Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

Politicians yearn for the ability to press religious buttons.  They realise the limitations of conventional "political" methods, of subsidy, statutory intervention and law enforcement.  And they suspect that these methods do not engage the real levers of change.  They suspect that real change in the hearts and minds of people lies beyond the scope of "politics" and moves into the territory of "religion", or at least that diffuse humanist moral philosophy which now satisfies the silent majority.  Tony Blair clearly feels that, as did Margaret Thatcher, perhaps even certain American Presidents.

And in this respect, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, is a politician - albeit one with a difference.  In a new book, he has addressed the specific reconciliation of Islamic, Jewish and Christian teachings, demonstrating that religious diversity is to be valued, in all three faiths.  His aim is to defuse exclusivity and fundamentalism, wherever they raise their ugly heads. The book is explicitly called The Dignity of Difference. The arguments are pretty convincing (at least if you are someone, like me, who desperately wants to be convinced).

And as a frustrated politician myself, I share the politicians' envy of religious leaders, who seemingly access parts of the human spirit which political theories cannot reach.  But I fear that Sacks arguments, while targeted at his fellow priests in the two other religions, will not cut much ice with the general public.  To judge from the book reviews (which I confess I do, all the time), few rank-and-file believers will be able to access the Chief Rabbi's professional arguments.

That is partly because of the erosion of religious faith as a whole.  But it is also because the need is for a universal doctrine of individual equality and dignity - one which disregards religious differences as it disregards all other differences, of gender, language, age and ethnicity.  Rather than confirm the Rabbi's view that "differences are desirable", the key concept ought to be that differences are politically irrelevant - and that message is subtly different.  Such theories do of course have some element of religious underpinning, even where ostensibly humanist in character.  Its simplest religious expression is George Fox's perception of "that of God in every man" (familiar to  me, because of my Quaker schooling).  That is the philosophy which underpins the Human Rights movement, and with which I personally identify. 

• But Sacks is great - independent of mind, courageous, direct. All power to his elbow.

The debate over “genetic modification” has become tragically distorted.  It cannot possibly be a debate about the process of modifying genes, in the course of the reproductive process, whether for plants, animals or humans.  Given the huge potential benefits of GM techniques, I find it quite impossible to imagine any principled objection to this form of scientific investigation. That puts me firmly in the Tony Blair camp, on this issue, and more than a little impatient with the sheer obscurantism of the debate – I think Friends of the Earth have got this one wrong.  They have sided with the dogmatism of the American religious Right, mouthing mindless slogans. 

But the GM “movement” nevertheless does for me raise two very serious concerns, both relating to the abuse of power. 

• First  The search for patentable inventions: GM momentum is coming from major commercial corporations, who are seeking (by genetic engineering) to devise new plant/life species strains which have been “invented”, and which are therefore capable of private-right patenting.  Modified strains can be owned, whereas natural strains cannot.  Gratuitous modification is worthwhile in profit terms, even if no substantive functional advance is achieved. 

• Second   Those private rights quickly become vested, not in a boffin inventor or some kindly retired Professor, but in major international corporations which are capable for the most ruthless and amoral exploitation of the world’s population, aided and abetted by prevailing legal systems. 

The solution is not to prevent this research, but to manage the process more effectively.  The long-term solution is to tackle the underlying issue of corporate sector reform.  I am becoming more and more focused on (some would say obsessed with, but let that pass) the need to Tame the Corporations.  People are fearful of GM processes because they do not trust the corporations.   

It is no good lecturing the corporations and their management, nor yet expecting too much of them.  They are what they are, what we have permitted them to be.  We must get inside the legal machine, and change the legal rules which govern their very existence and operation, under company law.  That is what my object is, in promoting internationally the Newport Manifesto. 

Will you join me? 

 < Back to Home Page

Canals cry for help

I spent two days this week talking green transport.  By that, I mean the transfer of freight from the roads to the canals.  One of my personal interests lies in the reinvigoration of barge transport, and the use of our marvellous canal system for commercial freight.  I am Chairman of two East London companies working in this field, Waterflow Transport Limited and Pondskater Limited. 

Barge operators from all over the UK attended, invited by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.  It was a great pleasure to meet the Northern barge operators, so often the third and fourth generation of old bargemaster families.  Ostensibly, the subject was the adaptation of the European Inland Waterways Directive 1996 to UK circumstances.  But the real theme was different.  What emerged was a desperate cry-for-help from the handful of commercial firms still in operation. 

Barge transport is near terminal collapse, in its hopeless competition with cheap road transport.  And the British Waterways Board, who should be promoting green freight positively, has lost all interest in commercial freight.  Life is quieter and simpler selling fishing licences, pleasure moorings, and wharfside land - for property development. 

I can vouch, from my own experience, for the seriousness of the crisis.  My own company can rarely afford to deliver its hazardous waste cargo (car batteries, for re-cycling) by barge, even though we have the equipment (tug and barges) to do so, and even though the Lee Navigation waterway is in good condition and entirely workable.  It is simply  cheaper, even in the hurly burly of the London traffic, to deliver by road than by barge.  Yet the environmental advantages of retaining the option of barge movement must be unarguable. 

I do not believe that Government has the faintest idea how serious the situation is.  If the Government is serious about green transport, some form of subsidy must be paid, to redress the reverse profit gap with highway freight. Opinions clearly differ as to the size of that gap, but it should be measured in terms of kilometre-tons, for every ton carried by water over the distance of the trip.  The barge operator should be able to rely upon the payment, for every ton actually carried, of a distance supplement relating to the length of the journey-by-water.  Such payment should be payable simply for the advantage of movement-by-water, in systemic and environmental terms.   

This Green Barge Supplement would have to be committed for a fixed period ahead, probably five years. After three years, a Government decision could be taken whether or not to extend it, introducing a rolling three-year commitment, so that it could not be terminated without three-years’ notice.  Without a reliable forward commitment, the barge-operator could not sensibly take the Supplement into account when tendering for competitive freight contracts.  And if that happened, the system would fail. 

This would not be discriminatory in EU terms.  It would be payable to Dutch or German operators who decided to ply for trade in UK inland waters.  True, it would subsidise water transport for environmental reasons, and that is itself a desirable EU objective.

Is anyone listening, in Government?  Or do they want to stick to the imposition of further Regulations upon the trade?  One thiing is quite clear.  Unless Government does listen, and act quickly, there will be no industry left to regulate.

If you share any of these obsessions, it would be
good to hear from you... 

Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

The issue is a deadly serious one

That rucksack

d   Fear of disorder  This is more than the conventional “crime and disorder” agenda, of muggings, burglaries and public rowdyism.  The fear of war, induced by George Dubya, and UK failure to counter his influence, contributes to the fear of disorder.  The continuing failure of Government “drugs policy” contributes as well.  Immigration policy, reports of asylum-proceedings, all fuel disorder anxieties.  All major public service malfunctions contribute to an uneasy feeling that "They" are incompetent, and that is corrosive. Media coverage of crime, including the BBC, contributes to growing fear of crime throughout society, quite out of proportion to its actual incidence.  Labour fought the June 2002 Council Elections principally on law-and-order issues, and the Party was right to do so.  But far more sophisticated political strategies are needed, to address the rising tide of personal anxiety on this score..

d   Fear of unemployment, poverty  The 30/40-Somethings, who remain the powerhouse of the modern economy, are apprehensive about continuity of their employment.  Worse, is the totally inadequate benefit payable upon job-loss.  That is what fuels the astronomical rise in Industrial Tribunal claims: frequently, the object of such proceedings is merely to secure a reasonable severance settlement.   And these fears subsist, even though the economy is buoyant, because of the unpredictability and abruptness of change.  Faced with job-loss, every individual needs time to adjust, and should be given that time.  A dramatic change of approach is needed, to helping each individual manage job-transition.  My own proposals for a new kind of Adjustment Pay, replacing the Redundancy Benefit system, are on the record.

d   Fear of old age  The 30/40-Somethings are now increasingly worried about their old age.  Labour has conspired with the Tories to eliminate the State Old Age Pension from their expectations, herding them into the City, just at  a time when employers are withdrawing from their earlier pension-providing role, and when City investment performance is woefully weak.  The Young Meldrews are feeling abandoned, lost, angry – and they are afraid.  Private investment is clearly not going to provide for their old age, and the State has abandoned them.  Labour must pick up the cudgels again, ditch the Party’s Tory policies, and come to their aid.

d   Fears of ill-health   These, I believe, are much lower down the Anxiety Agenda than is conventionally thought.  Opinion surveys consistently show that individuals’ personal experience of the NHS demonstrates high levels of satisfaction, exceeding 80%, in spite of well-reported cases of NHS failure.  While I applaud the scale of the Government’s additional NHS investment, the primary issue is not one of resources by of a change of therapeutic style, which is not yet being addressed.

What about education?  I do not think it appears on the anxiety radar.   The cost-to-parents of post-16 education is a real issue, but that is the only point (in my view) where Education currently enters Rucksack Theory. 

What else is on the Rucksack Agenda?  Environmental pollution is rising rapidly up the Agenda, as are consequential concerns with its cost implications. The rising tide of insurance premiums is triggering widespread anxiety, as projects fail to secure insurance cover.  The evident chaos of UK transportation is profoundly unsettling.  For a well-informed and educated electorate, new reasons for anxiety arise daily.  That is the kernel of my theory at Multiple Differential Uncertainty.  Each of us carries those anxieties around until we have found a way of living with them - we resolve them, or forget them, or suppress them, or bypass them - or just get drunk or stoned. That's what I mean by Rucksack Theory.

Let me know what you think