Thomas Piketty with Labour strategist and peer Stewart Wood in The Gladstone Room in parliament. Photograph: George Eaton.
Show Hide image

Thomas Piketty comes to parliament: what we learned

A review of the French economist's appearance with Miliband strategist Stewart Wood.
 

After his recent bravura performance at IPPR, Thomas Piketty, the intellectual of the moment, appeared at parliament today in conversation with Ed Miliband's senior strategist Stewart Wood. The Labour peer and shadow cabinet office minister was one of the first in Westminster to recognise the significance of Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, tweeting before its British release: "Thomas Piketty's book predicting ever-growing inequality is making waves. We need to start debating how to respond." Today, in the cavernous surroundings of The Gladstone Room (where the PLP and the 1922 Committee hold their weekly meetings), they did just that.

The most politically notable moment of the event, hosted by Class, came when Piketty warned Labour that its planned top tax rate of 50 per cent was "too low" to significantly reduce inequality (caused, as he meticulously documents, by the tendency of the rate of return on capital to outstrip the average growth rate of the economy). The Frenchman rightly noted the absence of evidence to suggest that higher tax rates than this on "very high incomes" (defined as £1m+) will "damage the economy". Although polls show that most voters support a 60p rate, it is a reminder of Labour's self-imposed political limits that there is no prospect of Miliband supporting it (even the 50p rate has been cautiously defended as a temporary deficit reduction measure).

Piketty was warmer about the party's backing for a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m, but urged it to go much further in taxing wealth in general. One of the justifications he offered was that this would enable governments to reduce taxes on the poor and allow them to begin accumulating capital.

He emphasised, however, that redistribution was a necessary but insufficient solution to inequality. As well as taxing the wealthy more and the poorest less, the state must also engage in "predistribution": stopping inequality before it starts. On the day that the Lib Dems pledged to ring-fence the education budget in future coalitions, he championed investment in education and skills, and a higher minimum wage as the key to a more equal society.

While Piketty is often assumed to be a revolutionary socialist (partly owing to his book's conscious allusion to Marx), his comments today were a reminder that he is actually a mainstream social democrat. He noted several times that he has "no problem with inequality per se" and argued that "up to a certain point, it can be useful for innovation and for growth".  It was "extreme inequality" that was indefensible, he said.

Challenged by my former NS colleague Mehdi Hasan on whether Labour's programme was truly bold enough to respond to Piketty's diagnosis, Wood emphasised the party's commitment to both redistribution and predistribution and said he was keen to encourage "debate" among all parts of the political spectrum on how to do more.

Among the wonkish discussion, some light relief was supplied by Len McCluskey. In his question to Wood, the Unite general secretary mistakenly referred to him as an Arsenal fan. The lifelong Liverpool supporter, whose official title is Lord Wood of Anfield and whose Twitter avatar is the club's badge, looked appropriately mortified.

P.S. I interviewed Wood earlier today on Piketty's work and will be posting the conversation on The Staggers later this week.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland