Locked in
to Locke

Philosophy of Insolvency

Talking about philosophy, let me introduce you to the "philosophy of insolvency".  The EU authorities have embarked upon the coordination, throughout Europe, of insolvency arrangements - when a firm goes under, who gets paid first?  How is the left-over "pot of money" divided up?  How hard should one try, to rescue the firm from its difficulties, and keep it trading?  All sensible questions, as the Single Market deepens and extends.

Stephen Taylor, a specialist accountant from PwC, says -

• "The philosophy of insolvency varies widely - from countries (such as the UK) where power lies with the creditors to those that, like France, concentrate on employee protection".  

That's quite a philosophical difference, suggesting that socialists should be playing a part in this coordination process.   I confess I had not perceived the politics of this before.  But when an artificial person collapses, insolvency law decides how zealously to strive for its survival, and how to divvy-up any remaining proceeds.  These are important issues, for workers, for customers, for trade creditors.  As a matter of philosophy, I suggest that they should take priority, and that the Banks and the Inland Revenue should stand in line.

Managing Society,
a philosophical footnote

Philosophy is entrancing, perhaps because we get so little of it.   Having been triggered this weekend by Richard Sennett and thoughts of John Locke, I have continued to ponder.  Why do the 1950s, and all the newspaper cuttings of the Coronation, seem so remote? 

It's not only the fashion differences, the proximity of war, the class subservience, the subordinate role of women - it is much more than that.  It is that the whole nature of the political challenge has changed.  In 1953 we were still in the grip of a wartime social regime - rationing had just ended, building materials were de-regulated in 1953 and the post-war building boom began.  War society had been a managed, collectivist society - identity cards had to be carried, civil rights were suspended, everything was rationed on an individual basis - man, woman, child.  The advent of peace meant the systematic dismantlement of that personal subjugation, and each new landmark was celebrated. 

At the same time, Labour had taken advantage of the collectivism of wartime to enact a wide range of "nationalising" measures, which reflected contemporary socialist priorities - the most enduring are undoubtedly the town-planning system and the National Health Service, both now on all Party agendas.  The wider concept of the cradle-to-grave Welfare State has been less successful over time, and was indeed less robustly constructed - although the conundrums of the Old Age Pension still have to be resolved.  Labour's industrial nationalisations (coal, steel) have bitten the dust. And in the public utilities (where the Labour Government took powers away principally from local government) we are still searching for the right long-term solution, the world over.

But in the 1950s  and 1960s, many of the disciplines of a managed society remained.  Labour remained committed to its post-war socialist settlement, and sought to extend it.  For many years, the Tories struggled without any coherent countervailing philosophy, eventually floundering in the 1970/73 period and handing power back to Labour in 1974.  Labour floundered in the 1970s, as the post-war model of socialism was itself evidently crumbling.

Thatcher's success was to articulate a view of society as not needing management - the very activities of government represented an illegitimate interference with individual freedom.  Like an American populist politician, or a true Poujadiste, she inveighed against "Big Government" - taxation become a wrong perpetrated by governments upon their citizens - "Your £ should remain in your pocket" - parents should choose their children's school, and there was no such thing as society.  It was a rich vein of political polemic, feeding also upon the inadequacy of the Labour response.  Throughout the 1980s, Labour remained stuck in the old collectivist groove, sidelined by the new, and intensely popular, individualism.

So Tony Blair was right, to shatter that fragile vinyl record.  I was in the audience in Blackpool at the Labour Party Conference in 1994, when he announced the plan to re-write Clause Four.  The frisson in the audience was literally physical.  But issue had to be joined brutally, decisively, if Labour was to be awakened from its slumbers.  The political task was a daunting one, needing vigour, energy, and ingenuity.  And it has been virtually accomplished.  For that important initiative, I shall long remain Blairite.

Our problem is that, having completed the destruction of Old Labour, insufficient effort has gone into generating a convincing alternative model of a managed society.  For that remains the real challenge, as it was in 1945.  The future lies not with Thatcherite old individualist Liberalism (for that is what it was) but with a new strain of individualist socialism - socialist in content, individualist in style and method - which addresses all the political problems of a managed society and propounds acceptable individualist solutions. 

In the 1930s, world government belonged in cranks' corner, an esoteric discussion for the Bertrand Russell yoghurt-and-sandals brigade.  My dear Liberal father's bookshelves carried well-thumbed tomes on the subject. Yet with globalisation, and global warming, an increasing number of political issues are amenable only to global measures.  More institutions of world government are emerging every year (most recently, the International Criminal Court).  There are no more unexplored wildernesses, no easy personal or systemic escapes.