My article for the Institute for Public Policy Research can be read below. It was written to mark the 20th anniversary of the final publication of “Marxism Today”.

****

The great strength of Marxism Today – which closed its doors 20 years ago and which IPPR is marking with a special edition of its journal PPR – was its intellectualism and its catholicism. One of its main contributors was the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm whose most profound contributions to the intellectual history of the Labour movement centred on his 1978 lecture on ‘The Forward March of Labour Halted?’ More than a generation on from that groundbreaking intervention – and following on of Labour’s worst election defeats – it is timely to return to this thesis and assess the popular and political prospects of the centre-left today.

On retracing the terrain of the debate, one is immediately struck by two points. The first is the remarkable foresight of Hobsbawm’s original lecture. In it, he provides a comprehensive sociological history of the British working class before turning to speculate on the trends which may shape the Labour movement in the immediate future. From its depiction of union sectionalism, to its highlighting of stratification and decline in the industrial manual classes, and its illustration of a culture of masculine-dominated ‘Labourism’ struggling to come to terms with new forms of identity, it captures the essence of a movement undergoing a profound sociological and political crisis.

The second point, seen retrospectively, is the reluctance of the movement to face up to the scale of the problem. The influence of Marx’s historical materialism, the comforting certainty that history was on the side of socialism not capitalism, still exerted a powerful hold on leftist critiques at that time. Even electoral defeat, when it arrived in 1979, would be blindly greeted by some as merely an impasse – with normal service shortly to be resumed

Examining this history is important, not least because certain parallels between 1979 and today are inescapable. Like then, we live in the eye of a volatile and unpredictable economic storm, brought about by excessive faith in a hegemonic economic ideology. However, unlike the post-war consensus, the neoliberal consensus does not (yet) appear to be on the brink of collapse. In part, this is because neoliberalism is a peculiarly resilient ideology. Indeed, in Europe and across the developed world, it has so far often been to a resurgent right that voters have turned.

As in 1979, the right has successfully mobilised its response to the crisis in language that the public can understand. Nowhere is this phenomenon more pronounced than here in Britain where, with breathtaking ruthlessness, the Conservatives have successfully reframed the crisis. The political agenda is not dominated by how to correct the problems associated with unregulated market power, but about how to deal with unrestricted government spending.

The temptation is to fight back, but it is vitally important that the Labour movement does not delude itself into thinking that we can build a new consensus purely through waging a persistent, attritional war of rebutting the government’s more specious claims. It is correct that the deficit was caused by the seismic shock of the financial crisis, but politics is not an empirical science. It is about peoples’ perceptions and emotions, their hopes and insecurities. Directing a sceptical public to the relevant graphs and statistics will never be a winning strategy. The Conservatives mounted a sustained argument, firmly rooted in popular notions of common sense – rooted in the image of household finances – leaving Labour’s positivistic and technocratic tone lagging.

At this stage in the electoral cycle it is more important to identify the process of renewal than speculate on the answers: asking the right searching questions and, where necessary, facing up to the unpalatable truths. This is not just about rejecting false choices – between the politics of aspiration and security, or of prioritising the middle class progressive over the working class communitarian – though that would be a welcome start. It is about embracing a methodology for strategic political renewal that goes far beyond the usual psephological clichés. This is how we can avoid aligning ourselves to declining demographic groups and anticipate the political challenges of the future.

This requires a change in mindset. Too often we translate new political contexts into policy challenges, rather than exploring the opportunities they afford to develop a broad-based coalition that could lead back to power. For example, the correct question to be asking in response to the rise of Scottish, Welsh and English national sentiment is less whether we should advocate an English parliament or a greater devolution of powers, and more how we might find a language and identity that embraces the vitality and distinctiveness of different nations and places. Deprived of the old language of class, but as the only party with a popular reach across all of Britain, the identity Labour embraces must be nimble enough to accommodate the tension between nationalisms while maintaining the union.

Arguably, the biggest strategic challenge is posed by the polarised patterns of ‘winners and losers’ that globalisation has created. Left unchecked, this will make building our majoritarian coalition even more challenging. While Labour lost votes across all sections of society in 2010, our losses were greatest in what might be described, loosely, as traditional working class areas. A recent study showed that the average fall in the Labour vote in constituencies where more than a quarter of the economically active electorate were manual workers was 3 per cent higher than in constituencies where the share was less than 18 per cent. Despite its real achievements, there is some justification in the charge that New Labour exercised an almost-whiggish zeal in the benevolence of progress, elevating ‘change’ to an end in itself. Inevitably this alienated those most uncomfortable with change. If Labour is to recommence its forward march, it must once more reach out to these communities.

This alone, of course, will not be sufficient. Hobsbawm’s analysis showed that Labour was never purely the representation of a uniform working class (and certainly wasn’t in 1979 or 1983). Yet, even he might be surprised by the extent to which the Labour vote in 2010 appears to be classless or ‘post-class’. In the 2005 election, a greater percentage of Labour voters came from the ‘AB’ than the ‘DE’ social class group. This is partly the result of the expansion of the professional middle class. The road to electoral success for Labour will always will be through building a popular, majoritarian coalition across all areas of society. Yet, ‘reconnection’ with lower social class groups is of vital importance for two reasons. ]

First, to put it bluntly: when we do, we win. In 1983 and 2010, Labour’s lead over the Conservatives in the DE class of voters was 8 per cent and 9 per cent respectively. By contrast, in 1974 the lead was 35 per cent and in 1997, 38 per cent. The same is true of the C2 class. In 1983 and 2010, the Conservatives led among this group by 8 per cent, while in 1974 and 1997, with suitable symmetry, they led by 23 per cent.

Second, and more importantly, being disconnected from these communities will have disastrous consequences for the way we do our politics and our ability to engender change. People have turned away from politics in their droves – and the managerialism of contemporary political culture has played a significant role in this. Labour is not entirely to blame for this, but we must take our share of responsibility. When told of a failing school, we replied that GCSE results kept on improving every year; when people spoke of not feeling safe, we responded with statistics indicating a fall in crime rates.

Hobsbawm warned us about this danger in a 1983 article. He suggested that there are inherent weaknesses to what he called the ‘neosocialist’ strategy for achieving popular support:

‘This [neosocialism] implies abandoning the traditional character of such parties as mass parties, based on mass organisations, especially those of the working class, and turns them into common electoral fronts of all who are, for one reason or another, opposed to reaction, interested in reforms, and prepared to sympathise with progressive appeals … [T]he weakness of this strategy lies in the instability of the political support gained in this manner, the lack of activity and feedback from the citizens, the undoubted temptations of opportunism it encourages, and the lack of any organic base for the policies of such parties.’

Of course building a ‘common electoral front’ is, as Hobsbawm also realised, essential for electoral success. His criticism is more subtle: it is when we consider how to turn a broad-based electoral front into a project to transform society that the importance of being rooted in our communities is brought into sharp relief. The unfortunate history of Labour governments is that having acquired access to the levers of state, they forget about other avenues for change. Rooting our political strategy once more in the popular concerns and aspirations of the communities we care most about improving would create the potential to develop an ‘organic base for policy’ and a popular movement for transformative political action. We can build a movement that not only strengthens the ties that bind us together but one that is ready to play an active role as a partner in creating a better society.

This is an edited version of an essay which will appear in the forthcoming edition of IPPR’s quarterly journal PPR. This is special edition to mark the 20 anniversary of the last edition of Marxism Today, an iconic magazine of the British left.

My article on the Tory plans to concrete our countryside was published in ‘The Daily Mirror’ on Friday, 23rd August 2011 and can be read here.

A transcript can be read below.

WHAT makes England special? Is it the pubs, the football or the seaside?

Or is it the countryside, that green and pleasant land, surrounding our cities, with its hedgerows, streams and woodlands?

Flying back from abroad, you instantly know you’re over England when you see that luscious, natural quilt of town and country, farmland and fields.

But under David Cameron’s new planning reform, it is all set to go.

The draft National Planning Policy Framework sounds dull but it could vanquish our unique landscape.

Yes, we need more housing, growing businesses and good ­transport links, but not by way of this developers’ charter, which imperils our great distinctiveness.

Sadly, such vandalism is all in tune with Conservative attacks on the countryside.

In 1933, writer JB Priestley set out from London on a journey along the Great Western Road and he was shocked by what he saw: a never-ending sprawl of light industry, petrol stations, advertising hoardings and traffic stretching into the country.

“This is the England of arterial and bypass roads, of filling stations and factories that look like ­exhibition buildings, of giant cinemas and dance halls and cafes, bungalows with tiny garages, cocktail bars, ­Woolworths, motor coaches and everything given away for ­cigarette coupons. We might have rolled into California.”

This was the sprawl of the ­inter-war years when a lack of ­planning meant towns and cities leached out into the countryside.

The arrival of cheap motoring produced never-ending ribbon development along arterial roads.

Town and country merged – to the benefit of neither.

It was the prospect of British countryside lost for ever which spurred Labour into action.

London County Council leader Herbert Morrison came up with a plan to “provide a reserve supply of public open spaces and to ­establish a green belt or girdle of open space land, readily ­accessible from London’s urbanised area.”

When Labour came to power in 1945, protecting the countryside was a priority. Many who had fought during the Second World War had done so to defend the fields, valleys and lanes of their homeland.

In 1946 the National Land Fund was created to buy tracts of ­countryside to honour the fallen. “I should like to think that through this fund, we shall dedicate some of the loveliest parts of this land to the memory of those who died in order that we might live in freedom,” explained ­Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton. Then followed the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act that put an end to ribbon development – building only next to existing roadways – and separating countryside from city.

Most successful of all was the creation of National Parks.

Many on the Left had long thought it wrong that working people were denied access to natural wonders that owners of stately homes enjoyed.

National Trust founder Octavia Hill thought the country should be protected, “for the enjoyment, refreshment, and rest, of those who have no country house”.

In 1932, thousands of ramblers invaded the Duke of Devonshire’s lands in Derbyshire in the Great Kinder Scout Trespass, hoping to enjoy the outdoors.

So it was only right that the Peak District was the first, in 1951, to be awarded National Park status.

Now millions of­ ­families, hikers and ramblers enjoy the ­landscape, wildlife and clean air of these stunning, unspoilt areas.

This was the Labour legacy in the post-war years – and a legacy which the Conservatives have been trying to undermine ever since.

They did pretty well in the 80s when they relaxed green belt rules, allowed endless out-of-town ­superstores and hollowed out our high streets.

From 1980 to 2000, more open land vanished under ­development than at any time last century.

When Labour got back into power in 1997 we stemmed the crisis by prioritising building on former industrial sites, reviving our high streets and protecting green belt.

People moved back into the city centres of Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Birmingham. New museums, bus stations, hi-tech businesses, our cities came back to life.

Sadly, the threat has now returned with the Government’s latest ­planning policy.

As his hapless economic policy produces no growth, Chancellor George Osborne has resorted to concreting over the countryside.

From next April, there will be a presumption in favour of all ­planning permissions, any out-of-date application will be waved through and there will be no need to develop brownfield land first.

And why? Such a planning free-for-all has done little to promote jobs and businesses in recession-hit Ireland, Spain and Greece.

Given that some 750,000 homes currently sit empty and there exists planning permission for 330,000 unbuilt houses, it will do nothing to kick-start house building.

And with business park vacancy at 17% and some 1.6million square feet of commercial space free for letting, bulldozing Britain won’t promote growth. It will ruin that special rural-urban divide – we’re back to the ugly 30s again.

That unique balance between city and countryside, so much a part of what makes England, England, is in peril. We need to do all we can to stop this Tory attack on our land.

With the British Ceramics Biennial opening in September I have argued that the ceramics industry still has place in the regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent. You can read the full article by going to www.tristramhunt.com/web/craft_council.pdf

This article appeared in the New York Times on July 1st, 2011. The full article can be read here or you can read a transcript below.

***

THE rooftop party was in full swing when midnight approached on a warm Friday evening. Kerry Doman, 29, founder of an event planning business; Justin Jacobs, 28, head of a citywide recreational sports league, and Ara Howrani, 29, a photographer who runs a commercial studio, knocked back beers, while a group of office friends from a nearby dot-com chatted about the scratch-and-sniff wallpaper in their colorful new headquarters.

In another circle, a group of real estate brokers excitedly discussed the renovation of a 1920s office tower called the Broderick into a 127-unit apartment building with a restaurant, lounge and retail stores.

“I want the penthouse,” Jeffrey Hillman, 37, said jokingly as he pointed to the building’s ornate Baroque-style top in the distance. “I’ll fight you for it,” retorted Hank Winchester, 37, a local TV reporter.

The scene might have been run of the mill in Seattle or Williamsburg, Brooklyn, or other urban enclaves that draw the young, the entrepreneurial and the hip. But this was downtown Detroit, far better known in recent years for crime, blight and economic decline.

Recent census figures show that Detroit’s overall population shrank by 25 percent in the last 10 years. But another figure tells a different and more intriguing story: During the same time period, downtown Detroit experienced a 59 percent increase in the number of college-educated residents under the age of 35, nearly 30 percent more than two-thirds of the nation’s 51 largest cities.

These days the word “movement” is often heard to describe the influx of socially aware hipsters and artists now roaming the streets of Detroit. Not unlike Berlin, which was revitalized in the 1990s by young artists migrating there for the cheap studio space, Detroit may have this new generation of what city leaders are calling “creatives” to thank if it comes through its transition from a one-industry.

With these new residents have come the trappings of a thriving youth culture: trendy bars and restaurants that have brought pedestrians back to once-empty streets. Places like the Grand Trunk pub, Raw Cafe, Le Petit Zinc and Avalon Bakery mingle with shops with names like City Bird, Sole Sisters and the Bureau of Urban Living.

Those familiar with past neighborhoods-of-the-moment recognize the mood. “It feels like TriBeCa back in the early days, before double strollers, sidewalk cafes and Whole Foods,” said Amy Moore, 50, a film producer working on three Detroit projects. “There is a buzz here that is real, and the kids drip with talent and commitment, and aren’t spoiled.”

The rooftop party was hosted by a group called Move Detroit 11/11/11, started with the aim of getting 1,100 new people to move to Detroit by November.

“The Broderick project is huge because, believe it or not, there is not enough housing in the greater downtown area for all the young people moving to Detroit,” said Kevin Wobbe, 37, a founder of the group.

Kendyll Myles, 24, is one example of a new arrival. “I am mentoring young schoolgirls after work, modeling for a new fashion design company, and if I wanted, could be out every night at a different launch party or cultural event,” she said.

After finishing her master’s degree in public health last year, Ms. Myles had job offers from hospitals all over the country, including in Washington. Her family urged her to go anywhere but Detroit. “They thought I would be robbed and shot here,” she said.

But when she saw IAmYoungDetroit.com, a Web site profiling residents under age 40, she decided Detroit was the city for her. Those featured on the site (which she found after typing into Google “anything positive about Detroit?”) included Emily Doerr, 26, an M.B.A. candidate who recently opened Hostel Detroit, where guests pay as little as $18 a night for a bed; and Sean Gray, 29, who reimaged a British slogan, “Keep calm and carry on,” into posters and T-shirts for Detroiters. The site’s publisher, Margarita Barry, 26, this month will open “71 POP,” a retail gallery showcasing the work of 71 emerging artists and designers on the ground floor of a previously abandoned building that now has 30 environmentally friendly lofts and artists’ studios. (Rents start at $710 a month.)

Part of the allure of Detroit lies in simple economics. Real estate is cheap by urban standards (Ms. Myles lives in a $900-a-month one-bedroom apartment with a garage), and the city is so eager to draw educated young residents that it is offering numerous subsidies to new arrivals. Ms. Myles, for instance, received $3,500 from her employer, which, like many companies in the city, is offering rent or purchasing subsidies to staff members who choose to live in the city.

Detroit Venture Partners is offering start-up financing to early-stage technology companies; Techtown, a business incubator, research and technology park associated with Wayne State University in Detroit, is providing support to entrepreneurs and emerging companies through its “Thrive” program. And Bizdom U, an “entrepreneurial boot camp” started by Dan Gilbert, the founder and chairman of Quicken Loans, is offering graduates of its four-month-long course financing opportunities of up to $100,000 if they base their start-up in Detroit.

“Downtown Detroit is quickly becoming a hotbed for both entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial companies,” said Mr. Gilbert, who plans to fill two downtown office buildings he recently bought, as well as one he has a contract to buy, with tech and Web-based companies.

In addition, Green Garage Detroit, an incubator for environmentally friendly companies, plans to open its doors in August to lend support to at least a dozen start-ups. And there’s the Detroit Creative Corridor Center, which supplies infrastructure, strategic counseling, consulting and resources for those wanting to start businesses in film, fashion, digital media, production or architecture. With all this help, the city seems like a giant candy store for young college graduates wanting to be their own bosses.

All that has helped create an entrepreneurial spirit that that has led to start-up ventures like the independent clothing company Aptemal begun by two twentysomethings, who are most noted for their “Detroit Hustles Harder” hand-printed T-shirts worn by Eminem, among others. The Wheelhouse, a bike store begun by two young women, and the Hub, another cycle shop, are turning the Motor City into a cycling city. And Inside Detroit, a nonprofit organization offering city tours and relocation advice, was begun by a Detroiter at just 25 years old.

“There is so much space and opportunity here,” said Jason Murphy, 34, one of two Bennington College graduates who bought an iconic restaurant, the Russell Street Deli, in the city’s Eastern Market area, three and a half years ago. “What we hope is that our movement of young people with businesses in greater downtown Detroit can help the many people in the outlying neighborhoods who are still living below the poverty line.” He and his business partner support the many urban farms popping up in vacant spaces throughout the city, he said, like Grown in Detroit and Brother Nature, and buy locally whenever possible.

Liza Bielby and Richard Newman, both 30 and directors of the Hinterlands Ensemble, moved to Detroit from Milwaukee eight months ago, seeking a sustainable work and living environment for their physical theater company. Between them, they have lived all over the world, from Kosovo, where the couple worked on a multi-ethnic project, to Berlin and China, where Ms. Bielby, a Fulbright scholar, studied traditional Sichuan opera. “The minute we visited here, I felt as engaged by the people and projects going on as I had felt living anywhere abroad,” she said.

Luckily, Mr. Newman, her boyfriend, agreed. “Not only is it more affordable for us than other cities,” Mr. Newman said, “but no one is doing exactly what we are trying to do here, which gives us more of a chance to succeed and offer something new to the community.” They pay $400 a month, he said, to live in a house that is part of an artist’s residency project called Filter Detroit.

Detroit’s revival is also being attributed to the city’s “15 by 15” initiative, started in 2008. With a goal of getting 15,000 young talented households to downtown by 2015, government workers, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, business leaders and individuals, along with nonprofit groups, have been working to entice the 94 percent of college graduates who initially migrate to cities, according to recent census figures.

“Our goal is to attract and retain this young talent pool,” said David Egner, president and chief executive of the nonprofit Hudson Webber Foundation, spearheading the “15 by 15” initiative. “We want to give them affordable housing, interesting jobs and business opportunities they cannot find in other cities.” His biggest obstacle, he added, is still the city’s reputation of being a dangerous place to live. “Crime in downtown Detroit is actually 37 percent less than the national average, but few people know that,” he said.

Perhaps no one is more passionate about the city, though, than those who grew up in Detroit — like Monica Blaire, 29, a singer her fans call the “new Aretha Franklin.” “It is fantastic to see all these people rediscovering the city,” said Ms. Blaire, who last year was one of 12 Detroiters to receive a Kresge Artist Fellowship, a $25,000 award that also included professional development and support for her songwriting.

This spring the opening ceremony for Hostel Detroit seemed more like a college party. While Mr. Howrani shot photos of Ms. Doerr, the hostel founder, thanking her supporters, Ms. Bielby of the Hinterlands Ensemble entertained the crowd on her trombone as part of the Detroit Party Marching Band, a makeshift musical troupe with colorful uniforms. On several picnic tables were sandwiches and treats donated by local restaurants, like the Russell Street Deli. Among the guests were officials from the office of the city’s mayor, Dave Bing, as well as the lieutenant governor.

Between greeting friends and shooting photos, Mr. Howrani, who had previously lived in Los Angeles, explained why he and his sister, Ana, who had been living in Seattle, happily left the West Coast: “Basically, being a part of Detroit’s resurgence is incredibly fun.”

Editorial Column from ‘The Guardian’ on Wednesday, 15th June 2011, entitled “In praise of Frederick Engels” can be read here. Alternatively, there is a transcript below.

******

IN PRAISE OF….FREDERICK ENGELS,   The Guardian, 15/06/2011

 As readers of Tristram Hunt’s biography of him will know, Frederick Engels was both a lifelong revolutionary and a lifelong horseman. “He was an excellent rider … always among the leaders in clearing ditches, hedges and other obstacles,” Paul Lafargue recalled of the mill-owning Manchester red who regularly rode to hounds with some of the bluest bloods in Cheshire. “Seven hours in the saddle,” Engels wrote to Karl Marx in 1857. “That sort of thing always keeps me in a state of devilish excitement for several days; it’s the greatest physical pleasure I know.” Well, the years may not have not been generous to Engels the revolutionary, whose chances faded once the historical going got tough. But the winning post is looming again for Engels the horseman. Yesterday, in the last race of the opening day, Royal Ascot was enlivened by an emphatic two-length victory, going away, for a two-year-old sprinter rejoicing in the name of Frederick Engels. A lovely horse, pronounced the BBC’s Clare Balding, as Frederick Engels paraded in the ring beforehand. Once the race started, Frederick Engels stormed to the front, winning the Windsor Castle Stakes in some style in front of the Queen and the usual top-hatted and extravagantly frocked crowd. The original Engels would have been delighted by it all, and would surely have used his winnings to keep his friend Marx in fresh funds. Maybe the Labour party could solve its own financial problems too, after all these years, by at last putting its money on Frederick Engels

My article, entitled City of Palaces, on rebuilding cities around the former British Empire appeared in the Financial Times (£) on 10th June 2011. You can read a transcipt below.

***

‘All the agencies have come together to convert Calcutta into another London,’ Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of West Bengal, announced this week.  There is to be a ‘Calcutta Eye’, modelled on London’s South Bank ferris wheel; the redevelopment of Alipore Zoo along the lines of London Zoo; and a redesign of Curzon Park as a Hooghly version of Hyde Park. 

Disposing with a century of anti-colonialism, Banerjee has returned to ‘The Heart of the Empire’ for inspiration in rebuilding a city founded by the East India Company over three hundred years ago.  Then it was known as ‘The City of Palaces’, celebrated for ‘its lofty detached flat-roofed mansions and masts of innumerable shipping.’  Today, it is all too often associated with communism and crippling poverty – a reputation Banerjee is determined to dispel with her £60 million redevelopment. 

In doing so, she is signalling a broader trend within BRIC cities when it comes to confronting their imperial inheritance.  As China and India rise toward global pre-eminence, their great conurbations are becoming altogether less neurotic about their imperial pasts.  Indeed, this legacy has now become something of an asset. 

The historian Jan Morris has described urbanism as ‘the most lasting of the British imperial legacies.’  And she is right.  The formal and informal British Empire was built on trade – and it was the entrepots, ports and cities which secured it.  The West Indian riches of slavery and sugar were extracted out Kingston and Bridgetown; the Royal Navy held Cape Town as a vital trading hub for the East Indies; and ‘Marvellous Melbourne’ grew prosperous on the shipping of gold and wool. 

With the commerce came the imperial fabric.  The economy of 19^th century Bombay might have been built on the modernity of steamships, telegrams, and cotton production, but under the Victorians its architecture resembled an olde English fantasia.  ‘Indo-Saracenic’ – a mixture of Moghul and Gothic– was the design of the day with the High Court, Municipal Buildings and Victoria Terminus decked out in all  its garish detail.  For Morris, VT remains ‘the truly central building of the entire British Empire.’  But for director Danny Boyle, the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus would also provide the silent star of Slumdog Millionaire, his brilliant depiction of post-colonial, call-centre Mumbai. 

In New Delhi, the fabric of Empire remains equally adamantine.  As Lutyens’s master-city was being erected, the French prime minister Georges Clemenceau toured the worksite.  ‘This will be the greatest ruin of them all,’ he murmured.  Not so.  One hundred years after Delhi’s seizure of the Indian capital from Calcutta, it is to the Rajpath and the Rashtrapati Bhavan that the French finance secretary now comes to pay court to seek approval to head the IMF.  Rather than demolishing this Edwardian playground, an increasingly imperial India has in fact found it the perfect political backdrop.  

So too in China.  The loss of Hong Kong was fundamental to China’s ‘century of humiliation’, as British gunboats opened up the Middle Kingdom to the ‘Empire of Free Trade.’  Out of Calcutta came Bengal’s finest opium and on the barren rock of Hong Kong grew one of the greatest port cities in human history.  From the Hong Kong Club to Happy Valley, the British merchant elite tried to make it as English as possible.  ‘Docks, hospitals, wharves, a Gothic cathedral, a government house, macadamized streets give to Hong Kong the appearance of a town in Kent or Surrey, transferred by some strange magic to the antipodes,’ was how Jules Verne put it in Around the World in Eight Days. 

And so it remains.  It might now be a Special Administrative Region rather than Pearl of the Orient, but China seems happy to keep Hong Kong as a semi-imperial outpost.  One country-two systems has secured an unique Anglo-centricity to Hong Kong’s laws, education, financial systems and political culture.  For all the pre-1997 fears of colonial cleansing, Hong Kong retains an imperial identity as a stepping-stone into China. 

Western think-tanks are currently awash with ideas as to how the global south should deal with mass urbanisation.  Californian writer Mike Davis suggests we face the dystopia of A Planet of Slums.  For Paul Romer, the solution lies in a new generation of ‘Charter Cities,’ with poor countries providing the land and rich countries the urban infrastructure and rule of law. 

But as Mamata Banerjee is proving in Calcutta, there is much to be said for exploiting tradition.  And with global power shifting from West to East, countries like India and China have a ready-made imperial fabric.  Indeed, we now have the lovely irony of the city of Liverpool announcing its intentions to develop a Shanghai-style Pudong district – without perhaps realising that Shanghai’s nearby Bund was itself an imitation of Mersyeside’s imperial waterfront. 

Perhaps it is now only a matter of time before London turns to Calcutta for its own regeneration.

You can read below my article from The Financial Times below, or download a copy here.

***

In Benghazi and in Helmand province, the limitations of Britain’s hard power are becoming painfully apparent.  But in TV network coverage from New York to Mumbai, in Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts, British soft power is enjoying a stellar boost this week thanks to Buckingham Palace.  Two billion are set to the watch the wedding and embrace, with it, a certain notion of Britain. 

Historically, the function of royal families has always been about the sturdy display of military bravura – from Henry VIII wrestling with Francois I on the Field of the Cloth of Gold to King George II leading his troop at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743. 

But, today, it is less about chivalry and manfulness and more about image and message.  The marriage of Prince William to Catherine Middleton is monarchy as commodity and a brand vehicle for Britishness.  

So as the Union flags flutter along Regent Street, ABC jostles with CNN and the world’s diplomatic elite gathers at Westminster, we should set aside any cosmopolitan cynicism to salute the global allure of monarchy and Britain as a land of history.  For as others have oil and diamonds, we have the past – and rather than running from it, we should embrace it and exploit it.  Britain is not, as Tony Blair used to say, ‘a young country’.  In fact, we are a very old country and the royal nuptials speak to a historical rhythm which bestows a huge competitive advantage on the nation.   

Part of that – in this Flat Earth age of amorphous uniformity – is down to sheer longevity.  Like any successful corporation, the perseverance of the monarchy is a testament to reinvention.  It lives upon a social base and in order to survive has to remain credible and convincing to the subjects over which it reigns.  So after a brief foray into 1980s demotic vulgarity – think of It’s a Royal Knockout and endless, ugly divorces – we are back with the Edwardian model of pomp and circumstance. 

‘Between the late 1870s and 1914, there was a fundamental change in the public image of the British monarchy,’ writes the historian David Cannadine, ‘as its ritual, hitherto inept, private and of limited appeal, became splendid, public and popular.’  Hatches, matches and despatches – christenings, weddings and funerals – became the moment for celebrating monarchy and defining Britain.  And they had to be done well.  The whole point about the Oscar-winning film ‘The King’s Speech’, is that King George VI had to sound right, not do right. 

And through ritual came a concerted attempt to make monarchy coterminous with nation.  Dynastic alliances had rarely provided Britain with an indigenous royalty.  Indeed, the 18^th century Hanovers and the 19^th century’s Prince Albert were regarded as unalterably foreign, with little feel for British culture.   The name change from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the faux-historicist Windsor in the early 20^th century was but the most obvious attempt to make the monarchy that bit more British. 

Empire cemented the bonds.  Just as it united English, Scots and Welsh in a common endeavour, so the nature of colonialism and its ornamental splendour augmented monarchy.  As constitutional power seeped away from the monarchy in the UK, its hold in Africa, India, the Caribbean, and Australasia became a pervasive force. 

 All of which accounts for the British monarchy’s strengths today.  While Enoch Powell liked to condemn the ‘enduring humbug of the Commonwealth,’ he misread the global pre-eminence it gave Britain.  For, in contrast to the kind of ‘blood and soil’ nationalism which has consumed so many European republics, where citizenship was zealously connected to ethnicity, the British monarchical system has endowed a more open, flexible and attractive idea of nationhood.

As British society becomes ever more multi-cultural, such internationalism is an asset.  ‘The monarchical constitution we have today – a mix of antique survivals and postmodern soap opera – may be absurd,’ writes the political scientist John Gray, ‘but it enables a diverse society to rub along without too much friction.’ 

It also draws others to this nation.  When we think of what sells Britain abroad – Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘Top Gear’, JK Rowling’s Harry Potter, the British Council, James Bond, Burberry, JCB and the World Service – we would have to put Kate and William near the top.  The meaning and history of Britain is far grander than the story of monarchy, but there is no point denying our USP within the global marketplace.  ‘Our culture and heritage reputation is very strong around the world,’ according to Visit Britain spokesman Paul Eastham.  ‘At the heart of that lies monarchy.’ 

None of which should over antagonise progressives in Britain aghast by all the chauvinism and flag-waving.  Yes, the hierarchy and class-bound ethos which the monarchy perpetuates is an impediment to that Scandinavian, social democratic future we all lust after.  And, yes, it does all feel a little Ruritanian when public debate can become entirely focused on whether the Prime Minister will wear coat-tails.  But none of this is going away.  And so for its internationalism, place within civil society, and gentle liberalism one can support modern monarchy. 

More than that it is selling Britain.  Billions will come this week to know of the Book of Common Prayer, of our hymns and history, our ancient abbeys and royal palaces.  More than that, they will see on display our sportsmen and designers, artists and actors.  It will of course be a carefully crafted Britain, which unites social mobility and modernity with history and heritage.  And in turn, it is hoped, viewers will want to study here, invest, and maybe even bag themselves a royal.

For monarchy no longer makes a difference on the battlefield.  It is viewers on sofas not boots on the ground where royalty now earns it spurs.  It might be frustrating that this is what Britain is known for.  But they have been coming and going at Westminster Abbey for a thousand years, so we can either lump it – or, better still, leverage it.

The American urban economist Edward L. Glaeser has a very brilliant new book out on The Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier. It is a critical account of why modern cities rise and fall, and what can be done to ensure truly sustainable urban growth.  And if, at times, it tries a little hard to imitate the shock-success of the economics best-seller, Freakonomics, it nonetheless contains some strikingly interesting analysis for the challenge confronting Britain’s cities – not least, Stoke-on-Trent.

The key chapter is ‘Why Do Cities Decline?’  Glaeser’s focus is on the post-war history of New York, Boston and Detroit.  Although few now associate Boston with heavy industry and New York with the garment industry, each city was in fact more dependent upon those sectors than ‘Motor City’ was on the automobile.  Indeed, in the 1950s New York employed 50% more works than the auto industry did in Detroit.  However, Boston and New York managed to overcome the decline of their industrial cores and Detroit didn’t.  Why?  Because, those cities ‘returned to their old, preindustrial roots of commerce, skills, and entrepreneurial innovation’ says Glaeser.    

Glaeser makes a fascinating point about the social costs to a city dependent upon single industries.  Like the deadly Upas tree, when that industry goes sour it can poison an entire urban ecosystem around it.  ‘Big, vertically integrated firms may be productive in the short run, but they don’t create the energetic competition and new ideas that are so necessary for long-term urban success.’  And the terrible irony, or tragedy, of Detroit is that it was its small, dynamic firms and independent suppliers which gave rise to the gigantic, wholly integrated car companies, which then became synonymous with stagnation.  The reality of that decline meant that by 2008 Detroit’s per capita income was $14,976, only 54.3% of the U.S. average. 

Meanwhile, New York and Boston managed a highly successful post-industrial transition by focusing on competition, connection, and human capital.  In the mid-1970s, the Big Apple looked in almost terminal decline and its city finances on the edge of bankruptcy.  But over the ensuing decades it rediscovered its ethic of entrepreneurialism, not least in the financial services sector.  Educated workers, small entrepreneurs, and a creative interplay among different industries is what drove success.  And here’s an interesting fact from Glaeser: ‘In metropolitan areas, a 10% increase in the number of firms per worker in 1977 is associated with 9% more employment growth between 1977-2000.  This relationship holds, no matter what type of industries are involved, how old the companies are, or how big the cities are.’ 

So what, if anything, does this hold for The Potteries?  For a start, Stoke-on-Trent was never dependent upon a single industry – the pots, pits and mining industry ensured a slightly more balanced economy.  But the sad truth is that each one of them has – like the motor industry in Detroit – been shattered by globalisation.  The mines and the steel industry are not coming back.  By contrast, the ceramics sector is once again doing well, if not employing anywhere near the same numbers.  The question is how the city, as a whole, starts to thrive again. 

And I certainly think there is something in Glaeser’s argument that we should focus on what made us great to begin with.  Before the pottery firms got too big and too arrogant, outsourced too much and failed to sustain their engineering supply chain, it was the entrepreneurialism, design, marketing, innovation and human capital which turned North Staffs into The Potteries.  This 18^th century, pre-industrial model of sustainable economic diversity is what we should be trying to rebuild – which means a renewed focus on skills, craftmanship, technology, and brand development.  In modern policy terms, that means keep going with the University Quarter and school improvement programme; making the case for research and development tax breaks; working to keep energy costs competitive; providing capacity and assistance for new entrepreneurs (such as in the Spode site in Stoke); marketing the city’s businesses; keeping our transport infrastructure well-maintained; and making sure our other sectors – heritage tourism, education, hospitality, leisure, engineering, construction, logistics, manufacturing, biomedicine – retain their economic dynamism. 

Will it all work?  Edward Glaeser concludes with a sobering note.  ‘The path back for declining industrial towns is long and hard.  Over decades, they must undo the cursed legacy of big factories and heavy industry.  They return to their roots as places of small-scale entrepreneurship and commerce.  Apart from investing in education and maintaining core public services with moderate taxes and regulations, governments can do little to speed this process.  Not every city will come back, but human creativity is strong, especially when reinforced by urban density.’

This is all a little laissez-faire for my tastes.  I think government does have a role to play.  But I also know The Potteries is already displaying the creativity and capacity needed to avoid the miserable fate of Motor City.

Triumph of the City can be bought at http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X

As the country gears up to the celebrate the Wedding on Prince William and Kate Middleton, Tristram Hunt offers a critical look at the modern-day Monarchy.

His article can be read here.