| |
New
Living Diary
Index
New participatory
democracy
Taming the Corporations
My Welsh socialism
My New
Socialist Settlement
Globalise the left!
Bevan re-visited
|
|
|
item0063D 936, 937
936
1 March 2004
Airport Theory
The David Goodhart debate about
Britishness rumbles on, sadly
fuelled by the out-of-office John Denham. Many decent folk are being drawn into its covert,
perhaps even unconscious,
prejudices. The Guardian cites the modern Premiership
football team as a reflection of underlying popular views, where team loyalty
outweighs the players' diverse nationalities.
"Perhaps these football clubs are a
new
model for the modern state".
My " Airport Theory",
painstakingly developed over many a
dinner-table and bottle of wine, is that the modern state should be
organised like an Airport terminal building. For "the State" is not
at all like a "team" or a bundle of allegiances: it is a territorial
entity, carrying heavy responsibilities for the maintenance of peace and
good order within its boundaries. And it has to cater for increasing
numbers "passing through" and making sporadic use of its facilities.
Every person working
there, or passing through, should be able to "read" the system easily, and
find his own way around the system. True, many regular travellers
get to know their way around, without the signage. The resident
staff are analogous to the resident population of a state, effortlessly
knowing the ropes. But for all travellers, whether legally or
illegally present, there should always be clear explanations and
directions.
-
Food and medical attention are always available, even hospital access for
serious emergencies, at all times of day. Public hygiene standards
are high, with substantial resources devoted to the maintenance of public
cleanliness. Particular attention is paid to the provision of public
transport options, to and from the Airport. Civil emergency services
are well-organised, and can be summoned at short notice. There are
even religious worship options, available on demand.
The "authorities" are easily accessible, and are responsible for
the management of a clearly-defined territory. They are equipped to
operate in many languages. Within that territory, their powers are
derived unambiguously from statute, and they are subject to legal scrutiny
in every aspect of their exercise. Residential accommodation is
always to hand (airport hotels), closely integrated with the
management of the Airport. In the event of unexpected disruption,
passengers are accommodated at no cost to themselves.
What is
your favoured model of the modern state? Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
937
1
March
2004
Fatcat Remuneration
No Action
Patricia Hewitt has
annoyed the Unions by refusing to intervene to limit Board and executive
remuneration. She has been sitting on the fence for two years, and
now she has decided.
Hewitt is right to reject direct State
intervention in corporate reward packages. Incomes policy is a broken
political reed, whether on the shop-floor or in the Boardroom.
And Hewitt is right to look to
shareholders to discipline corporate management.
But Hewitt is wrong to leave shareholders with so few
powers, when faced with rapacious and devious executives. Government
intervention is needed, to strengthen shareholders, on a much broader
front. For shareholders remain, under company law, woefully
ill-equipped to counter deceit, deviousness and greed on the part of
managements. A few greedy managers have been flushed out in recent
months, that's true - but the hidden base of the iceberg is veritably huge. Managers will
simply go underground to exploit their companies, where shareholders cannot reach. Groupings of
shareholders, meeting sporadically around AGMs, need much more help from
Government, by way of additional powers.
They need routine
access to company books and accounts - openness, transparency, the
ever-present threat of publicity. And they need the Media to
intervene, to keep them and the wider public informed. The
investigative US Press could flush out Nixon, but failed even to suspect
the presence of the mass corruption of Enron.
Patricia Hewitt, in the Labour cause, should be
addressing that much bigger issue. If she believes that
"it cannot happen here",
she is deluded. Radical reform will need widespread international
agreement, and that will take a long time to negotiate.
What do you think? Drop me a
line
<
Back to Home Page
|
|