Trade union freedom - 4 comments

I notice that many of the posts recently recommended at B4L have hailed Wednesday's strike by the Prison Officers' Association. Though I can't think of any reasons to be positive about it, I'm still interested by the (often vague) calls for "trade union freedom", especially given that strikes can still be illegal depending on what job you do.

Unions should be free to organise, campaign, and to act collectively, and all workers should be free to join and act within those unions, provided they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. However, I'm not sure I trust those whose vision of trade union freedom is simply to restore all post-1979 legislation deemed to be anti-union - including as it would, the restoration of relics like the closed shop - not to be motivated by a desire to go further, to wrest control over public sector wages, and secure greater political bargaining power for the union movement as a bloc in its own right, rather than greater protection against the abuse of the employment rights of members, or, say, exposing rogue employers.

The 'negative' freedom from government restrictions does not, nor should it, necessarily give the 'positive capacity' to bestride British politics, and to have a major economic impact (e.g. 'standing up to fat cat bosses' and altering the distribution of wealth), that a lot of trade unionists would like to see (and I'm not going to argue that case here), so oughtn't we to separate the union-freedom argument from the union-power one? Doing so might be the only way the former can realistically be achieved.

Consider the following question: would trade unionists support a wide-scale repeal of laws that restrict the freedom of unions, on the proviso that these were only used in a competitive economic environment: in the private sector, for example, where the public, or indeed companies, aren't forced to live with the consequences, and can adapt accordingly? If not, why not?

Economic freedom II / Chávez - 6 comments

My Monday post, on John Pilger and Hugo Chávez, has come in for a bit of criticism. Not so much for the post itself, which largely consisted of a large quotation from Hayek arguing that the existence of a democratic mandate does not in itself stop power being wielded arbitrarily by states, but for this extract from my follow-up comment:

In Venezuela, Cuba, and so many other countries, the top priority for their governments is (sic) to open their economies, cede political power, tackle corruption, and stop blaming the country's problems on internal and external enemies. [...]

Obviously I meant 'should be', rather than 'is', but I can't deny that's a fairly succinct, though hardly nuanced, expression of my view.

Tom from NewerLabour has left a couple of lengthy comments, and Citizen Andreas has also posted, so here's my response.

Firstly, when I refer to 'opening' one's economy - reducing state control of industry, dismantling tariffs, allowing the free movement of capital and labour, etc. - I don't mean to imply an 'off-the-shelf' solution with any guaranteed economic and political return, in any particular time frame, just that economic openness is correlated with greater individual rights and more economic wealth, less exploitation of the population by monopolists, and a reduced scope for political corruption. Note that this is not a specific point about capitalism, it's about the economic freedom of individuals from the state and from monopolies of labour or capital, and insofar as posited socialist or other future economic systems respect the individual, this analysis will apply just as much to them.

I can't make any similarly general point about the likelihood of an egalitarian distribution of income: only governments and powerful economic actors can claim to have the power to alter this - whether they really have the ability to deliver is another matter altogether, but consider this, as I quote for a second time from Hayek's The Road To Serfdom (Chapter 14), and try to imagine I'm not a starry-eyed 17-year-old Thatcherite who wears a suit to college [my emphasis]:

The refusal to yield to forces which we neither understand nor can recognise as the conscious decision of an intelligent being is the product of an incomplete and therefore erroneous rationalism. It is complete because it fails to comprehend that the co-ordination of the multifarious individual efforts in a complex society must take account of facts no individual can completely survey. And it fails to see that, unless this complex society is to be destroyed, the only alternative to submission to the impersonal and seemingly irrational forces of the market is submission to an equally uncontrollable and therefore arbitrary power of other men.

Tom continues:

There already exists a party which is meant to give us liberalism and nothing further (though I would argue that they are only liberal where it hurts poor communities and authoritarian in many other aspects. [B4L: presumably the Tories?] They may fail orthodox liberalism as Labour fails orthodox socialism). We need a party that offers more than liberalism: justice. That should be Labour.

Well, of course there has to be justice. Markets can't create justice: they have to work within the rules of justice that it is the state's responsibility to devise and enact. These can take an infinite number of forms. Only systems of justice that allow individual freedom, private property, and enforceable contracts are compatible with free markets, but this still leaves us a tremendous range: as law-makers we can try to reflect a society that enjoys risk and accepts wide variations in outcomes; one that is risk-averse and prefers strong and ample safety-nets; we could quite easily raise inheritance taxes to such a degree that inheritance was practically impossible, if society so desired. So equality of outcome can be tackled without substantially imposing on economic freedom. All of this, however, requires that the state sticks to the agreed laws and system of justice, and not penalise or promote people at its whim. This is the Rule of Law.

Too often, self-proclaimed socialist regimes have taken root within states that glorify nationalism and have contempt for individual rights, or have attempted to shift opinion in that direction. This means that, as far as justice is concerned, all bets are off. The erosion of individual rights that makes it progressively harder for people to organise outside the state represents a second reason why aspiring dictators cannot be allowed to continue far down the road to autocracy. It's all the more unfortunate when the government in question appears to have a genuine commitment to aiding a previously disadvantaged social group, as in Venezuela.

Returning to economic nationalism, Tom says:

What you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to tackle the priorities of the Venezuelan people [...] without allowing multinationals from other states to take control of certain industries.

No, not necessarily. It needn't make any substantial difference what country a particular company 'comes from', and while 'faceless multinationals' are a minority in the world economy, one compensation for homogeneity and hierarchical organisation is exposure to international labour standards.

The 'take control' reference is also crucial: whatever the economic system, my view is that the cases where society is not best served by monopolistic companies (whether in the public or private sector, foreign or domestic) being open to competition, belong in the textbooks. Free economies should not permit domination, let alone 'control' of industries, nor ought they to be as susceptible to this kind of abuse than those where state control provides companies with opportunities for corruption and collusion. Of course our favoured politicians are of unimpeachable morals, but our freedoms shouldn't depend upon the character of a few good men.

Tom also argues that:

nationalism is often progressive where the intentions of outside actors are regressive in character [...]

I would very much disagree with the 'often', and I find even qualified support for nationalism mystifying. I concede that it might bind a population together sufficiently to overthrow a tyranny, but unless that unifying force is swiftly replaced with more rational economics and politics, a generation of domineering politicians will take root, backed by the dead hand of the military, with the population stifled.

A final point on liberal institutions: the idea that Chávez (and so many before him) should have domestic restrictions tolerated on the grounds that their domestic achievements would otherwise be overturned by powerful domestic or foreign forces is, I'm sure, very persuasive for the left. Democracy's greatest weapon might not literally be 'people power', but Cuba demonstrates how those who claim to 'protecting the revolution' have created themselves a job for life. Chávez's best chance of protecting his social programmes (which I'm not going to analyse in detail) is to liberalise his economy and state, to ensure the state's monopoly of force, to break up power blocs, allow a free press and media, have a trusted legal system, and to avoid acting in such a way that prevents his government winning international friends from mainstream political parties.

Update (29/08): There are currently 6 comments stretching to approximately 3500 words, so clearly I'm not going to be able to respond "in full", but I will try to pick out a few topics and deal with those. If you want to comment yourself, please be concise and read what's been said earlier on!

Political Haiku competition - 3 comments

In a slight departure, assuming anyone's still in the country for the Bank Holiday weekend, I thought I'd invite you to while away your Saturdays writing Haiku on a political theme. Here are some links to advice if you haven't written one before, but for a quick start we're basically talking about three-line, 17-syllable poems, arranged 5-7-5. Here's a fairly crude one from my collection to start you off:

Cameron: small c*ck;
Ming Campbell: liver-spots; Blair:
Lustrous mane of hair.

They needn't be (so) ridiculous, nor even humorous, but a good combination of wit and wisdom should serve you well. Leave your (original!) submissions in a comment, or drop me a line. I'll select some of the best entries before the end of Monday.

Offer Asylum to Iraqis Working for the British Armed Forces - 1 comment

I should have linked to this campaign much earlier, but I'm now displaying the banner in the left-hand sidebar, and here's a link to the Facebook group, which has now reached 400 members. Here's what it's all about:

"This is very simple: our forces went to Iraq (for right or wrong - that's not important right now) and needed support from local people, interpreters for example. Brave and intelligent people provided the support our forces needed and continue to do so.

But at a price. They are being kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed.

You may have heard that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Defence are looking into it.

Until policy changes we need to keep up pressure on the government to act. If you haven't written to your MP, please do: http://www.writetothem.com

Some guidance on what you might wish to write is here.

If you haven't signed the petition, please do - it takes only a moment.

If you would like to raise awareness:

1. Please invite people to join this group.
2. Watch and share the following video from Bloggerheads.
3. Keep everyone else posted with updates on the wall below.

And if you do hear from your MP, drop Justin a note at Chicken Yoghurt, so we can keep a tag on which of our representatives are responding."

Compass on Boris - 3 comments

I can't think of any positive reasons why anyone would vote for Boris Johnson for London Mayor. What concerns me, though, is the distinct possibility that Compass - who have launched a 'dossier' (PDF) about the Johnson threat - will find one by mistake.

Compass, and everyone else in the Labour Party, ought to be offering positive reasons why Ken Livingstone should be re-elected, as well as impressing on Ken the need to avoid needlessly alienating many of his party's supporters by (for one thing) chumming-up with foreign dictators - part of the reason why he isn't a shoo-in (a mere 7-4 on) right now. We really must avoid insulting the electorate's intelligence by claiming, as Doreen Lawrence (why?) has, that Johnson they mustn't even think of standing voting for Johnson because cities have a 'unity' (perhaps in the same way that cities can be offended, as Liverpool's spokesmen once claimed it to be) that would be damaged by the election of someone with divergent views. Sorry, but can such sentimental tripe possibly convince anyone over the legal voting age? Adults conduct politics based upon policy (OK, fine, but they should), not identity, and we need to prepare for the day when the Conservatives decide to stand a proper politician as candidate for Mayor. Or PM, for that matter.

Via Tom. Tyger is somewhat in agreement.

Update: fixed an error; added a link.

Unemployment statistics - no comments

Via the Greater Manchester Fabian Society's blog, here's a breakdown of (claimant count) unemployment statistics by parliamentary constituency, with figures for July 1997, 2006, and 2007, as well as a split between men and women. Unfortunately, being a PDF, it's nigh-on impossible to extract and crunch any of the figures, but you might find it interesting to look at.

I note that the five highest unemployment rates in the UK are: 10.4%, 11.4%, 11.4%, 14.3%, and a ridiculously high 19.0% (24.5% among men) in Clare Short's Birmingham Ladywood. All are in England, with no fewer than three in Birmingham. Make of that what you will.

TalkSPORT rapped over gay jibes - no comments

Says the BBC:

Radio station TalkSPORT has been censured after two presenters made derogatory comments about gay people. [...] Mike Mendoza was suspended for a week after linking homosexuality with paedophilia, while Garry Bushell called homosexuality a "perversion".

It's hard to say whether hackneyed statements like this - from the bastion of intelligent thought that is talk-radio - still have the power to offend or "inflame". Some day they might not, but why we should we judge the falsity of the claims by the level or intensity of opposition? People should be able to point out, whatever their own personal circumstances, that such claims are simply false - making Mendoza and Bushell idiots for repeating them ignorantly or accidentally, or potentially hateful liars for doing so knowingly.

'The War Against Democracy' - 7 comments

My TV listing magazine declares that, tonight at 11.00 pm on ITV:

Film-maker John Pilger argues that intervention by the United States into the political landscapes of Latin American countries has been conducted with the intention of stifling democracy

I wonder how that's going to go. Just on the offchance - the offchance, that is - that it turns out to rest on the fact that Venezuela's President Chávez was re-elected with a higher share of the vote than both George W. Bush and Tony Blair, allow me to inject just one of many possible notes of caution that you're unlikely to hear during its approximate 90 minute running time:

The fashionable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened [by a 'socialist' dictatorship] is not without danger. It is largely responsible for the misleading and unfounded belief that so long as the ultimate source of power is the will of the majority, the power cannot be arbitrary. The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the danger we face. There is no justification for the belief that so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; the contrast suggested by this statement is false: it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary. Democratic control may prevent power from being arbitrary, but it does not do so by its mere existence. If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power.

F Hayek, The Road To Serfdom, Chapter 5

*

On second thoughts I don't think this ("Lawrence killer to remain in UK") does demonstrate the current arbitrary use of power here in the UK, but for Shadow ministers to argue that the Human Rights Act that affects us all should be altered on the basis of a single case, on the grounds that it fails to allow the Government to deport a former criminal to - if he has reformed - a life of exile in a country he left 20 years ago, or - if he hasn't - possibly inflict future crimes upon our Italian friends, then this seems a senseless and unreasonable use of Government power in an interconnected world, however (understandably) strong the feelings of the criminal's former victims.

*

PS. This post delayed by 2-3 hours due to Blogger being broken, as usual.

Update (24/08): I didn't manage to complete my response to the comments, this evening. I might be ready by Friday afternoon, though most likely the evening.

Defending Wikipedia - 3 comments

If I were Oliver Kamm, I'd worry about being typecast: the latest tirade against Wikipedia (I think his "The most constructive course is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions" gives me the green-light to use this word), and 'citizen journalism' in general (on which I posted here), is quite unreasonably overblown. Update: You don't need to tell me about the perils of having to live on the proceeds of writing, but seeking to undermine the credibility of such a rich and varied resource on the basis of a few cases of abuse seems unwarranted.

A dozen years into the Internet search-engine revolution, during which people have cobbled together articles and opinions from a wide range of sources of differing credibilities, why now should we castigate an online service that (a) organises this information, (b) is bound by codes of good practice, and (c) seeks to prevent abuse - bearing in mind that the "WikiScanner" tool provides cautious readers with an additional tool (beyond the many Wikipedia already supply) to identify possibly manipulation?

Wikipedia makes no more claims to authority than any 'dead-tree' encyclopaedia (in fact, less, surely). Anyone who seeks to attach authority by writing on the basis of one resource is on shaky ground, whether that be the Wikipedia or otherwise, and is just as likely to be put straight by someone who can convince an audience that they are more informed.

One substantial difference is that Wikipedia drastically reduces research times - no more fruitless afternoons spent in University libraries - can be updated far more readily than printed resources, and 'back copies' are available for free to those who wish to see how the article has developed. Why should I invest £35 in a technical manual, within whose pages the first few casual readers might have spotted errors that its non-expert editor has missed? Before the Internet, considerable effort would have been required to confirm such errors, and to establish, on the basis of the balance of alternative opinion, what might have been intended. By denying the importance of 'consensus' in the early stages of research, Kamm would greatly increase the cost of identifying such errors.

I'll continue to consult the Wikipedia because all my experience tells me that the ill-will of hackers and devious organisations is no match for the professional pride of experts, enthusiasts, and thoughtful people of good faith. If I didn't think that, god knows what other drivel I might accept at face value.

Suppressing the BNP - 5 comments

This is almost too ridiculous for words: six companies will withdraw advertisements from Facebook on the off-chance that a non-BNP supporter will visit a BNP (Wikipedia) group page and decide that the same advertisements they see randomly appearing on every other page on the site imply, in this case, some kind of corporate endorsement, or acceptance, of BNP policies. If anyone owns shares in First Direct, Vodafone, Virgin Media, the AA, Halifax, or the Prudential, now might be the right time to sell, if those companies are so quick to make fruitless political gestures that allow additional exposure to their competitors, while doing nothing to thwart the BNP except offer them additional publicity and swelling their victim-complex. If the named companies decided they didn't want BNP supporters as customers, or were prepared to campaign against the party, that would be different altogether, but their corporate image is hardly worth us bothering about. More here, and here.

*

The BNP might almost have been invented to distract good, principled, intelligent people from the international fight against bigotry, intolerance, and religious/ethnic/racial victimisation, towards a single struggle against a tiny party that can hardly be separated from the murky world of thugs and madmen (remember Derek Beackon?) that makes up the extremities of the political world. The tragedy is that, by ducking the substantive moral and policy issues, opponents' emphasis on (say) racism appears to shift from to being a moral abuse to, as this new Facebook group argues, a 'terms of service' violation. Forcing the hand of advertisers and open social networking sites, so that poor ignorant members of the public can be insulated from the BNP's extreme views, can't help opponents to mobilise the population against them.

I can't think of any cause that is so critical, or infectious, as to justify the population being kept in ignorance. An account of the atrocious record and (occasionally criminal) behaviour of BNP councillors in office would surely carry more weight. Furthermore, a grown-up analysis of their policies - a plausible-looking summary of which appear here - would allow us to go beyond the word 'fascist' to say that they are morally wrong, inegalitarian, and opportunistic; that they breach universal human rights; and that their mishmash of authoritarian economic policies - culled from both traditional left and traditional right - would make people poorer both here and abroad, just as they have failed under every other government that has ever tried them. Are we unsure that we can win these arguments among the electorate? Ministry of Truth takes some of them on here, but this is rarely done.

So, while I'm sympathetic to the old adage that the only good BNP activist is one holding a steak over his eye, we should allow parties we despise to organise on Facebook within its rules, just as Facebook allows us to organise within its rules, and concentrate on promoting our own, positive message, and criticising stupid and damaging views - with our sights on the electorate, not on ourselves.