You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
|
item0023C 534,535 534 20 November 2002 Labour's "New Localism" is flawed David Walker, writing in The Guardian, is entirely right to challenge Labour's concept of localism. But he reaches, the wrong conclusion, reinforcing the case for centralisation. Let me explain what I mean. 
Labour, as a contending political Party at
Westminster, has never really grasped the nature of "localism" - of people's
hunger for local involvement, local commitment, local identification. That
is because all the great historical battles of the Party have been over legislation,
conquering the commanding heights of the national economy, combating
systemic unemployment,
redistributing wealth, strengthening the trade union movement, righting the crippling wrongs of the
English class system, building a post-WW2 form of socialism upon the
foundations of collectivist wartime success - the list of its tasks (and
its achievements) is endless. These political tasks have all
demanded a focused preoccupation with the assertion of central power, by way
of
UK-wide
collective action. It is not surprising that the Party has developed
this national, collectivist, focus. Labour politicians, even those with LA political
experience, have merely treated the Townhall as a stepping-stone to
Whitehall. And that political drive has animated the Party since WW2 -
and
certainly as long as I can remember.
Indeed, it is that drive which is now threatening to distort, and to transform the Labour
Party into a
more sinister Government Party.
There is a fundamental difference between the pre-WW1 Liberal England (which seems to colour much of Blair's thinking) and the present time. Tony Blair has not grasped the difference. The great local government reforms of the 19th Century, which flowered from 1890 to 1914, were introduced by Parliament in order to keep local affairs off the Westminster agenda. Local independence was genuine, because Westminster politicians did not seek local power. Why, then, is it so different now? The professionalisation of politics means that all Westminster politicians must assiduously scour their Constituency mailbags, because they know that assiduity in progressing local matters is the real key to their re-election - and that means to their only credible income-source. They can no longer afford - quite literally - to leave local politics to the local politicians. And they have no intention of doing so. That
is why the hapless LA Labour Leader Sir Jeremy Beecham has been hung out to
dry, by Downing Street, with nothing to say in favour of this centralising
Government. They cannot contemplate substantive devolution, for that
would threaten their very livelihoods.My own solution is concessionary, if some would say defeatist. I do not see how the political salariat can be defeated on this one - it is not a Party matter, for the entire salariat is tarred with the same brush, regardless of Party. A section of the salariat is already properly assigned to professional careers in provincial politics, notably in Scotland and in Wales - and that process will have to go further. I argue that radicals should concede the commanding heights of provincial and metropolitan power to the professional politicians, as a quid pro quo for the establishment of strong lay councils at parish, town and community level. It would remain for socialists to contend for power within the salaried system, at every level, and to contend for a real localism, respectful of local dignities and the importance of communal governance, and truly democratic in character. This is the foundation for my proposals for the next phase of devolution in Wales - why not check it out? What do you think? Drop me a line
535 21 November 2002
The Injustice The Firefighters' dispute, running in parallel with the remuneration scandals of City remuneration, have triggered another orgy of public resentment over the injustice of personal rewards. These outbursts are a periodic feature of our media lives, never reaching any considered conclusion. Indeed, no rational conclusion is possible. Equity of personal remuneration is a will-o-th'-wisp, a chimera: I pondered on this way back in April '02, take a peek. With a diverse workforce of over 29m adults, it is inconceivable that "Government" should regulate personal remuneration - as with "terrorist protection", if it were created it would destroy much of the "freedom" we hold most dear. With only 7m workers in TU membership, the effect of collective bargaining is minimal. And while certain devices are in place which reduce the incidence of personal injustice (Minimum Wage, progressive income tax rates, means-tested benefits), they barely touch the underlying arbitrariness of personal remuneration. Yet there is more that could be done. We could require, for the private sector, the sort of transparency - publicity - which attends public sector pay settlements. The minutiae of the Firefighters' package is the subject of public and Press attention, before the bargain is struck. Yet the scandalous levels of Board-level remuneration, particularly in the financial sector, are shrouded in secrecy - declared only a long-time after the event, when all the money is safely stashed away in executive pockets. I believe that would inhibit the worst of City exploitation - much of it is tantamount to theft, the ruthless plundering of shareholders' assets for personal gain. The searchlight of publicity should be deployed, equally ruthlessly, to name and shame the perpetrators before the till is robbed. That will not be easy. I attempted to introduce an open-salary system at Bovis Home (Southern), the Bovis housebuilding company at Uxbridge, where I was Managing Director. We had a perfectly sensible and rational salary structure, and in my enthusiasm for openness I proposed to publish salaries so that they were commonly known, as they were in the public service. There was immediate opposition both from above and from below. I was forced to beat a rapid retreat. Secrecy, confidentiality, is a habit that runs very deep in the private sector. And those seeking, at the very top, to exploit the system take full advantage of that cloak of secrecy. Greater transparency ought to be the cornerstone of company law reform. It is the first of the First of the Five Pillars of Wisdom, set out in my international Manifesto - Tame the Corporations! - let me know what you think of the Other Four..What do you think? Drop me a line
|
||||
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New