|
Diary Note /0042
Wednesday 17 April 2002
for previous DiaryNote
Waiting
for Gordon
17
April, Budget Day! This Weblog is
published on Wednesday morning, before Gordon Brown’s Budget is revealed. So I have only a few moments left, in which to confess to
you my awful secret.
I
fear that, however worthy Labour's commitments to Health and Education may be, they do not rank high on the political agenda of ordinary voters. Which means that they are not
Election-winners. I don’t care what the
Focus Groups say (either on this or other subjects... )
My
own political nose tells me that the real battle for the voters’
hearts and minds lies elsewhere, on other fields.
Isn’t
that awful? As a committed, liberal, cat-loving, socialist (and doting
parent) how can I
live with my guilty secret? For I am casting doubt on the Government’s primary
political strategy, probably to be confirmed in today’s Budget.
I
am gravely concerned.
How can I have come to this sorry pass in my political career? I have done no more than to give further
thought to the
New Bevan Agenda, on which I reported to you last week
New Bevan
Agenda - and which required me to think long-and-hard about these
things. Last week, I placed the principal Five Fears in their
logical order, thus –
But
in terms of practical political priorities, when it comes to considering manifestos, I think the
order is significantly different. This is my
analysis.
C Fear of unemployment comes first,
closely related to the fear of poverty generally – fear among the employed that
they will lose their source of income, fear among the unemployed that they will
not find employment again, fear of benefit-dependents that benefits will be
withdrawn, fear of declining earnings among the middle-aged, fear among
pensioners that they will simply not make ends meet next winter – these are all
powerful elements in the political cocktail – they always have been, and in my
view they remain so - Governments must address them - Berlusconi is currently in
trouble in Italy because he is not addressing this primal fear.
A
Fear
of civil disorder and crime comes next, affecting many - including the old, the vulnerable and the young
- that's why the
Government is majoring on this subject, for May’s local government
elections – this is now compounded by fears of domestic terrorism, and
anxieties arising from the reporting of overseas disorder, in the Middle East
and Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.
D
Fear
of parenthood is rising up the agenda, perhaps to be seen rather as an all-adult
fear of younger people, a fear of the unknown, of teenagers
out of control, fear among adults that their children are breaking the mould of
"their" established
society, fear of drug-consumption, anxiety about the young’s more informal bonding
patterns – voters’ concern with Education is to be seen as part of this,
because most people look to state schools merely to provide a child-minding
service for the under-16s. Whereas for social philosophers, politicians
and activists, the
“philosophy” of education is of key importance (it certainly is for me, for
example), I see no evidence whatever that such substantive concerns are shared
by the electorate at large.
B
Fear
of ill-health.
For most people most of the time, ill-health is
simply not an issue of subjective or
personal
importance – it does not enter their personal world - in any typical year, only
a small minority of the population consults a doctor – ill-health is something
that affects somebody else - we are all remarkably selfish in our perception
of ill-health – indeed, it is remarkable how quickly people forget even about their own episodes of ill-health. It may even be that our instincts subconsciously
protect us against a preoccupation with ill-health, to the extent that we have
formulated a special word for someone who becomes so preoccupied (“hypochondria” = a chronic abnormal anxiety concerning the
state of ones health).
Even now,
when there are good reasons
for real anxiety about the adverse health-effects of
environmental degradation and pollution, voters seem impervious to them, and remain
stubbornly unworried.
And if an issue does not appear on a voter’s personal radar, I do not
believe it can become an Election issue of primary significance.
E
Fear
of old age,
which is a subtle and complex phenomenon that remains a low priority in
political terms - which explains why Thatcher, Major and Blair-to-date have all
“got away with” the prolonged abandonment of the State Old Age Pension.. Nothing, it
seems, will persuade the younger
generations (before their critical mid-Forties) to take pension provision
seriously. Such provision must therefore be made coercively, by the State, through the
taxation system. I remain convinced that a State
“pension promise” will have to be deployed in future to allay people’s
anxieties – but we hardened pensions campaigners must also recognise that, for an overwhelming
majority of voters of all ages, this ranks low on their worry-bead agenda.
So:
I am a CADBE man, by way of
re-arranging my own priorities, not ABCDE (which I now realise is the
origin of Abracadabra - did you realise?) If I am
right, that's bad news for the Government, because Education and Health come
so far down my CADBE political
agenda. Labour risks winning some
"key battles", only to find that they were marginal after all, and
that the war is being lost...
Where
do you stand? Do you disagree? Or do
you think my priorities are right? Let me know
===============================
Losing
Weight:
the
obsessive self-examination of alcoholics is bo-ring, for most people. So is weight-loss talk, among fatties. So I have shunted my current
Obesity Report
off onto another page (but just to say - I have lost 12% of my body-weight
since 1 January – that’s 32 lbs - impressive, or what?
Just a few titbits
Pensioners resident abroad
We must all hope that Annette Carson, a UK old-age pensioner living in South
Africa, is successful in her High Court attack on the UK Government's
long-standing refusal to update the state pensions of UK citizens who emigrated
before their pensions fell due. There are 430,000 emigre pensioners who
are paid a nominal pittance, even though they may have contributed to the NI
Fund for many years. Their entitlement is "frozen" as at the date of
their departure from the UK, may be just a few ££-per week. This
represents a grotesque injustice: it must undermine the confidence of future
migrants, foment a sense of resentment, and send quite the wrong messages about
Britain's role in the modern world. I have long been aware of the
wrong, but until the Human Rights Act came into force (in October 2000),
there was no way of getting the case before any UK Court. I wish her well.
Corporate
Abuse by Management
Peter Martin of the Financial Times takes up
this week my main theme, namely the takeover
and abuse of companies
by their
own managementt
-
their ousting and down-grading of non-executive Directors and shareholders -
has he been taking a peek? Judge for yourself. Taming
the Corporations.
17 April 2002
Japanese Fings Get Worse
When things are going badly, things go badly. The anxious Japanese consumer
was hit again this week by a double whammy, which demonstrates my theory of the
indivisibility of "consumer confidence". The prestigious
credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's downrated Japan from AA to AA-.
Japan lost its normal AAA ("triple A") rating in November
2001, and is still going downhill. This downgrade puts Japan at the same
level as the Czech Republic. And one point below Chile. How are
the mighty fallen.
As if that were not enough, another fear struck this
week. Just as Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission was preparing to
congratulate its industry on having only 14 accidents in the past
year, yet another accident was announced, at a plant at Tsuruga, 350k West of
Tokyo. Public confidence in the industry has deteriorated seriously in
recent years - and this was the second radioactive leak at Tsuruga within twelve
months. O dear o dear o dear. "We'd better keep
saving. Fings may get worse..."
Back to today's
Home Page
|
|
Right Action shame
about the Reason I gotta problem. My
Government keeps doing sensible things - for the wrong reasons. Do I
have a problem with that? Well - Yes I do. Pragmatism is
not enough. With
jury trials, for example, the Government earlier this year flew kites about their arbitrary
curtailment, and was bitterly attacked from all sides. Now, Lord Irvine is instead
proposing to increase the sentencing powers of the Lay Magistrates
(from six months to twelve months), so that more Defendants are
"persuaded" to plead guilty before the Magistrates, rather than take
pot luck in the Crown Court before a Judge and jury, where the sentence could be much higher. Now
- I am
in favour of strengthening the role of laymen in the administration of justice -
so I instinctively favour the new option. But I deplore the reason for
advancing it, namely that it would reduce the costs of the jury trials. It's all so
seedy and unprincipled.
On
tackling health inequalities. the Government plans to target the
appalling class differentiations in vital statistics (length of life, incidence of
disease). The middle classes command better diet, better doctors, and
better all-round health than "the working classes". These are
grave inequalities of entitlement, which should be addressed as a matter of
socialist principle. But why is the Government pressing ahead? A:
Because research has shown that success could reduce NHS bills by £850m every
year. On
faith schools, those
of you who have followed the debate at this Weblog
Debating Faith Schools will know that I support the Government in accepting
Muslim faith schools within the state system, as a matter of religious freedom
and equality. But the Government should do so, Tony Blair says, because
faith schools perform better in academic examinations. That is an
entirely superficial and unworthy reason, which I unhesitatingly reject. Finally,
the case for reducing income inequality (which Tony Blair so famously
refused to endorse publicly on TV) is said to be justified because the
modern consumer economy works better, if incomes are widely distributed (indeed,
I confess to having used that argument myself). Income inequality,
so the argument goes, is inefficient in that it foments social and political
unrest; there is no Thatcherite trickle-down effect; and the wealthy save a
much higher proportion of their income than they "spend", thus
inhibiting the consumer economy. These pragmatic arguments are all
true, so far as they go. But it would be marvellous to hear, just
occasionally, the clarion-call of principle - that is what many people are
waiting for. But
does it matter? I think it does. I confess that, in
these four instances, I am content to work with Government reasoning to
achieve a sensible result, and it would be churlish to reject pragmatic,
albeit unprincipled, support. But weaknesses of principle do matter,
partly because pragmatism inspires nobody, and partly because situations do
arise, in which principle and pragmatism produce significantly different
results. Let's keep an eye open for those circumstances.
Confused Personalities
Politics has been confounded this week by the spirits of "artificial personality".
The Lord Chancellor claimed that complex fraud cases had become too difficult for lay juries to handle. The truth is that
the interpolation of artificial personality, (i.e. abstract impersonal
companies or corporations) into the business process, makes it exceedingly
difficult to apportion conventional blame and
"responsibility". Artificial personality dissolves moral
responsibility, and seems to absolve managers from their personal moral
obligations.
That
is the reason why big company and City fraud cases are difficult to
prosecute - not because the Jurors are stupid, but because the
reasoning of wrong-doing has become too arcane, too artificial, too
tortuous.
Again, the news abounds with new wheezes to
cover up the Enron scandal, and its implications for the reform of company
law. Any argument will do, so long as it staves off any real
improvements in the system, that's what the City is saying. Because the whole
corrupt system thrives on the flaws and inefficiencies of company law, and the regulation
of artificial personality - that's why the City abhors reform. The answer, they
say, is - Better
non-executive Directors, better Auditors, better disclosure requirements -
these are all proposed as placebos, without touching the real abuses of power
at the heart of company law.
The UK Government (more specifically
the hapless Andrew Smith of the Treasury) was made to look naive, when his
selected post-Enron trouble-shooter City-denizen and banker Denis Higgs pronounced
straight away that he had taken on the job "as a way of disinclining
the Government from enforcing inappropriate legislation".
Big deal!
In a sector which needs immediate and drastic surgery, the Government has
again prescribed aspirin. That's what Margaret Beckett did with her
milk-and-water DTI Company Law Review (1997/2001). And now the
Government is again shown up as the creature of the City, ready to
be gulled by the business community at the drop of a hat. One must accept (and I
do) that Ministers are badly advised - but they should realise by now that their
civil servants don't understand the issues either - and that there comes a
time when that argument wears thin. All Ministers should read my Taming
the Corporations...
Finally, the iconoclastic Mark Thomas in the New
Statesman touched on a closely-related subject. namely the personal
liability of managers and directors for wrong-doing. But he confused two quite
different matters of "artificial personality reform", and I think I
should explain.
First, there is the doctrine of corporate
manslaughter. That is proposal that an artificial person ("the
company") should be capable of being "convicted" of the crime
of manslaughter. The Government has a manifesto commitment to legislate
to introduce such liability, and the Left is pressing for action, . But
the argument is entirely misconceived: it was a misconceived commitment, and
should be quietly forgotten. Because an abstraction, a puppet, cannot
possibly be said to have "committed a crime" requiring intent to cause harm - an
artificial personality is just that, a construct of the legal imagination,
used under the law for certain purposes. There is no point in using the
concept of criminality against it.
Second, more relevant is the quite different idea
that no Director or manager of an artificial person should be
acquitted of any civil liability or criminal charge merely because he claims
to have been acting on behalf of the company. It wasn't
me, Guv, it was Harvey Rabbit, standing over in the corner of the room... If a particular manager
is responsible for authorising or permitting a wrongful practice, legal liability
should follow, so the argument goes.
And I find it entirely convincing. Several Acts of Parliament (e.g. in the fields of
pollution and environmental protection) already embody such provisions -
but there is no general legal principle to this effect, and it is often easy
for individual company officers to escape personal liability, hiding behind
the artificial person - as they did in the Zeebrugge case, with the Spirit
of Free Enterprise, remember?.
Destructive Coercion
I am appalled at Government plans to deploy police officers in
school playgrounds. "A special group of 44 police officers in ten
London Boroughs will be sent into schools that have been identified as
breeding grounds for juvenile street gangs," reports the Independent.
This is a wicked idea. Blunkett has lost perspective, on this
one. Just consider the implications for local
perceptions of such schools and for staff and pupil morale within them. The
Government
is clearly putting on a Law & Order Show, for the local government
elections in May, but it is wicked to promote such destructive ideas. We
should be moving in precisely the opposite direction.
We should cease to use compulsion against our teenagers, by forcing
them to attend school after the age of 12. I know that some of my
friends will cry "Foul" - because they have come regard
compulsory education as a support for children from low-income
households. And it may well be. But values must always be
balanced, the one against the other. And violence in our schools is now
a serious problem, exacerbated by our own use of statutory coercion in the
first place. It is time to think again.
for previous DiaryNote
Back to today's
Home Page
What do you think? Drop me a line.
|