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.

The University Challenge final. Photo: BBC iPlayer
Show Hide image

Why University Challenge is deliberately asking more questions about women

Question setters and contestants on how the show finally began to gender-balance its questions – and whether it’s now harder as a result.

University Challenge has long had a gender problem. When the show first started airing in 1962, some Oxbridge colleges were still refusing to admit women as undergraduates; in the decades since, women have been consistently outnumbered by men, with all-male teams still a regular occurrence. Those women that did appear were all too regularly criticised and objectified in equal measure by audiences: notable contestants like Hannah Rose Woods, Emma Johnson, Samantha Buzzard and Sophie Rudd have experienced intense media scrutiny and criticised the sexism of the show and audiences. In recent years, sexism rows have dogged the show.

How satisfying, then, to see two women carrying their teams in last night’s final: Rosie McKeown for winners St John’s, Cambridge, and Leonie Woodland for runners-up Merton, Oxford. Both secured the majority of points for their teams – McKeown with visible delight, Woodland looking unsure even as she delivered correct answer after correct answer.

But there is another site of sexism on University Challenge, one that earns less column inches: the questions. Drawing on all areas of history, science, language, economics and culture, the questions often concern notable thinkers, artists, scientists, and sportspeople. Of course, our society’s patriarchal hierarchies of achievement have meant that the subjects of these questions are mostly men. General knowledge is, after all, a boys’ club.

Over the course of this 2017-8 series, though, I noticed a shift. More women than ever seemed to be making their way into the questions, at times with deliberate reference to the inherent sexism of their lack of cultural prominence. On 5 February, there was a picture round devoted to female composers, with contestents asked to identify Clara Schumann, Ethel Smyth, Rachel Portman and Bjork from photographs, who, Paxman explained, are all “women that are now listed in the EdExcel A Level music syllabus after the student Jessy McCabe petitioned the exam board in 2015.” Episodes have included bonus rounds on “prominent women” (the writer Lydia Davis, the pilot Lydia Litvyak, and the golfer Lydia Ko), “women born in the 1870s and 80s” (Rosa Luxemburg, Elizabeth Arden and Vanessa Bell), and the female philosophers Mary Midgely, Philippa Foot and Iris Murdoch.

Elsewhere, questions raise a knowing eyebrow at the patriarchal assumptions behind so much of intellectual endeavour. A music round on famous rock bands quoted the music critic Kelefa Sanneh’s definition “rockism”: “the belief that white macho guitar music is superior to all other forms of popular music”. Another, on opera, quoted Catherine Clement’s Opera, Or The Undoing of Women, which explores how traditional opera plots frequently feature “the infinitely repetitive spectacle of a woman who dies”. “Your music bonuses are three such operas,” Paxman said dryly, to audience laughter.

University Challenge’s questions editor Thomas Benson confirms that there has been a deliberate attempt to redress a gender imbalance in the quiz. “About three years ago, a viewer wrote in to point out that a recent edition of the programme had contained very few questions on women,” he explains. “We agreed and decided to do something about it.”

Last night’s final included a picture round on artists with works concerning motherhood (Mary Casatt, Lousie Bourgeois, Leanora Carrington and Frida Kahlo) and a music round on Marin Alsop, the first woman to ever conduct the Last Night of the Proms, as well as sets of bonuses on the American writer Willa Kather and Byzantine historian and princess Anna Komnene.

Former winner Hannah Rose Woods is delighted by the increase in such questions. “I think it’s fantastic!” she tells me. “These things are really important in changing people’s perceptions about women in the past, and the way women’s contributions to science and the arts have often been written out of history. We need to keep challenging the idea of the White Male Canon.”

Last night’s winner Rosie McKeown says that while she didn’t necessarily notice a deliberate attempt to gender balance the questions, she was “very pleased with the quality of those questions that did come up”.

“Although it wasn’t in one of our matches,” she tells me, “I thought the picture round on female composers was especially good for highlighting women’s achievements.”

For all the enthusiasm for these questions, in the studio they’re often met with blank stares. While University Challenge questions are broad and imaginatively posed, there are some reliable revision topics and techniques: from Nobel laureates and the years of their wins to identifying famous paintings and classical music excerpts. McKeown says she has been a religious viewer of the show since she was 11 years old, and admits to watching reruns of the show to prepare. Shift the kinds of answers you might be looking for, and teams may struggle.

“Do we know any female British composers?” Leonie Woodland said weakly, looking at a picture of Ethel Smyth. Trying to come up with a female Muslim Nobel laureate, one contestant desperately suggested Aung San Suu Kyi. Asked to provide a first name linking an American concert pianist with the sister of Lazarus one male contestant still buzzed in with “Daniel”.

“Even if we didn’t always get them right,” McKeown tells me, citing that round on female philosophers, which saw them pass on every question, as an example, “it was great to see so many important female figures represented.”

“I don't think the questions about women necessarily affected our performance, but it’s certainly a very good thing that they were there and I hope that they’ll arouse people’s interest in the women featured and in their achievements.”

Benson believes that it hasn’t had a significant effect on performance. “The great majority of the questions that feature women are no different to any others, in that they sit firmly within the realm of standard academic general knowledge.”

He notes that they often refer to historical and background details, citing sets of bonuses on Canadian novelist Ruth Ozeki and British physicist Hertha Ayrton, which both teams answered correctly in full. “Though Ozeki and Ayrton may not be household names, the questions are definitely answerable and deal with central themes in their work and achievements.”

It’s easy to brush off the significance of a fairly geeky Monday night BBC quiz show, but University Challenge still regularly pulls in three million viewers. In any case, a show like University Challenge has a cultural significance that outweighs its viewing figures. It helps to shape our understanding of which subjects are intellectual or important, which are history’s most notable achievements, and who is worth learning about. To ignore questions of identity is to risk intellectual laziness, relying on tired ideas of canonical figures – or worse, supremacist propaganda, privileging the achievements of white men over all others.

Quite aside from making for less predictable and more enjoyable television, by including questions on the likes of Stevie Smith, Nella Larsen, Gertrude Stein, Myra Hess, Margaret Mead, and Beryl Bainbridge, University Challenge can diversify the mental encyclopaedias of its viewers, be it a tweed-wearing 60-year-old in Leamington Spa or an 11-year-old like Rosie McKeown with her own dreams of one day competing. It has a responsibility to do so.

Anna Leszkiewicz is the New Statesman's deputy culture editor.