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..?

New Topics for Today     Right Wing Swing?  --- New Competition Theory ---  Stopping State Snoopers
                                       Enronitis? Not radical enough --- Maiden Bradley: Public interest Shopping  --- The Gypsy Problem    


Earlier
Diary Notes

My publications

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 /0057

Wednesday 12 June 2002

Did you miss the previous DiaryNote?  Check it out    

New Search function    I am developing a new kind of Search Index - let me know what you think  try it out

Right Wing Swing? 
I say "No"

Trendy commentary has it that the Western world is swinging to the Right - Bush, Berlusconi, Chirac, the new Danish Government.  This view was put cogently by Andrew Rawnsley in last Sunday's  Observer.  The Left, they say, seemingly so dominant just three short years ago, is losing the plot.

That is a misreading of the situation.  True, there is mighty turmoil on both the Right and the Left, as politicians grapple with the doctrinal vacuum that is gripping civic society.  The collapse of old socialism in the 1980s has been followed by the progressive collapse of free market capitalism in the 1990s.  Tony Blair put paid to socialist collectivism in the UK, but without having anything to put in its place.  The Thatcher legacy progressively unravelled under John Major and William Hague, but without leaving Duncan Smith with anything to put in its place. 

The same doctrinal anomie affects Continental Europe (particularly France, Germany, Italy and Spain) and may even contribute to the lack of any sense of direction in American politics.  This is not a "swing to the Right".  Rather, it is a vacuum, lacking direction.  It indicates that all politicians are trying to come to terms with the awesome realisation that the globe must now be treated as a finite and unitary system which must be managed as an integrated whole.  The question is:  Who will come up with the first coherent theory of global management?

This is, I contend, a new problem, at least one of the last ten years.  Earlier generations could take refuge in images of something-ism in one country, the pursuit of narrow concepts of national interest, of unilateral migration and citizenship controls, national Police forces, balancing national Budgets, influencing national environments.  None of this now makes sense.  For the Thirtysomethings now moving into power, the question is how to govern a managed society, within an international environment which also demands active management.

Last week, I sensed a book in prospect, exploring the challenges of holistic global management.  Well - I am not good at writing long pieces, and my book may never emerge.  But I have got the title!  If my book ever sees the light of day it will be called The End of Infinity.  It will explore the perception that all global systems are now finite - migration, pollution, public health, global warming, international crime, terrorism, war - nowhere are there any loose ends, any convenient boltholes.  Everything is subject to management by someone, somewhere.  There are no wildernesses, there can be no exile.  All leaders must confront the need for international, or global, systems of management that are considered legitimate at community, regional and national level.  And the biggest challenge of all is to the civil liberties lobby, which can no longer rest merely on the concept of resistance to interference, and must propound new formulae for the regulation of state management.

It is my contention that, in  coming to grips with this new and bewildering reality, the Left has a head start, even though too little has yet been achieved.  The Right is not prepared, philosophically or psychologically, for these challenges.  The Bush retreat into one-country protectionism, his espousal of the Nuclear Defence Shield and withdrawal from Kyoto, show just how barren the philosophical resources of the Right are.  Duncan Smith is caught blinking the headlights, floundering pragmatically along.  Chirac has no coherent world-view at all.  Berlusconi is a pantomime figure, a clown.  And if Gerhard Schroder falls in Germany in September, the blame will lie principally with the failure of the German Left to reform the German labour market and to address the manifest rigidities of the German retail sector.

A paradigm shift, that's what it is.   A paradigm is a "basic theory, a conceptual framework within which scientific theories are constructed", my Chambers Dictionary tells me.  And what is needed is precisely a paradigm shift.  The outgoing paradigm is of Government as a dominant influence within society, characterised by varying degrees of competence and potential, according to ones political theory.  The emerging paradigm is of each society as a unitary managed system, operating within a system of emerging global management.  Future political theories, to be worth their salt, must propound answers to the these challenges of overall management.

All Western politicians are in the same boat, both on the Right and the Left.   It is no longer convincing to propound single-state policies.  In every direction, global management initiatives are required, of a kind which were not in the script when the present team signed up for their political careers.  Faced with massive new personal and doctrinal challenges, the politicians are circling on the spot, like a huge flock of birds waiting for a clear indication where to fly.

That lead is more likely to come from the Left than from the Right.  On the Right, the only show in town is US global hegemony - warlike, pragmatic, narrow, and suborned by business.  It is for the UK Left to go further than Tony Blair - he's too timid for me -  give the lead, and to head off  in a socialist direction.

Your thoughts?
Drop me a line >  < Top    

Competition theory

My contention is that, in every sector, new paradigms are needed.  For instance, in the international regulation of monopolistic behaviour, we shall have to move from traditional regulatory concepts to completely different systems.  Traditionally, competition law has examined the effect of mergers upon specific markets - regional, national, international (e.g. EU) and global.  Some laws have prohibited the acquisition of dominant positions within specific markets (i.e. a static, market-specific, concept), others have penalised monopolistic behaviour within any specific market (a dynamic regulatory concept)

But what of Microsoft?  Once markets become global, these forms of analysis become impossible to apply coherently. Microsoft (Bill Gates personally, it seems) is currently embroiled in lengthy anti-trust proceedings in the American courts.  But even if Microsoft wins, will it face similar proceedings in Europe, or the Far East?  That is a real possibility.  The old sets of rules simply do not encompass the realities of global markets.  In future, we shall have to focus on outlawing the abuse of all  power by trading corporations, and adopt other quite different methods of surveillance (e.g. greater overall transparency and publicity for company affairs, and constraints upon the legal scope of intellectual property rights.)  To be effective, there will have to be less reliance upon regulating transactions, and more attention paid to the generic processes of fair trading.

Comparable paradigm shifts are needed in other sectors.  States will have to become twin-track systems of status-control, if migration is to be effectively and humanely managed - see my paper Quantum, Domicile & Asylum.  New constitutional devices will be needed to regulate the use of personal data by the State: it is no longer enough to oppose the actual collection of data as an activity, or of the subsequent retention of such data.  New systems will be needed to minimise the risk of abuse of power arising from the exploitation of such data - see Government Snoopers must be stopped, above.  There are indications that the Young Turks of Downing Street may already be picking up the nature of this paradigm shift ( see  Systems Thinking) - and have you checked out the excellent No 10 Downing Street website recently?

Keep thinking!
And drop me a line > < Top    

"Government Snoopers must be stopped"

This is Tuesday's Guardian Leader, under the classic headline  British Liberty RIP  And I owe you my response, as a human rights campaigner, to the Government's much-publicised move to empower "the Authorities" to use and retain personal E-mail communications.  The Guardian occupies the classic, traditional, liberal ground on this issue, which I acknowledge and respect.  It is that the powers themselves are oppressive, and should be cut down by Parliament.  They should not be allowed to reach the statute-book.

I no longer agree.  Given the fundamental changes wrought by the Internet revolution, there is no practical prospect of preventing the collection and retention of such data.  The data is already retained for three months (for commercial charging purposes), and the Government is requiring its longer extension, for 12 months, a period which I accept might lengthen.  And the accumulation of these massive databases do of course constitute a threat to civil liberties.  That is not in question.  The question is -

  • "How, in this new data environment, are civil rights abuses best to be avoided?".

I say that new management systems must be devised, to defend against such abuse by "the Authorities".  I advocate a new Data Access Commission, to "own" all public databases, and to police official access to them, including DNA data - see  Managing Public Databases.  The lines of liberal defence must be re-drawn, to accommodate the legitimate requirements of managed societies.  The same is true of surveillance cameras: it would be counter-productive for the Liberal Left to oppose the installation of such systems in public places.  Yet there is clearly much to be done by way of developing processes and principles to govern the retention and use of such data, so as to minimise the risk of actual abuse of power.  

That is where the focus of the new human rights debate should now lie.  The mere retention of such data cannot be treated as a civil wrong, to be resisted outright.  Civil wrong may well arise from the abuse of access to and deployment of such data, and it is to the management of that abuse that liberal attention should now be directed.

Where do you stand on this "liberal" issue?   Drop me a line > < Top

Enronitis?
 the real disease is
much more serious

Corporate America has been shaken to the core by the collapse of Enron, by the Merrill Lynch disclosures, and the subsequent Tyco investigations.  Stock Market confidence has been profoundly shaken, and share-prices are therefore weak.  When and where will the next shoe fall?  Everyone in sight is being blamed - auditors, non-executive Directors, corrupt managers, corrupt stock analysts, negligent market authorities, insouciant state regulators.

The problem, however, lies far deeper.  It lies in the very legal principles laid down by 200+ nation states for the regulation of artificial legal personality - that is, company law.  All national systems of company law permit the unchallenged right of the business community to form new artificial persons, without control of purpose or intent.  All national systems permit blanket secrecy in company affairs, when they should require openness and transparency.  All national systems permit the high concentrations of executive power, without checks and balances, and that itself favours wrongdoing and protects the wrongdoers.  All national systems accord to artificial persons the same property rights as it accords to natural persons, without taking any special precautions against their abuse. 

The very ground-rules of corporate life are defective, and cry out for radical reform.   Our various legislatures have created a monster, an international concatenation of legal systems which favours the unscrupulous and the dishonest.  Yet you will hear none of this, from the capitalist authorities, or the capitalist financial Press.  Nor from the politicians of the Left.  For a lone voice from the Left, check out my further thoughts - 

Is there anyone "out there" who will take me seriously?   Drop me a line > < Top

Understanding
Maiden Bradley

Hats off to Maiden Bradley!  It is the Wiltshire village where the residents, faced last year with the loss of its last remaining village shop, launched a community enterprise company to provide the service.   And it is thriving - see report in The Guardian.

It is vital that the Government should find new ways to encourage social trading enterprises of this kind.  They do not fall within any conventional head of charity, and therefore cannot enjoy the privileges and protection accorded to registered charities.  Yet their unconventional structure does require protection, some shelter against the harsh winds of takeover and merger.  They represent a new form of social enterprise, differently motivated, differently driven. They are not, in all common-sense, conventional private companies, nor are they worker cooperatives.  They offer the prospect of a much more diverse range of different forms of enterprise, supplementing the conventional profit-driven capitalist company.

They are public interest companies, and should be given a new distinctive legal status, coupled with the protection of the High Court.  I have led the current campaign for the necessary company law reform, and I am hopeful that the Government will come through with the necessary reforms later this year - see  Public Interest Companies.  And watch this space. 

Do you have any experience of these alternative forms of trading enterprise?  Drop me a line > < Top 

The Gypsy Problem

There is no problem with gypsies, with travellers.  The problem is with me.  I confess that my liberal conscience is challenged by the bona fide gypsies, as it is challenged by no other group. 

For I recognise that their life-style is genuinely nomadic, and that our society finds it almost impossible to accommodate them.   We ought to be accommodating their aspirations, as fellow-citizens.  Yet we are failing woefully to discharge those obligations - see special Guardian Report  No room to move.  As the territories of human settlement become more precisely delimited, every corner of every territory becomes "owned" by someone, by a private person, a company or public agency.  As we approach the end of infinity, that is, the final elimination of terra incognita, the challenge posed by the gypsies becomes more and more acute.

The UK State provides just 325 local authority "gypsy sites".  In 1968, one of the last acts of the Wilson Government was to pass the Caravan Sites Act, which was Labour's attempt to give effect to the common humanity and common citizenship of gypsy citizens.  But Labour lost power in 1969, and during the Seventies was plagued by economic crisis (1974/79) - and then came Thatcher.  In 1994, the Tory Government withdrew the legal obligation for local authorities to make such provision, withdrawing also all grant-funding.  Since then, many Councils have closed or "privatised" their gypsy sites.

Many of 325 sites are positioned near rubbish dumps, sewage works, or noisy industrial facilities - that is the effect of pandering to NIMBY opinion, pleasing local residents.  It shames our nation.  There are long waiting-lists for the good sites. Yet I am conscious that the righting of these manifest wrongs does not come high on my personal political agenda.  Nor does it seem to figure on the New Labour schedules.

I am ashamed.  I plan to work further on this important civil rights issue.  I would appreciate any thoughts from you, about the resolution of this problem.  The issues are akin to those posed by immigration, albeit different - because most gypsies are already our fellow citizens.

Any thoughts? 
Drop me a line > < Top 

Did you miss the previous DiaryNote?  Check it out  

Back to today's Home Page  

 
You are in the company of Roger Warren Evans