| |
Diary Note /0060
Saturday 22 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
On the Left, we are all looking for ways of turning the Internet to better
political advantage, in the promotion of intelligent political debate - another initiative
this week comes from the Fabian Society, on globalisation, check out the
interactive www.fabianglobalforum.net
Take a swift look to your left - your "hits" have now passed the
600-mark - the first 300 hits took 91 days, the second 300 took just 50 days
(to 20 June 2002) - some evidence, I suppose, that you are finding the
website interesting, which stimulates the ol' editorial juices - thanks for logging-in
Roger WE
A Chilling Autocracy
Ed Balls is a very important young man
But he is clearly no democrat. Although an unelected
Special Adviser to the Treasury, his speeches are carried verbatim on the Treasury website, alongside
the speeches of Gordon Brown, Ruth Kelly and Paul Boateng. And he has this
week
revealed just how tenuous a grasp the Treasury has, of democracy.
To be fair, he was trying to do just the
opposite, addressing the Municipal Treasurers (CIPFA)
on Devolution and Localism in Public Policy. But that makes his
innocent autocracy all-the-more chilling. Take a look at the
Guardian report of his speech, or better still
check the full text of the speech, at the
Treasury website
CIPFA.
Judge for yourself.
Ed Balls' idea of devolution
is for the Treasury to determine all long-term objectives and strategies, and to
then to "devolve" to others the strictly constrained discretion to work out how they are best to be
delivered. In a chilling passage, Balls applies this to the Treasury's
"devolution" of economic development
powers to those unelected quangos, the English Regional Development Agencies.
What a hoot! In
Wales and Scotland, it is true, these unsatisfactory quangos are now answerable,
formally at least, to elected provincial assemblies - but nothing like that
applies to the English
regions. For me, the only power worth having is a discretion to make substantive
decisions, and to determine objectives and strategies without being accountable to
anyone but the people, the electorate. Certainly not to the Treasury...
Do you think I am right, or misguided?
Drop me a line
> <
Top
En passant - one of my regular correspondents, Des McConaghy of Liverpool, is calling for
expressions of concern about the resurgence of the racist "European Right"
- check out my cautious reply
Correspondence
Chapter 9
Chapter 11 is better known.
In its Chapter 11, the American Federal
bankruptcy code deals with the collapse of commercial companies, and designates
responsibility for clearing up the mess, when an artificial person gets into
difficulties. But Chapter 9 is of greater potential
political importance, because it regulates the bankruptcy of Federal states,
cities, and other governmental agencies. Taxpayers, the
voluntary sectors, and citizens generally, are given their say, in determining
the outcome. It is a great, practical, democratic process,very
open, very American.
Let me come clean. Until I read of the
work by the New Economics Foundation on state
bankruptcy, I had no idea that Chapter 9 existed. The NEF is proposing
that there should be an interantional Convention, along the lines of the US
chapter 9. This proposal was highlighted
in a mid-week article by Larry Elliott in The Guardian.
We have no comparable code in UK law, nor does any
exist internationally. Yet there is a crying need for such a
procedure, to facilitate the management of collapsed national economies, to
permit the write-off of unbearable debt, and to allow a nation as a whole to make
a fresh start. We stubbornly uphold the principle that "a
state cannot go bankrupt". That means that each
successor Government must pick up the tabs left by all its predecessors.
A state is not allowed, as a matter of international convention, to declare
itself bankrupt. The IMF always insists that all past borrowings are
repaid,
even if over a very long period. Argentina 2002 is the latest country to suffer
under the burden of this oppressive principle. As the IMF deploys its
baleful skills, the people of Argentina continue to suffer.
Sadly, I cannot hyperlink you through to the New
Economics Foundation, they will not allow it - you must write in to buy the £3 booklet
New
Economics Foundation.
But NEF argues for the creation of a new UN jurisdiction, a new
International Insolvency Tribunal, which could administer such a regime.
Alongside the new International Criminal Court, and my suggested UN
Asylum Tribunal, such a Tribunal would make good sense, countering the worst
excesses of capitalist financial conventions.
What do you think? Drop me a line
> < Top
Defending intellectual property
The power of the trading corporations
turns on the successful accumulation and assertion of private property rights.
"Property" is what enables profits to be gathered in, and defended.
Property laws are fundamental to the whole power structure of the corporate
sector.
The giant Philips Corporation "owns" the successful triple-headed
Philishave electric razor, and has earned enormous profits from its monopoly control of
the product. In the early-1990s, Philips faced the expiry of its patent
rights (which last 20 years, in most countries). Instead, Philips
has been trying to assert trade-mark rights over the razor (TM rights are not time-limited, and
last for ever). The distinctive shape of the three circles, they have
argued, constitute a trade mark, which they tried to register with all
the world's authorities.
They have failed. The commercial courts have held that trade
mark law is not to be used to protect "essential functional features".
Toblerone had been allowed to protect its tooth-comb chocolate-bar, but
Remington could not dress up a patentable device as a trade-mark. There
were limits to the manipulation of intellectual property rights, and this
overstepped the limit.
This
week the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg finally sent Philips packing, and held in
favour of Remington, the challengers. Philips had already lost in the US,
Canada and Australia -
see The Guardian.
But Philips have still not given up - "We think there are still possibilities
for arguments to keep our trademarks registered" said a spokeswoman. They
will fight to the last drop - of profit.
Events like this illuminate the character of contemporary capitalism,
particularly in the intellectual property field. If you spot any similar
insights, will you let me know?
Drop me a line
> <
Top
Impending Cyprus Crunch
You may remember my own love affair with Cyprus. I spent a happy National
Service there in 1955/56,
spying on the Russians,
and I've retained a keen interest in Cypriot affairs ever since. I went
into the Royal Navy straight from boarding-school, in Autumn 1954.
The
1970s partition was a tragedy for Cyprus, and the tragedy endures. The UN
Partition Line has been in position now for over 25 years. Now, with
Cyprus about to join the European Union in its own right, the cracks of
partition are highlighted - who is Cyprus? What is
Cyprus? Greece threatens to obstruct the whole enlargement process, if
Cyprus is excluded. Turkey is trying to use the inclusion of North Cyprus as a
lever to advance its own claims for EU membership.
If Cyprus is to join
the EU as a single country by the end of this year (albeit with two
near-fully autonomous "Provinces"), the negotiations between the veteran
lawyers Clerides (for the Greek Cypriots) and Denktash (for the
Turkish Cypriots) will have to succeed. The United Nations, and Kofi Annan, have played an
vital part in progressing this settlement.
|
|
 No symbolic message here, except the transient nature of weblogging,
the evanescence of our opinions. But you must admit: it is a pretty picture...
Tony! Please
stop
spinning!
When will he ever learn? I suspect that Downing Street can no longer distinguish
between what is spinning and what is not. For example, Tony Blair's
Tuesday speech , to
a "London crime conference" on impending criminal law reform, was a blatant case
of spinning - see
Guardian 19 June
He launched a
massive preemptive strike, in support of Government proposals which will not be
published until July! He knew what the proposals would be, but noone else did, and so they could not oppose. He had the media space to
himself.
This is an unacceptable case of spinning. It distorts and devalues
democratic debate. It exploits the Government's dominant media position. Does Blair no longer
recognise spin? A pro-Government aura
is built up, while political opposition is crippled - Ah! say Government
spokesmen, you must wait until you see the real proposals - in July.
Then it happened again, on Thursday! On the morning of Thursday 20 June
there appeared an FT report, clearly written
by a journalist (Nicholas Timmins) who had before him the full text of a forthcoming
Andrew Smith seech, on pensions -
consider this wording -
- "In his first speech in his new post, Mr Smith is expected to tell a TUC
conference on pensions today: "I firmly believe that the overall pensions framework is
the right one, and the Government will continue to build on the changes we have
made." He will say he wants to address the situation "where on Friday
employees are seen as valuable members of the workforce, and on Monday they are
shuffled off in to retirement".
These references can only have been taken
from pre-emptive verbatim Press Releases issued on Wednesday, before the FT copy-deadline for the earliest provincial
editions (I bought my FT at 6.20 am on Thursday morning, in Swansea).
This was a blatant move by the Government to seize the initiative and to upstage opponents
(including me, in this case, because I am deeply ashamed at the amorality of my
Government's mealy-mouthed and unprincipled position on Old Age Pensions).
The Government spinners were allowed by the Press to occupy media space before the speech was even made!
That is outrageous!
And the media were complicit, which demonstrates parallel motivation. Is this not even recognised as impermissible
spin?
Have these guys lost all sense of perspective?
I implore Tony Blair
and his Government, before it is irretrievably too late, to
implement straight away my
Eight Desists
- if he had
taken my advice, none of this week's blatant spinning would have occurred.
My fear is that the Labour Cabinet is whirring around so fast that they no longer know what is spin,
and what is not.
What examples of Government spin have you spotted today?
Drop me a line
> < Top
School Police
It gets worse. "Truancy sweep catches 12,000", screams the liberal and
sober Guardian. This criminalisation of our school system
is tragic, and profoundly misguided. No good will come of it, and Estelle
Morris is wrong to cultivate it. Police are to be sent into playgrounds, in
London. And these announcements were all made, to the waiting media, by
none other than a
Government Minister, Stephen Twigg.
During the month of May (as you will see from the
Guardian
report) there were 900 separate "Police sweeps" in 34 different education
authority areas - such a concerted one-month campaign can only have been
orchestrated by Government. How many real crimes went undetected, while
our children were pursued by police officers? Have we taken leave of our
senses?
I am ashamed of the insensitivity displayed by my own Government. We
should be caring for our children, not arresting them.
Let me know what you think
Drop me a line
> <
Top
Public Primacy
I recently re-visited
my own political credo (see
New Socialist Settlement)
I found that the principle of public
primacy simply elbowed its way to the top. Alongside equality, fraternity, liberty and
democracy, there appeared their inexorable consequence, namely Public Primacy.
This principle asserts,
quite simply, that truly public functions should be discharged by dedicated
public servants, not by private firms employing their own staff according to
their own profit-oriented principles. Of course, that in turn begs the
question What is a truly public function? And that is eminently
amenable to socialist debate. For me, this is the missing particle
of modern socialist theory, the importance of which has only
emerged since the Thatcher years, and with greater understanding of the failures
of privatisation. Two new questions have hit the headlines this
week, both posing the same question. For me, they suggest diametrically
opposed answers. They are (1) the European air
traffic controllers' strike, and (2) the alarming evidence of our collapsing old peoples'
homes, both in the headlines this week.
In the case of Air Traffic Control, it must be clear that the function is a vital public
service, which should
never
be entrusted to a private corporation. The system clearly needs to be
managed as a coherent public-service whole, and should be animated throughout by an
unambiguous commitment to the public good, to public service. There are no countervailing
arguments. Private-profit corporations should have been banned from the
outset, as with the London Underground. The European controllers went on
strike, just to make that single point. It is tragic that Labour should
have found itself on the wrong side of this key line of principle, with both ATC
and the Underground.
On the other hand, with geriatric care, I see no need whatsoever for
many thousands of private old peoples homes to be taken into public ownership
and run by public servants. The principle of public primacy does not require that the nurses
and care attendants should all be employed by the State. The problem is merely
one of finding a stable system of long-term Government
financial support, coupled with an effective system of inspection and quality assurance.
That is a managerial challenge, and I see no essential engagement of socialist principle.
I contend that each new situation
should be analysed in this way, and the force of public primacy assessed, from
case to case.
Do you find that idea helpful?
Drop me a line
> <
Top
Settling with
road-users
This week has furnished new evidence
of the Government's incoherent
relationship with the motorists. Gwynneth Dunwoody and her Transport
Committee sensibly criticised the Government for their pro-motorist stance on the
painting of roadside speed-trap cameras, and their failure to reduce
speed-limits generally. Again, the Government was caught
flat-footed, caught without a coherent position.
Labour must align itself unambiguously with road users. All road
users. Not just
with private car-owners, but with the bus/coach industry and their customers,
pedestrians, cyclists, the commercial freight-lobby and taxi-drivers. This
is a huge and complex constituency, democratically far more extensive than the
middle-class rail-lobby. It includes the majority of
the voting population. The Tories must not be allowed to capture this
territory - as they well might, if Labour continues to sleep on the job.
And the very breadth of the interest groups offers a broad political canvas for Alistair
Darling to paint on, using imaginative combinations of combinations of good news and bad news.
After all, politics is an art, not a science... He has just
one chance, to come up with a global transportation policy package, to deflect current
discontents.
I pray each day
for a decisive pro-highway move from Labour.
It cannot come too soon for me - it is already getting a bit late, if we are to
win the
2005 Election. Get a move on, Darling!
Are you, like me, a covert highway enthusiast? Would you join a
Go for Roads lobby? Or what about a covert Highways Anonymous
group, where we could admit our weaknesses in private?
Drop me a line
> <
Top
News from the
Corporate Jungle VI
I could publish a weekly Weblog devoted solely to the tumultuous
developments in the corporate sector. This is where the world's most
important news is currently being made, in my view. I have previously published my
Jungle News on an item-by-item basis. Today, I give you a
complete - and separate -
Special Edition.
Let me know what you think
Drop me a line
> <
Top
Back to today's
Home Page
Did you
miss the previous DiaryNote?
Check it out
|
Taming the Corporations >> My
Welsh socialism >>