| |
Diary Note /0062
Saturday 29 June 2002
Did you miss the previous DiaryNote?
Check
it out
Is the US
a rogue state?
What is happening to
the great United States? The Bush Administration is now rejecting
all accepted political conventions, all minimum decencies of international
conduct by States. The withdrawal from its international Kyoto environment
commitments, the rejection of the UN International Criminal Court, the authorisation
of State assassinations, the launch of a new arms race, blocking Third World
debt-relief, the shattering of the free-trade consensus by the use of crude
tariff protection for American steel producers, the threat of unprovoked
aggression against Iraq – and now the grotesque attempt to topple Yasser
Arafat by public vilification.
Who will have the courage to challenge
this destructive behaviour? The suspicion must be that the US system
is now so far suborned and corrupted by big business that its "State" is
no longer entitled to speak on behalf of its people. If that
is happening, then the US Government is no more legitimate than a South
American military junta, or a Arab sheikhdom. If that were the position,
and if the immense military might of America proved to have already been
hi-jacked by big business, we would all have good reason to be afraid.
My favourite thinker and writer Hugo Young
propounds the view that America is in the simply in the grip of Dubya's
personal crusade against terrorism, and that we should continue to give
him the benefit of the doubt on this. All leaders have obsessions,
and this is his, argues Young
Missing Bush's Point.
My problem is that I have
darker suspicions. I fear that America may be in the grip
of a military-industrial business cadre whose interests lie in switching
the world economy onto a war footing, in slowing down the disruptive
democratic forces of economic change and international migration,
Merchants of Death who profit
from a constant flow of military crises, for whom a growing world economy
is more threat than benefit, who are content to sit atop a pile of poverty
because they are already as rich as Croesus and possess the power to keep
it that way. Could there be any foundation in those suspicions?
What do you think? Am I becoming paranoid?
There is no doubt that the UK Government
would be the best-placed to lead any challenge to the Bush Administration.
If Blair were to summon up the courage to do that, there is no doubt whatever
that Europe would follow his lead.
I believe these thoughts must now be placed
firmly upon the political agenda. We are gaining nothing from
our close alignment with this Washington Government. By distancing
ourselves more clearly from its evident corruption and incompetence, we
would gain in influence in many other directions.
Should we run the risks of distancing ourselves
from America? Do anyone share my suspicions? What do you think?
Drop me a line > <
Top
Pensions, Immigration
These are related
only in that you have challenged me on both counts, since
the last Weblog. And I owe you a response.
On pensions
your challenge was to my use
of the 30%-figure, in relation to the national average wage.
I argued that the Old Age Pension should be pegged at 30% of the prevailing
average wage – and that seemed to you to be arbitrary.
Let me assure you, it was
not. The
April 2002 level for the average full-time pre-tax wage (discounting
absences, and taking both male and female earnings into account) was £465
per week at current prices – the men exceed £500, the women fall well below
that average figure. So 30% (my proposed Old Age Pension level)
would mean a pension of £140 per week – but that would be per person,
without any marriage or partner abatement, thus an annual pension of £7,280,
double that for a retired couple. That would still fall below the
level sought by Help the Aged, in its
public campaigning.
By the same token,
I would
be “tough” on the level of means-tested impoverishment relief, which on
this footing would be £70 per week – roughly the level of the benefit paid
to asylum-seekers at the present time. I would not exclude the possibility
of a higher figure for any pensionless UK-citizens over-65, but that would
also be a matter of argument. The objective would be to draw a decisive
line between means-tested fallback relief on the one hand, and the reward
for saving on the other. At the moment, the Old Age Pension
pays less than the means-tested benefit! That is entirely
cock-eyed, destroying the motivation to save - and Andrew Smith must put
it right.
I concede that both figures might have to be higher
– say
35% (£163) and 17.5% (£82) - that would be a matter for argument.
The essence of the system would be the automatic nature of the statutory
adjustment, whether upwards or downwards. If our society as a whole
were to fall on hard times, and if average real wages were to fall, then
the Old Age Pension would also fall. My pension would not be
a capitalist “return on investment” pension: it would be a socialist “fair
share of society’s wealth” pension. And by the way – I would concede
that the Old Age Pension should be consolidated with other income and become
subject to Income Tax.
Turning to Immigration
your concern was with
the policing of the “new line” which I suggest, between Citizen and
Visitor. For this would become the new frontier, albeit less
destructive and inhumane than the present formula. My proposal is
that the whole concept of an illegal immigrant should be dispensed
with, and a simple twin-track distinction drawn between Citizens and Visitors.
Everyone would be entitled to enter the country (also other
countries, by treaty agreement) as a visitor - and to take up paid employment.
The visitor, however, would have access only to a minimal slate of "benefits"
see Twin
Track State
The system would be enforced
by
the Courts, or under Court supervision. Visitors could be deported
if they had no reasonable prospect of employment or other financial support
(e.g. student grant), and nobody else were prepared to maintain them
(e.g. relatives, or community or charity group), or if they had failed
to comply with any express term of an entry visa, or they had been convicted
of a crime. They would not be “illegals” from the outset, although
they could be deported at any time if any of these specific circumstances
arose. Over 25 million people already pass through the UK as tourists
each year, effectively on these terms. And the responsibility for
monitoring all these matters would lie with a civilian administration, without
involving the criminal police until a Deportation Order had been made.
I have set out my suggested minimal entitlements
of visitor status,
as follows –
-
A&E medical treatment
-
Equality before the law
-
Police protection against crime
-
Right to take up paid employment
-
Right for minors to receive schooling
-
Impoverishment relief
Within such a framework, the State could permit the
visitor to pay for other services, perhaps even by offering
some form of periodic “state insurance cover” for non-emergency medical
care, or discretionary dental treatment. There is no reason, in principle,
why a visitor (in particular a long-term visitor, studying or on a work-assignment)
should not pay the going rate and purchase appropriate state cover direct,
without going through any private insurance-claim procedure. This
new approach opens up a number of new possibilities, and I commend it to
you.
Do you think we could make such an alternative system
work? Do you think it would be an improvement?
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
Weight Loss for June 2002
This has not been a good month, on the weight-loss front. I lost
control in mid-month, put a half-stone back on and then spent the rest of
the month wrestling it back down again - so let the record show
- 19 st 6 lbs (1st January)
18st 5 lbs (1st February)
17 st 12lbs (1st March)
17 st 7 lbs (1st April)
17 st 2 lbs (1st May)
- 16 st 9 lbs (1st June)
-
16 st 11 lbs (29th June)
I shall need better luck next month...
<
Top
The Bungalow Dilemma
CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
has told us again what we already knew. For the English, the most
popular form of house is the bungalow. With 32% backing bungalows
(as compared with 14% for the modern Semi, and 16% for the Victorian
terrace), vox pop speaks with a clear voice.
The problem is, that housebuilders cannot afford to build bungalows
these days, at least not in the southern half of the country. Bungalows
are simply not profitable. This is partly because they take up far larger
plots-of-land than terraced houses or semi-detached, and partly because
their construction-costs are so high. Per square foot, they have a
lorra roof and a lorra foundations - and both of those surfaces
are expensive - walls are much cheaper.
Trust me - I know - I'm a housebuilder
(see
my biog...)
Do you prefer bungalows ?
Drop me a line >
Top
|
|
 No
symbolic message here, except the transient nature of weblogging, the evanescence
of our opinions. But you must admit: it is a pretty picture...
Manipulation Month
Watch out for July! News management
has bitten so deeply into modern governance that I suspect nobody now recognises
it for what it is - deceitful, undemocratic, and manipulative.
The practice is deeply-rooted of deferring a raft of complex announcements
into July, just before professional politicians break for their Summer hols,
on 24 July. The object is to wrongfoot opponents, spike their guns, and
leave the "Government view of the world" hanging on the political air until
Tuesday 15 October, the end of the hols.
This is the well-established practice
of professional politicians, practised skilfully by the Tories when in power.
But it nevertheless wrong. Emphatically, decisively
and unequivocally wrong. In a democracy, citizens
are entitled to be engaged in an honourable and fair debate, over legislative
proposals which will be binding upon the entire population. If I sound
pompous and old-fashioned, well maybe I am. I am also affronted by
the use of short-deadline consultation, as some kind of democratic
figleaf.
You will have your own particular concerns. We have
already had the Mental Health Act changes, and the Railtrack settlement.
I am now watching out in particular for -
- Comprehensive Spending Review
- Cannabis Re-classification
- Criminal Justice transformation
- Charity law reform
But there are likely to many more. It will be a very busy few days,
and only the professional lobbyists will be able to stand the pace.
As honourable and interested citizens, we should not be exposed to this
kind of manipulation. We deserve better.
What examples of
spin have you spotted this week? From either the Government
or the corporate sector?
Drop me a line >
Blame the song
not the singer
Estelle Morris, as Secretary of State for Education, has
got everything going for her. She is earnest, concerned, a teacher
by profession, and well-informed. Her limited ability and second-rate
oratory are disadvantages that have not stood in the way of others’ political
success.
It is Government policy that is wrong .
Its secondary-school strategy – clearly spearheaded by Tony Blair - of increasing
selection, promoting league-table competition, and encouraging school specialisation,
is fundamentally misconceived. It is a metropolitan, middle-class
conceit, and a cruel deceit for the country as a whole.
For the overwhelming
majority
of our fellow-citizens, there is no such thing as school choice or parental
choice – nor can there be, in the real world. The goal
of Labour policy should be the generation of excellence within each secondary
school, within each neighbourhood. That is an immensely difficult
goal to achieve, but it is the right goal. Nothing less
than equality of excellence should be our aim, however difficult its achievement.
To every parent we should offering this cast-iron assurance –
-
“Excellence
will be brought to your neighbourhood, to where you are living with your
children. That is your entitlement, and their entitlement.
If a neighbourhood school is failing, we will intervene actively and swiftly,
to counter its decline. But you will not be required to bus or drive
your children across town, in pursuit of fashion or your own ambition
for them. Your neighbourhood school will deliver excellence, under
Labour.”
Estelle – that is the
only Labour
message worth sending
to our fellow-citizens. Your image of an educational supermarket,
full of social-climbers and meritocrats seeking special privileges for their
children - that is a Tory image, and has no part to play in a decent, egalitarian
society. When Blair is replaced by Brown, these particular Downing
Street errors of judgment will no doubt be corrected – but why do we have
to wait? Can you not see for yourself that Government policy
is elitist, class-ridden, and dismissive of the large majority of our fellow-citizens
– and of your fellow teachers? The teaching profession is crying out
for you to recognise the central importance of universal, high standards,
delivered by enthusiastic and dedicated teachers for all, in every neighbourhood.
I am sure you did not intend
the awful implications of your “bargepole” remark – mistakes
like that are easily made, we all know that. But your superficial
dismissal of comprehensive schools as a “one-size-fits-all” system was more
serious, because you fully intended it, and it was mischievous and destructive.
But the underlying problem is that the Government’s whole policy orientation
on secondary education is profoundly mistaken, and is taking our great Party
into an awful Tory trap. If parents want a Tory strategy, they
will quickly conclude that the Tories would be better at delivering it.
Voters should remember
Labour
for the Party's commitment to a fair, egalitarian system which gives every
child access to excellence. Nothing less will do.
The
tragedy is that, by following the Blair line, you are being forced to betray
that great socialist perception.
Can you defend the Government’s position, on secondary education?
If so, will you have a go?
Drop me a line > <
Top
Property is theft
What is property?
Propriete,
c'est le vol, said Proudhon, the French social reformer, in 1840.
Property is theft.
And
as you ponder the mayhem on the New York Stock Exchange, and the panic in
our Boardrooms, remember Proudhon.
Because many
of the ills of society are traceable
to our failure to regulate private property rights effectively.
The whole corporate house-of-cards is a global elaboration of the private
property rights of shareholders and their appointed agents. The arbitrary
power, and the rights of "confidentiality" (i.e. secrecy) enjoyed
by the modern corporation represent the ultimate flowering of private property
power.
The abuse of property power is all around us, quite apart from
its generation of corporate power. The bloody-minded farmers blocking public
footpaths are abusing property rights. Landowners blocking urban regeneration,
and allowing great Listed building to fall down, are abusing property rights.
Firms who close down productive facilities are abusing property rights.
In spite of generations of intervention, landlords still oppress tenants,
by way of the abuse of property rights. Millions of TV viewers and
are routinely refused access to great sporting occasions, through the abuse
of property rights. Every new day brings new examples of such abuse.
And by permitting the private ownership of all farmland, Putin's Russia
embarks this week upon a new generation of problems
Socialism or Protectionism?
The abuse of power by corporations
cries out for generic statutory
intervention, internationally coordinated - not merely the appointment of
a new, high-salaried capitalist police-force (the Accountants), or
by tweaking the so-called supervisory regime. Corporate power must
be radically curtailed, by statute. Above all, statute law must require
a new transparency throughout the corporate sector, and shareholders given
real powers of prior intervention, in key corporate decisions. The
puny measures currently being laid before Parliament by DTI Secretary Patricia
Hewitt, represents a failure of political will. They give shareholders
a say,
but only after the fat-cat remuneration contracts have been
legally concluded
The UK fat-cats will be purring, to find that Labour has lacked the courage
to intervene effectively.
I know
I sound like a nutter.
I often feel like a nutter, because nobody seems to share
my perception of the destructiveness of private property power, and of the
political challenge it represents to the Left.
My only comfort is that everyone thought Proudhon was a nutter too.
Are you minded to take this analysis seriously? Would you be
prepared to discuss some form of political action?
Drop me a line >
<
Top
Put out more Flags!
Spinning also takes the form of strategic understatement. An astonishing
Government U-Turn was achieved quietly last Tuesday
by Nick Raynsford, Labour's Local Government Minister. The device used was
the written Parliamentary Answer, by which Raynsford announced
on Tuesday (without having to utter a word in public) that no action
would be taken to order shot-gun referenda on elected Mayors for local
authorities. The recalcitrant authorities are Birmingham,
Bradford and Thurrock, and decisive Government intervention had been expected,
threatened, spun.
But
on Tuesday, the spinning hit the buffers.
Birmingham is England's largest
local authority, and they were allowed to get away with defying Government
policy.
I am delighted. I pinned my colours to the mast in 1999, in my
Welsh political credo, and I remain convinced that we should cultivate the
collegiate model of local government, not the
commercial
executive model
Yippee!
Where do you stand on elected mayors? Does
this debate matter to you?
Drop me a line > <
Top
Learning to Earn
University degrees matter. The average UK graduate, by the
age of 40, earns 75% more than the average non-graduate - £35,000 pa, as
compared with £20,000. This is a telling gap, and confirms that it
is equitable to require graduates to contribute to the cost of their own
education. Why has Labour found it so difficult to come up with a
solution? Maybe this will feature on the July Spinning Agenda
- I set out my solution
last February.
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
>> 