The worrying echoes of the First World War's beginnings in May's approach to Brexit

In 1909 the British empire was locked in a frantic race with Germany for naval military supremacy. The continent was carved into antagonistic power blocs of states and kingdoms, jealous of each others' colonies. The atmosphere was thick with anticipation of a major new European conflict.

In that year, a Labour Party MP and journalist Norman Angell came to the rescue, with a pamphlet designed to put this febrile talk of European war to bed. Angell's thesis was that the cost of a general war to the European economy was so manifestly enormous that it was highly unlikely to happen - and, if it did, would be soon over. The economic self-interest of nations - of the individual citizens and businesses in them - would block military conflict.

"What is the real guarantee of the good behaviour of one state to another?" Angell asked. "It is the elaborate interdependence which, not only in the economic sense, but in every sense, makes an unwarrantable aggression of one state upon another react upon the interests of the aggressor."

Angell's pamphlet was a bestseller. It was bulked out into a book called The Great Illusion, which was widely translated and published around the world. Its thesis was, of course, just about as misleading as any book's has ever been, either before or since.

We stand in the middle of Angell's ashes today as we mark the hundredth anniversary of the end of the First Word War. Ten million soldiers and ten million civilians died between 28 July 1914 and Armistice Day, 11 November 1918. Economic self-interest did not save them.

A chapter by David Jacks, part of a new book released last week on the economics of the Great War, shows that the shadow of the conflict was enormous. The arteries of global commerce were thoroughly ruptured in 1914. World exports did not return to the pre-1914 growth path until the 1970s.

The extreme economic dislocation that followed the end of the First World War arguably prepared the ground for the Great Depression, mass unemployment and the rise of fascism that culminated in the Second World War.

The counterfactual question of how the lives of our great-grandparents, grandparents - indeed all of us born over the past 120 years - might have been different if the nations of Europe had not slithered over the lip of the cauldron of war in 1914 is mind-meltingly large. The lesson of Angell's error is, of course, that no forecast of how nations will behave can rest solely on an analysis of economic or commercial interest. But it's a lesson that we still find it a hard to absorb.

Sometimes we hear that a no-deal Brexit, which leads to us crashing out chaotically from the European Union next March, is most unlikely because it would plainly be economically destructive for all involved.

British firms understand it. European firms grasp it. The majority of MPs don't want it. Ergo, it's really not going to happen, however much it gets talked up. But accidents do happen. And especially in complex, yet fragile, geopolitical environments.

AJP Taylor has fallen out of fashion these days. But he was the first popular TV historian. And in the 1970s he enthralled British viewers (speaking to them plainly without notes and without sophisticated production techniques) of his theory of the causes of the First World War. According to Taylor, the military powers in 1914 were tightly constrained by the practical logistics of moving soldiers and supplies around the continent by railway.

"All the mobilisation plans had been timed to the minute, months or even years before and they could not be changed. Modification in one direction would ruin them in every other direction…. Any alteration in the mobilisation plan meant not a delay for 24 hours but for at least six months before the next lot of timetables were ready."

These constraints, according to Taylor, meant that a single spark - the assassination of an Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo - exploded into a wildfire; this was "war by timetable".

Maybe, maybe not. Historians have been debating the causes of the First World War ever since it ended and have been unable to settle on a consensus.

Yet when we think about Theresa May's decision to trigger Article 50 in March 2017 - setting the twoyear countdown running on our exit from the European Union - before she had even reached agreement within the Conservative Party, let alone the country, over what sort of post-Brexit vision to pursue, it is hard not to hear disturbing echoes of the Taylor thesis of calamity by timetable.

It's hard not to be reminded of how potentially dangerous are those leaders who have painted themselves, and their countries, into a corner.

#AJP-Taylor, #Brexit, #First-World-War, #Norman-Angell

INTERVIEW: Martin Taylor

Martin Taylor presses his fingertips together, leans back in his chair and stares into the distance in contemplation. I’ve just suggested to him that if he’d fired Bob Diamond two decades ago the whole history of the global financial crisis might have been different. After a microsecond of thought, Taylor breaks into a smile.

“I like to think the financial system didn’t hang on a binary choice of mine in 1998 – that would really be solipsism in the highest degree!” he chuckles.

Fair enough. But the Apprentice-style fire-or-not-fire decision scenario was real enough. Taylor himself described it in an article for the Financial Times a few years ago.

Taylor was the chief executive of the Quaker-founded British bank Barclays. And Bob Diamond’s investment banking division had blown up due to an unexpected sovereign default in Russia, forcing the group to register a large loss.

What made it worse was that tight trading limits for Russian debt set by by the bank’s board had been deliberately bypassed by Diamond’s traders. The ambitious American banker, humbled, was offering his resignation.

Taylor turned it down believing that Diamond was too important to lose. Diamond, of course, went on to drive Barclays into the very heart of the global credit storm that unleashed disaster on the world and the UK economy in 2008.

And he became one of the public villains of the crisis thanks to his spectacularly ill-judged suggestion before the Treasury Select Committee in 2011 that the “period of remorse” from bankers “needs to be over”.

“Looking back on it I think I made the wrong call,” Taylor tells me, sitting in his rather spartan office on the upper floors of the Bank of England’s City of London headquarters. “But it was more about Barclays than the financial world as a whole.”

Tieless, glasses nestling in his blazer pocket, wearing comfortable slacks, 66-year-old Taylor resembles a country solicitor more than a former City titan or the influential regulator he is now, as an external member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC). The only hint of financial services about him is a faint pinstripe on that dark blue blazer.

I’d wanted to interview Taylor for some time, and not only for his juicy insider knowledge on Barclays. He’s also been at the heart of some of the major post-financial crisis reforms and institutions.

He served on the Independent Commission on Banking (better known as the Vickers Commission, after its chair, Sir John Vickers) which was set up by George Osborne to decide whether or not to split up investment and retail banking in the wake of the crash.

And since 2013 he has been a member of the FPC, which sniffs out financial crises before they happen and orders the inflation of banks’ capital buffers when they seem to be getting too excited.

Taylor’s time with the commission is drawing to an end. He has informed the Treasury he will step down no later than June 2019. So perhaps it seemed a reasonable time for him to reflect a little in public, not just on his time on the FPC but on the decade since the crisis.

The first question is, how much has really changed in our financial system over the last 10 years? Taylor’s answer is unequivocal, trenchant even.

“I don’t know whether to laugh or be irritated by it but one of the things I’ve found about a lot of the writing about the tenth anniversary of the crisis is that lots of them basically said ‘nothing’s changed’. But actually almost everything has changed,” he says.

“The industry has changed profoundly. The relationship of regulatory supervisors to industry has changed profoundly. The incentives have changed. The rules on pay have changed. The rules about liquidity in banking have changed. I think there’s been an extraordinary policy response. And I think there’s been some cultural change. Those who wrote it’s all the same, I don’t know where they’re looking. They don’t see the world that I see.”

I decide this is not a good time to divulge that I myself recently wrote an essay lamenting the timidity of the reform effort. We move on.

Lots of banks have been fined huge sums by regulators over various scandals, from interest rate rigging to insurance mis-selling. Plenty of bosses have departed under a black cloud. But virtually none of the top bankers during the crisis whose institutions foundered and incubated gross misconduct – not even Fred Goodwin of the Royal Bank of Scotland – have been struck off from the Financial Conduct Authority’s “approved persons” list. Inclusion on it is needed to work in the industry.

Doesn’t that, I suggest, represent a gross failure of nerve by regulators, a blow to genuine accountability? Taylor’s not having it.

“I think on the whole that the people at the top of institutions that went wrong in the financial crisis, they lost their jobs, they lost a lot of money, they lost their reputations. I think the idea that they didn’t suffer is a strange one. Imagine what it’s like to be in their shoes – it’s not great actually,” he says.

“I don’t think having the FCA write something on your tombstone is necessarily the be all and end all.”

A new book on Barclays’ roller coaster history by the writer Philip Augar relates that when Taylor was in charge he wanted to split off the troublesome investment banking division. Indeed, he resigned after failing to win the support of the board for his radical restructuring plans.

The Vickers Commission was asked to look into that very question, not just for Barclays but the entire UK banking sector. Yet Vickers stopped short of recommending a clean break and proposed a somewhat complicated “ringfence” of banks’ retail arms instead.

Why didn’t Vickers go the whole hog? Wasn’t this a missed opportunity, especially from Taylor’s perspective?

“I’ve done lots of work for government. If you’re on one of those committees, the ideal space to get to is somewhere where there’s an overhang on a Venn diagram and where what you think is a proper solution is something that government and parliament is going to accept,” explains Taylor.

So did he think that a full split proposal might not be welcomed by the government and risked being rejected?

“I was certainly conscious of it,” he says. “Finding a resolution to something does just mean recommending something. Recommending an ideal solution which government then does not enact is useless. Equally, finding an inadequate solution the government enacts is useless too.”

But he’s adamant that ringfencing, finally due to come in next year, is an acceptable solution to the problem of banks funding their casino trading habits with ordinary depositors’ savings.

“I remember when we reported it in September 2011 and said we wanted these things to be done by the beginning of 2019, a lot of people laughed and said, ‘This is for the long grass and it’s never going to happen’. And you know what? It’s three months away and it’s happened,” he says.

Yet, on the subject of Vickers, there’s been an unusually public disagreement between the Bank of England and Sir John on the question of banks’ capital requirements.

The FPC has mandated UK banks to have a capital buffer [shareholders’ equity to absorb potential losses] of at least 4 per cent of total assets. But Sir John, essentially, thinks that’s too low – and a floor beneath what the Vickers Committee itself proposed.

What does Taylor think of the concerns of his old chair?

“John has been vocal about the systemic risk buffer. I’m comfortable that where we’ve got to, we’ve got a system with about as much equity as Vickers proposed, and arrived at in a slightly different way, and with an awful lot more debt that is convertible into equity,” he says.

“Would I prefer in an ideal world for some of that debt to be equity? Yes I would. But I think we’re in the right place.”

I point out that even Mervyn King, who was the Bank’s Governor when Taylor joined the FPC in 2013, is now saying that banks should have substantially more capital than the regulatory minimum.

“Mervyn’s a friend and I’ve known him a very long time. He was Governor of the Bank for 10 years and deputy governor for five and chief economist before that and he didn’t actually do it in those 20 years,” says Taylor, slightly mischievously.

“If you’re a macroprudential regulator your default setting is to fall asleep worrying about the banking system and to think a little bit more capital would be nice. And the next time you think maybe a little more. We don’t want more capital to make supervisors sleep better – we want more capital to have the appropriate amount of resilience in the system.”

Often central bankers and regulators are surprisingly gregarious in person but automatons when they write anything down. With Taylor it’s almost the other way around. As an interviewee he’s rather hesitant, diffident even. Our talk is punctuated by long pauses for thought. At a couple of points he asks, almost plaintively, “Don’t you think?”

Rather disappointingly, he refuses to talk at any length about Barclays, where activist investor Edward Bramson is now pressing the bank to get out of investment banking, just as he urged all those years ago.

Yet a supremely self-confident intelligence shines out of Taylor’s speeches for the FPC, which are crowded with erudite and witty historical references to imperial China and the French revolution. Their substance is usually the magisterial brushing aside of the latest anti-regulation fallacy propagated by the financial lobby.

And there have been some Exocet newspaper articles. Along with the one that lifted the lid on the history of Bob Diamond at Barclays was a particularly memorable broadside in 2009 which castigated his former banking colleagues for paying massive bonuses to staff out of illusory paper profits during the bubble.

His mordant conclusion: “The system was brought down not because risk management was deficient (though it was), nor because greed was rampant (though it was), but because bankers could not count.”

Perhaps that unusual self-confidence with the pen reflects his origins in journalism, and his editing of the Lex investment column for the Financial Times in the early 1980s.

Before I leave, I suggest to Taylor that it’s inconceivable that anyone today could progress from journalism to senior banker to regulator in the way that he did. “It was inconceivable then!” he laughs.

“I had a very strange career. But I think people ought to change sector. One of the problems I found towards the end of my business career was I was dealing with people who knew everything about a rather narrow area. You want people like that – [but] you don’t want everyone to be like that. Because otherwise it’s quite hard to see where connections are made.”

#Bank-of-England, #Barclays, #Bob #Diamond, #Financial #Policy #Committee, #Martin #Taylor

State pension equality for women and men is justified

Gender equality wasn't supposed to be financially painful for women. Yet that's how it feels for many who have been experiencing a sharp rise in the female state pensionable age since 2010 which, as of yesterday, has finally been brought into line with the male age of 65.

Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year found that the increase in the pension age has put upward pressure on the poverty rate of women in their early sixties. And a lobby group called Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) has thrust the issue onto the agenda of journalists and MPs, not least the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The basic case for equalising the state pensionable age is not particularly controversial. The 1940 Old Age and Widow's Pensions Act introduced the 60/65 disparity in favour of women in an era of entrenched gender discrimination, when women were generally expected to devote themselves to raising children at home and men were seen as the main earner of a family. The earlier pension age for females was conferred in an environment of extreme disadvantage for women in the workplace, when they tended to earn far less and accumulated far fewer years of social insurance contributions.

But the structure of the labour market has changed dramatically over the past 70 years, with many more women in jobs. As recently as the early 1970s, the female working age employment rate was just 55 per cent. Today it is at 71 per cent - a record high. The male employment rate, by comparison, is 80 per cent.

Of course, women continue to face disadvantages and discrimination in the workplace when it comes to pay rises and promotions, particularly for those who return after having children, but there are few who argue that a lower female state pension age should be used as a partial compensation for all of this.

The fairness question over pensionable age equalisation relates to the handling of the transition. Did successive governments do enough to inform women that the change was coming, to enable them to plan for it? Was the transition, which was accelerated by the coalition government in 2011, too rapid? Should all women who have been affected be compensated? Or only those who are worst off? These are questions on which reasonable people can disagree.

Yet it would be unfortunate if this debate were to crowd out discussion of other, deeper-set problems with UK pensions. One of the reasons the state pension gender equalisation debate gets attention is that it is relatively easy to understand. But bigger injustices now actually lurk in the sphere of private, rather than state, pensions.

The introduction of "auto-enrolment" of workers into "defined contribution" workplace schemes in 2012 was a good reform, using people's natural inertia to nudge them into saving. The results have been impressive, with the proportion of employees covered shooting up from half to three-quarters. But, on its own, auto-enrolment was incomplete and might even potentially prove counterproductive.

This is because there is rampant ignorance and confusion among the public about how the kind of pensions onto which they are increasingly being enrolled actually function. A recent survey found that around a quarter of people aged 55 and over admit that they don't know how such pensions work and never check their pots. In a speech in 2016, even the Bank of England's own chief economist, Andy Haldane, confessed to being baffled by pensions. "Conversations with countless experts and independent financial advisors have confirmed for me only one thing - that they have no clue either," he added.

So what is being done to rectify this terrifying knowledge gap? Not nearly enough is the answer.

The government has been hesitating on creating a promised "pension dashboard" so people can monitor all their pension pots, from various employers, in one place, and with consistent information on projected income streams in retirement, enabling them to plan for their retirement accordingly. The pensions industry has introduced a proposal for simpler and less confusing annual pension statements but is still, disgracefully, dragging its feet on the transparent disclosure of fees for fund managers.

We need a much broader government-sponsored financial literacy drive, to introduce people to the basics of compound interest, inflation, portfolio diversification, annuities and the fundamental importance of keeping costs down.

We do not just have gender equality in the state pension age. There is also broad gender equality in a paralysing sense that pensions are mysterious and out of our control. All of us - women and men alike - need urgent assistance to rectify that.

#pensions, #state #pension