A simple picture for democracy

By On May 18, 2012 · Leave a Comment · In Corporate Interests, Democracy, Ideology, Inequality, Sustainability & the Environment

I’ve recently been reading David C. Korten’s excellent (and perhaps seminal) book When Corporations Rule the World. It was first published over 15 years ago but absolutely all of it is just as relevant to today’s world (if not more so) than the day it first came off the presses. The book is a phenomenal commentary on a world dominated by corporate and wealthy interests, and the extent to which we have been duped by a ‘Corporate Libertarian’ system that does not and can never provide global prosperity, democracy, sustainability, or fairness. His gift though is in exposing the transient nature of our current capitalism, showing how it is the culmination of decisions and laws made over the preceding decades all across the globe.

This is important for two reasons. Firstly in showing us that the existing system is just another stage in history, we realise that it is neither permanent nor inevitable. This provides the hope that it can be changed. Secondly, in identifying the historical steps that led to its creation, we can begin to plan its disassembly, and move on to something better. Thankfully Korten identifies what that ‘something better’ might look like.

In the last few chapters he lays this out in detail, but it is his idea of this ‘democratic pluralism’ earlier in the book that provides the theoretical framework for understanding the difference between where we are now, and where we want to be. As Korten sees it, a democratic society contains a Civic, Governmental, and Economic sector. The Civic sector is the cultural essence of society, which through our creativity and relationships brings meaning and expression to communal and individual life. The Civic sector willingly but reluctantly gives power to the Governmental sector to provide safety, security, and the rule of law through democracy so the civic sector can flourish. The government also provides the framework and regulation of a fair, local, market economy which helps deliver prosperity to the Civic sector. In Korten’s view these three sectors work in balance to provide the richness of life which we all seek to find, but many feel is missing. He makes it very clear that this balance positions the Civic sector as the essence of society, with the Governmental and the Economic in service to it.

He thinks that the fatal flaw of Socialism was to elevate the Governmental sector above the Civic and the Economic, suppressing freedom of cultural expression, as well as the efficient functioning of a fair market. Its collapse was therefore inevitable. Likewise, he believes that the current model of ‘Corporate Libertarianism’, which puts the interests of big business and a tiny wealthy minority above any other demographic, elevates the Economic sector above the Civic and Governmental. This he believes can no better deliver global prosperity than the Socialist ideals. Only when the Economic sector is bought back under control, with power returned to Governments and  democratic processes, and the Civic sector given priority again, will we achieve a sustainable society that we can all look forward to living in.

 

Sustainability, money, the financial crisis, and the way forward – training tonight

By On March 13, 2012 · Leave a Comment · In Economics, Sustainability & the Environment

Tom and I have been a bit quiet on the blog front over the last month, instead preparing for the first of what will hopefully be many whyPolitics training events on money and the financial crisis (amongst other things) – the first of which takes place tonight in Loughborough. The course is free and covers an evening a week for three consecutive weeks. By the end of it we hope attendees will have a better idea of how the UK’s financial systems work,  what the financial crisis was/is all about, and how us, the UK, can move forward – all within the context of sustainability. We hope the course will prove accessible even to ‘total beginners’ of finance and economics, but only time will tell if we’ve got that right! Our hope is that it will equip people with some of the information and confidence needed to begin to engage in the political and economic system, and be able to more actively consider the political and media dialogue.

It’s quite possible that we’ll combine the three evenings into a one-day format for future sessions, which will then mean we can more realistically run them further afield. We’ll try and advertise any future courses via this blog, well in advance.

 

 

Contempt for the State

By On February 16, 2012 · Leave a Comment · In Democracy, Economics, Ideology, Integrity

A couple of articles in the news this morning demonstrate, each in their own way, a worrying trend of unquestioning contempt for the function of the State. This kind of contempt is depressing for its lack of hope, but also because (as in these cases) it appears to be irrational. Firstly, the Guardian report that the Department of Health has been exposed running a tax dodge for 25 of its top employees, avoiding (and helping employees avoid) paying National Insurance contributions and income tax. It’s crazy and more than a little ironic that those at the top of the department responsible for the NHS have such a lack of appreciation for the service that they refuse to pay their contributions. These are the same people, all of them on more than £100k a year, tasked with delivering the government’s cuts and efficiency targets for the NHS which has and will see thousands of lower-paid staff lose their jobs.

Secondly, an article by Sue Cameron in the Telegraph castigates the State for the supposedly high level of successful appeals against State judgements ranging from immigration to benefits to parking tickets. The writer proclaims “Whitehall’s hidden scandal” and that the State needs to ‘get it right first time’. She claims that the ‘whopping’ 39% of successful appeals over support allowances and the 63% of similar appeals on parking tickets shows that the State is ‘incompetent’ and submitting people to the ‘dead-weight of bureaucracy’. What she completely neglects to do is provide context for any of her figures.

She says that there were 197,000 appeals against the Department of Work and Pensions over employment and support allowances, and that 39% were successful. This might seem like a lot, but Institution for Fiscal Studies shows that in 2011 the DWP dished out benefits of one kind or another to 30million recipients.  That 39% successful appeals out of 197,000 total appeals means that the State got it right first time 99.7% of the time.

Next, she complains that 62% (my math) of the 70,985 parking tickets appealed were annulled. However, depending on which figures you use there were a total of between 8 and 10million parking tickets distributed last year, which gives the State a first-time success rate of at least 99.5%.

Figures for the other two statistics she complains about are harder to find. Immigration figures from the Office of National Statistics put the influx at 590,000 for 2011. From the Telegraph article we presumably sent a further 60,000 back home, so roughly 62,000 of that 590,000 were successful appeals. So even in the legally and practically complicated sphere of immigration, often spread across the vast grey areas between national and international law, the State got it right first time in 88.5% of cases. I have nothing to gauge whether that’s a good figure or not, (no comparisons with other countries, etc) but I would say that I found the figure surprisingly high having been regularly saturated in the view of our ‘failing immigration system’.

Lastly, the figure on School admissions. Again the figures are hard to come by, but there were 25,500 successful appeals out of 513,000 offers in 2011 – leaving a 95% first-time success rate by my count. Dig deeper into the figures and you find that 85% of families were offered a place at their first choice school which means that there were only 77,000 who could have any reason to object. Yet the Telegraph claims there were 85,000 appeals? Clearly some figures are off somewhere – however what this shows is that it’s likely that basically every family that didn’t get what they want appealed the decision. This sounds like a problem with the schools system specifically rather than a hidden scandal of ‘State incompetence’.

So while there may well be some continued work that needs doing on immigration, and the Schools admissions process appears to be very weak (I am unqualified to analyse further), the idea that the State is widely failing in its judgements is absurd. Let’s be clear, the overall general picture in these cases is not one of ‘bungling bureaucracy’, but of a competently-run system. Let’s stop this unquestioning and wholesale contempt for the state, and instead engage in measured discussion on what areas need improving, and how we do it. I might suggest we start by re-assessing the current cuts agenda and ensure that all areas of the state are given the resources necessary to do their jobs properly.

 

Should energy cost the world?

By On February 9, 2012 · Leave a Comment · In Inequality, Sustainability & the Environment

So I got an email from 38 Degrees about their new energy campaign. I have been very happy to support a number of their campaigns in the past including those safeguarding the NHS and their work on the AV referendum.

The current campaign though just doesn’t sit with my sustainability sensibilities (try saying that quickly). The campaign is targeting the greed of energy companies in keeping prices high and making large profits, and aims to pressure them into reduce the cost of gas and electricity for the consumer. However, I don’t believe this approach will serve the greater good.

Energy is already too cheap. For the last century our economy and way of life has been subsidised by the availability of cheap fossil fuels. The cost of burning this incredible energy source is only just dawning on us decades later. Our addiction to cheap energy will soon cause energy shortages and price fluctuation which will leave whole nations unable to afford the fuel which they require to sustain their lifestyles. The rich nations will continue to be able to afford oil and gas for quite some time but as the cheap, easily extracted sources are exhausted the poorer nations will quite simply be priced out.

Another point here is the rebound effect. This is the argument that if everyone in the UK has more money in their pockets then they will go out and spend some of that money on consumer goods which require energy to manufacture, transport and use. So in an attempt to bring ‘fairer’ energy prices the result is an increase in energy use and CO2 emissions. (I cannot write that last paragraph without thinking that solving the current economic crisis requires an increase in consumer spending – this was not the motivation for the campaign though).

In the UK the vast majority of households can afford to pay more realistic prices for energy. Prices that consider the cost of climate change and the global instability that will result from resource depletion. This is will not be a popular opinion but energy has been too cheap for too long. I contacted the 38 Degrees team and suggested another approach which would curtail the greed of energy companies but would be sustainable and would not send a confusing message. I received a quick response which stated that they didn’t see a contradiction in fighting climate change and campaigning for cheaper energy bills. This is disappointing for the reasons I have already stated. The campaign was voted for by a majority of 38 Degree members which is no surprise, as in a quick internet vote with little information or thinking time the first response to the question ‘do you want to stop rip off gas and electricity bills?’ will be ‘yes’. No one wants to be ripped off and if this is suggested in the question the response is meaningless. But like myself given a bit more space I am sure many of those that voted for this campaign would see its flaws.

I, like most of the members of 38 Degrees, don’t like seeing energy companies making extortionate profits and not considering the wider implications of their actions. So what ideas might solve this problem? First, I’d like to see a change to the way that energy tariffs work. Currently the first bit of energy that you use is expensive up to a certain level of usage, at which point (and depending on your tariff), the cost is lowered. This is clearly regressive. In this system the per unit of energy price is higher for low energy users often from low income households than those that are using excessive amounts. It encourages high energy use. The tariff system should therefore be reversed. Energy should be cheap at first and the more you use then more expensive if should become.

Secondly, per unit cost of energy should be increased. This sounds shocking but energy needs a real price which considers the environmental damage and encourages individuals to use less and innovators to come up with better renewable and low energy solutions. This increase in price will not be for the energy companies to spend as they wish but the current obligations on them enforced by government should be extended.

These changes will then enable two things – Firstly households which cannot afford energy (and there will be more of them because of higher prices) will be heavily subsidised. This new system is therefore progressive and would be an equalising factor on a society which is currently becoming more and more unequal. Secondly more money will be available for making energy-efficient changes to homes and for investment into the development of renewable and low energy technologies.

So, the outcome would be to raise awareness of climate change and resource depletion, reduce fuel poverty and inequality and ensure long term investment in the technologies required to work towards a sustainable future.

 

The Green New Deal

By On January 31, 2012 · 3 Comments · In Inequality, Sustainability & the Environment

I am sure that I am not alone in getting frustrated about the inconsistency of the messages that we get from Whitehall. The recent debate about whether the chief of RBS should accept his £1 million share bonus has got me thinking again about it all.

I am predominantly interested in sustainable development. This is really another way of saying that I am interested in anything that has an impact on the future of our society, the environment and economics – so everything then. For me this is one giant ball of string; it is all the same problem, although it does not have a single solution. It is, however, a huge problem which encompasses many global issues – climate change, energy security, peak oil, inequality… and can only really be tackled by governments that are willing to make choices to safeguard our future. If we are going to make these choices we have to be given clear and consistent messages.

So when a Cabinet minister like Iain Duncan Smith says that it would cause ‘chaos’ if the government overruled RBS and stopped the payment of the share bonus I feel uncomfortable. The government owns 82% of the bank so it seems only fair and right to hold them to account. The only reason that RBS is still open for business is that we spent billions of pounds bailing it out and continue subsidise it year on year (The Bank of England estimate subsidising of banks in the UK costs the tax payer £20 billion per year). So what is the message – the government is happy for banks to reward their managers even though their business model has failed and is failing. It is clearly not sustainable for any profit making company to be subsidised by the tax payer.

This is why I am a supporter of the Green New Deal. If we are going to provide a stable economy, a safe society and an inhabitable environment for our children we have to invest now in the things which we know will achieve this. Austerity is not working. We seem to be moving into another recession. Unemployment is rising. Let’s make some changes which will benefit generations to come.

The messages of the current government are sending – by propping up the banking system and asking the tax payer to pay the bill whilst making budget cuts to the services on which we rely – promotes risk taking and short term-ism for the benefit of the few, it says that banks can risk our livelihoods for their own personal gain with little or no government intervention on our behalf.

Let’s change the message. To a message which speaks of fairness and long term thinking. A message that says that every member in society is worth fighting for and a message that says that government is willing to lead our nation and not leave it to others. The green new deal promotes wise investment. It means spending to create jobs that will in turn strengthen our economy. Spending that will protect our environment and which will be a benefit to all in society. It promotes a consistent message that we can all believe in.

For more information regarding the green new deal follow this link: http://www.greennewdealgroup.org/