www.warrenevans.net

Photograph of Roger Warren Evans

You are in the company of Roger Warren Evans

Subject Index >> My biog >> New Participatory Democracy >> Taming the Corporations >> My Welsh socialism >>
New Socialist Settlement >> Globalise the Left! >> Bevan Re-visited, In Place of Fear >> Psst! Wanna volunteer..?





Earlier
Diary Notes


 



My publications


My key sources


COPYRIGHT
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as it source, namely > www.warrenevans.net


 

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 – 

  • A  Fear of civil disorder and crime

  • B. Fear of ill-health

  • E. Fear of unemployment

  • D. Fear of parenthood

  • E. Fear of old age

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. 

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. 

Fear of ill-healthFor 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. 

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 companyIt 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.

You are in the company of Roger Warren Evans