"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."

Recent news seems to vindicate Marx's aphorism. Today, Robert Jenrick relaxed planning laws a few months after seeing big donations to the Tories from property companies. This is of a pattern with his giving planning permission for a development by Richard Desmond soon after Mr Desmond made a donation to the Tory party. Support for jobs and businesses is being used to pay dividends and big CEO salaries. And an advisor to Liz Truss made millions from selling unusable PPE to the NHS.

So, Marx was right.

Not so fast. My chart tells another story. It shows that there is a decent correlation (0.48 since data began in 1998) between the dividend yield on the All-share index and UK political uncertainty, as measured by Baker. Bloom and Davis*. Greater political uncertainty means lower share prices. The Brexit referendum, and uncertainty about the terms of our exit last year, greatly depressed share prices. In creating political uncertainty - much more so than under most of the Labour government - the Tories have costs capitalists billions. And with uncertainty still well above its long-run average, this cost is ongoing.

How can we reconcile this with Marx's claim?

One possibility is that it shows that the state has a degree of autonomy. It does not mechanistically always do the bidding of capital.

Another answer is that the government is not the same as the state. The government comprises damn fools who do all sorts of silly things. But essential functions of the state do serve capital's interests - for example, in providing infrastructure, skilled (and quiescent!) workers, protection of property rights and economic stabilizers to mitigate recessions.

But there's something else. Although capital has some common interests, it also has conflicting ones: bankers versus manufacturers; small businesses versus monopolies; landlords versus retailers. And so on. The interests this government is best serving are not those of productive capital. Whilst it is cutting red tape for property developers it is imposing billions of pounds of it onto road hauliers and exporters. And whilst the lockdown is jeopardizing countless smaller businesses, the government is protecting banks and landlords.

It is, then, promoting the interests of rentiers (pdf) and spivs.

Which poses questions. Does this tell us about the character of this government, that it should align itself with shysters? Or does it instead tell us something about the nature of British capital - that its most regressive elements are those that are now most dominant?

* The correlation is far stronger between the yield and global policy uncertainty, where the latter has been raised significantly by the Orange Cretin.