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 |
|
|
item0015 30 September 2002
Conference 2002 What has happened to our politics? This year's 108-page glossy "Fringe" Programme (which is all that I, as a paying "visiting" Labour member, get to see) suggests that the political world has been taken over by the charities, the think-tanks, and by the corporations and their lobbyists. Yes - there are a number of internal "Party" groupings, seeking to re-assert the primacy of the membership over the Party's affairs, but their meetings are a token resistance, usually addressed by Tony Benn. They are talking in a void, because the old concept of a membership-based Party has evaporated - before our very eyes.. The whole Conference operation is extremely professional, everyone offering entertainment, free refreshments. The Trade Unions are of course active sponsors, that has not changed... And there will be the same covert network of key meetings and receptions strictly by invitation only, for the real insiders, not the likes of us. tugging forelocks at the gate. That is how I remember it in the Sixties. But the scene today is decisively different. Many corporations are reported to be staying away, but I rebel at their continuing presence -- and there will be more of them "exhibiting", to be discovered when I am permitted to buy a fund-raising copy of the actual Programme on Monday morning -
I don't like it. Everywhere, there is the sound of corporate claws tearing into public flesh and gaining purchase... I hereby commit myself not to attend any meeting which is sponsored by commercial corporations... I will tell you how I get on. But one thing is clear. The entire political process has been taken over by salaried professionals, on both sides of the public/private divide - working for the Unions, the Charities, the Local Authorities, the Corporations, the Trade Associations - these wannabees are all grooming each other, strengthening each other's raison d'etre, justifying each others' expense accounts. They are talking predominantly to each other, and getting paid for doing it. For the rest of us that poses a real political risk, a real threat. It is a very modern coup. I have calculated that the UK is now in the hands of some 4,000 salaried politicians, all concerned principally with the maintenance of their positions on a thousand slippery poles: read my Oligarchy v Democracy, from last February.
6 October 2002 Do not attack Iraq
I marched with the anti-War protesters in London on Saturday 28 September, and then hot-railed it to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool.The Iraq March made a deep impression on me. The Meeja were cynical and dismissive, but the reality was deeply moving. Indeed, the March was itself a tribute to human equality, to the equality of political participation, with real personal resonance for those marching.The only discordant aggressive chanting came from two groups of fundamentalists – the Muslim clerics and some of their very young pupils, and the Socialist Workers Party. Both groups disturbed the serious, contemplative mood of the majority of marchers – Quakers, CND, Labour Party members, thousands upon thousands of private, unlabelled people, of every generation.
I suspect that the organisers , the Socialist Workers Party, got more than they bargained for. They envisaged a rowdy, raucous anti-Establishment protest, presaging Revolution. Instead, there were thousands of very private people, voicing their deep concern by their very presence, and resenting the SWP presence.The March was a tribute to London , that a demonstration of this kind could be undertaken so easily, at the heart of the capital, so peacefully, with very low-key policing, with no guns in sight. My estimate of attendance, for what it’s worth, was 250,000. It was all evocative of my days in the 1990s working with Jack Jones, as his Organiser for the Pensions Day Marches, in September each year (24 September is Pensions Day, though we never attracted more than 7,000 to that particular cause…).
6 October 2002 The disappearing Party Party Conference is changing apace. It is a great rally, a jamboree, a gala, a convention, a revivalist gathering, a country fair, a party of parties, a rave – it is all these things, but no longer recognisable as a political Conference. 
Nothing of significance is conferred upon, and such conferring as remains is unashamedly “managed”. Rank-and-file Party members have lost all their leaders, because they have deserted to the officer-class - the political salariat that dominates modern politics. Do not misunderstand me - the Convention is well worth attending – it's a great gathering of the leftward-leaning clans – good for meeting old friends and sparring partners - an excellent public affairs exhibition - good for networking, for getting a bit closer to the all-powerful political salariat – good for aspiring politicians seeking to draw attention to themselves – I can unequivocally recommend it. But it plays no part in the real chain of political command. As a rank-and-file Party member and not a Delegate, there was no part that I could play, although I enjoyed frying my own fish. Indeed, on the two key days (Tuesday and Wednesday) my ticket was “not valid” for entry to the Conference Hall, even in the Gallery – at least, that’s what the bouncers said. I could only view from the TV screens which peppered the Exhibition. Inside the Hall, the event was essentially a showcase for Cabinet Members and MPs, interspersed with a motley mixture of CLP delegates. And two key afternoon sessions were hi-jacked by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, the latter for no good political reason of any kind, demeaning the seriousness of the whole Conference. Last week I gave you a promise, that by way of protest I would not attend corporately sponsored Fringe meetings – but I failed miserably! By Monday morning, it was clear that the goal was unachievable, and I gave up. The unstructured ambiguity of Labour’s relationship with the corporate sector crippled many of these arrangements. Neither side really knows how to behave in these situations - they are morally and politically ambivalent, furtive, embarrassing, disjointed. The “exhibition stand” presence works well, because it is the more open and honest: those who do not wish to engage need not engage. But the “sponsored Fringe” meeting does not work: I had to squirm through too many tortured speeches by business spokespeople, demanding my attention merely because they had paid for the wine and the quiches and the cold bhajees. Labour's relationship with the business sector remains flawed. Check out my Conclusions of the Week < Back to Home Page
6 October 2002 Ishoos of the Week On Iraq – the Party hierarchy engineered a win on the principal motions. It was easy to play the UN card, allowing many Delegates to suspend any sense of suspicion or disbelief, and "support the Platform". But the straightforward Don’t attack Iraq Motion was lost only by a margin of 3:2, attracting 40% support in the Card vote, and that was a solid victory for sanity. On the Private Finance Initiative – issue was never effectively joined, with both sides missing the point. The Unions seemingly opposed all PFI deals, and the Government seemed to repulse the attack by insisting on the leasing of hospital and school buildings. The debate was tragically inconclusive. I have set out my views already If I were John Edmonds. I had the chance of a chat with GMB leader John Edmonds, and he assured me that he did not oppose “bricks and mortar PFIs" - his target was those PFIs which replaced public-service operations with private-profit systems. On the question of two-tier work forces, no effective compromise emerged - I believe the right course is to make each public-service worker a once-for-all "loss of public office" compensation payment, and then forget the complications of TUPE procedures. On human rights – there was, sadly, very little going on – this is not a subject which seriously engages the Labour Party - I tried to find opportunities to promote our new Socialist Civil Liberties Association, asserting the centrality of human rights within modern politics, a new grouping for Labour Party members only check out SoCLA – but the HR cause was very muted – a high-point was my meeting with Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, with a promise of further meetings in London. On public transport – plenty of activity, bus-companies and train-companies a strong presence, and several Fringe meetings - but all inconclusive, without any sense of direction – a flock of starlings circling to decide where to fly.. On refugees, asylum-seekers, much protest – though nobody with any new ideas on how to reform the system – I have put forward radical proposals of my own, but there was nobody at Blackpool prepared to contemplate radical solutions On devolution, decentralisation, regionalisation – an important “local” theme for the North-West and the North-East of England – I attended several meetings - many regional and city groups in contention, but without any political coherence – there is little understanding of the real power-issues underlying the regionalisation process – politically, it is decidedly unsophisticated, whereas in Wales we are getting to grips with the new politics. One glittering exception was Matthew Taylor, IPPR Director, speaking with Peter Mandelson at IPPR’s own “Decentralisation” meeting – Mandelson was hopeless, Taylor was brilliant – for me, the most brilliant ten minutes of the whole Convention. He argued that Labour’s traditional objective of social justice was not to be seen as an end in itself, rather as a staging-post, a precondition for effective local democracy, maximising the participation of active citizens in their own governance. On Europe and the Euro – the predicted “big Cabinet drive” on this subject certainly materialised. I did not however attend any of the meetings. I am so convinced a European that I am not prepared to spend any time debating these matters. I am convinced that there will be no Referendum in 2003, Gordon Brown will see to that. The UK will join the Euro after the next Election, by Spring 2006. NHS/Education – all very worthy and serious - these meetings were many, but set nobody alight – on secondary schools, and on student grants, the Government continues to kick the Labour Party in the teeth and get away with it – although in Wales, Labour is moving decisively in opposite directions on both fronts – on the NHS, there are no “political” themes, and everything seems to be reduced to dull issues of resources and organisation. Muslims for Labour – an important founding meeting, for an association to given Muslim Party members the assurance of the Party’s support and commitment, as ethnic and religious prejudices threaten to rise against them – finding the right formula for this will be critical. < Back to Home Page
6 October 2002 The Home Secretary David Blunkett is proving deeply damaging to the Labour Party. Blackpool has underlined that, for me. At the Muslims for Labour meeting I was left in no doubt about the damage being done. Traditional Muslim assumptions that Labour was “on their side” have been rattled by Blunkett’s illiberalism, particularly when following upon the heels of Jack Straw. Given the loutish intolerance being shown by Blunkett, and Blair’s reluctance to intervene, Muslim Labour supporters are questioning the commitment of the Party itself to a decent liberal, tolerant egalitarian position. It is unacceptable for a Labour Minister to play to the xenophobic gallery, as a means of a “containing” a rising xenophobic Right. With a population of over 2m Muslims, Labour cannot and ought not accept their alienation in this way. Bill Morris, TGWU General Secretary, speaking at the TRIBUNE Rally on 1 October, was vitriolic about Blunkett’s tenure of the Home Office. Blunkett should go, before he does any more damage. At the same time, we ourselves, as rank-and-file Party members within our communities, must set out about the task, at grassroots level, of repairing the damage already done. < Back to Home Page
6 October 2002 The Para-Professionals
I congratulate him. There are many public service sectors where we must find new ways of engaging more people in the good governance of local communities, both on a voluntary and a salaried footing. Para-medics, and Para-legals lead the way, followed by teaching auxiliaries. Such involvement will be a source both of new jobs, new roles, and of great personal satisfaction for future generations. I want to see a great expansion of auxiliaries, in our schools and hospitals, and in community care. The jury system should be defended and expanded, as should the Lay Magistracy. There should be no question of cutting the Jury out of "complex fraud trials", as the metropolitan legal elite would prefer. Community and Parish councils ought to be established universally and their expansion encouraged, as primary representative institutions of each local community. And we should (like the Victorians before us) be inventing new participatory institutions – Public Advocates, Quaestors, Public Trustees, new selection procedures for public office, and randomly-selected “public assessors”.- check out my wider proposals. < Back to Home Page
6 October 2002 Liberals v Socialists What distinguishes the Liberal Democrats, as a matter of political theory, from Labour? That question has been posed by Charles Kennedy’s explicit bid to become Labour’s “real Opposition”, in place of the Tories. Kennedy is a serious and able politician, and his perceptions are not to be lightly dismissed. He is serious about displacing the Tories. And he has the opportunity to do just that. Last week I was promoting the Labour cause, on behalf of the Fabian Society, at Swansea University Freshers’ Fair, with a stand next to the LibDems. And it helped to clear my mind. In spite of superficial similarities, there is a huge gulf of principle between liberals and socialists. Lodestone for liberals is the primacy of the freestanding “individual”. While few LibDems effectively articulate this old-Liberal philosophical formula, it remains the distinguishing mark of European liberalism. Sovereignty is attributed to the individual adult human being, who decides with whom to associate and contract, to whom to owe allegiance, whom to serve, whom to befriend and whom to attack. It's all Locke and the Social Contract, rather than Hobbes. The individual is conceptually sovereign. Social institutions are created by sovereign individuals, acting together, by way of a range of collective institutions – legislation, social convention, the redistribution of wealth, waging war. Margaret Thatcher, when she uttered the famous words “There is no such thing as society”, was within this tradition: she was, after all, the ultimate Liberal radical, not a “Conservative” at all. And Tony Blair's individualism is of this kind, essentially "old Liberal", of the 1906 generation. Within this intellectual rubric, collective institutions are conceived as placing constraints upon individuals, constraining their prior freedom, supporting or restricting them, promoting or excluding them. All institutions bear the pejorative gloss of superimposition, interference, intrusion. "The individual" constitutes the primary sovereign institutions of humankind – while collective institutions are secondary, derivative, lesser constructs of the human spirit. For socialists, the conceptual firmament looks profoundly different. Institutions constitute the primary matrix within which all human beings are born, exist and thrive – the institutions of family, of language and cultural tradition, of the school, of the workplace, of religion, of private property, of law and order, of geographical dominance. This seminal concern with “system” is the key to any socialist analysis of the human condition. It is no accident that sociology and socialism seem so often to run in parallel, for both stress the primacy of the social framework, and its effect even in conditioning human “individualism”, the daily life of everyman. All children grow up within these institutional networks and are shaped by them. For socialists, there is no lesser recognition of the centrality of subjective experience, or of the perception of the individual self, which is so distinctive of the human condition. But communal institutions are seen as playing a key role in shaping the framework within which each individual develops. That is the nature of the socialist perception. Yet socialists assert too that the social framework is amenable to management and change by the collective organs of society, by the application of the outstanding intelligence of man as a social animal. While every human being is endowed with a subjective sense of individuality, the greater truth is that the collective institutions of mankind visit both favour and disfavour upon every person, creating arbitrary patterns of advantage and disadvantage, poverty and wealth, strength and weakness, justice and injustice. For socialists, the primary concern is with the justice of the matrix. If we can “get that right”, our fellow citizens will enjoy happy and fulfilling lives, rejoicing in their own individuality. It is our job, as politicians, to find ways of shaping the matrix. While Liberals and Socialists may often agree on what should in practice be done, their intellectual positions are nevertheless profoundly different. And given the subjectivity of man’s self-perception, the Liberals inevitably have all the best political tunes. All citizens like to be addressed as sovereign individuals, even though their problems may be common to millions. Further, the semantic bias in the English language favours the language of individualism, penalising and disparaging collectivist language. Building on those foundations, it is entirely conceivable that Charles Kennedy could mobilise a powerful Opposition position which would bring in many soft-Right Tory voters, in common opposition to the perceived collectivism and restrictionism of the “socialist” position. A minority of Tory extremists would camp out to the Right of the LibDems, leaving Labour to triangulate between two sets of opponents. This, I conced, is a highly abstract and intellectual approach. But in the long run, intellectual cogency matters. In practice, the LibDems cannot move easily into the liberal space left by Margaret Thatcher, or the German Free Democrats. I had thought that the Tories were going to move smartly to occupy this “old Liberal” position, and under the leadership of Michael Portillo or Oliver Letwin I think they might yet do just that. And in practice, Labour are working hard to find ways of making public and communal initiatives (and therefor higher taxatioh) more acceptable to the electorate. Rehabilitating the NHS and the education system is just one one means of rehabilitating common initiative and public service as a whole. A further dimension of this drive is the initiative of a group of my colleagues, in December 2002, to found the Socialist Civil Liberties Association. For there is an urgent need to reconfigure the socialist matrix so that human rights dimension is added to its structure. These boundaries, in practice, are constantly changing - from issue to issue, from year to year. But I think Kennedy is right: there is indeed an opportunity for the LibDems to move to occupy the Old Liberal individualist position, and contest Labour’s socialism from there. Blair is trying to talk a new brand of socialist individualism, but as an old Liberal at heart, he has not understood the problems. If Kennedy moves quickly, he might head Blair off before they both reach the Pass. And if he did, the LibDems would indeed finish off the Tory Party, and attract the majority of Tory voters. Labour would be left to develop its own sensitivity to individual dignity and respect, on territory which the Party has not yet occupied. Socialist individualism, communal individualism, would confront the barren "Old Liberal" individualism of Thatcher and the LibDems. I would welcome that, for it would mean a move of the entire UK political spectrum away from the rocks of the Right, consigning it to long-term political oblivion. Does anyone share my perception?
The "Great" PFI Debate Never has there been a public political debate more incompetently conducted, on both sides, as Labour’s current “privatisation” debate. Polly Toynbee, writing in The Guardian before Labour Party Conference, criticised the “verbiage” of Tony Blair’s Fabian pamphlet The Courage of Our Convictions, deploring the lack of a simple refutation of the TU arguments. And Blair's new Fabian pamphlet is indeed a very lightweight offering. The difficulty is that both sides have mis-stated the "core" issue, and the discourse has become incoherent, losing its public in the process. The present TU advertising campaign is too confused to merit specific refutation - it is wild, ill-considered, unprincipled. I am ashamed of Bill Morris, Dave Prentis and John Edmonds: see my earlier analysis If I were John Edmonds. And Polly Toynbee is wrong: the need is not for the Government merely to “refute the critics” - with the critics all over-the-shop, the need is for a simple restatement of the core Government case for outsourcing public services at all. As the Government is choosing not to make the case, let me do so - for this is one of the issues where I "side" with the Government, while differing at the margins. Stage I Public Primacy: I argue, as a matter of my own socialism, for a presumption that every essential public service should as a matter of principle be delivered by salaried employees of the State (“public servants”. Those seeking to out-source such services must make a positive case for doing so, for the socialist presumption is against them. Stage II Public Priority: I say that, given the growing range of functions which the modern state is called upon to perform, government agencies should not assume responsibility for any function which is capable of satisfactory outsourcing. As socialists, we already take upon ourselves massive “public service” responsibilities, and we will continue to do so. We should be assiduous to out-source any function which does not require day-to-day management by a public agency. A key political judgment must be made, designating the necessity for public-staffing, but that is a pragmatic consideration. Stage III Some public services, while essential, do not require for their effective delivery the employment of public servants. I regularly cross both Severn Bridges, by every kind of vehicle (and I have walked across the old Severn Bridge, in the pouring rain) yet both bridges are managed and maintained by employees of Laings and the French corporation Entrepose, who will be running the system for the next 25 years, when the bridges will revert to the State. This is a function which manifestly does not demand public-staffing - maintenance standards can be easily and openly monitored by public servants, and any necessary remedial action take. If Laings failed, nothing would be simpler than for the State to re-assume responsibility for maintenance and safety, and find some other company to do the work, without a hitch. I have no socialist qualms about those arrangements, and there are now many stretches of motorway where similar arrangements exist, for the most part without tolls.
Stage IV Other public services simply do not require to be provided by the State at all. An early example was Thatcher’s privatisation of the “British Railway Hotels”, which have long passed out of the public sector, by way of privatisation. Local public leisure and recreational facilities, which are not subject to any statutory duty to provide could well be released into the private sector, subject to the State’s purchase of facilities for groups which the community wished as a matter of political judgement to favour (e.g. school-children, pensioners, budding athletes). Local authorities have no duty to provide public toilet facilities, and that could also be left to the voluntary or charitable sector. There is no reason in principle why the State should run local libraries: communities could establish and manage their own libraries, with grant support if necessary. There is room, even for committed socialist, to review the scope of essential public services. Stage V Even where a service were considered to be an essential public service, there may well be elements which can properly be out-sourced. This involves the application of my second principle, namely Public Priority. For example, I disapprove of the out-sourcing of prison management services: I consider such out-sourcing to be fundamentally wrong, as a matter of political and constitutional principle. But I have no objection whatever to the State entering into a long-term (30/35 year) lease of a prison, allowing the property industry to act as landlord, so long as no operational responsibility were transferred. I say the same for hospitals, schools and other public buildings. The Lessor/Lessee relationship is a conventional, well-regulated relationship, well-structured as a matter of real property law: Its use poses no issue of socialist principle. And the overwhelming majority of the resources mobilised by the PFI are devoted to these forms of premises provision – “public capital formation”. Where, then, does the socialist difficulty lie? It is with the "two-tier workforce" - the trasnfer of individual workers from the public to the private sector. And the trade unions are correct to be concerned with that transition. Present laws do not effectively regulate it, or the resulting employment relationships. The TUPE (transfer of undertakings) laws are feeble in the extreme. But the fault is one of system, not of delivery or implementation. For out-sourced functions, private-sector employers must be free to manage their affairs in the real market-place, without TUPE rigidities. It makes no sense to force private employers to retain staff on public-service terms and conditions: there should be a "clean break". I favour the payment, to all those facing job-loss in the course of out-sourcing, of a one-off Public Service Compensation payment, drawing a clear line under their period of public service employment. The underlying principle of TUPE is flawed, and should be re-examined. This whole territory ought to be one of cool, rational discussion, not campaign slogans. The Trade Unions are wrong to gone to the barricades on this - let's hope that "cooler heads will prevail"..
|
||||
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New