You are in the company of 
Roger Warren Evans
   


  Part of   www.LivePolitics.net                                 < Back to Home Page  
 
New
Living Diary
Index


New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited


RWE Biography

 

   

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

 

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

 

 
 
 
 
   

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net
- is that a deal?  Roger WE