|
| Back to Home Page |
|
Renewing participatory democracy Multiple Differential Uncertainty
|
050214 Make sure you
have not missed the previous edition Check it out And the one before that? Other recent topics highlighted here
Week 7 Sunday Civil Three news-reports this week highlight the growing importance of civil litigation, as a means of "doing justice". All on the same day, in three different jurisdictions. In the US, men swindled out of $-millions by false Internet claims for penis enlargement took action through the Courts, for misrepresentation and breach of contract. In the UK, asbestos-toting corporates were forced to face up to their full liabilities to employees, in a successful AMICUS legal action. And in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights held that, without legal aid, the McLibel Two, Dave Morris and Helen Steel, were deprived of a fair trial of their defence against McDonalds' marathon libel action.
As the traditional authority of the politically managed State ebbs away, there is every sign of growing confidence in a "rule of law" of some kind - at neighbourhood level, as well as nationally and internationally.
Finally understood... 
It was before the 1997 Election that I wrote to Tony Blair and advised him to give up "We"-statements. "Acknowledge," I said, "the force of individualism in our society. Cut through the fear of socialist collectivism. Instead of "we", practise using "you and I - address the individual listener, not the mass - personalise, individualise". I was being vetted, at the time, as a possible Blair speechwriter, and I remember going to the Opposition Leader's pokey little Commons Suite, for an interview with one of his Advisers. He did not take the advice, and I was never asked again to write. TB marched on, scattering sack-loads of "We"-statements. "We are far more effective together than we are apart..." Until now. To judge by the 2005 pledge-card (nothing enforceable this time, you understand), it looks as if "You-&-I" may yet have its day. Watch this space. 
Whatever happened to Labour's "Election Pledges" demonstrate graphically the collapse of political philosophy, of any appeal to socialist principle. Yet even as late as March 2002, I was still motivated to spell out my own political philosophy, in conventional declaratory socialist terms. Sadly it already seems strangely outdated. Pragmatism rules OK.
London 
I am hoping for a London Olympic defeat. I can imagine nothing worse, for London, than to be overtaken by sporting obsessions for the next seven years. London does not need the Olympics to bolster its greatness. And its municipal systems are simply not capable of delivering success. The whole operation would be an ego-trip for Ken Livingstone, and a political quagmire. In late 2002, before Labour ill-advisedly decided to back the bid, I advised the Cabinet firmly against it. It is one of the advantages of weblogging that you can read what I thought at the time (December 2002). London is simply not equipped, constitutionally or managerially, to mount the Games. Central Government would have to take over, as it did with the Millennium Dome. And that would be a disaster.
CROESO
This is new territory. Many organisations focus on the welfare of immigrants (JCWI, the Refugee Councils, DPIA, as well as many religious, and national communal groups).
I feel quite nervous, faced with the task of exploring this difficult theme, in public, for the first time. Wish us luck... For Gutnick 
Lawyers are slowly fashioning the ground-rules of the World Wide Web. In the 2002 Gutnick Case, in Australia, the Courts permitted Australian magnate Joseph Gutnick to sue Dow-Jones, in Australia, for defamation contained in a web-publication which was seen in Australia by only a handful of web-readers. That was sufficient "publication", the Australian judges decided, to ground a legal action in Australia. This week, the same question came before the UK Court of Appeal: Yousef Jameel, Saudi Arabian resident in the UK, had sued the Wall Street Journal for defamation "committed" by way of a hyperlink from the on-line edition of that newspaper. It was seen by only six people in the UK, before it was removed. His claim was thrown out. Such minimal web-access simply did not constitute sufficient "publication" in the UK to justify mobilising the entire legal system, judge-and-jury, to decide the issue.
Drugs Legalisation
The Fabians are a great, enlightened Left-Wing political community some 7,000-strong - and we have many skills among our number.
|
Voting Labour?
Referendum? Wrong question >>>
Volunteering:
is this a sham?
>>> Housebulding misunderstood >>>Waterstones and Human Rights >>>How politicians abuse "contracts" >>> Abolish Wrongful Dismissal >>> "Groupism" a dangerous error >>>Extending the Welfare State >>>Adjustment Pay for every worker ;> >>
The Mischief of ASBOs >>>
Jacques' I enjoy the clear intelligence, as well as the political perception, of Martin Jacques. Writing in The Guardian, he casts his mind forward to the period after the Tories return to power on an ultra-right, racist, nationalist agenda. New Labour will inevitably run out of steam, he argues, succombing to sheer philosophical vacuity. And what would Labour do then? How would the Party recover? The Party's traditional springs of political energy would have run dry, in the process of outbidding the Tories for the centre-right ground. The renewed Tories would be even nastier than Labour, where Labour had been trying to compete with them. Where could Labour re-group?Jacques does not suggest an answer. But I know precisely what Labour should do. Yes, Charles, but...
For me, Charles Clarke has steered an acceptable pragmatic course on asylum and immigration, so that the issue will be neutralised for 2005 electoral purposes - by parity of nastiness, if nothing else. But his Five-Year Plan is a short-term palliative. What are the longer-term prospects? If one combines the figures for failed asylum-seekers with those who simply "overstay" after limited-term visitor visas, or work or student permits, the numbers of "illegal immigrants" now living in the UK must exceed 300,000, and it could be much higher - nobody really knows. We do know, however, that at the present rate of enforced "removal" (14,000 per year, including dependents) that backlog would take over twenty years to clear. And with global travel becoming easier and cheaper by the month, that backlog can only increase. The "War on Illegal Immigration" is one that cannot be "won" - any more that the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. On all sides, we are hedged in by systems of increasing nastiness, all of our own making. It is time to think big, and change the system. We must find a system which is self-regulating to a much greater degree. The solution is for us to negotiate, within the EU, to make migration legal, without any permit system. Instead of drawing the line at a physical border, we must find alternatives ways of "managing" the migration process. 
Gremlins have recently struck my favourite local community website, which I launched some four years ago, as part of the communications network of the local Community Council. It is now edited by other volunteer editors. The bankruptcy of a local (cheap) Internet Service Provider resulted in The Mumbles Book being off-the-air for a month, from mid-January - now happily restored to Web eminence... Humanita!  Are
you a potential recruit for
Never miss
One Year Ago
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE |
This reinforces my sense that we are
moving towards a dicastocracy, or "rule by judges".
This Saturday, 19 February, poses a new
challenge for me and my fellow CROESO
Trustees. We are a new charitable trust, exploring ways of building
within Wales a more welcoming
society. This Saturday, we go public for the first time, seeking
volunteers for the task, and explaining the challenges that face newcomers
(particularly asylum-seekers) in Welsh communities.
And read my Big Theory itself, at 
The entire phenomenon of the English speed
"hump" was triggered by lawyer's errors. Errors of statutory
interpretation. Now that the errors have been corrected, these awful
highway obstructions should be dispensed with. I joined Ken
Livingstone in his anti-hump drive, during his re-election campaign.
Older readers will recall that I was very
active, two years ago, campaigning for drugs legalisation.
My commitment has not changed.
But I am dulled by the bovine obtuseness and lack of principle displayed
by our MPs, afraid of every electoral shadow. Here, I celebrated the
11 MPs with the courage to identify with the liberal cause of drugs
legalization. They are still, to my knowledge, the only 11 to stand
out from the bovine herd.