The EU and the HRA

Just a short post to express a fear I have regarding a forthcoming referendum on UK memebership of the EU. I have spoken to quite a number of well educated and informed people and find a fair proportion of them believe that the European Convention on Human Rights has something to do with th EU. In many cases people believe it is actually controlled by the EU. Of course this is entirely wrong. The European Convention and the Court that enforces it are part of the Council of Europe, a completely different body set up by, among others, Churchill, in the 1950s. If well informed people make this mistake, what chance the rest of the population ? The problem is that a great deal of anti European sentiment is based on opposition to the Convention, notably with regard to asylum seekers, immigration appeals and terrorist suspects. It is seen as unwarranted European interference with UK sovereignty with regard to the security of our borders. This is all very well but it has nothing at all to do with the EU. But it could well swing the referendum result against the EU.Supporters of a 'stay in' vote must therefore hope that the campaign will highlight this common misapprehension.

What Britain makes

We often hear complaints that Britain has lost its heritage as a great manufacturing nation, that we don't actually 'make' anything anymore. Well, in terms of metal and wood and plastic that may well be largely the case, though, for reasons I don't understand, we seem a popular place to make case. But it is far from the truth to say we don't make anything, we make plenty of things; its just that they are less tangible and are often of an intellectual, technical and creative nature. We are clearly very very good, sometimes world leaders in these kind of products : entertainment biotechnology and research environmental research and devlopment energy technology civil engineering medical research and treatments sport and related activities and services higher education design and architecture The 'Arts' computer technology software development financial services (with a health warning on that one !) There are more, I am sure, but this is an impressive list. What's more, these tend to be high value products while much traditional manufacturing involves low value products. So Britain is in a strong position to exploit our high value specialisations in which we seem to have a comparative advantage. So the first thing to say is to stop bleeting about the loss of our manufacturing tradition. More seriously, though, we need to recognise where our strengths and advantages lie and to nurture them carefully. This means being willing to invest a large proportion of our national income in these kinds of areas : education generally higher education and research sport and entertainent infrastructure Medical research and top class treatment centres biodevelopments, including sustainable energy The Arts Such investment can be undertaken both through the private and public sectors as appropriate. I think we could be on the brink of a new period of regional, if not global dominance in a variety of economic sectors. But before we do what is necessary to nurture them, we need to recognise what they are worth and not hanker after something that is well behind us and in which we do not enjoy comparative advantages.

Modern capitalism and the new marxism - part two

Part one of this post suggested that the excessive inequalities now being seen, especially since 2008, my be leading to a crisis of capitalism, perhaps as severe s 1968 or even earlier those in the nineteen-tens and twenties. But the prospect of hoards of the poor pouring into London from Cornwall, South Wales, Northern Ireland and Northern England seems rather remote. This kind of traditional revolutionary activity would be neither likely not effective. The growing importance of the Internet presents us, however, with a very different picture. The Internet, I would suggest, presents us with two alternative visions of revolution. The first is that revolutionary sentiments may become diffused by the internet. There may well be a groundswell of discontent, but this might lack focus and may fail to mobilise its forces effectively. the way in which the 'Occupy' movement seems to have blown itself out rapidly may be an appropriate model of such an effect. The second vision suggests that the Internet may indeed facilitate opposition to capitalism's excesses and may one day become so overwhelming that it will topple the vested interests that are promoting inequality. If we adopt a clasical marxist perspective, an Internet movement will not succeed because it would lack 'class consciousness'. The weakness of the working class, said Marx, lies in two of its characerists. One is a lack of awareness of its own position, notably its own exploitation. The other is the danger that memebers of the working class lack solidarity because individuals under capitalism are forced to compete with each other for scarce resources. The Internet certainly can encourage class consciousness, but it also prevents the formation of a class in the first place. Users of the internet are intensely individualistic - that is the nature of the beast and its attraction - and so it is difficult to envisage a coherent anti-capitalist movement springing from the social media. I therefore think I conclude that a marxist analysis does indeed suggest that the conditions for revolution certainly are coming into existence, but that capitalism will survive because of the lack of a strong enough class which could carry out the sentence of death that history has pronounced on it.

modern capitalism and the new marxism - part 1

At the risk of saying things that you my already know very well, I need to start with a ludicrously redacted version of Mark's theory of history. In short Marx argued that every age spawns the seeds of its own destruction. Thus, he believed, nineteenth century indutrial capitalism created an exploited working class that would ultimately rise up and destroy it. We do not need here to discuss whether, or why, Marx was wrong, but it is a good starting point for a discussion of modern post-industrial capitalism and where it is headed. 'New' marxism may be described as the use of his dialectic theory to analyse modern society, without necessarily passing judgement on its validity or exclusiveness. Marx, along with many other historians, also pointed out that, as civilizations approach their demise, they inevitably become decadent and grotesque exaggerations and distortions of their central elements emerge. The excesses of Rome are well known to us and Marx accurately foresaw the development of excessive 'conspicuous consumption' in the later stages of capitalism. Well it must now be clear where this is leading. If the analysis is useful it is in one particular aspect of modern capitalism that we should concentrate upon. And here I am referring only to the 'developed' West - the issue of the devloping world is very different. That is growing inequality. The key difference between the remarkable growth period which lasted from the early 1990s to 2008 (with the notable exception of Japan) and the period since 2008 is this: While inequality grew in both periods, in the first, the vast majority of people saw their living standards rise, even those at the bottom of the invome scale, either because growing wealth did indeed 'trickle down' or because of improved welfare systems. Thus the contradictions, to use a marxian term, odf inequality were not at all clear. This second period is more corrosive. This is becase, for the first time for many years, the living standards of the poor are actually falling. This is where the picture becomes forbidding. We are seeing massive increases in the wealth and incomes of the small group of perhaps 1-2% of western populations in a period when overall wealth is declining. Orwell, in Nineteen-Eighty-Four, painted a picture of a world where the poor are subdued by constant exposure to popular culture of a type that dulls their consciousness and manipulates their perception of the world. Marx had referred to religion (the opium of the masses) performing this role. I don't need to illustrate this devlopemnt which must be clear to anyone who turns on a TV or opens up a computer games programme. However, the Internet and the open access to it, renders the Orwellian nightmare impossible. The deprived in our societies are fully aware of their own deprivation and are capable of creating their own culture. While this is going on the excesses of the extremely rich are all too clear to see, whether it be dishonest bankers, corrupt politicians, megalomaniac newspaper proprietors, greedy CEOs or spoiled footbsllers. Are these the indications of the decadence of a dying civilisation ? Will growing inequality and the emergence of increasing desprivation create a marxist-style revolution ? Does the Internet make revolution more possible, or will it diffuse alienation so much that nothing tangible will occur ? More in part 2.

The War on Drugs

I notice this Monday morning that a Commons select committee is recommending a review of the drugs laws in the UK. Two things to say at the outset. The first is that, apparently, the use of illegal drugs and offences connected with them, have been falling significantly. This may mean the current war on drugs is succeeding or, as I suspect, it simply means drugs are becoming less fashionable. Secondly, there is a wide gulf in cultural outlook of people who were born before 1945 and those who were born since. Yes, as precise as that. The older of the two groups will be, on the whole, very fearful of any liberalisation of drugs laws;the younger group, however, are likely to take a more balanced view. Thus, as the older 'drugs-conservative' group age, or die, or at least vacate positions of influence, the agenda is bound to change merely through the passage of time. That time is approaching. My view is very strong, which is that virtually all drugs should be de-criminalised unless there is a dramatic threat to public health (ketamine may be an example. It is absurd that alcohol and tobacco remain legal while other types of narcotic are not. But, more compellingly, there is a deep philosophical argument that says the state has no business telling peole how they lead their lives. Many people voluntarily take risks and we do not make such activities illegal, as long. of course, as there is an extensive public campaign to demonstrate the risks (as occurs with smoking and alcolhol consumption. True, the activity of persading people to take risks, i.e. use potentially dangerous drugs, may well be a crime, but, here again, we do not prosecute people for persuading them that parachute jumping, hang gliding or extreme mountaineering are good ideas. No, the misuse of drugs is a health and cultural issue and should be treated as such. Ask yourself this question. 'If we were to start again from scratch, knowing what we now know, and drugs narcotics suddenly appeared on the scene, would we handle the situation as we currently are ?' Clearly not. By crminalising the production, marketing and use of narcotics we would be creating a whole new set of crimes and a whole new criminal community overnight. So, we must study, carefully and rationally, the experience of Holland, Portugal and the handful of US states who have voted to legalise cannabis. But I would be more radical. In the specific case of heroin and crack cocaine, the state should offer all current (not new) users free prescriptions in return for agreement to undergo rehabilitation programmes and to use the drugs under controlled conditions. This would destroy the market for such drugs virtually overnight, take away the incentive for anyone to persuade others to start to use such drugs (there would no longer be a commercial interest in doing so, by pushers and dealers)and would eliminate the crimes associated with use and dealing. In particular, users would not have to resort to crime or prostitution to finance their habit. This will only happen, of course, when the demographic as I described above comes about. But that time is coming. I believe that, in ten years time, such changes in law and practice will become publicly acceptable. We should start preparing for that day right now.

Its all about public interest

Later today the Leveson Report is to be published and its detail will, undoubtedly be poured over for some time. To be sure, it's a devilishly difficult issue and anyone who says it is 'simple' is lying. There is a huge temptation to bring in draconian controls simply because much of the print media is out of control. I am tempted to believe that the print media is actually dying out anyway, so that particular problem will solve itself. The gutter journalists will lose their jobs and no doubt work for private investigators where they can be regulated by law without any civil liberties issues interfering. The focus will then have to shift to web and social media generally and whether or how to regulate that. We have already seen the first warning shots with the McAlpine Affair and a number of other unpleasant twitter campaigns. You can't regulate gossip so that will be a tough one. In the meantime, what to do ? The key seems to lie with the issue of what is, or is not, in the 'public interest. There are clear examples either way. The Milly Dowler incident was clearly not in the public interest. Issues concerning MPs' expenses or Jimmy Savile clearly were. It is cases in between these that are hard to judge. For example was the revelation of Harry's games in Las Vegas in the public interest ? (I know it was not a press revelation, but the principle applies). Then, of course, there are the private lives of politicians and public servants in general - come to think of it, who are 'public servants' ? Are school headteachers, heads of broadcasting organisations, newspaper editors 'pubic servants' ? They are certainly engaged in public business, whether or not they are employed by the state. The recent Petraus issue in the USA is a case in point. His private life was clearly a matter of public interest because he handles intelligence and security matters, but what if he were just another four star general ? So, whatever Leveson proposes, and whatever the government tries to introduce, I think a workable (it can never be watertight) definition of 'public interest' must be the keystone of any system.

55 Days

I saw the play 55 Days recently at Hampstead Theatre. I would certainly recommend this excellent piece by Howard Brenton if it comes round your way. It concerns the events and debates leading up to the trial ane execution of Charles 1 in 1648-9. Two issues occurred to me after seeing it. The first was the extent to which the key elements of British government were being shaped at that time, even though it was over 350 years ago. In particular there were the disputes over sovereignty between Parliament (at that time a purged and garrulous institution, rendered impotent by sectarian divisions), and the executive (then the King, of course). All the same issues of where authority sovereignty and power lie that we see today, especially under coalition, were laid bare. Of course, at the time, the protagonists were unable to fathom out how to grant authority to executive government when it was no longer either an hereditary monarchy or a directly elected body. It was only when it was realised, towards the end of the century, that executive government could derive its authority from Parliament that the problem was solved. But is does demonstrate how far ahead of the rest of the democratic world England was. The characters even discussed the possibility of a constitution coming into being and certainly, Cromwell and fairfax favoured a constitutional monarchy - a very modern concept. The second feature was the attitude of Charles towards his own position and ultimate demise. Brenton, I understand, has followed closely contemporary acounts so one assumes the words of his characters are accurate. Charles refused to recognise the authority of the court that condemned him and did not acknowledge the possibility that he, the sovereign, could commit treason. There was also a general sense that he saw himself as the 'embodiment' of the people so he could not betray them. In his words could we not hear the same pleas as those of Milosovic, Saddam Hussain, Mubarak and the like. It seems that the refuge of dictators behind the principle that they represent the state and so cannot be tried by that same state, has a very long history. In the end, of course, the military took over in England, with Cromwell declaring himself Lord Protector. How often do we see reforming revolutionaries become, themselves, dictators, every bit as undemocratic as those they have replaced. Are we seeing this in Egypt today ? Incidentally, before we leave the subject, a footnote on democracy. Sitting on either side of me were Simon Callow and Benedict Cumberbatch with their respective partners. It occured to me that the fact that I, a commoner, could be literally rubbing shoulders with members of the theatrical aristocracy, was indeed a demonstration of modern democracy.