The Future Now

Brown survives

As Jonathan Freedland says in today's Guardian, in the end Gordon Brown survived the various attempts to unseat him, and the worst election result for decades because,

the plot to replace Brown lacked two essentials: an alternative candidate and an alternative programme.

And this statement pretty well sums up the state of UK politics.  There is widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the country, indeed the world, and the failure of politicians to provide a lead.  None of the main parties have a credible way out of the current crisis - a crisis which is economic at it's root, but which infects all branches of society and culture - because none of the main parties understand, or are willing to admit, the underlying causes of this deepening malaise.

But then the electorate is not much better.  What do they do after the economic order imposed by politicians of the right brings the world to its knees and they get chance to vote in elections to the European Parliament?  Most stay home, and those who do bother to vote give their support overwhelmingly to parties of the right.

It's surely time for a radical new poltics of the kind espoused in the UK by the Green Party, or by Compass on the 'left' of the Labour Party.  But how we get this imperative to register with the majority of ordinary people, or with mainstream politicians, I really don't know.

We get the government we deserve?  You bet we do. 

Progressive America

I'm just back from an inspiring trip to the United States where I was invited to speak on the subject of Ressurecting the American Dream, at Missouri Sate University and Drury University, both in Springfield, Missouri.

The talks were well received and I was exceptionally well looked after by my American hosts.  By way of promotion, this piece was published in the Springfield News Leader, and I also did this radio interview.

I had a stimulating and constructive meeting with members of the League of Women Voters and the Senior Democrats, which confirmed my belief in the crucial role that older people have to play in shaping the future of politics - so much wisdom and experience of life.

I was very impressed by the progressive spirit of many I met, and the enthusiasm with which they are embracing the possibilities for progressive change in America, and therefore the world, following the election of Barack Obama.

Thanks to everyone I met, and to all those who came to the talks.  The talk itself will soon emerge as an article which, once published, will be accessible from this site.

The brutalisation of society

The truly great Billy Bragg has this piece over at Comment is Free just now in which he correctly describes the consequences of Margaret Thatcher's victory over the miners, who began their famous strike 25 years today.

Whatever you think about miners' leader Arthur Scargill, and he certainly made many mistakes and suffers deep psychological flaws, everything he claimed would come to pass were the Tory government to get its way has done so.

Hearing the obsequious Lord Tebbitt talking about the context of the strike on the Today programme this morning was really quite vomit-inducing, so it's good to see the Bard of Barking putting the record straight.

Goodwin's Pension

As you can probably imagine I have little time for Sir Fred Goodwin and his ilk.  People like Goodwin reconfigured the banking system for the benefit of a wealthy elite of which they were proud to be part.  Ridiculous pension arrangements were part and parcel of the system by which these people made their undeserved fortunes.

But they could not have done it without the acquiescence of government, and in Britain for the last twelve years that government has been a Labour government.

For John Prescott to absolve Gordon Brown of all responsibility, as he did on the Today programme this morning is, quite frankly, and to use language with which Prescott would himself be comfortable, taking the piss. 

Bankers and politicians thought they could get away with it.  The former because many among their number feel themselves entitled to obscene remuneration for running business which produce nothing of tangible value.  The latter because, for reasons which they really ought to explain, they refuse to challenge the wealth, power and privilege of a tiny minority. In their failure to do so they prove themselves totally lacking in democratic credentials.

If there are no legal means by which Goodwin can be forced to return his pension pot, then perhaps we taxpayers might be reimbursed through a charge on the future earnings of everyone who has served in this government over the last decade.

The banality of democracy

This excellent piece by Pankaj Mishra in today's Guardian highlights the shortcomings of our democratic institutions as mechanisms through which just outcomes might be arrived at. Mishra asks:

can the institutions of electoral democracy, liberal capitalism and the nation-state be relied upon to do our moral thinking for us?

The evidence from many of the major trouble spots around the world, as well as the 'more mature' democracies, is that they cannot.  And, as he points out, the prospects for global society of democracy continuing down the same path, are extremely frightening.

Against Israeli Policy, Against anti-semitism

Jonathan Freedland has an excellent piece in today's Guardian about the double standards of those on the liberal/left in respect of the tendency of some to associate all Muslims with acts of terror, and all Jews with Israeli government policy in Gaza. 

Nobody should be subject to abuse, assault or attacks on their property because they share religious beliefs with others who commit atrocities. 

In Britain, there remains a nasty, simmering anti-semitism that seems to surface at regular intervals. It is a prejudice which appears to go beyond the fear/dislike of 'other' cultures that seems to underpin many people's attitudes to members of the Muslim community. 

Anti-semitism must not be tolerated.  But the absolute rejection of anti-semitism is perfectly compatible with condemning Israeli government policy in Gaza, which I do unreservedly.  I also condemn Hamas for firing rockets at civilian populations, although I do think the plight of the Palestinian people is as close as any population could get to having just cause for resort to military action against an oppressor.

No brave new world, yet

Depite all the talk of a new Bretton Woods, there is remarkably little reporting of the outcome of  this weekend's Washington summit in this morning’s press.  But then it was never likely that the Washington summit would make real progress towards addressing the underlying causes of the economic crisis.  There is little in the final communique to suggest that any real lessons have been learned.  Nobody is questioning the fundamental nature of the global economic arrangements that have brought us to this point, nor is anyone prepared to admit that the system of global finance, which is supposed to support the real economy, has morphed into monster that routinely undermines it.

There is a simple reason for this depressing lack of action:  Despite a string of bank failures, mounting unemployment, and general acceptance that the forthcoming recession will be long and deep, too few people in the countries that matter have yet to feel sufficient pain to force politicians into the kind of common-interest negotiating position that inspired the post-war economic consensus.

Don't cheer too loudly

I have a new piece over at Comment is Free this evening urging caution in the wake of Barack Obama's victory.  I certainly believe his success makes the world a better place, but the kind of progress which would make a real difference to the lives of millions of excluded and disposessed people worldwide, will take more than the election of one man, however remarkable.

The few who knew

Former Labour leadership contender Bryan Gould - one of the few successful politicians of recent times whom, having experienced the sham of national politics first hand, threw it in and returned to his original career - has this very good piece on the inevitability of the current crisis and the naivety/stupidity of those, like Alan Greenspan, who apparently never saw it coming.

As Gould says,

This is a crisis that has been thirty years in the making. Its approaching outline has been visible for a very long time. Only those who did not want to see (and that includes almost all the so-called expert commentators and actors in the drama) could have failed to register the warning signs.

It really is as much a question of psychology as economics.

Sack David Miliband

Gordon Brown has, of course, made a complete fist of things since he became Prime Minister.  On almost every count he has proved a massive disappointment to anyone who believes in the possibility of progressive social change and a more just world.  But that's not why he's struggling so badly in the polls.

Brown's problem is his inability and/or unwillingness to communicate with the electorate and the media in the way politicians need to if they are to be successful; and his failure to recognise the power of the bold gesture in politics.

But he now has an opportunity to start the process of saving his Prime Ministership: he should sack David Miliband.  In terms of the qualities required to be elected Prime Minister, the only thing Miliband has in common with David Cameron in relative youth.  He has yet to say anything meaningful about his principles or beliefs, or about how he would tackle the many and serious problems facing British and global society.

Not only is he Cameron-lite, he is also Brown-lite; the difference is, we know Brown does have principles, and does have a vision for society; he just lacks the capacity to make these qualities work for him in the New Labour/New Tory world of politics bequeathed us by Tony Blair.

Before he became PM, people were looking forward to Brown finding a way to cut through the crap, and reinvent politics as a reality-connected activity in which what politicians think and say means something to ordinary people.  There is still time.  Come on Gordon, assert yourself.  You must have been as sickened as I was, yesterday, to see Miliband swaggering down the street, jacket over his shoulder, lapping up the media attention having declared himself PM in waiting.  Sack him today!

Obama plays hardball

On his tour of Europe and the Middle East Barack Obama has been making all the right noises as far as getting elected in November is concerned.  On Tuesday he went out of his way to make clear that "the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon".

Although he said he wished to see "a viable and peaceful Palestinian state",  he was at his most forthright when he said "I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat", thus aligning himself with a policy that even senior figures in the Bush administration now appear to be having second thoughts about.

Now, I didn't assume for one minute that Obama was a fundamentally different kind of politician; although in many ways he is a breath of fresh air.  You don't get almost to the top of the greasy pole of American politics without being hard as nails, and without being willing to sacrifice whatever principles you started out with in pursuit of electoral success.

But it would be good to know what Obama really thinks and feels about issues like the Middle East; and, assuming he is inclined towards a more balanced view on the Israel/Palestine question than is usual for senior (ie successful)  American politicians, whether he has a plan, post-election, to rekindle a peace process that is effectively dead in the water.

My bet is that, although a man of substance and intellect, like nearly all politicians today, Obama has no principled position on this issue (or indeed any other).  What he may have is a general sense that the long term interests of the United States are best served by a more collaborative and inclusive foreign policy than that practiced by the current administration, but you can be sure that the degree of inclusiveness will be determined by electoral realities. 

Obama will do and say whatever it takes to get elected, and in the process will commit himself to policies, and to relationships with vested interests, in the United States and elsewhere, that have little to do with genuine democracy.   That process has already begun.  Hawks in the Israeli administration will be breathing a sigh of relief.  Decent Israelis, who long for a just peace with the Palestinians, and, of course, the Palestinians themselves, would appear to have little to get excited about at the prospect of an Obama White House.

Behaviour as old as the hills

The always sound Martin Jacques has a very good piece at comment is free on power, the hypocrisy of the Western nations' stance on Iran's potential nuclear capability, and the bias of the International Criminal Court when it comes to policing war crimes.

The web doesn't do democracy

This piece by Rafael Behr is worth a read, especially for the conclusions it draws:

The web is no community. It is brilliant for some things. It does information, misinformation, entertainment and commerce. It does freedom. But one thing it doesn't do is democracy.

A devalued concept

Another good piece on the democracy debate prompted By David Miliband's speech earlier this week. This time from Adrian Hamilton in The Independent who concludes:

If I were the new Foreign Secretary, I would drop the word democracy altogether. It is in danger of becoming too devalued as a concept. Concentrate instead, in our discussions with China, the Gulf States and Africa, on the things that make up democracy: freedom of speech, an independent judiciary and equal human rights for all. On those we can talk with some (although not complete) authority and may hope to make some difference, step by step.

Of course we cannot speak with any authority on the question of helping to create conditions for economic justice in a globalised world, which is, presumably, why Hamilton fails to mention this other crucial prerequisite for democracy.

It never fails to amaze me how, in the debate about promoting democracy, so few politicians or commentators are prepared to consider the relationship between improving economic justice and the entrenching of democratic institutions in society. 

Admittedly the relationship is a complex one.  In the case of the developed western nations, a early taste of economic justice gave ordinary people an appetite for more, and democracy was the mechanism through which they chose to pursue a more equitable society. 

Today, however, we appear to have all but given up on the principal of economic justice within the mature democracies, and certainly between nations, so we can have little of value to offer those societies where democracy is struggling to get a foothold.