New
Living Diary
Index

New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited

420  5 September 2002  

We need new Demons

Time was, when the Left knew precisely what it was against.  I remember the vicious cartoons of the Russian Communist version of Punch (the comparison was better, with Le Canard Enchaine) - the provocative magazine Krokodil.  Krokodil was our light reading, on the Armed Forces Russian course in Bodmin, in the 1950s.

The demonology was straightforward, and would probably have been shared by the TUC or Labour Party Conference at the time.  Fat bloated businessmen (particularly Bankers) - a demonic Uncle Sam - fatuous Royalty - Mafia crooks, and lawyers - rapacious landlords - all with swag-bags bearing the $-sign.  Every year, similar images cropped up, in grass-roots Resolutions for Conference.  Socialism was simple: it meant being against all of Them.  I remember to this day an impassioned speech by a young West Indian teacher who roused the Party Conference to cheers, when she declared "Private is them - Public is us"...

Those certainties have certainly gone.  But in many trade union speeches, throughout the pages of the Morning Star, and in everything written by Roy (Lord) Hattersley, I find the same tired Demons on parade.  I do not blame those involved - indeed, it has been a signal failure of New Labour that the Party has given us no new Demons.

What about my own demons?  I certainly do not demonise "business" in general, or the business community - although with representatives like Digby-Jones around, Chief Buffoon at the CBI, it is very tempting to do so.  I am indebted to the excellent Financial Times for this picture of him delivering gratuitous insults this week to the Scots for their "anti-business" attitudes. Digby-Jones also made a fool of himself recently in Japan - he's an all-round liability to the cause of business.  But for me, trading skills, business skills, are vital for the achievement of a successful economy - no more vital than the right public infrastructure and first-class public services, but nevertheless indispensable.  The centrality of dealing skills should be recognised, in any socialist market theory.

It follows that I do not demonise private enterprise, as my young West Indian teacher did - and as did Roy (Lord) Hattersley writing last week in The Guardian.  My view is that we should assign as much as we possibly can to the self-regulating systems of the private sector, wherever a viable trading mechanism can be generated.  I do not therefore demonise the use of PFI - although there have been several cack-handed errors of judgment in its deployment, principally private prisons, Air Traffic Control, Railtrack and the London Underground.  I am perfectly content to judge each case on its merits, although my starting point remains the principle that public functions should be performed by public servants: see Public Primacy.

421  5 September 2002  

Government conventionally pursues its objectives by the use of a number of different methods, or techniques.  Tweaking the tax system, paying state benefits and subsidies, organising public activities, managing the trading process, persuading and educating its citizens, creating enforceable civil obligations, and prohibiting unacceptable conduct.

"Prohibition" is the oldest and simplest form of Government intervention. Government, by its legislative processes, merely declares an activity to be illegal.  At a stroke the designated activity, and those engaged upon it, are placed beyond the social and legal pale, threatened with Police investigation, criminal prosecution, punishment by imprisonment, social opprobrium and loss of status and reputation.

The technique of prohibition is therefore a heavyweight one, and itself destructive.  It should be deployed only when absolutely necessary, to achieve objectives which command the widest possible support throughout the community.  The prohibition of murder, manslaughter, rape and sexual assault, robbery, violence, fraud, mugging, theft, kidnapping - these all command universal disapproval, and are the proper subject of prohibition.

It is otherwise with the inappropriate deployment of prohibition. Three current examples must suffice.

The Chinese Government uses prohibition indiscriminately, and exacts draconic penalties for a wide range of prohibited acts - including political dissent and excess procreation.  And in its suppression of political freedom, it permits only Internet cafes which have been licensed by the Authorities - all others are illegal.  To seek a licence is to invite Government controls and censorship, which the young Chinese reject.  Thousands of Internet cafes therefore operate illegally: the Authorities estimate that only 200 cafes are "legal" - but there are another 2,200 operating illegally.  Recently, 25 young Chinese were burnt to death in an illegal basement Internet cafe which was operating outside the law, without being subject to fire-escape regulations.  By forcing the trade into illegality, thousands of young lives are put at risk.

The UK Government deploys prohibition against the consumption of certain types of intoxicant and psychoactive substances.  Not alcohol, not tobacco, but substances that the Government has listed, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.  These substances are widely consumed, in particular by the young - cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines - quite apart from cocaine and heroin.  But the whole network of activity is forced underground, into a twilight zone of illegality, with resultant illnesses, infection, death, criminality, and loss of social status and reputation.

All the world's Governments prohibit migration, albeit with differing degrees of commitment.  The very presence of an "unlicensed migrant" upon any state territory is treated as illegal.  A work permit or visa or temporary leave-to-visit is necessary, to convert that illegality into legal occupancy.  Yet global personal movement, by way of visiting, holidaying, avoiding political oppression, and migrating for the improvement of life, is accelerating apace.  Migration has long been a key feature of human life, contributing to genetic diversity and playing a vital part in the human settlement of the globe.  This very activity is now declared illegal.  The full weight of prohibition is deployed against it, with the most appalling consequences in terms of loss of life, family disruption, the promotion of criminality, public service corruption, the inhumanity of man against man.

These are all examples of the wrongful use of prohibition, as a governmental technique.  Prohibition cannot and should not be used to criminalise activities which are naturally widespread, and where there is no general consensus about the wrongfulness of the behaviour in the first place.  Governments must seek alternatives.  The young Chinese web-surfers, the young English party-goers, and desperate Afghan and other impoverished migrants - they are all the gratuitous victims of bad government.  In all three cases, the underlying presumptions of illegality should be reversed, and Government should choose other ways of achieving its objectives.

422  5 September 2002  

The corporate sector is a bit like that. Only last week, I counselled against the dangers of subservience to the corporate sector.  This week, its cover is blown in The Guardian -

• "The perfidiousness of big business makes it look more powerful than it really is, breeding an atmosphere of hopelessness and political quietism...  We are in danger of overestimating just how mighty multinationals have become...   The number of multinationals is small, and measured by all the important criteria (share of assets, ownership, management, employment, location of R&D) the importance of a home-base remains the rule, not the exception...  The problems of globalisation have as much to do with supine and fellow-travelling political leaders as with the rapaciousness of corporations.  If global leaders were to agree on a new blueprint for the global economy, embracing human rights, the environment, patents and trade, business would whinge like crazy - but would have no choice but to comply..."

I agree with all that. The man doing the debunking is the excellent
Larry Elliott - read him in full.

423 5 September 2002  

                                           Interested? Drop me a line

                                            Interested? Drop me a line

424  5 September 2002  

“Human Rights” cases are often thought to be about Big Issues, life or death judgments, major conflicts of principle.  But in the case of Warthfield and  Whitaker House, two residential care homes in Bury, Lancashire, the Crown Court in August demonstrated how successful human rights reasoning can be as an element in day-to-day public administration. 

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, owners of the two homes, planned to close them down.  The residents were frail and vulnerable old people, yet they were not given proper notice, they received “inaccurate and misleading information” about the whole process, and they were not consulted about how the closures should be handled.  The whole incident caused great distress to the residents and their families. 

The Council’s action breached their human rights, held Mr Justice Richards.  The Council acted wrongly interfered with the “right to respect for their home and family rights”, under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, now fully incorporated into English law. 

Let’s get this into perspective. The learned Judge was not saying that the Council could not, at its discretion, close down these homes.  No Council has any statutory duty to provide such homes in the first place, so Bury MBC must have been entitled to withdraw the service.  Rather, the Judge focused on the fact that these premises already constituted the homes of many elderly residents, and under Article 8, those “rights of home” were to be respected, in the manner, timing and sensitivity of the closure process.  

Human rights reasoning can bring greater sensitivity to everyday administrative processes.   As local solicitors and welfare activists get to understand the Human Rights Act, there will be further examples of this civilising effect..

And drop me a line

425  9 September 2002  

We are all still learning the ways of the Web, and I am learning about my readers from my faithful American hit-counter The Counter Company.  I know that most of you are visiting the website during weekdays - my First 1000 Hits were recorded as follows -

All figures in %-ages, Base 997                         

Saturdays          9

Sundays            9

Mondays         18

Tuesday          16

Wednesdays   15

Thursdays       16

Fridays            14

I doubt if the weekday variations are significant at this stage (given a bit of random rounding-up and rounding-down, and changing patterns since start-up) - but the difference between weekdays and weekends certainly is.  As for times-of-day, the Counter gives me this well-distributed picture of y'all -

6/9.00 am  Early Birds                7

9/12 am     Coffee Breakers      22

12/2 pm     Lunch Munchers    11

2/5 pm       Tea Timers            17

5/8 pm       Relaxers                 18

After 8 pm  Night Birds              14

In all these figures there is an scattering of maverick international Web-browsers who have just chanced upon the site, and may never visit again, such as -

• Australia

• Austria

• Canada

• France

• Ireland

• Italy

• New Zealand

• Romania

• Singapore

• Sweden

As Lady Mary Wortley Montagu said on her death-bed - "It's all been very interesting"..

 < Back to Home Page

426  9 September 2002  

War? Left incandescent

Michael McCarthy and I know each other only by way of this Website - this was our exchange last week -

RWE (5 September):  When the issue of a written EU Constitution first arose in March/02, I advised the Government to take the greatest possible care.  Jack Straw has gone ahead, and we are now committed to the process.  As a good European and a constitutional lawyer, I am keenly aware of the pitfalls ahead - this process will demand the very highest diplomatic skills. 

MMcCarthy (6 September): I think you miss the (popular democratic) point on this.  It is a public scandal that the UK has no constitution, a state of affairs which leaves Blair free, if he chooses, without consulting Parliament and still less the citizenry in general to involve UK troops in an unnecessary war (see Mo Mowlem's nearly excellent article in today's Guardian, except that she fails at the end to answer the questions she poses, tho' as a recent insider she can be in little doubt about Blair's motivations).

It's another scandal that a constitution for Europe (that includes you and me) is being drafted over our heads by the usual gang of elitists.  The only Constitution that can carry any legitimacy is one which could emerge from a national participatory debate.  Personally, I'd press for the inclusion of extensive social rights, and the right of citizens to requisition a binding referendum on any proposal not contravening human rights.   

RWE (6 September):  Un peu trop, oui.  But not much.  I agree with you as to the substance of the matter, and the arbitrary monarchic undemocratic character of the PM's powers under the UK Constitution - Tony Benn has always been right about
that - and I do not want to sound pernickety.   

But there are two separate points here -

(a)  First: Should the objectionable bits of the UK unwritten Constitution be amended simply by practice - (Blair could accord Parliament the right to the Commons to decide the war/No War issue, and he would de facto abandon the prerogative right, which would not be recoverable) or by specific Amending legislation (as the Scottish and Welsh Devolution Acts have changed the UK Constitution) - that is the substantive question.

(b) Second: There is the question whether legislation should take the form of a single comprehensive integrated written "Constitution" in the continental manner – that is essentially a matter legal technique, or style.

So I making a mere point of legal technique here.  And Yes: you are more radical/populist/democrat than me - I do not believe in referenda at UK level at all (not even on the Euro) - local referenda were just about OK for deciding Sunday pub-opening in Wales, on a parish-by-parish basis - but that is about the limit of their usefulness, in my view, as an instrument of government....

MMcC (6 September):  Thank you for your e-mail – you are always measured, whereas I tend toward the incandescent. 

But perhaps the latter state is hardly surprising, with the country being unwillingly dragged towards at least complicity and very likely participation in a criminal and potentially catastrophic act of aggression.  The fact that Blair and Bush will very probably get their Parliamentary and Security Council votes in support of this aggression simply strengthens my belief that politics - in the emaciated form we have under "actually existing democracy" - cannot be left to effectively unaccountable elites, who manoeuvre and do damaging deals behind the backs of ordinary people, adopt dangerously adventurist policies, and in any case owe their position to processes which lack legitimacy.

I shall be tutoring an Adult Education class this autumn ("Democracy and its Discontents"), so will be able to go into these and related issues (political legitimacy, problems of representative government, the case for direct democracy and the power to requisition referenda, Gramsci's concept of hegemony, globalisation, the media) in some detail.  No doubt we will have some lively debates.

I'm also planning to examine the role of the Internet as a putative public space for debate (and will suggest that my Course members look at your website).  I notice that you have asked people through your website to put you in contact with other political webloggers.  It is surprising that such sites seem to be so thin on the ground - or perhaps not surprising at all, in our sclerotic political culture which makes every effort to deny the people a role in influencing or setting policy.   

Brecht's lines grow more apposite day by day -

"Those who lead the country to the abyss
Call ruling too difficult For ordinary men."

Best wishes

       Michael

Follow Michael's example, and Drop me a line

PS Y'all - check out my views on Iraq

427  9 September 2002  

"War? Let us choose another way"

These were the words on the banner I was holding, at the Swansea Quaker Peace Vigil, in the City Centre, last Saturday morning, as I do every Saturday morning.  And it encapsulates my opposition to the use of aggressive force at this juncture against Saddam Hussain.   Although I stand with the Quakers on this issue, I am not a pacifist: I served in the Armed Forces (Royal Navy, 1950s) and I am convinced that mankind must study and command the use of military force, for deployment in the most exceptional circumstances.  But the use of force against Iraq would debase the currency of international relations, increase the acceptability of war, and move the entire globe towards an era of greater violence and insecurity.

All political action is a matter of choice.  And there is no need or justification for the deployment of force against Iraq at this juncture.  Saddam Hussain has not attacked anyone.  His deployment of military force internally, and his political method (i.e. funding military research and keeping his country on war-alert) is a common hallmark of autocratic regimes.  Indeed, George Dubya is using precisely the same technique in the USA, under a federal Constitution which leaves the President with few levers of power other than the military. Iraq's neighbouring states are not petitioning for forcible intervention, and certainly do not feel threatened by Iraq. Iraq has only the most tenuous connections with the Al Quaida conspiracy, and none which have been clearly demonstrated. The presence of "threatening" weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussain's armoury cannot -  even if true - possibly justify the deployment of aggressive force against the people of Iraq.  Comparable intervention in Afghanistan was an act of political pique which has had no lasting beneficial effect, leaving a weakened and fragile Afghan polity to struggle with the same problems as it faced before.

Why then, is all this happening?  How has the world got itself into such an absurd position?  I have identified six different types of theory, currently being aired -

1. Gulf War Vendetta - the veterans of the Gulf War, abetted by the son of leading veteran George Bush I, are determined to finish off unfinished business, and rid the world of Saddam Hussain;

2. Great Oil Game - the US oil companies will do anything to lay their hands on Iraq's oil supplies, and strengthen their control of the territorial passage of oil, all in pursuit of corporate profits;

3. War on Terrorism: the Al-Quaida must be defeated, and Iraq is part of a mutually-supportive global terrorist network;

4. Hitler Incarnate: Saddam Hussain is Adolf Hitler reincarnate, and we must launch a preemptive strike against his evil empire before he can mobilise his own attack;

5. Thirties Again: The US economy is in trouble, showing marked signs of weakness even before 11 September 2001 and now further weakened by corporate corruption, and by putting the economy onto a long-term war-footing Bush can guarantee a continued period of Republican rule, with "war" performing its conventional function of suspending democratic politics

6. CREEP:  The Republicans could lose heavily in the November Congressional Elections, and they need the aura of war to be maintained until Christmas, at minimal risk of American lives, in order to regain control of Congress, and lay the ground for the Re-election of The President.

What do you think?  I am a 6-5-2 man myself, persuaded that the primary issue is bolstering Republican power ahead of the November Congressional Elections. 

• Does Tony Blair understand that? Read US Correspondent Louise Gray, in The Guardian.

Yep, I reckon he does.  I suspect that the three key leaders - Bush, Blair and Putin - are in fact friends - they clearly get on well together, personally - they all wield supreme authority in their own countries - they are all in their late Forties, of a very similar age - none of them has had personal experience of war, indeed, they were all born after the end of WW2 - all three clearly enjoy the adrenalin of their own remarkable political success, yet perhaps still conscious of the strokes of luck that have brought them such preeminence - and they are minded to help each other to remain in office.  This is the GCEU: the Global Chief Executives Union. The Security Council will in my view give Bush its backing, in due course, helped by the GCEU (the spineless, venal Chirac will be a pushover) - though Bush will be happy to play it long, pending the November Congressional Elections.

But it will still be wrong to go to war even if UN backing is forthcoming.  This is not a situation which can possibly justify unleashing the hounds of war, thousands of deaths and the escalation of regional tension. What do I think of Blair, in this context?  No change.  He is making a massive error of judgment, which could cost him his place in history - but one can say the same about many decisions, abroad and at home. He is a pragmatic careerist, with great charisma and confidence and some cunning, but no intellectual coherence.  I suspect that, like Bush, his limited intellect leaves him in his most private moments with a sense of emptiness, even inadequacy - and that the adrenalin of war fills that gnawing void.  But he is tragically missing out on his greatest personal opportunity, which would have been to lead a decisive European refusal to endorse America's casual deployment of military aggression as an instrument of policy.

Nothing that Blair does will ever induce my departure from the Labour Party. His entourage has simply taken over my Party, that's all.

And I want it back.

Drop me a line

428  9 September 2002  

Public Service undervalued

429  9 September 2002  

Cook fiddling
while democracy burns

But o dear, o dear...  Robin Cook claims that his reforms will make the Commons "more topical, more effective and more accessible, and better able to set the media agenda".  Maybe - but that misses the point.  C'est magnifique, mais ce n'st pas la guerre.

The war with the electorate is being fought elsewhere. The real problem with our democracy (almost everyone agrees) is not the inaccessibility of the House of Commons, but the very fact that there is only one legislature.  The whole creaking machinery of over-centralised imperial government is simply trying to do too much. UK Governments are required by constitutional convention to force a massive body of legislation through the single conduit of Westminster.  Those functions should be spread around the provinces, with Provincial Assemblies sharing the burdens, as in Wales and Scotland.  That would give every Province something useful to do, and re-distribute responsibility for the good governance of our society.  For socialists, wealth is not the only "good" that needs to be redistributed.

The way to bring "government" closer to the citizens of Newcastle and Manchester, and Birmingham is to grant worthwhile powers to Provincial Assemblies, just like Wales.  I do not claim that the Welsh formula is yet working perfectly - but it is sound in principle, and Welsh politicians are learning how to operate its levers.  And gradually, the public centre of gravity in Wales is moving away from Westminster and Whitehall, to Cardiff.  On Saturday 23 November, at the County Hall, in Cardiff Bay, the Welsh National Fabian Conference will consider The Condition of Democracy in Wales (£12, half price for Fabian concessions).  You will all be welcome.

Wales offers the right blueprint for provincial England, and I commend it to you.

Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
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 its source, namely: www.LivePolitics.net - is that a deal?  Roger WE