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   Can Blair recover? --- What Blair must do now ---  Abolish the Honours List? --- Is Weblogging a crime?  
Vivendi, continuing tussle ---  The Keynesian George Soros ---  Abandon Coercive Education --- Managing State Snoopers --- Angel Declaration: LATEST




Search Index



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 /0059

Wednesday 19 June 2002 

Did you miss the previous DiaryNote?  Check it out 


Experiment   I am responding to your complaints about my Search function -  check out the trial alternative and let me know what you think - RWE


Can Blair recover? 

Probably.  But it is significant that, for someone like me, that is now the question.  I was shocked to  watch him dealing, on TV, with the Press allegations about the Queen Mother’s Funeral.  He looked a haunted man.  And I think he is. 

The blame does not lie with the cynical media, or with the malicious, mischievous Tory press.  They have not changed their spots.  Charles Clark was quite wrong to take a pop at them.  No -Tony Blair is haunted, I believe, by his own record, culminating in this awful manifestation of public distrust.  I have no doubt that he was genuinely mortified at the media’s success in blowing up this story. 

The problem for Blair is that, faced with the media attack, the public believed the innuendo.  I certainly believed it, didn’t you?  I thought to myself “That’s just the sort of silly game that Downing Street would play..”  And I followed the story, just as everyone else did.  There was nobody immediately protesting - “You cannot be serious! That cannot possibly be true!”  We all believed that it was possible, thinkable. 

Therein lies the true tragedy of Tony Blair’s position. That realisation must have been deeply wounding, to him personally.  And it was that wound, I fancy, that I saw in his harrowed TV face.  For like every tragic hero, he has brought this disbelief upon himself, by his preoccupation with image management and with “spin”.  His Faustian deal with Campbell and Mandelson has brought him to this sorry pass, in the eyes of his own people.  His credibility is at a very low ebb.

Can he recover?  On the one hand, this seems a fanciful question.   Labour has a huge Commons majority, and he has only one, quiescent, challenger.  But the question is a deeper one.  Can he sustain the personal self-confidence to continue, after such a dramatic demonstration of public suspicion and mistrust? That is the key question. 

Again, my answer is Yes, probably, though it will be a close-run thing.  And if he is to recover a position of trust in time for the 2005 Election, he must make a start now.  There's no time to lose.

Do you share my concerns?
Drop me a line > < Top 

Back to today's Home Page  


What Blair must do

Regular readers will know my quirks by now.  One of them is to put myself into the Prime Minister’s position and to ask the question “What would I do now?  What would I do to dispel the legacy of spin and mistrust in which Blair’s Administration is now enmeshed?”   This is my answer. 

In one sense, the remedy is straightforward - because it consists of injunctions merely to desist from present practices.  There is nothing Blair can do about the Tory press, it will always be malicious and mischievous.  There is nothing he can do about the declining quality of BBC news coverage and commentary, the descent of Today and Newsnight into second-rate investigative journalism (“This Programme can now reveal…”).  There is nothing he can do about the cynicism that has spread through BBC newsrooms like a virus. The language and skill of the BBC World Service is now of a far higher order than the mainstream “home” Service. 

Blair must accept these as part of the unalterable public environment, although he may legitimately hope (as I do) that the BBC will eventually return to its former standards of seriousness and objectivity. 

The Government must simply accept this hostile media environment.  It is Labour's fate. Blair should retain the best possible team of media aides, because modern government is indeed a continuing image war. The question, however, is how Blair should deploy those professional resources. This is my prescription.

  • Stop early releases of Ministerial statements and speeches - my concern is with the “widely-rumoured” Statement which starts to command the airwaves several days before the statement is actually made – scripts are circulated with the tell-tale caveat “Check against delivery” (because by then, one imagines, the Minister may have changed his mind…)  This practice encourages spinning, and deprives a Statement of all sense of occasion and impact.  Interviews even occur at 7.00 am on the Today programme, relating to a speech that will not be given until 11.00 am.  That is absurd.  It would be better to create a sense of genuine interest and surprise, and let the media do their worst.  
  • Stop all “paving publicity” – this is the practice of manipulating public anticipation of a statement, either raising hopes or depressing them, in order to secure a desired reception for the Statement when it is made – this is at the heart of all “spin”, and it is a very common practice indeed.  But Government media aides should not be allowed to use it - by way of self-denying ordinance.
  • Stop using unelected spokespeople to address the media on behalf of the Government, even in private – it goes without saying that you should sack Alistair Campbell.  Incidentally, you should not even think of bringing Peter Mandelson back into Government: he bears much of the blame for your present predicament.  And you should place a complete embargo on public statements by unelected Ministers (of whom you have far too many – I have just counted seventeen, on the Downing Street website).  Every time the Government is represented on radio or TV by a Lord or Lady (even on Any Questions) your personal credibility takes a nose-dive.  The relentless promotion of your old Bar colleagues still constitutes the most damning indictment, which you can hardly deflect – the desiccated autocrat Lord Goldsmith QC as Attorney-General, the pompous ass Derry Irvine and the buffoon Charlie Falconer.   
  • I recognise that, while the Gilbertian absurdities of the House of Lords are still retained you must have a small number of Government spokespeople in the Lords – but it is grotesque that 17 members of your present Government have never faced an electorate of any kind in their lives, and merely luxuriate in your personal favour.  This is deeply corrosive of public trust, a profound issue of substance rather than form.  It also saps the morale of your own MPs and Party workers, and makes the voters wonder why they should bother to vote anyone into elective office – the patronage path to preferment would seem the more attractive option.  That may not be true, but it seems like that, to many loyal Labour supporters.  And as you well know, appearances matter, in politics. 
  • Stop “burying bad news” – the Jo Moore affair, by revealing to public view practices which are woefully common throughout both public and corporate life, has nevertheless further eroded trust in your Government, and in you personally (after all, everybody believes that you intervened personally, to save her from instant dismissal) – a cruel and unfair conclusion, no doubt, given all your good intentions, but who ever said that politics was fair? 
  • Stop attacking your own people – you will have to work hard to eliminate these impressions, because they reflect very badly upon you personally – the attacks on Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone, Rhodri Morgan, Mo Mowlam, Clare Short, John Prescott, Bill Morris, David Clark, Gavin Strang.  The list is too long to be explained by coincidence, or misunderstanding.  This cannot have happened without your approval or connivance. This nasty practice is of long-standing, and you must take radical steps to put a stop to it.
  • Stop attacking the media – this is one of the oldest ground-rules of the media game, and its rigour must be re-established - it was wrong of Charles Clark to hit back as he did, over the Funeral affair – I favour the maintenance of EXCALIBUR, the Party’s rapid response computer system, but it is vital that its power is used carefully and selectively, to tackle real attacks – don’t get mad, get even.  
  • Stop cultivating Press barons – you have not yet lived-down that awful error of judgement in ’97, when you went all the way to Australia just to address a Murdoch Management Conference – your evident personal admiration for business success leaves you wide open to errors of this kind and will make it doubly difficult for you to do anything about these impressions – I suggest you appoint a “BaronWatch” press aide, with instructions to throw grit between these well-oiled wheels, and advise you on the pitfalls. 
  • Stop enforcing ministerial straitjackets – I have already asked you to reduce your gruesome clutch of seventeen unelected Ministers – in a democracy, the people are entitled to have elected Ministers, even if they are MPs kicked upstairs to the Lords.  And elected Ministers must be given greater leeway for personal expression.  I urge you must abandon the strict discipline of regimented statements – tell your people to go easy on the blue pencil when all those Drafts come into Downing Street.  It is a PR disaster when listeners and viewers hear precisely the same phrases being parroted by different Ministers – you must find a way of celebrating diversity, risking allegations of dissent, and facing down the media, if important differences should indeed emerge.  That would now be far better for your credibility than the mediocre unanimity to which the public is routinely subjected. 

None of this will be easy.  But you must simply stop spinning. The clawback of trust will be long and hard, and will take at least two years.  Given success, Tony, you can hope to lead Labour into the next Election.  But if you fail, you will have to give way to Gordon Brown within the next eighteen months, to give him time to take up the reins of power, in good time for 2005.

Do you think I am right, or misguided?
Drop me a line > < Top 


Where do you stand
on Honours?

I had thought to regale you this week with my views on the Honours List.  Then I remembered that I did that when the New Year List was published, on 31 December 2000 – doesn’t time fly? 

Where do you stand, on Honours?

Let me know what you think.
Drop me a line > < Top 

Back to today's Home Page   

No symbolic message here, except the transient nature of weblogging, the evanescence of our opinions. But you must admit: it is a pretty picture...

Is this Weblog a crime?

Journalist Andrew Meldrum is being prosecuted, in Zimbabwe, for a report which appeared on the Guardian Unlimited website, of which I make extensive use here.  The accuracy of the report, of an atrocity by Government ZANU-PF soldiers, is now in doubt.

But the legal issue is nevertheless important.  Because Meldrum is charged with publishing in Zimbabwe the material entered onto the Guardian website in London.  And of course the material was as accessible in Zimbabwe as it was to you and me, thanks to the WorldWide Web. 

The case demonstrates the way in which the Internet unravels national jurisdictions, requiring a radical re-think of political and constitutional concepts.  Watch for the outcome…

What do you think should be done?
Drop me a line > < Top 

Back to today's Home Page   


Lively Vivendi

In early May, as details of the collapse of this major French company emerged, the Vivendi management had its come-uppance at a company General Meeting in Paris where the pro-management vote was seemingly hacked-into electronically by protesters, and the management weakened.  The Board threatened a re-run of the meeting (see Vivendi)  but subsequently thought better of it, and climbed down. 

But the French shareholders are now hitting back at the arrogant Chief Executive Jean-Marie Messier.  ADAM, a newly-formed association of small Vivendi share-holders, is taking the matter to Court, alleging that Messier kept the whole Board in the dark for many months, so that Directors were in no position to perform their duty to protect the interests of shareholders.  That’s a very ingenious argument, and if successful could pave the way for other company challenges. 

The case is set down for hearing, in Paris, this Friday 21 June 2002.  If any reader has an excuse to attend the hearing, will you let us know?

Drop me a line > < Top 

Back to today's Home Page   


George Soros 
is half right

The remarkable George Soros continues his attempt to make his $-billion fortune talk, politically.  He has a keen interest in public affairs (honed no doubt as a student at LSE) and is now trying to probe the abuse of oil royalty revenues by corrupt third-world regimes.  Along the way, this week, he uttered a key home truth about the US economy –

  • “I am much more positive about the underlying US economy than I am about the Stock Market.  We are waging war not only on terrorism but also on recession.  Although we don’t admit it, we are actually applying Keynesian remedies, and I am a confirmed Keynesian.  I have not yet seen an economy in recession when you are gearing up for a war.” 

I share that analysis, but the realisation is a chilling one – and I do not believe that the intervention will be successful.  I suspect that the US Federal Government is indeed looking for an excuse to stimulate the American economy, although its motive is also to boost the weak democratic legitimacy of the President.  And whereas in 1932, Roosevelt could boost the economy by building dams and roads and bridges, those options are now off the political agenda.  For the Republicans, the only acceptable form of Keynesian intervention is military.  

My disagreement with Soros lies with the required character of the “Keynesian intervention”.  These days, such intervention must take radically different forms if it is to be effective. 2002 differs profoundly from 1932.  Given the post-WW2 surge in domestic consumption, public expenditure is now much more limited, relative to the economy as a whole, than it was for FDR in 1932.   Indeed, such expenditure is now not substantial enough of itself to lever a massive modern economy into action. The economy can be boosted only by measures which stimulate domestic consumption, which now accounts for 70%+ of a modern economy.  It is not enough for the Government to boost personal earnings, the money must get spent. That is why the Japanese economy languishes, in spite of a decade of conventional Keynesian intervention by the Government: the Japanese continue to save rather than spend, because they think things could get worse Everyone must hope that the World Cup really does cheer them up, and that they start spending again.  What a pity they were beaten by Turkey, in Kobe...

In the case of the super-wealthy super-confident US, the risk must be that the anxieties of war and war conditions, far from boosting the economy as Soros suggests, will undermine consumer confidence and plunge the US into a Japanese-style recession, of hoarding and pessimism and fear.  The American authorities, under George Bush, are proving hopeless at understanding this critical subjective dimension of modern politics.  The “dirty bomb” announcement  last week was cack-handed and destructive.  So was their handling of the so-called anthrax “terrorist threat”.  Even with a recovery on the way, Bush and his team could still push the US into an anxious consumer-led recession - by their sheer incompetence and lack of political judgement.

I suspect it all depends, George, on what you mean by Keynesian

Back to today's Home Page  


Abandon
Coercive Education

The Government is said to be congratulating itself on the success of the Patricia Amos imprisonment.   Estelle Morris claims that the case “set an example to others”, and sources close to the Minister express great satisfaction with the popular reaction – see  
Independent on Sunday

They could not be more wrong.   Coercion is being wrongfully and destructively deployed.  We are producing thousands upon thousands of unhappy, guilty children now threatened with carrying the blame for “sending their parents to prison”.  The Amos children were riven with self-blame, and that will stay with them for ever. The whole tragic incident was a disaster, a catalogue of misjudgment.  We should be moving in precisely the opposite direction, placing a civic duty upon all guardians to secure the education of the minors in their charge, but otherwise removing the threat of criminal imprisonment. 

Yet the Government continues its coercive trail through the National Curriculum, in its new Green Paper, which you can read for yourself, right here (just avoid triggering the 42-minute Java download...)  Choice and Excellence .  Coercion is seductive, and the Government remains seduced - as were the Tories before them. The awful coercion of the National Curriculum will continue to bear down on our schools, if Estelle Morris has her way. A whole swathe of subjects will remain mandatory, including the dismal IT. The Tory coercive mistakes will be further compounded. 
  • In Wales, by contrast, we are well on our way to abolishing SATS altogether, and we have already abolished “league-tables”.  These matters have been devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and these burdens have already been removed from our children’s shoulders.

Government should not, in my view, regulate the content of more than 50% of the school-week, and that should be principally concerned with literacy, numeracy and citizenship, both at primary and secondary levels.

No other subjects should be compulsory.  Subject-choice would in practice be guided by the knowledge, skill and judgment of the teachers - as it is inevitably, in practice, whatever the National Curriculum says.  Teachers would be challenged to attract pupils into their respective subjects, by the deployment of skill and imagination. 

We all know the educative importance of inspired teaching: inspiration and excitement are far more important than choice of subject.  Pupils, and their parents, should be encouraged to take responsibility for subject-selection; by the same token, teachers should not be molly-coddled, by the delivery to them of class-fodder, by coercion.  If half of the syllabus were discretionary it would easy to assess the relative success of teachers – the pupils would vote with their feet.

That is my alternative Labour educational strategy.  What do you think?

Drop me a line > < Top 

Back to today's Home Page  


Drawing the right line

These are difficult days, for civil rights - and for me.  A snoopers' charter storm recently broke over the Government's head, triggered by Home Office attempts to rationalise the haphazard regimes already obtaining, in the regulation of official access to personal data.  My former Chambers room-mate Anthony Scrivener QC delivered a libertarian clarion-call against the Government on Sunday in The Observer - see  On the road to a totalitarian State.  Hugo Young joined the hunt, in Tuesday's Guardian

These are powerful and authoritative voices, and it is clear that they have forced the David Blunkett climbdown, which was certainly an act of wisdom on his part.

Yet I still have a problem.  Because this issue will not go away - after all, David Blunkett has simply said that he will "come back in the Autumn".  I see the accumulation of massive electronic databases, both in public and "private" hands, as inevitable - and yet highly problematical.  These are phenomena that our children will certainly have to live with - what can we do to help them?  The real political challenge is to find a liberal mode of management for their operation.  I favour a completely new system of checks and balances see State Snoopers.

So I cannot simply climb into the Scrivener trench.   The underlying problem (e.g. as with DNA databases) remains, and must be addressed.  A different line must be drawn - and the Government has certainly not come up with the right solution yet.   I shall be racking my brains, to devise an effective system of safeguards, to contain the abuse of State and corporate power. 

Where do you stand?
With Tony Scrivener, or with me?
Drop me a line >


Angel Declaration   This great drugs-law reform petition is lengthening steadily - current count is 468 personal signatories. plus FIVE corporate endorsements, now including LIBERTY - the personal signatories are doctors, Professors, teachers, social workers, policemen, priests, lawyers - plus 10 Members of Parliament, an MEP and a solitary professorial Lord - check out the full list set out at  Angel Declaration - and consider adding your own signature...

< Top 

Back to today's Home Page  


Did you miss the previous DiaryNote?  Check it out  

You are in the company of Roger Warren Evans