You
are in the company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You
are in the company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
|
Fragile America What do America and Russia have in common? Presidents in their late forties, certainly. A preoccupation with oil supplies, certainly. Increasingly close links between Government and the corporate sector, certainly. Firm commitments to being global players, certainly. And they share all these features with the UK. But the real link is plain ignorance. Even with a population of 145m and vast natural resources, nobody knows how to make the Russian economy work. The majority consider that the Communist "managed" economy did not work well enough, and should be replaced by a "market" economy - with the sole exception of the Communist Party, who are the New Conservatives of Russia. And nobody really knows how the American economy works, because there has been no experience of anything else - the system has, like Topsy, just grow'd. If anybody knew how it work, it would have been fixed by now. Paradoxically, the UK under Gordon Brown is getting closer to such an understanding, although we still have a long long way to go. In seeking to understand how our economies work, we are all looking in the wrong place. The answer will not be found in conventional "economic theory", as I studied it at Cambridge (and I managed to get a First at Trinity, in The Principles of Economics, specially taught for historians..) The answer is societal, holistic. It lies in the confidence with which ordinary people face the future. Confidence is I believe a normal condition of mankind, but the confidence of every persion is perpetually eroded by different anxieties and fears. Each person must confront a different cocktail of uncertainties. Every human being is capable of becoming crippled by un certainties and anxieties, incapable of effective action, even of rising from sleep in the morning. Man's great intelligence, and its increasing refinement through education, brings with it the great burden of uncertainties, anxieties, and fears. That is the thesis of my own major essay, published in 1992 - click through to Multiple Differential Uncertainty. Some say it is a bit heavy going - but I cannot help that! It is "wot I wrote", in the Ernie Wise sense, in 1992. It is the primary function of organised society, and therefore of all politics, to allay those fears. It is no accident that Aneurin Bevan's great autobiography was called In Place of Fear - that is what socialism is really about. The key fears of mankind are as they have always been - fear of ill-health, fear of civic disorder, fear of injustice and oppression, fear of impoverishment in old age (to which I would now add a fear of parenthood, and all the responsibilities of raising children in threatening environments). The American economy is slowing, I say, because ordinary Americans are losing confidence in their system of society. 11 September was a cruel blow - though never intended, I believe, to collapse the Trade Center towers. The initial blow was to Americans' self-image - "How could anyone hate us like this?" - many Americans continue in a state of disbelief, considering themselves to be the good guys of the globe, without destructive ways. Then came the debacle of the Presidential Elections and the hanging chads, when American democracy was held up to ridicule in the eyes of the world - that was another body-blow for American self-confidence. The pantomime exposed a thousand other malfunctions of a ramshackle system of "democracy". Then came Enron, which was already on our TV screens by January, as George Dubya took office (see my comment 3 February 2002) - the whole fabric of corporate America has been shown to be riddled through with fraud and deceit, with the savings of ordinary people ransacked by millionaire executives and insiders. And all this, in a system which is very weak in terms of social welfare support, state pensions, public healthcare - the US "safety net" offers naught for your comfort, or very little. If you sink, you sink. And the vicious problems associated with the maintenance of an alienated, ethnically-differentiated under-class (with over two million actually held in privatised prisons) represent a brooding threat of civic disorder. But there is more. There is one final worry, gnawing away at Americans' confidence in the future. A growing minority realise that George Bush is seriously inadequate - others, I suspect, are whistling in the wind by protesting their confidence and patriotism, concealing a sinking feeling inside. The final nail in the coffin of the American economy is lack of confidence in George Bush. His Government is interpenetrated at every point by a corrupt business elite, many of whom may even not understand the degree of deceit and exploitation that is inherent in the private corporate systems they administer. I have set out my own thoughts on the reforms necessary to tackle this global phenomenon at The Newport Manifesto. When will things get better? I reckon, by April 2003.
Remember - you read it here first - on www.warrenevans.net... Check out my "prescription" for Russia: A bandit State
America enforces new accounting procedures The US State has, much to the annoyance of its trading partners , often passed extra-territorial legislation. Congress has often claimed the right to regulate the conduct of American citizens throughout the globe, and even the conduct of persons doing business with Americans - albeit of a different nationality, working in a foreign country. These practices have been consistently resisted by America's partners, most of whom prefer to restrict themselves to legislation have a strictly territorial effect, each State regulating its own territory. The UK Parliament has rarely legislated extra-territorially (the recent criminalisation of child sex offenders operating abroad broke new constitutional ground). The new post-Enron legislation, while raising similar issues, is subtly different. The Americans are saying that if a "foreign" artificial person, a foreign corporation, seeks to raise funds in America (e.g. by way of a quotation on an American Stock Exchange), then its Directors must comply with the new tough validation rules, for their company accounts. The Chief Executive and the Chief Finance Officer will be required, by law, to "sign off" their company's accounts, and therefore take personal responsibility for their accuracy. I like this idea, for three reasons.
So I congratulate the Americans in pushing forward the cause of company law reform. Many more measures of this kind will be required, as the reform campaign progresses. But Congress has made a start. These are initiatives which will have the most enormous long-term consequences.
NICE new Council 
I yield to noone in my concern to maximise the
participation of all my fellow citizens in the governance of their
communities. I am mortified by the remorseless shift of power
into the hands of salaried politicians and salaried corporate
managers. But in seeking new ways of involving more
people, we should minimise the process of selection and appointment
by the salaried hierarchies themselves.
The new
National Institute for Clinical Excellence is to select a "Citizens'
Council", to advise it on treatment priorities within the NHS.
The Council will meet twice a year, with strictly consultative
functions. If you want to be selected, you can volunteer - drop
an E-line to the specialist selection consultants
who have been appointed.
Now: NICE is right to test public opinion in this sector. NHS treatment priorities do
represent a real difficulty for the State, and the widest
possible consensus should be sought, in taking these difficult
decisions. But this is not the right method. The LibDem
spokesman Dr Evan Harris condemned it as "patronising, a fig leaf".
If the lay public is to be brought in
There should be regional Juries, because these
judgments are likely to vary geographically. A Jury should
comprise perhaps 100 members. Such Juries
should not be merely advisory or consultative: they should be given the right to decide the matter, at
least for a year or so ahead, following a full presentation of the
arguments to them. After all, juries of twelve have in the UK
traditionally been given powers of life and death, in our Courts -
they can certainly decide, conclusively and finally, on the priority
to be accorded to different categories of medical treatment, in
modern society.
Now - that would be a
truly democratic
breakthrough. And selection for such Jury service would be
widely respected, perhaps even welcomed by those selected.
How would you organise it
The Professionalisation of Politics "Politics" has become a fully-salaried "profession", with many opportunities for adventurers to make money on the side. For the Tories, this proposition is of no great significance, for a "political career" has traditionally been the outward manifestation of professional and business success - in Court, or in the Boardroom, or in City dealing. But for my Party, for Labour, the adjustment to the professionalisation of politics has been more difficult, and indeed remains problematical. 
Labour pioneered professional politics. There was no alternative. One of the first aims of the
new "Labour" MPs of February 1906 was the payment of salaries to MPs. In 1906, it was
the trade unions who had to pay salaries to the new MPs, to keep them in
Parliament. It was not until 1911, when the Liberal Government finally
gave in to Labour, that MPs were awarded any salary at all. And the case
for payment was essentially a democratic one: without payment, access to
Parliament would forever be limited to those who could afford to serve, either
because of personal means or TU sponsorship. In 1911, that threat to
democracy was defused.
But since then, within the Labour movement, salaried officialdom has steadily
grown in power and influence. Trade Union leaders, now well-paid general
managers in their own right, have wielded considerable power within the Labour
Party, and have on occasion stepped across from the one ladder to the other.
David Triesman, the new General Secretary of the Labour Party and a political
unknown, was previously a
high-salaried, professional TU General Secretary. The Trade Unions, led by
well-paid professionals, have retained their position of influence within the
Labour Party.
And within the last 25 years, Labour Party officials have been permitted to
contend for political office. When I was young,
there was no question of any Labour Party official seeking elective office.
The convention was strong, and respected: one was either a
politician, contending for elective office, or a Party servant,
working for politicians. That convention has now gone (does anyone
remember how that happened?). Most of the Party officials are now,
overtly or covertly, competing for elective office,
and a stint as a Party official reads well on any candidate's CV. It
follows that the credibility of officials is in tatters: they are in competition
for power with the politicians whom they ostensibly serve, with an interest in
eliminating any competent opponents.
Political power is exercised, in the UK, by about 4,000
salaried politicians, whose primarily skills lie in the manipulation of the
electoral machine. This is not democracy: it is an manipulated elective
oligarchy, with a propensity to narrow the political power-base still further. The
situation is serious, and calls for the serious expansion of
new democratic
formats. The entire political process has become monetised -
volunteers no longer play any substantive part in public life. The
early years of the Labour Party could not be re-run now: everybody would demand
payment, at a competitive hourly rate...
That is why the Labour Party has such an enormous overdraft. We pay far
too many salaries, to far too many people, merely to subsidise their political
ambitions. My message to David Triesman is -
If you were to succeed in that, the name of Triesman would ride high in the annals of the Labour Party. Is this too harsh a judgment?
The Politics of Personality English political convention rejects "personality politics". Politics, it is commonly said, are about policies, not personalities. And in one sense, that is obviously true. Ideas and theories do matter, in all aspects of our lives. 
But personality interpenetrates
politics in a thousand different ways.
Karl Marx was no committee.
He was a distinct personality, an idiosyncratic German Jew,
a well-read polymath, living in 19th century England, and
working at the British Library. His theories were powerful, because they
conveyed a coherence which others found convincing. That coherence
reflected the integration of his own personality. He got it together, as
very few people ever manage to get it together.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau wielded similar
influence, for the same reason – Tom Paine, John Stuart Mill, John
Maynard Keynes – they all conveyed, in their theoretical works, the
coherence of their personal perceptions. So did Anthony Crosland, so did
Enoch Powell. We are all assisted by the coherence which these writers
have managed to achieve. Margaret Thatcher has not had the same
intellectual impact because she was merely an opportunist, in matters of
political theory. “Thatcherism” has not stood the test of time, and will
prove no more enduring than Poujadisme
In my own small corner, this Weblog
springs from the same perception, as do my various attempts to define my
own socialism, Mark 2002. I am trying to turn my own personality to
advantage - it's as simple as that. I reckon that, if I can
demonstrate that my socialist theories fit together, and can generate
practical policy options, they will all be more convincing.
I have had three attempts so far, to work out my own position the first in
January 2000
My Little Red Book -
New Socialist Settlement
March 2002 and
Bevan
Re-Visited April 2002.
I am now embarking on my fourth and
most ambitious attempt, namely
The Newton Agenda. Watch this space.
Do you suffer from TIS, as I do?
Theoretical Imperative Syndrome? If you are a fellow
sufferer,
Our Little Systems
But to my point. First, there is the Criminal Records Bureau,
pilloried for its failure to process the records of new teachers in time
for the beginning of school term, in a fortnight's time. Yet again,
the Civil splattered egg all over their Ministers' faces, leaving an
impression of monumental incompetence. Sir Humphrey had to be
rescued, by Minister Margaret Hodge.
What has gone wrong? Let's first state what has gone right.
Because the Government was right to undertake a radical
reform of the whole system of sex-abuse checking, responding to growing
public concern. Before April 2002, the "system" hardly deserved the name:
Police checks were done by each police force separately, and checks were
limited to criminal records. It is right that the new
system should nationalised (even I, with my extreme devolutionary
views, acknowledge that this a suitable case for Uk centralisation).
And it is right that the new centralised Agency checks up
not only on Police and criminal records, but also on the records of the
NHS and the Department of Education. Indeed, I consider the
Government was right to reject the US system of annual
passports, much canvassed in recent days: they are never up-to-date, and
must be open to forgery. The website of the new Agency is well worth
a look.
But there the plaudits end. It was unwise to give the
agency the name of the Criminal Records Bureau - because its very essence
is that it checks on NHS and DES records as well. A wave of
misinformed comments has been directed at the name, quite unnecessarily.
It was unwise
to launch the Agency in an April, forcing it to run the gauntlet of the
new school year so early in its operations: Sir Humphrey should have
insisted on an October, or a January launch. And
it was unwise to give the impression that new Agency was only
about teachers. Indeed, its great institutional strength is that it
serves the entire voluntary and religious sector - where child abuse has
been for more common than in mainstream schools in any event.
These are all classic failures of management - not political
failures, in any meaningful sense. Blame attaches to Ministers only
if they tried to force the pace of implementation unwisely. Labour
Ministers must remember that the Civil Service is not the same dedicated
public service that the Party left behind, in 1979 - it a dislocated,
balkanised network of executive agencies, whose morale was destroyed by
Thatcher, with hundreds of senior civil servants pursuing their own
personal careers in their own little boxes, like CEOs in the business
world. We must govern accordingly.
This week's second fault of system was quite different. It concerns
this woman "Jezebel Blythe"
(pic from The Guardian), an Englishwoman found
in Greece, with injuries and complete amnesia. She is articulate,
and invented this name for herself - "I wanted something fairly
improbably, instead of something like Susan or Mary", she said. The
Greeks took pity on her, indeed the private clinic where she ended up paid
for her flight to England, where she "obviously" came from.
But when she arrived here, the LA social services department (Kent County
Council) would not take responsibility for her - "because she did not have a
name or address". How absurd! Wotta system! Somebody
suffering from total amnesia is denied care because she has no name
or address! This is pantomime administration. We must change the
system: if the LA is indeed right, that it has no power or funding to
help, in such circumstances, then a UK fund should be established,
enabling the LA to draw down supplementary funding when circumstances
require. Jezebel has made bureaucratic idiots of us all...
< Back to Home Page
396 24 August 2002 These men are dangerous
Jonathan Porritt and George Monbiot? Dangerous? Yes - I reckon they are. They are both talented, balanced, eloquent, and influential. They have both generated significant personal followings, by their early identification of global environmental issues and their courageous championing of them. And in my judgment, they are right in the position that they occupy on most of these issues. I always read what they write. But they both fail to generate any practical political solutions - practical proposals for the engagement of ordinary concerned citizens. Their language generates great enthusiasm, and they are both good communicators. Yet they do not point their followers in any clear direction. It is simply not enough to buy FairTrade coffee, use long-life light-bulbs, boycott certain forests, instal rainwater tubs and share a bath with your partner. There must be a prescription for political action. Yet consider George Monbiot, writing (as does Jonathan Porritt) in the Guardian's Johannesburg Earth Summit Supplement -
Really, George? How many marks do you think this prescription would get, in the forthcoming GCSE Civics paper? None. In political terms it is vacuous, almost naive - and therefore dangerous. Jonathan Porritt is equally vacuous and unconstructive in today's Observer. The problem is that Jonathan Porritt defines "sustainable development" as extending to the whole of politics, the whole of economic management. That is simply not sensible, or politically realistic. "Sustainable development" should be defined in terms of avoiding the degradation of the environment and the gratuitous depletion of finite natural resources. That represents a manageable political target, and I would ask both Monbiot and Porritt to focus their thinking more effectively. These are serious matters, demanding the most serious political solutions. And, apart from casting the political net too wide, we have chosen the wrong political "model". The all-or-nothing blockbuster Summit model is simply inappropriate to the task in hand. It is at once too cumbersome, and too fragile - as the US rejection of Kyoto has cruelly demonstrated. We should be settling on a number of ambitious, yet realistic and quantifiable environmental objectives, and using the model of the "rolling treaty". A rolling-treaty merely requires that a firm treaty relationship is kicked-off by a small number of like-minded states, seriously committed to the reduction of environmental stress, and prepared to proceed by law to implement them. Nothing else will do. The process is bound to take twenty years. But there is no question, pace George Monbiot, of bypassing the nation-states of this world. We must work through the nation-states, creating new collaborative networks between them. We should not rely on voluntary public-private partnerships, of which much will be heard in Johannesburg. Nor on collaborative non-statutory "standards". Nor yet on "consumers" to take decisive action, to boycott or select or discipline suppliers. These mechanisms are too fragile, too unreliable. Politicians must go straight for the jugular, and devise schemes which either offer convincing statutory inducements or deliver effective, enforceable prohibitions. And if necessary, new forms of international enforcement agency will have to be developed. This new treaty-network should lie outside the European Union, and outside the United Nations. Both organisations come with too much political baggage. The paradigm of this political model is the European Convention of Human Rights, which started with 14 member-states in 1951, and now has 42 adherents. Let it roll, that's what I say. Ten or twelve strongly committed nations would be enough to get the system going: others would join, as they were good and ready to do so. The UK would be well-placed to take the lead. Michael Meacher is proving a first-class Environment Minister, and our Foreign Office still retains an influential global network, ideal for this purpose. My specific proposal is that the Government should make a start now with the diplomatic groundwork necessary to convene the first Our Earth Conference in Summer 2004. What about it, George? Jonathan? And of course, dear Reader, you must let me know
what you think -
|
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New
