) that rhetoric about fairness was actually about legitimising the coming cuts in welfare.

Now that the UK, IMO, is managed by a uniform Westminster political class, the Conservative Coalition duly, IMO, picked up where Labour left off and under the guise of Big Society and ‘We are all in it together’ etc. The Conservative Coalition has seemingly accentuated the promotion of populist and reactionary views on what constitutes ‘fairness’… and, of course, that ‘something must be done about benefits’.

Something must indeed be done about benefits (not least benefits in the form of bank executives’ bonus payments that are unrelated to company performance?) – but significant, systemic and sustainable reform in such a fraught matter can only come through factual evidence, honesty and transparency. I’m thinking of going for efficacy rather than fairness?

Dipper on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 6:36 pm


Fairness is a dead-end for parties of the left for three reasons.

Firstly, and most signficantly, as many commentors have pointed out there is no standard definition of fairness. What seems fair to me does not seem fair to you. Fairness cannot be measured.

Secondly, who has the power? It’s the people who define fairness. And they inflict their definition of fairness on the peope.

Thirdly, a society governed by fairness rather than liberty has very little freedom in it. An action may be perfectly legal, but be deemed unfair, and hence the person who commits the action be punished.

Fundamentally, it begs the questions of what the purpose of democratic parties is, and what are left-wing parties trying to achieve? Are they representing people or inflicting policy on people? Are the left trying to liberate working-class people or to look after the welfare of working class people?

Dipper on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 6:44 pm


… and whilst we are about fairness, a while ago you posted about Social Theory. In that context, Fairness is a primary concern of egalitarians. This puts the Labour party firmly in the “levelling down” camp.

There are lots of people in this country with enormous wealth. Inherited wealth, and wealth from association with oppressive regimes or exploitative businesses. And the person who attracts the ire of the Labour Party is someone who went to a comprehensive school, went to Oxford and got a first in PPE, has had a stellar career, is in no way responsible for the banking crisis, and answered the call of government to help his country out.

If we accept that there are huge ranges of wealth in society, then what’s wrong with Hester becoming rich? Who else do Labour think should become rich? And if Labour don’t like big differences in wealth, why not go after inherited wealth?

Robert Burns on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 8:14 pm


To Dipper

embedded within your recent post is the fundamental ideaological error that dogged politics throughout the 20th Century – and looks set to do so for the 21st.

But, before that:

The amounts paid to Bankers and Chief Executives as salary and bonuses causes such ire among the masses because there is a perceived direct link between what the masses have lost and the few have gained.

It feels as though an arsonist has picked up and cashed the insurance cheque after burning down your house.

There is an expanding facist tendency in modern day thinking that conflates legality with moral rightness – everyday life is driven by morality, not technical legality.

Egalitarianism is not about reducing ‘everybody’ to some ‘lower’ level, quite the opposite in fact.

And ‘everybody’ is not the tiny minority who get paid salaries and bonuses measured in millions out of the ruins of the savings and pensions of others.

This is personal, not business.

Dipper on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 9:12 pm


To Robert Burns

“There is an expanding facist tendency in modern day thinking that conflates legality with moral rightness – everyday life is driven by morality, not technical legality.”

I wasn’t arguing that legality and moral rightness are the same. I was arguing that they are in conflict. Freedom must include the freedom to do things that others disagree with, and regard as immoral, or else we just have mob rule.

As for “an arsonist has picked up and cashed the insurance cheque after burning down your house.” and “get paid salaries and bonuses measured in millions out of the ruins of the savings and pensions of others.” we are on dangerous ground here. There is no suggestion that Hester was involved in causing the banking crash. To pick on him just because he has the job title “Banker” smacks of punishment by association. We wouldn’t tolerate that in any other walk of life.

I would add that banking is not a monolithic industry. Different trading desks are all trying to get as much out of the trough as they can at the expense of other desks. The antics of the CDO/CDS credit traders were in opposition and detrimental to other desks who were doing short-term and liquid (and hence tightly controlled) trading. Quite a lot of traders in these other areas think a few of their “colleagues” in the credit area should go to prison.

For me, the lesson of the crisis was that if you treat truth and lies the same, in the end all you will have is lies. The utterances of many politicians on the left shows a continuing intability to make distinctions between beneficial banking activity and detrimental activity, and to dish out punishment by association. Nothing good will come of this kind of crude rabble rousing.

I recommend “All The Devils are Here” by Joe Nocera and Bethany Maclean to anyone concerned about the origins of the banking crisis. They are reporters, so its very thorough but quite hard going. And well worth it.

Robert Burns on Thu, 2nd Feb 2012 3:04 pm


To Dipper

actually I wasn’t referring to Hester individually, but to the group he belongs to.

As for your comments about ‘different desks’, I can accept that it is probably true.

To bad the ‘good desks’ didn’t act on their convictions.

If not condemned, they are certainly tainted by knowing what was happening at the ‘bad desks’ and not doing something about it.

No doubt ‘professional’ loyalty held them back. They deserve to feel a little heat.

As for ‘punishment by association’ that is already a well established principle, usually wrapped up in terms like ‘selection criteria’, ‘risk factors’, etc.

By the way, thanks for the book recommendation.

Dipper on Thu, 2nd Feb 2012 6:00 pm


To Robert Burns

“To bad the ‘good desks’ didn’t act on their convictions”

Read the book …

The subject of whistle blowers, disenters, and how to stop large organisations being hijacked by a group is a complex one and one that at this juncture is clearly a critical one. Its an enitrely appropriate one for this blog, and I’m sure there are lots of more qualifed and experienced people than me to discuss it.

Robert Burns on Fri, 3rd Feb 2012 12:09 am


To Dipper

‘Read the book…..’ I will.

But do I really need to…….the results speak volumes.

Dipper on Fri, 3rd Feb 2012 2:57 pm


To Robert Burns

Yes you do. The mortgage crisis and subsequent banking is both more complex and simpler than the media presents. When added to corporate scandals such as WorldCom and Enron, It asks a lot of questions about the nature of Anglo-Saxon capitalism in the last twenty years.The reality is far worse than most people think, and solutions less clear.

There is a feast here for the Left if they want it. But instead, the Left seem to be taking a position of Militant Social Democracy; the system is basically okay, the problem is that Evil People ripped off the Good People. The Good People now need to punish the Evil People, and then we will be square, and justice restored. It is pitchfork politics, and it won’t end well.

Would be interested in your views once you’ve read it.

junius on Fri, 3rd Feb 2012 9:36 pm


The growing debate on banking as a public utility in the context of the banking crisis is an interesting one. Below is a link to the debate in the US. Historically, in addressing the issue of whether banks should primarily be public utilities rather than profit accumulators for a small elite, it is useful to remember that at least two of the big high street banks- Barclay’s and Lloyd’s- started out as quaker enterprises to promote industry and commerce for social benefit (and the benefit of the persecuted quaker community of faith). The amoral fast, big buck casino capitalism now pervading these banks would be complete anathema to any covenant of quaker principles behind the founding of these banks.

The ‘good desk’/'bad desk’ dichotomy identified above seems to relate to the paradox behind the public utility model of a bank and short selling casino hedge-funding.

http://publicbanking.wordpress.com/

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!