| |
New
Living Diary
Index
New participatory
democracy
Taming the Corporations
My Welsh socialism
My New
Socialist Settlement
Globalise the left!
Bevan re-visited
|
|
|
item0048C 784, 785
784 9
August 2003
|
August 04, 2003
Extract from The Times, taken from timesonline
Heaven
protect us from Labour's New Age posturing
Mick Hume |
|
|

|
|
The British
are supposed not to like having religious beliefs imposed on their
politics. So reports that a new, high-powered Home Office committee
has been charged with “injecting religious ideas across Whitehall”
have set alarm bells ringing. But on closer inspection, things
appear even worse than that. New Labour is falling back on
pseudo-religiosity because its Government has no firm beliefs to
impose, Christian, secular, conservative or socialist.
A Sunday newspaper report yesterday revealed plans for a
Faith Community Liaison Group, to include ministers, officials,
leading MPs and representatives of faith groups. The committee
chair, Fiona Mactaggart, the minister responsible for “civic
renewal”, says that it aims to involve “the faith communities’
perspectives and needs in policy development across government”.
The newspaper claimed that the committee would reflect
Tony Blair’s “deeply-felt beliefs that the answers to most questions
can be found in the Bible”. If true, that would be worrying enough.
Yet the Prime Minister’s beliefs often seem rather less certain. He
is an Anglican who worships in Roman Catholic churches, and carries
the Koran around as well as the Bible. His wife, Cherie, is a devout
Catholic who also worships at the church of Carole Caplin,
reportedly wearing magic crystals to ward off the evil of mobile
phones.
On holiday in Mexico a couple of summers back, the Blairs
took part in an ancient Mayan/New Age rebirthing ritual in a pyramid
“womb”, praying to the four winds, screaming and smearing each other
with mud and water melon. It all looks less like an unshakeable set
of convictions than a promiscuous pick-’n-mix of pre and postmodern
brands of spirituality.
The new Home Office body is no movement for Christian
renewal. Representatives of Christian Churches, including the
evangelicals, will sit alongside those from the Jewish, Sikh, Muslim
and Hindu faiths. But how can a committee hope to reflect the
“perspectives and needs” of such diverse and frequently hostile
faiths? Only by ignoring important issues, rather as one keeps the
peace at family get-togethers by restricting the topics of
conversation to pets and babies. This is multicultural religion-lite.
If the Government is retreating behind such vacuous
religiosity, it looks less like an act of conviction than a
substitute for it. New Labour is grasping for something that might
give a semblance of deeper meaning to its flagging project. The old
British Left often combined a muscular Christianity with
welfare-state socialism. Both currents have been left behind by
history. When Blair overtook Clement Attlee as the longest-serving
Labour Prime Minister last week, some nostalgists wished for a
return to Attlee’s times. Yet the ideas of 1945 look as tired today
as Tony Benn’s impression of a cardigan-wearing country vicar.
The trouble is that new Labour leaders have found little
to replace the Left’s old-time religion, beyond the platitudes of
the Third Way. This helps to explain why they are now reduced to
praying that a hotch-potch committee of faith communities might
somehow promote what one supportive MP calls “values in public
life”. Just what those values might be, however, he does not say.
The Prime Minister can only dream about religion acting as the opium
of the people today.
Karl Marx’s further definition of religion as “the soul
of soulless conditions” seems more pertinent. Blair would like to
summon up some air of spiritual belief in a bid to inject a little
soul into a soulless political class.
While the Prime Minister indulges in high-minded gestures
about consulting the gods, down in the real world power is
increasingly exercised by business managers, accountants, judges and
other unelected bodies. Perhaps those seeking a more secular,
democratic alternative should go back to basics. When the term
left-wing first attached itself to those on the left side of the
French National Assembly in 1789, it meant the rejection of
organised religion and autocracy. A popular slogan of the day was
“strangle the last aristocrat with the guts of the last priest”.
That might be a little extreme for current tastes. But how about
“gag the last law lord with the crystals of the last lifestyle
adviser”, for a start? |
|
Where do you stand, on the
mobilisation of religious institutions for the pursuit of political ends?
Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
785
11
August
2003
Lane Rental
telltale PFI faultline
Well-informed
friends sometimes praise to me the ingenuity of the Highways
Agency lawyers in incentivising road-contractors to work faster, by devising
the concept of lane rental.
It means that the contractor must pay "rent" for his occupation of each lane
of the highway, and can minimise his costs by keeping lanes open whenever
and wherever humanly possible.
- It is indeed ingenious. But it was devised as an answer to a
much more serious PFI problem.
Let's begin at the beginning .
The doctrines of English contract law, evolving gradually since the Middle
Ages but accelerating during the 19thC, were designed to regulate
legally-binding relationships between private citizens. They bear the
indelible mark of those origins. For example, if Citizen A is in
breach of his contract with Citizen B, he must
compensate
Citizen B for any loss or damage
caused by his breach. So far as money payment can do it, he must pay
"damages" so as to put Citizen B in substantially the same position as he
would have been if the breach had not occurred. The concept of
compensation
is fundamental to contract law: the Courts do not seek to "punish" anyone
for a breach of contract - they merely seek to
compensate
the wronged party.
Simple, isn't it?
Well, Yes and No .
What happens when the contract is between "the State" and a "private
contractor" - for the most part, an artificial person formed under the
Companies Acts? If the contractor is in breach, can the State argue
that as the State
it has suffered any loss?
Ordinarily not.
A delayed school or hospital contract may wreck many lives, even cause
deaths - but does "the State" in any sense suffer that damage?
As an organisation, as a contracting partner?
Of course not.
The uncomfortable truth is that English Law, having insisted (unlike
most Continental legal systems) that "the State" must be subject to the
same laws as its citizens, is hoist at it own petard. Government
Departments may on occasion suffer conventional damages (e.g. a new-build
office for its own use is late, and the Department has to pay over-the-odds
for interim accommodation) but ordinarily, the damage is suffered
by the public,
or the
patients,
or the pupils
- and they are not parties to the contract, and cannot therefore sue for
damages! A real-life Catch-22. There is definitely a breach-of-contract, but
nobody who can sue the contractor for the damages arising from that breach.
It was the same with
road-repairs.
Late completion might be very inconvenient for the motoring public, but the
Highways Agency itself manifestly did not suffer any loss or damage! The HA
lawyers therefore re-formulated the whole issue. They started with the
assertion that the HA
owned the road,
which is widely accepted as "true". Therefore a contractor repairing
the road should be asked to pay a specific "rent" for occupying any part of
the road which he is working on: every bidding contractor could be asked to allow for "lane rental"
payments, when formulating his initial bid. Those payments would not
be made as "compensation" or damages, but simply as "rent". If the
contractor finished early, however, he would not need to pay the rent
envisaged, and he would boost his profits accordingly.
Clever, huh?
Yep! It
sure was clever. And it now dominates the
highway-repair sector, incentivising contractors. But you should never
forget the awful flaw in English contract law that the device is designed to
circumvent. English contract law is not well suited
at all to
regulating relations between the individual firm and "the State". In
thousands of other "Private Finance Inititative" (PFI) contracts, far less ingenuity has been deployed, and
contractual obligations to the State often rest on very fragile or broken foundations.
- Because
"penalty clauses" are not legally enforceable, either.
Have you
ever looked into this abyss - the unenforceability of PFI contracts?
Will you share your insights with us?
Drop me a
line
<
Back to Home Page
|
|