Not your typical Baron: An interview with Lord Skidelsky

Lord Skidelsky doesn’t look like your typical Baron. Fresh from delivering a talk entitled ‘the post war history of capitalism and what went wrong’ for New Turn at Queen Mary University, he perches on a chair and makes a minor adjustment to his tie, before picking up his large mink Ushanka (the traditional Russian hat made famous by the soviet army) and placing it on his head. He then looks at me with a half measure of suspicion, as if the hat were standard interview attire and my unadorned head an oddity. After a pause he says, “I got it in Russia – probably in Moscow – they’re not that rare… you see they’re made necessary by the extreme cold of the climate”. He’s not exactly how I imagined a British ex-Conservative Lord would be.

Skidelsky is a formidable academic and intellectual, and has lectured on Political Economy at Warwick for many years. He’s produced a shelf of books on John Maynard Keynes, including a three volume work which makes him the great economist’s leading biographer. He’s also written studies on investment banking, a history of the British Isles and, curiously, a biography of Oswald Mosley. He’s been a member of three British political parties, and founded one.

But Skidelsky’s list of impressive achievements in Britain obscure the fact that he is, essentially, a man of two worlds. Not many British academics, even Lords, have dined with Vladimir Putin. Russia, and the East more broadly, are a significant part of his life, and he informs me that he intends to travel to Russia that week. “I was born in Manchuria,” he says in clipped English that still seems incongruous with the hat, “my parents were of Russian origin but were British subjects, and when Britain and Japan went to war in December 1941, all British citizens including me were interned”.

Skidelsky was very young when he was interned in Manchuria, but has some memories of the experience. “Part of the internment took place in Japan, but it only lasted about four or five months, then we were exchanged for Japanese civilians who had been interned in Britain.” Did this affect him? “My parents tell me we were rather well treated… no whips or starving, so I can’t claim great suffering as a result of that experience.”

Skidelsky’s views on modern western capitalism are, to say the least, critical. He is scathing about Neo-Liberal economics and predictably answers questions on the topic by beginning with the phrase “if you read Keynes’ General Theory, chapter eight…” I suggest that some might suspect his connection with the Far East in particular has had an impact on his politics. “I think it has,” he answers, “though not in a direct way. I think it gave me a less parochial outlook on things.” Does he see himself as a ‘citizen of the world’? “No”, he answers, but does admit that he has “always felt like a bit of an outsider”.

His life in Russia, and Hong Kong where he has also lived, has given him “the view that the West isn’t necessarily the superior civilization. That there are periods where some civilisations come out on top, but that there are cycles”. He says he sees a certain arrogance both in British and American politics. “In the west we always think we’re better at everything, and that’s why we’ve been leading the world for the last two to three hundreds years. But two to three hundreds years is a very, very short time in the history of the world.”

Like many in his profession – both political and academic – he sees the rise of China as an inevitability, and a highly significant one. “China will make its mark in the future, and we’re going to have to live with views of the world which are not western, and are rather different. We’re going to have to compromise.” Skidelsky doesn’t describe this in quite the positive tone that I expect, and there’s always something in those who insist on the “rather different” views of civilisations that I find uncomfortable. However, he makes it clear that he doesn’t fear greater Eastern influence, and goes on to describe himself as “a pluralist, and not one of these imperialists who believes that unless everyone is a replica of the United States, they’re failures.”

Skidelsky was originally a member of the Labour party but became disillusioned, and broke away with other self proclaimed ‘moderates’ in 1981 to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP). I ask him what he hoped to achieve with the SDP. “The original aim of the SDP was to replace the Labour party. We thought the Labour party was a busted flush, and we wanted it to eventually form the main opposition to the Conservative party.” Skidelsky stayed with the SDP until it dissolved in 1992 when he joined the Conservatives.

I get the impression that he sees the failure of the SDP as something of a tragedy, and thought that the party had a good chance of succeeding where Labour wasn’t. “It almost did it you know, in the 1983 election it took 2% less of the vote than Labour. Had we just got over that extra 2% things might have changed… We might have had more people leaving the Labour party, particularly people who wanted to break away from Labour but didn’t want to go all the way to the Torys. We wanted to claim the left-centre ground.”  I notice that he is wearing a red tie partly concealed by a blue suit, the metaphor seems largely accurate.

He remembers the necessity of joining with the Liberals rather differently: “There were lots of tensions within the SDP of course, and the extra tension of being allied to the Liberals. It was very difficult to keep together.” I have to remind him that the effort failed.

Skidelsky was a member of the Conservative party from 1992, and held senior positions including one as Chief Opposition spokesman for Treasury Affairs. But he was never too comfortable with the Conservatives. I suggest that he wanted the SDP to change British politics, to shake things up. Was that so? And is he too much of a Maverick for the Conservatives? He nods and answers, “yes, yes I suppose so”.

The record agrees. Under William Hague, Skidelsky was sacked from his Opposition spokesman role for publicly opposing the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. He eventually left the party. What happened, and why is it that he held (and still holds) the unpopular belief that the bombing of Serbia was wrong? “It’s not a popular position in Britain… but then I was also very much opposed to the invasion of Iraq, because I believe that they weren’t justified by international law”.

“If you’re serious about building a law based international order,” he goes on, “you cannot just break the law.” For Skidelsky, the bombing – almost universally recognised as illegal – was too  blatant a disregard for the UN Charter. “You either believe in the rule of law or not.”

It’s an issue which he has great interest in; he would like to see the development of stronger intentional institutions. “We don’t have international law in the same sense as we have domestic law, but we are trying to develop it. If you’re serious about the institution, you have to be able to adhere to it. Otherwise you undermine the whole fabric we’re trying to build.” I can’t resist raising pearls and tribes but he nods, solemnly.

How does he see the development of institutions for punishing violations of international law? “Well, the same sort of dangers lurk in international criminal courts. People will start to think there’s victor’s justice – that the only people who are brought before these courts are those who have lost wars.” In many cases this is correct, but I don’t expect Skidelsky to raise the example that he does. “There is obviously a case for bringing Bush and Blair before the international criminal court, on the grounds of the first Nuremberg Indictment – planning and waging aggressive war.”

Should Blair and Bush, and their administrations, be tried in courts (the question seems an odd one to ask a man who is ideologically and culturally very far from the element of the Left that asks it regularly)? “I don’t see why not. The best you can say about them is that their motives were good. I think they thought they were doing good… but then I think some of these other monsters thought they were doing good as well.”

This is a damning indictment, not only for George Bush and Tony Blair, but for leaders all over the Western world, many of whom would sleep far less comfortably if the vision of international law that Skidelsky supports were implemented. But as we draw down Skidelsky’s magnetic strangeness comes in again. He turns towards me, the Ushanka sitting proudly on his head, and says: “Perhaps as an Englishman I would be against bringing Blair to trial, actually. But… there’s a case… there’s a case.”