Bloggers4Labour

Ten New Policies

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:19:00 +0000

One of the indulgences of election-watching is to attempt to interpret what the electorate - aggregating across millions of individual decisions - 'really meant' . In defeat, this usually turns out to be a desire for greater movement on the writer's own pet policies; in victory, proof that the electorate's flirtations with the other side meant those half-baked ideas of yours were merely ahead of their time... Ideas do come cheap, and no-one spares a thought for the intelligent people within Government who developed what appeared to be a sound idea into legislation that the mainstream media, and those who lost most from it, insisted was a thoughtless or callous attack, and which now takes the blame for electoral defeat. That's a general point, not a defence of the 10p tax change (has there been one?)

Anyway, leaving all that aside, and for what it's worth, here are ten policy ideas of my own. They reflect my current ideological viewpoint, which might not be compatible with anyone else's vision of the Labour Party, but I imagine them to be both popular and just. Take from them what you will. Note that if I haven't covered a particular area, that could either mean that I think things are just right at present (e.g. foreign policy, and international development), or that I don't have any ideas at present.

In no particular order:

Workers' Control. Freedom for all workers, not just trade unionists, in a push for co-operative/mutual ownership that extends across the private and public 'sectors'. This offers the chance of economic autonomy for all, as an alternative to capitalism. It rejects Statism, in favour of co-operation and competition. Everything else is mere tinkering.
A Referendum to decide between three revenue-neutral personal tax systems: (a) the status quo, (b) a more 'progressive' one, (c) one that reduces income tax in favour of an extensive inheritance tax.
Assessment of the feasibility of replacing certain benefits, and the national minimum wage, with a guaranteed national minimum income.
A tougher line on monopolistic behaviour: especially in the broadcast/printed media, but including the actions of public sector trade unions.
Investigation of the role of planning controls and private land ownership in artificially inflating/sustaining house prices, slowing redevelopment, and limiting (note) aggregate economic freedom.
A 'loosening' of the criminal justice system: giving Police the powers they say they need to enforce the law thoroughly, in return for appropriate scrutiny; and investigate the state of, and capacity of the prison system.
Removal of any restrictions upon local councils adopting London-style 'congestion' charges.
Removal of immigration 'targets' and other arbitrary restrictions, in return for greater aid for host areas.
Do whatever is necessary to address the dysfunctional relationship between central government and teachers: whether it be reconciliation, or an amicable separation.
Disestablishment of the Church of England: so that it may adapt to more honestly reflect the views of Christians, rather than public opinion, and to expunge its residual political power.

There you go. I've been very brief, but can expand upon individual points on request.

I hardly feel I've formed the basis of a future, winning Labour Manifesto, let alone fostered 'unity', or provided Gordon Brown with a strategy he can hit the ground running with, but the Sunday papers have been full of them, so he's not missing out.

Nervous?

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:46:00 +0000

I'm not really looking forward to these results. I won't make predictions, but I suspect Labour will achieve a fairly derisory vote. That's unfortunate for a lot of existing councillors, and for many candidates who might have felt they had a chance.

That said, I can't see the point of poring over the results - the damage has been done at a national level, and all activists' energies need to be devoted over the next couple of years to deciding what the Labour Party is going to be, giving the electorate some good reasons to vote Labour, and to extricate the Government from the ludicrous situation it has got itself into over (if you really do ask me) terror suspect detention limits, and ID cards, to name but two distractions.

I might take a more robust approach than some in the party, but if there is to be a 'relaunch', I certainly wouldn't focus on portraying Cameron as a 'shallow salesman', a Diana-ified front-man for the same old Tory defenders of privilege and wealth. People know this already, but that only gives Labour an opportunity to be taken, and a risk for the Tories, not a fatal flaw. There's no value to the Labour Government (not just the party) weakening the case through overuse. They need radical but well-thought out, robust policies that can withstand the scrutiny of intelligent people, and that give activists like us a fighting chance of defending them, especially given that the amount of flak coming from a mainstream media that has tired of us and which feels pro-Tory stories are what the public want.

Today and tomorrow could be bad, but ride them out with magnanimity. The current incarnation of the Labour Party* has two years to live, at the very most. It cannot survive in Opposition in its present form. Let's make the next one a better one, one worth electing.

(* I'm referring to the 'Official Line', or 'Party In Government', or 'Current World-view/Policies/Ministers combo', rather than the party structure/organisation. You know what I mean. )

'Britons fear race violence': draw your own conclusions

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:37:00 +0000

It's hard to know quite what to draw from this BBC/Mori poll. For one thing, I can't find any detailed breakdown of the statistics. Perhaps they aren't broken down at all, which would be a tremendous weakness.

The most obvious flaw is the conflation of race, nationality, and immigration. A backlash against immigrants presumably involves opposing nationalities, though it need not - generational and cultural factors also play a part, not to mention economic differentials. Racial differences might play a part too, but a lot of water has flown under the bridge since the assumption held that racist violence was the preserve of predominantly white working-class communities against immigrants from the Caribbean or Indian subcontinent. Such racism still exists, but hardly has anything to do with current patterns of immigration.

Another problem is the assumption, presumably stemming from an odd faith in Enoch Powell's ability to foretell the future, of a contrast between the 'shaky peace' of today, and some kind of future bloodbath. Yet violence between gangs that define themselves on racial, ethnic, or nationalist grounds is hardly unknown, even if it's usually restricted to already violent areas. The absence of the large-scale riots of years past is hardly proof that tension and hostility has been reduced, just perhaps of social atomisation - the groups themselves are smaller.

Racism, nationalism, and hostility to outsiders, are common to all human societies, and the greatest limitation on the development and progress of humanity, but I doubt there's been any serious diminution of these impulses in centuries, with the exception of some large cosmopolitan cities (researchers in this field who are professional enough not to write pieces off the tops of their heads are welcome to comment on this point). Disappointingly, internationalism is a truly tiny movement in the world, and I suspect that socialism in practice has had a thoroughly negative effect, certainly when compared with free markets.

It's nearly two years since I posted this, but the section I quoted from bowblog still sounds to me like the best strategy for maintaining social harmony without surrendering to bigots (my emphasis):

Our effort, in the wealthy world, (where, let's face it, immigrants are going to continue to arrive in large numbers if we're to remain wealthy) must go into improving the capacity of our reception communities [...], boosting the resilience of the bottom social tier, taking working class grievances seriously and easing the pressures produced by ineluctable change. The goal must be to build social solidarity, to neutralise the embitterment and disconnection that feeds the fascists.

House price reports

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:21:00 +0000

According to the BBC:

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' (Rics) said that 78.5% more surveyors reported a fall than a rise in house prices in March.

Sounds dramatic: I wonder if anyone thought that meant that 89.25% reported a fall, and 10.75% a rise (89.25 - 10.75 = 78.5)? Or else that 78.5% reported a fall?

In fact, if we take the article at its word, and assume that no surveyors reported no change, it turns out only 64.1% saw a fall, 35.9% a rise (64.1 / 35.9 = 1.785). Let's assume that 20% actually saw no change at all, which doesn't seem too unreasonable: that would take the fallers down to 51.3%, and the risers to 28.7%. That wouldn't be dramatic, unless there really was a sound reason for an inexorable rise in the asset in question, and it says nothing about the size of any increase or decrease.

I'll assume that the BBC doesn't have an agenda to shock, and didn't spin the figures for maximum effect, but whoever pitched the story did. The question is, as Chris Dillow and others have asked, Why Worry? I'd like to see the focus of economic policy shift away from the preservation of the domestic housing market back to things that matter to the entire population, not just those lucky enough to have acquired a phoney wealth by buying or selling their house at the right time: investment in businesses; education, training, working practices, employment, and productivity; the free movement of capital and labour; and international trade.

The Euston Manifesto is 2

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:24:00 +0000

As I mentioned before, it's seven months or so since I had much contact with the blogging world. As a result I can't remember whether I have always thought Daniel Davies, posting at Comment Is Free about the Euston Manifesto's 2nd anniversary (covered here back in 2006), was a muck-stirring pedant, demonstrating a wannabe journalist's contempt for the earnestness of people who happen to think international democracy and human rights are pretty important, or whether that feeling has struck me more recently.

It's been a while since I've had much contact with the Manifesto team, but I believe that the document is as good a statement of aims as any you'll find - and statements of aims are important things. What's more, it defines my political values more closely than - I have to say - any political party.

Read more here.

A correspondent writes...

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:19:00 +0000

A correspondent writes:

Dear labour party
I am disgusted at the abolishing of the 10p tax rate . This has a considerable impact on my situaion. It works out as a 20% decrease in my pension even after the so calledd cost of living rises being factored in.
I have always voted Labour but will not from now on and this is because you are too "dear" to support.
Incidentally how could such a measure be put through without our guardian politicians bringing it to the publics n otice. I think the accusation of taxation by stealth levelled at the labour party is sadly TRUE.
I and my wife will not vote for you until this injustice is put right.
I also want you to note that I know many poor who are tragically affected by this unjust labour party do you think you will get away with this nasty policy especially with elections coming up. Our forefathers must be turning in their graves.
My MP is Mr Byers Wallsend please pass onto him.
yours sadly.
Mr P Dxxxx

What would your response be?

Incidentally, I get a lot of this sort of message. This is by no means the first about the 10p starting rate, but I thought I'd post it as an example. How the 10p rate could be restored without revisiting the entire Budget, I don't know. Who knows what newspaper Mr. Dxxxx reads, or what he can remember of last year's Budget; one thing's for sure, those headlines sure do stick in people's minds.

'Armed Forces Day'

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:52:00 +0000

Gordon Brown supports 'an Armed Forces Day to allow the public to show their support and respect for the military'. Support has apparently been growing for a month, if you can believe that.

Just as I think it's wrong to try to diminish the legitimate role of the military for ideological reasons, as certain NUT delegates have tried to do recently, it's also inappropriate to try to campaign for the military for ideological reasons, at least to the extent that appears to have been planned.

As it happens, I do feel there's a greater role for the military at home. Imagine three situations: an ideal world; where we are now; and where it's feasible for us to be. In an ideal world, organised religion ought (I believe) to play no role, but the decline in adherence to our State religion isn't explained by an increase in the 'rational' secularism that some of us presume intelligent people to aspire to. No, what we see is a rise in nihilism and apathy - the worst of all worlds. Religion can appeal to the ignorant, brutish, and nihilistic, in a way that secularism cannot, so more power to any and all peaceful religious groups who proselytise in the inner cities and try to rescue people from a life of crime. My feeling is the same for the military. However much we believe that military action will play no part in a future society (or rather, Future Society), and resent its hierarchies, male brutality and aggression is a fact of life, and I can't believe that the 'discipline' so often talked about would fail to help those with no ambition or structure to their life, and little possibility of a legitimate career.

So I'd support an extension of cadet forces for the young, even if the main sponsor seems to be our own Quentin Davies MP. However, the 'Armed Forces Day' scheme sounds like a grotesque spectacle. Though all members of the military who work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, to protect civilians from terrorists and fanatics, truly deserve the gratitude of all, I think it's sufficient for us to acknowledge that in our own way, and to be serious about the international issues involved. In the same way that a public servant - or a Government - is rewarded by seeing that a problem they have been tasked with has been solved, and doesn't expect thanks, it's inappropriate for the military - or rather, politicians who speak for it - to expect the public to wave flags, or to 'get behind anybody' on request.

If the liberal and humanitarian case for military intervention overseas hasn't been made - and these Labour governments have been far too timid to make that case - that's a shame. But a State-sponsored military jamboree is a throwback to a time when British imperialism was a fact, not just a dirty word, and it's a sad reflection of the extent to which some Ministers have become detached from reality that such headline-chasing trivia should occupy their capacious brains. So there.

Labels (because Blogger won't let me publish with them): Internationalism, liberal interventionism, military, religion

Welcome back!

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:18:00 +0000

Well, it's about seven months since the last post, long beyond the point at which blogs are normally judged to be dead, but I'm minded to get Bloggers4Labour - the service, the 'focal point', plus my own posting - going again. I think that can work, if only posting duties and general activity is spread more widely than before.

So here's my idea: I'd like some amongst the community of generally Labour-supporting bloggers to volunteer to post here, with each blogger doing so on a particular day of the week. So, essentially, I'm looking for six bloggers to come forth and select their day, or say 'any' and let me choose for them. If I can get six I'm sure I'll be sufficiently enthused to take the remaining day myself.

Posts can be weekly round-ups on particular topics, daily 'Best of the Blogs', or, if you prefer, one-off posts. You'll keep the right to cross-post to your own blog, if you have one, and will be able to add a little plug to that blog, here. There must be some degree of 'quality-control'. I won't go into detail here, suffice to say that puff pieces and overly partisan hatchet-jobs are unlikely to be of interest. Still, the vast majority of Labour-sympathetic bloggers shouldn't be put off by this at all.

I do think volunteers ought to 'sign up' for a minimum period - at least six weeks or so. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they were unable to produce a piece precisely on time, or even at all for a particular week, but there has to be some commitment - there could be others keen to take over that slot. Furthermore, a regular flow of thoughtful pieces is a big part of what Bloggers4Labour needs.

So, please get in touch.

P.S. Yes, I did allow a large backlog of unapproved blogs to build up. Many apologies, too, if you failed to get a timely response to a contact mail. I hope to clear that backlog, and to be able to respond to future emails, though I'm afraid I can't commit to responding to all of the multitude that arrived during B4L's hiatus.

P.P.S. Blogger still appears to suck - are there any developments I've missed?

Conference Events

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:23:00 +0000

Firstly, apologies for the lack of updates, and especially for failing to publicise (in time) a couple of events you might have liked to go to, not least:

The Labour bloggers' briefing on Sunday 23rd: a Conference intro and Q&A session with Tom Watson MP.
The combined Henry Jackson Society & Euston Manifesto event, which was at midday today, on the subject of "Winning the Battle of Ideas Against Islamism and Terror" (Facebook event page here).

Luckily there's a lot more to come. For example, "Is there room for Labour in Northern Ireland?" (Facebook event here) is the topic for discussion on Tuesday 25th, between 7 and 9 pm at the Moon on the Square Pub, The Square, Bournemouth. It's hosted by Slugger O'Toole, the well-known blogger, and has the B4L seal of approval...

Finally, on Thursday 27th at 8:45am there's another Labour bloggers' briefing - a Conference round up with Harriet Harman MP. Please meet at the Labour Party stand in the Purbeck Hall if you want to attend. For more information contact Paul Simpson.

Let me know if you have reports of any of the above meetings that you'd like reprinted.

Bernard Kouchner

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:44:00 +0000

I don't know whether it says more about UK media priorities or French foreign policy that I'd completely forgotten that former Socialist Minister (now expelled from the PS) and Médecins Sans Frontières co-founder, Bernard Kouchner, is Minister for Foreign and European Affairs in Nicholas Sarkozy's UMP administration.

This is especially poor, considering I've recently finished Paul Berman's Power And The Idealists, which covers the lives of left-wing '68-ers Joschka Fischer (the former German Foreign Minister) and Kouchner, amongst others, in some detail, together with the humanitarian/interventionist causes and battles they have been associated with ever since, amid the oscillations of the left in Europe and in the USA. Though Berman is one of those authors with an unimpeachable left/liberal reputation who is frequently derided as a "neocon", it's a great little book, from which I could easily have quoted big chunks of of the later pages.

As for Kouchner, it's encouraging that a left-winger with a humanitarian track-record has the power, and a skin thick enough, to remind people of the danger of an Iranian nuclear programme, and to start to build a consensus that the regime in Tehran must not be allowed - one way or another, whether the UN can be relied upon, or just Europe - to succeed in holding the Middle East, and its own population, hostage with nuclear weapons.

Update (18/09): minor tweaks.
Update (28/09): I notice Soumaya Ghannoushi has stepped in over at CiF. I think it's fair to say that I disagree with her political views more profoundly than I do any mainstream politician in the UK. This is, of course, no coincidence, given her track record as an arrogant and unprincipled apologist for dictators, for Islamism, and against liberal values:

All he [Sarkozy, Kouchner] stands to gain is the dubious honour of being known as Bush's new poodle, and having angry protesters against US foreign policy burn his effigy instead of Blair's.

Give me Sarkozy any day of the week.

Brown welcomes Thatcher

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:22:00 +0000

What a nauseating sight. I can't imagine any remotely plausible political strategy behind the event, so I suspect it means nothing: a photo-opportunity arranged by a starry-eyed flunky to make their politician look well-travelled and a 'heavyweight', or, as Thatcher's former private secretary claims, 'a nice gesture' (one pays one's peers). Either way, a sign that senior politicians are a class apart from rest of the population, whatever their country, whatever their politics. Embarrassing? Sure. A sign of future policy direction? Not necessarily.

The thought, however, that this might have been designed for a political purpose, or that Brown believes being a 'conviction politician' is at all worthy in itself, or is a characteristic around which politicians ought to come together, is too horrible to contemplate. So, all in all, I can't agree with Adrian here: the prize of crushing Cameron isn't worth sacrificing anyone's soul.

Trade unions: a way forward

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:19:00 +0000

Here's something I wrote 2 or 3 days ago but haven't been able to publish until now. I notice that Stumbling and Mumbling now has a post on the ability of trade unions to influence wage equality, together with some statistics and some interesting comments. Anyway, here's my post.

*

Following on from Will Hutton's weekend article on UK trade union militancy, Skipper argues that unionism is in crisis:

It really needs a major figure to emerge to offer genuine leadership towards a new constructive role in our society. The alternative would appear to be further decline and retreat from relevance. Scargill believed he was such a figure- he put up a fight but was wrong. Is Bob Crow a more likely candidate? I really don't think so.

I'd agree: there doesn't seem to be any correlation between 'moderacy' and 'vision' among union leaders, no substantial difference in statist economic outlook, or in the degree to which the 'fat cat' argument can be used to justify any other unrelated policy, only a difference in the degree to which each is prepared to play ball with the Government (and play games with the general public).

This dependence upon Government - especially Labour governments, intermittent as they have been in the past - can hardly be a strategy to ensure the long-term survival of the trade union movement, weak as it is among the labour force, and all the more so in the private sector. Despite the prevalence of the argument, the capacity of trade unions to bring about a nation-wide redistribution of income is minute, still less in favour of the poorest, who are rarely union members; and the 'mixed economy' - with a balance of private and public sector enterprises - is no more, and is not going to return. The economic and political failures of the State, when acting alone, are so evident that supporters of an enlarged public sector must explain how the general public can be protected from labour organisations - shielded from competition - abusing their position, just as one scrutinises companies with great market power abusing their positions.

*

While the most likely post-capitalist 'system' is one of liberal, or free-market, mutualism, this form of 'social-ism' is as far removed from the ideal of statist unionists and Labour supporters, as is the current form of free-ish market capitalism we have now. I'm sure this argument has been used before, but the statist tendency that Labour nurtured from the 1940s to the 1970s, and which continues to dominate the Labour left, has been disastrous for the quality, but especially the breadth, of left-wing debate in the UK.

For all the weakness of the left in the USA, the level of free-market, anti-capitalist debate seems much richer there, and change more plausible. Sadly, the most likely consequence of Crow-style militancy is a weakened Labour government, and - before too long - a Conservative government committed to wiping out any remaining safe-havens for trade unions within the public sector, and to allowing the general public to use legal action to eliminate the strike weapon once and for all. The extent to which trade union powers could yet be curtailed by a radical government ought to be of great concern.

This is not an excuse for Labour to make promises to the unions that it has no intention of keeping, nor an argument for impotence, just an argument for the trade union movement to shift strategy from entrenching power within the public sector, and raising their demands to the limits of political sale-ability, to re-committing to mutualism, offering a message of liberty - not higher wages, necessarily, nor even the sham job-security that cannot exist in a free economy - to workers of all 'classes', whether in the public or the private sector. Liberty that comes from providing workers with the skills they need to form voluntarily organisations ('companies', rather) on the basis of individual skills and talents, the desire to provide a good or a service to the consumer or other companies, and to do so in an economically efficient manner, without the need for social or external management hierarchies.

Unions could devote their organisational skills and considerable weight to kick-starting the mutualist sector, in new, or small, existing, firms. Existing employers can be shown the benefit of managing small, flat-structured companies, where the skilled and the empowered can use their skills for maximum efficiency. I can't think of any better strategy for increasing worker control within the private sector. Perhaps I'm making a mistake, though - see Paulie's comment at the Stumbling and Mumbling post. If the trade union movement is in fact a rival mutualist structure - an alternative to workers' control of their own company - then perhaps (a) unions are more likely to try to draw people within the union than help them organise and share power within their own company, and (b) those workers who are able to mutually run their company would not be in the defensive position - of having to protect pay and conditions - that pushes one to join a union.

So, if trade unions gain from state/capitalist exploitation, while rivalling mutualism, these are these two more reasons to support Chris' argument that 'In this sense, unions help underpin capitalism.' Would we mourn the passing of either?

*

My fear is that too many with power in the trade union movement can only look back to the imagined Golden Age of the 1960s and 1970s, to the power their forefathers were once able to wield. Sooner or later, British Trade Unionism will have to stop complaining about its own irrelevance, throw off the remaining 'class-war' baggage, and find itself a role that allows 20 million or so potential recruits to take it seriously - or it will have to pick itself off the ground after another wave of privatisation. Perhaps only then can socialism be liberated from statism.

Cohen on violent crime

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:39:00 +0000

Useful article on urban violence, from Nick Cohen (yes, at CiF), that tackles what he calls the liberal myth that there has been no substantial long-term increase in violent crime:

[...] Richard Garside, the centre's director, was contemptuous of the notion that inner-city residents have been duped by the media or false memories of an imaginary golden age into barricading themselves into their homes. 'Commentators who live in prosperous areas don't understand that their fears aren't panic attacks but the result of objective experience,' he said.

I'm not sure how widespread the belief is, but Nick explains why it is a tempting one for those lucky enough to have been insulated from violence. I suspect the reason I wasn't prepared to make a big deal about it in the past was the fear that it would be used ('exploited', if you like) by the political right to justify tougher measures against offenders and, conservative social policies. I'm sure I wasn't alone. And yet a recognition of the impact and threat of violence doesn't presume any particular political response, only that those who are genuinely concerned with the victims treat the issue as the priority it is, and advocate radical policies that are likely - if not proven - to work.

Bin Laden speaks

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:16:00 +0000

Perhaps Osama's softening in his old age:

"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interest of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations".

"I invite you to embrace [X]," the speaker says.

If you substitute X, you've got a pretty standard argument used by dictators and their acolytes throughout the past century, and which can be seen all too regularly from the kind of people who hang out at Comment Is Free (thanks to PooterGeek for this observation). A belief that freedom is a sham, used to perpetuate or disguise the power of shadowy forces, is the perfect start on one's journey to authoritarianism.

Trade union freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:47:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:37:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:20:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:30:00 +0000

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:
Please invite people to join this group.
Watch and share the following video from Bloggerheads.
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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:20:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:54:00 +0000

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'

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:14:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:48:00 +0000

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.

Council housing allocation

noreply@blogger.com (Bloggers4Labour) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:30:00 +0000

A few days late, but here's a thought-provoking article on entitlement to council housing at UK Commentators. The conclusion is a challenging one:

What the [BBC] programme basically tells us is that Margaret Hodge's allegations on housing were correct. Recently arrived economic migrants and those granted asylum can go straight to the top of the queue - because it's needs-based rather than entitlement-based.

Do read it all, but I'm sure Labour supporters are still right to reject the false choice and unpleasant politics implied in such a position.

Some thoughts: firstly, the idea that we should shift the allocation of scarce resources from being on the basis of need to one of entitlement - or vice versa - is a ludicrous one, as if anyone can acquire an entitlement to social housing without some degree of need, and as if 'entitlement' is worth the paper it's written on when the supply of housing is so short. That much can't be in doubt. What might be in doubt is whether people accept that spending longer in a queue should give one priority over someone with greater (adjudged) need, further back.

Unlike a Post Office queue, membership of a housing queue doesn't necessarily impose pain and frustration, and where it does, this can be factored into the need calculation. Reading the quotes cited by the original post, one is never far from the belief that the concept of 'need' is devalued by systematic abuse by those claiming to be homeless deceitfully:

WALES: Essentially what we’ve got at the moment is a race to the bottom, What we do is we allocate properties on the basis of how you present yourself to a local council, so you walk in and say I’m homeless you get a greater priority then you walk in and say I’ve managed to do something for myself but I’m still looking for a council property [...]

FIELD: [...] society goes round because people work, because people play the game, because people are decent citizens and that should be rewarded rather than ‘ah look I’m actually homeless or I’ve managed to persuade people that I am deemed to be homeless therefore I should shoot to the top of the list’.

But why can't abuse be detected in advance? Any Council or official prepared to devalue the term 'need' can only do so if promoting entitlement-solutions is more important than protecting those for whom need is a meaningful term, and an urgent one. It's not as if the losers are being compensated for having to wait in line with vouchers that could be redeemed against public/private-sector rents in other localities.

Perhaps the real injustice is the concept of the queue, itself - unfair to those with great need near the back, and to those with slightly less who get leap-frogged near the front. Here's a fairer alternative - a lottery: devise a system of 'points' for each housing case, which are allocated according to 'need', its urgency, as well as length of time already spent in the queue. For each vacancy that comes up, calculate the total number of points, select a random number within, and allocate the place to whoever has the winning ticket. Repeat for each vacancy, making the tariff and the (anonymised) results available to the public, and penalising anyone found to have abused the system.

Increasing the supply of housing is not a sufficient solution, and should not be used to project 'difficult' allocation decisions several years into the future. The mechanism above would work now, and should be fairer for all while social housing is in short supply, without requiring the slightest nod towards those whose housing agenda is a cover for discriminatory community-building, or to those politicians who seek to profit one way or another from local controversies.