The tyranny of party politics

There's something I find depressing about the Tory whining about Duncan Weldon's appointment as Newsnight's economics editor. It's a sign of the tyranny of party politics.

Put it this way. Would there be so much moaning if an arts or sports reporter had leftish views? I suspect not, because arts and sports are (mostly) obviously separate from party politics. The fuss over Duncan's appointment therefore reflects a belief that economics reporting is party-politically sensitive.

Of course, this is obviously true for some aspects of economics, such as the debate about fiscal policy. But there's much, much more to economics than this small matter. Many questions can be discussed indepdendently of party politics, such as: are we really in a period of secular stagnation? Will robots take our jobs? What are the pros and cons of behavioural economics? How does evolutionary economics help illuminate social affairs? What, if anything, can we learn from happiness economics, or neuroeconomics? And so on.

The idea that someone's leftist opinions debar them from a job requiring some kind of political neutrality seems to rest upon at least deeply dubious views: that a journalist can't leave his opinions at the door and be impartial; that economics is a branch of party politics; and a narcissistic tribalism that wants to hear its own ideas echoed back to it.

It doesn't have to be like this. I've managed to spend 20 years at the IC, even though - I suspect - most readers aren't sympathetic to my Marxian views. This is because these three ideas don't apply to me; I can, mostly, hide my Marxism; much of what I write about is independent of politics; and my readers are intelligent enough to want to read something interesting rather than stale reminders of what they already believe*.

The tyranny of party politics here consists of two forms. The obvious one is the demand for "impartiality" between the main parties - or, to be more accurate, a balance between truth and falsehood.  

But there's another, more subtle tyranny. If economics is subordinated to party politics, some issues will be kept off the agenda. Neither Labour nor the Tories would be keen on an economics writer who raises thoughts such as: maybe politicians can't do anything to raise long-term economic growth; perhaps bosses pay is a reward for power rather than skill; economic forecasting is impossible so talk about fiscal policy in the next parliament is mostly otious; or perhaps there are more intelligent ways of allocating public goods than by government decree.

Ideally, we would discuss economics without having to defer to imbecilic, narrow-minded (and partly irrelevant) party politicians. And, happily, in many contexts such as this one we can. Duncan, though, has lost this freedom. I think he deserves better.

Another thing. Of course, there is a huge overlap between economics and politics: both are about who gets what and how? But the problem is that party politics is not the same as politics; the latter is about the conscious examination of power, whereas the former quite often is about obfuscating the nature of power.

* Granted, I have few readers - but this only shows that there's a sharp trade-off between quality and quantity.

Comments

[pablopatito]

According to that Daily Mail link, the solution is Noel Edmonds. I find that more concerning.

[Luis Enrique]

you can discuss fiscal policy as a "neutral", although you will be bound to say things some disagree with, and bound to say things that have some resonance with party politics (appearing to side with one party). I think the same goes for you questions that can be discussed independently* of party politics. It would be hard to say much about secular stagnation or the rise of robots without treading on some political toes.

I think economics reporting is party-politically sensitive. Even if you try to confine yourself to reporting facts, absent any analysis, there's still the choice of facts to report.

* typo there, by the way

[Jim M.]

Hi Chris... pls feel free to delete this.

Typo alert: I think you meant otiose talk about fiscal policy, unless you're secretly a fan of this guy! (which I doubt, but who knows?)

https://www.triplejunearthed.com/artist/otious

[rogerh]

Well, interest groups have press officers who have to justify their existence - so whining from professional whiners is just part of the scenery. Snog, marry or avoid according to taste.

Generally I thought journalists had a leftish tendency, even in the FT, but outfits like the Mail seem to be an exception. I should think senior Tories (and Labour ones) would do well to regard their own whiners as yappy little dogs who risk revealing the real nature of party politics.

[Thenewcomer.wordpress.com]

"I can, mostly, hide my Marxism;" LOL LOL- so true that we see ourselves as through a crystal...

[Mark]

You may have more in common with IC readers than you think. Look at the comments boxes on the websites or IC and other magazines aimed at individual investors and you'll see huge cynicism about the capture of wealth that should fall to shareholders by senior executives.

Marxism dates back to a time when 'capital' meant monarchs, aristos and bowler-hatted industrialists. Today it means anyone with a private sector pension (ie not the privileged few with public sector ones, subsidised by the taxes of the less well paid, less well pensioned, who work in the private sector). They are nothing like as powerful as in Marx' day, because there are many more of them and the wealth of capital is therefore much more dissipated.

[Paul McMc]

@Mark

"not the privileged few with public sector ones, subsidised by the taxes of the less well paid, less well pensioned, who work in the private sector"

Not sure what that snide, uncalled-for gripe is about. Sure, there are a few fat cats at the top of the public sector (mostly in Whitehall), but this blanket dig at the alleged perks of all people who work for the government is the kind of ignorant guff I thought we'd seen the last of when the latest round of redundancies, wage freezes and pension cuts went through.

I work in the public sector (in science), earn considerably less than the average wage and pay a (recently increased) contribution towards my pension, a pension that, thanks to recent financially unnecessary cuts, won't pay out much more than the state pension does when I retire after 30-odd years' service (presuming my job still exists at that point).

It'd almost be worth the hassle of the cuts if it meant we never had to listen to braying morons like Mark and his received, Telegraph-reader opinions on 'gold-plated' public sector workers again.