But Robin offers nothing to the Labour Party at this stage.  He is stuck in the Old Labour mud.  His new book is entitled Point of Departure (summarised in The Guardian). This is a disappointing conclusion for me to have to draw.  And I owe it to myself, as well as to others, to explain just why.

Certain of his themes are obvious, and unexceptionable. 

• "New Labour should be more ambitious in promoting public intervention in the protection of the environment"
• "Any set of values for a modern society (must be) outward-looking and cosmopolitan".  "Reactionary political forces will be distinguished by their attempts at isolation from the modern world and their nostalgia for a romanticised past"
• And he advocates greater freedom for the expression of diverse opinions, within the Labour Party.  "In Wilson's time, the Labour Party was more pluralist than now, and their leading figures had distinctive views of their own... By contrast, New Labour aspires to a uniformity of view that is badly behind the times."

No socialist could disagree. 

NB On the latter point, I have this week withdrawn my supplementary financial support from the Labour Party, as my only available protest against the expulsion of George Galloway - which was an outrage.  While I continue to pay my £24 pa membership to the national Party, I shall be doing no more - from now on.  A Party which cannot tolerate, indeed welcome, an outspoken critic like George Galloway does not deserve my financial support - even though I am determined not to be driven out, from membership, by Labour's authoritarianism.  I have expressed precisely the same views myself, about soldiers' obedience to illegal orders (for there is no doubt that these orders are illegal, as a matter of international law) - it is simply that, as I am not an MP, nobody takes any notice of what I say...

But that's where Cook's common-sense ends.  Robin Cook adheres to his long-standing personal preoccupation with proportional representation, which in my view is the biggest cul-de-sac of modern politics.  What matters is the distribution of power within the state - that is far more important than the precise method by which Robin Cook is selected for Parliament.

But the most serious fault-lines of his position lie with his biggest propositions.

Equality   Cook pins his socialism to the traditional flagpole of equality.  "What makes a society strong is its sense of social cohesion, the belief of all its members in their basic equality".  My observation is that traditional socialist concepts of equality play no part in the judgements of rising generations.  Their views are individualist, and they value the support which the community can deliver to them in tackling the vicissitudes of life - illness, unemployment, low-skill, old age.  But they are far less concerned with across-the-board equality - if the system works for them, they are content.  Indeed, they demonstrate a considerable ability to tolerate inequality, provided it is not malignant.  True - if certain individuals are oppressed by manifest inequality, then parity arguments can be effectively deployed.  But otherwise, I do not believe that "equality" is still a driving force in contemporary politics.  What matters is the ability of each society to offer each of its citizens, without arbitrary discrimination, a fair opportunity for self-fulfilment and a happy life.  My nose tells me that, in the politics of the 21st century, liberty will prove more important than equality.  The French always put it first...

Economics  Capitalism, and "the economy".  Here, Cook is very light indeed, and indulges his cartoon view of the corporate sector. 

"Today, the balance between social intervention and the free market has been unhinged by an aggressive market fundamentalism.  The neo-liberal hegemony dictates that maximising shareholder return is the prime objective of business organisation, that individual self-interest is the sole motivation of economic activity and that social institutions, such a Governments, should shrink to a minimalist role".

This is dangerous nonsense, 4th Form economics.  National and international economies only operate with legal frameworks created by Governments - perhaps 200+ different governmental jurisdictions, for the purposes of this argument.  We are already responsible for the malfunctions of the corporate sector.  Business merely frolics in the spaces left by Governments. Cook is right to imply that it is for Governments to forge a new concordat with the corporate sector.  He is also right to criticise New Labour for its passivity and spinelessness, in the face of systemic malfunction. 

But he says nothing for himself about "the way ahead" - merely that "a coherent centre-left project must start from the proposition that the economy is not the property of any single set of participants within it, but that it is a public good which must be managed in the public interest." 

• I suspect Cooks' heart is in the right place
  But Where's da beef?

857   27 October  2003  

This is an integral element is my proposed Corporate Control Treaty.  You will find, spelt out at Tame the Corporations, a full statement of the Five Principles which I seek to see negotiated and enacted.  And it is the Fifth Principle - which encompasses the awful fate of Concorde.

The forcible "retirement" of Concorde is a wanton act of destruction, which should not fall within the remit of any artificial person.  This is a political proposition of the greatest possible importance - yet there have been no political protests raised this week, against this manifest abuse of private property power.