This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
This is a continuation of the Blogger's Interview with Nick Clegg. Part 1 here and Part 2 here. It's Jonathan Calder's turn to ask a question. I realise I think of him as 'Jonathan England', a contraction of his name and the name of his website. He notes that there's been an emphasis on 'Buying British' in Nick's recent comments. He points out that protectionism was what made the slump in the 1930s so much worse than it otherwise would have been so asks Nick: Why?
"I don't think labelling goods as being manufacted in Britain, or manufactured locally, or buying stuff made at your local market is protectionist"
We all agree with that...
"Well that's what I'm saying. What i've been saying is that in the same way there's been a move to label agriculural produce as produced domestically has been met with a great positive response from consumers that can afford the difference."
So you're not a protectionist then?
"No-one is less of a protectionist than me. I spent years negotiating to liberalise trade in a previous career as an international trade negotiator. Further to that, I think one of the inevitable next demands that will be made as the economy deteriorates is economic protectionism."
He goes further.
"I'm constantly being accused, as is vince, of being excessive economic liberals, so I'm rather unaccomsted to being accused of perhaps being a protectionist. This party, certainly not under my leadership, will never, ever advocate protectionism. Nothing could be more stupid than repeating the errors of the 30's by advocating protectionism when we need to keep the international trade system open. More than that, more open - it's not open enough to those that are the most disadvantaged within it. That is the great failing. It is lopsided, and the rules are still designed to help the rich and powerful in the trade system, so we need further liberalisation of the trade system so the poorer get their fair share."
I'm starting to remember why I wanted Nick Clegg as leader. He advocates for economic liberalism and he does so in a way that emphasise that it's not just the rich that stand to gain. But I wonder, in Nick's opinion, will markets or trade get freer?
"Well some clearly not. Can I just talk to you about free markets. In the same way that people talk about Free Trade. Free Markets don't exist- will never exist. One of the great fallacies of public and political debate that you have this savage, untamed unregulated thing call the free market, or a savage untamed thing called free trade. Trade is one of the most regulated human activities, as are markets. So the question is not how free are markets, but how you regulate them."
I'm not sure I follow the logic. Trade is the most heavily regulated activity, so the question is how you regulate it?
"Clearly there's been a monumental, a monumental failure of regulation in the way in which the finacial services market works and that has to end. I think we need to go right back to first principles."
He mentions the Glass-Stiegel act and the separation of 'risky' investment banking and 'safe' retail banking.
"I want to have the confidence that there are reliable high street banks, that do boring things, that keep my money safe, keep my deposits safe and don't play silly tricks with them."
He then insists that the regulation that will be needed for the financial services will be 'dramatic'. This is the inherient problem of a taxpayer guaranteed banking system. When banks cannot fail, they can do whatever they want.
Nick concludes his response to this question with a poke in the opposite direction.
"Does that mean, as I think large parts of the Labour party now thing that because of the monumental failure of regulation of financial services you need a huge reregulation of the economy as a whole.. well no. clearly not. you've got to be smart about it, about where you apply regulation, where you tighten it or where you loosen it. "
I'm glad to have heard Nick restate his commitment to combat protectionism, and he doesn't sound like a Tory, or a Labourite. It's quite odd.
This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
Posts
6 comments:
Have I mentioned I'm quite fond of Clegg?
Even down to his very human failing like not drawing the connection between his policy prescriptions and party strategy.
Did you think he comes across better in person than in the media, as I do?
If I could give him one piece of advice I'd tell him not to stand on his heels so much (maybe Vince can take him to a ballroom). What about you?
I'm getting very, very curious about your real identity orangepan I have to say. You seem to be going out of your way to gently poke bloggers towards being constructive in terms of the party. It's fascinating :)
It's very easy to see why journalists like Clegg. He comes across very well in these small, personal settings. I wonder if this can somehow be 'used' in some way?
I like Nick a lot, I have to say. I've no doubt he's the right man to lead our party, although I do wonder about whether he's got the inevitable compromises that come with running a mainstream party right.
Do you come across better in person than in the media, Oranjepan? Oi didn't know that about you :-D
I don't think I'd come across well in person, I'm just like a great ape about to go extinct.
Yay. Clegg back on the form that made me want him as leader. Superb. I feel a little guitly slagging him off a bit over the "buy british" thing (but only a little).
The riddle of oranjepan continues. I for one will not guess at your identity. I enjoy your input to much.
I can't quite follow. Nick Clegg seems to admit, that we aren't living in a free market, and the current crisis is due to failure of regulation.
He then puts the important question "where you apply regulation, where you tighten it or where you loosen it". I would be interested to know what is Clegg's own answer to this question, at least some general outlines.
And I would also be interested to know, why would this kind of regulation work, when the regulation applied so far clearly hasn't, and how would he guarantee, that the authority which has the power to regulate the market, will not make mistakes in future.
Post a Comment