A belated tribute to Tony Benn, in context.

Many statesmen and stateswomen are defined as much by how they are perceived and portrayed as they are by what they say. Moreover the problem with politics, more or less the world over, is that it tends to be very tribal and governed by straw men mentality. That is to say, in isolation, if one broadcasts an agreement with a particular remark made by a well-known politician of the day, one can expect to be labelled with everything that politician stands for.

Further, opinions can, and often are, extrapolated by the recipient to mean something quite different from their basic meaning. For example, Euroscepticism (which is criticism of the European Union) is taken to be anti-European, and even racist (neither of which is true). This is the straw man argument – inferring or exaggerating a point of view to something which it is not. Benn was a Eurosceptic, but, maybe because he was part of the Labour movement and identified with the Left, he was, albeit quite rightly, never accused of being anything more than that.

Notwithstanding the left-wing pigeon-hole that received opinion would place him in, Benn held a number of views which fit quite comfortably in today’s fast-emerging Libertarian movement. Politics would be (and I think is gradually becoming) much more engaging and far less intellectually lazy if we recognise that those who have the courage to challenge the status quo, defy the prevailing orthodoxy, and refuse to be constrained by existing paradigms, may not curry 100% with our own opinion, or existing groupthink, but inspire us to think for ourselves and hold those that govern us to account more often and robustly.

Tony Benn was, like other politicians I admire, outspoken and a ‘convictionist’. For that reason alone, I have always held him in esteem, but, I’m happy to say there are numerous views and sentiments he held with which I agree, which are neatly articulated in his own following quotes:

“It is no good talking about being a good European. We are all good Europeans; that is a matter of geography and not a matter of sentiment. Are the arrangements under which we are governed such that we have broken the link between the electorate and the laws under which they are governed?”

“If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.”

“I think there are two ways in which people are controlled. First of all frighten people and secondly, demoralize them.”

“First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you.”

“[Edward Heath], who sold out Britain's interests to the Common Market and gave our sovereignty away without our consent—with support of Mr Thorpe and the Liberals—is not entitled to wave the Union Jack to get himself out of the mess.”

“The key to any progress is to ask the question why? All the time. Why is that child poor? Why was there a war? Why was he killed? Why is he in power? And of course questions can get you into a lot of trouble, because society is trained by those who run it, to accept what goes on. Without questions we won't make any progress at all.”

"Freedom of Choice" - A contradiction in terms?

In pondering economic and political theory, recently, I have reminded myself that all theory is constrained by assumptions. Now, extreme libertarianism, or Anarchism, seems to me to assume that “freedom” is measured, at least in part, by the amount of “choice” an individual has available to them. For example, in a Stateless (Anarchist) Society, individuals would have the freedom to spend all of their income as they choose – not the case currently, as the State takes a considerable percentage of your income by force, in the form of taxation – which, inter alia, is what Anarchists find objectionable.

However, although, under the current regime, you and I are, indeed, denied many choices, in a Stateless one, we would be burdened with innumerable decisions about how best to allocate our financial resources. We would have a limited income and therefore a limited amount to spend (as we do currently) but the difference would be that we would have to make additional decisions about how much we could afford to avail ourselves of amenities, such as parks, waste collection, street lighting, policing, fire service, education and, (for those who aren’t in BUPA) health services, among others.

Going for a walk in a public park is, currently, free at the point of delivery – the decision has been made for you, by the State taking money from you by force (tax) and spending it on maintaining the park. I love going for a walk in the public parks near where I live and one of the great benefits of it is that I don’t have to make a decision as to whether, or not, I can afford it. Denied the option of not paying for it via taxation, I may be – but I am, thereby, relieved of the decision and associated stress.

In a Stateless society, such amenities would be privately owned, either by individuals, or collections or co-operatives thereof. Unless I own the park myself, or have a share in it, I have to pay a fee to use it. And how would such a fee be structured? A flat rate that allowed me access for a day? A pay-by-the-hour fee? Maybe a monthly or annual subscription that would allow me unlimited access? Whichever of those it is, I have the burden of a decision set in the context of all the other expense commitments I have, complicated further by the decision I have to make about which tariff is best.

The burden of such decisions may well serve as a sufficient deterrent from doing something I enjoy (and which doesn’t harm anyone else!) What was a healthy and worthwhile leisure activity, under The State, has, under Anarchism, now become an extravagance. Currently, I might consider ‘a walk in the park’ essential to my well-being; ironically, I would be coerced, in a Stateless Society, into considering that such an activity is a luxury.

Add to this, all the other expenditure decisions I am burdened with. For example, there would be no Police, only private security firms – I would have to decide how much “private security” I could afford and, maybe, whether or not, I could afford it at all, given other commitments. Again, currently, that decision is arrested (pardon the pun!) from me. Consider the implications for all the other services that are currently State provided, and you can see how “Freedom of Choice” may, indeed, be a contradiction in terms.

So, where have I been?

Where indeed? Over the last few years, I have taken the opportunity to re-evaluate where I stand, politically, and am happy to say that I firmly remain a Liberal – although probably not in the sense of the word that fits with mainstream politics. I will admit I have been wrong over certain issues but remain tenacious over others. The Political Compass Test identifies me as a left libertarian; however, one should remember this is only one method of classifying political thought.

Some of my views have changed or evolved and some of them remain the same. Like many who are have been appalled at the excesses of capitalism, over the last few decades, I made the mistake of allowing socialism and statism to get the better of me: regarding Government (or The State) as a force against the polarisation of wealth and a guardian of freedom against large corporations, when, in reality, The State, to varying extents over time, has been either been colluding with conglomerates to deprive the majority of aspects of independence and self-determination, or actually, doing it all by itself.

Hence, over more recent years I have been considering the concept of Anarchism, having been drawn to it by my friend and erstwhile Liberal Democrat colleague, Jock Coats. I should explain that anarchism is a belief in a stateless (not lawless) society and has nothing to do with throwing fire extinguishers through high street store windows. For reasons I may explain in a subsequent article, I have, however, not seen such a belief as a panacea to how people should live. Nevertheless, my contemplation of it, has proved very useful in re-igniting the libertarianism in me which was becoming all but extinguished as an angry reaction to economic and social events that took place over the last 30 years or so.

For now though, I just wanted to focus on one aspect of my opinion: part of which has remained firm and part of which has changed:

I have always been a passionate advocate of small businesses, which, by their very nature, are privately, rather than state-owned, and are a feature of a free market. Albeit rather unconsciously, I have, in the past struggled to reconcile this with an opposition to privatisation and a baulking at the idea of introducing market forces into state-supplied goods such as health and education. More recently, I think I have reached a reconciliation of such a dichotomy by drawing a very important distinction between the free market and capitalism.

Much of the prevailing political and economic opinion (on all sides) seems to assume that the free market and capitalism are synonymous. I maintain they are not. For me, the free market is (or at least should be) an opportunity for the majority of individuals to create wealth for themselves; capitalism is the means by which the majority is coerced into creating wealth, not for themselves, but for a few others. It is the latter that I find repellent – not absolutely, but to the extent that it has been “allowed” to prevail in the way it has.

The aggressive advance of unfettered capitalism has seen certain corporations grow, merge, and grow again, at alarming rates, stifling any competition. With State assistance capitalism cripples and destroys the lifeblood that is small business and, hence, erodes rather than promotes a free market, forcing the majority to pay ever increasing prices for ever deteriorating goods and services, facilitating a self-perpetuating (and very dangerous) polarisation of wealth.

Having made such a distinction and thereby, identifying a problem, one may be part way to suggesting a solution. I am not sure that I have yet, but aim to get there one day. However, I do not see the solution as the removal of The State altogether as I am convinced that capitalism is perfectly capable of thriving without any assistance from Government, notwithstanding that the latter has, indeed, been partly accountable.

This, I grant you, is a very brief overview of some very complex issues and will pose many questions and provide much food for thought. I hope, in future articles, to provide further critiques of “The State” and endeavour to explain why I favour its reform rather than its abolition.

Everybody Out?

Opinion on the looming strike is by no means straight forward..

If you or I have our money invested in a bank, building society, or elsewhere, we have the right to withdraw it and keep it under our mattress – maybe because we thought we weren’t getting a sufficient return on it, or because we didn’t think our capital was safe.

In other words, one has the freedom to withdraw money capital and keep it somewhere unutilised. Similarly, one should surely have the freedom to withdraw human capital (labour), if one feels one is not getting a sufficient return or, indeed, feels one’s capital is not safe: i.e. the freedom to strike.

Why should there be the freedom for one type of capital and not another? After all, for many, labour is the only capital they have to offer.

But strike action causes disruption, you may say. Well, yes that’s the idea. Moreover, much disruption has been caused by the financial crisis of the last five years and what do you think that was, other than a mass withdrawal of capital?

Though, I am still assessing the facts over public sector pensions before I decide whether or not I support the cause of the general stoppage planned for this coming week. Gathering all the facts is not that easy and, even then, it depends in which context one sets them before reaching a conclusion on how justified it is.

Cable being pulled up to make way for Satellite

Rupert Murdoch was a candid supporter of Margaret Thatcher’s government, and he appears to remain firmly sympathetic toward the UK Conservative party (his papers The Times and The Sun supported the Tories at the last general election). Vince Cable has just been divested of his responsibility for media competition after, apparently, making effusive anti-Murdoch overtones. Ministerial responsibility for these matters has now shifted to Jeremy Hunt who has variously made pro-Murdoch comments and mooted large cuts in the BBC.

After considering this, one can’t help speculating as to how much this latest development has transpired by design: Cable had voiced his concerns over News Corporation’s bid to increase its ownership of Sky from 39% to 100%, earlier this year, and, I for one, no matter what kind of language is being used, struggle to understand why the opinions given by the likes of Jeremy Hunt are any less subjective (or more objective) than those provided by Cable.

The decision, we are told, is a quasi-judicial one: ultimately, Vince Cable would have potentially been the Judge and Jury on whether the News Corp takeover went ahead. However, if one (the one being the Prime Minister in this case) has the power to appoint the Judge and Jury, and you’re not comfortable about what ruling that Judge and Jury might make, then one, is, of course, going to find another that will make the decision you require.

For the Tories to have The Times pull the kind of sting that the Telegraph did on Vince Cable would have been far too obvious. A clever approach would be to choose another one of your mates in the media that appears more removed from the direct interest. It’s not difficult to work out that the Business Secretary must be feeling very rattled, angry, yet at the same time, vulnerable, at the moment.

So, if you’re a Conservative who, naturally, would rather have a Conservative majority government than share power with Liberal Democrats, you send along a couple of Daily Telegraph reporters, posing as members of Cable’s own party, to exploit his emotional turbulence: eventually he will give you a comment that can be construed as inappropriate and provide the key to getting him removed as the obstacle to securing your agenda.

I'm not Green enough to be shocked..

The report by Sir Philip Green on government expenditure is set to ruffle many a feather, but I for one, am not remotely shocked by his findings. As a former Councillor on Oxford City, I know only too well of the impenetrable silos of public expenditure and how both civil servants and local government officers alike, can be very cleverly evasive at providing any information that would reveal scope for some meaningful savings.

Back in 2001, when I was a member of the LibDem/Green administration, I was sounding like a stuck record with my pressing for zero-based budgeting and my passion for trying to get inside the £140million of Oxford City Council's annual spend. I am under no doubt that savings could have been revealed that would have freed up money to better serve the public and maintain and improve front line services. Suffice to say I did not get very far: some other councillors around me felt very threatened that my understanding was so obviously better than their own and I was not supported in trying to obtain information from officers.

You just need to watch the BBC's interview with Philip Green (see link top right to BBC article and video at the foot of this article) to understand the scope of just how much money could be saved. Green gives a very clear indication that obtaining information on certain expenditure amounts was no easy task: ambiguous answers (if you're lucky to get an answer at all) and the lack of accountable processes are symptomatic of how public money can be used to preserve the mini-empires of some unelected public officials on both local and national level.

This government has got it right in tackling this problem but it does beg the question as to whether, had it been done sooner (i.e. by previous governments), the welfare cuts need to be as severe as they are.

Hopefully, the BBC will leave the video up (see below): watch it, then watch it again if you feel yourself tempted to sympathise with civil servants and local government officers when they start demonstrating and striking over the cuts. Although I believe in the right to demonstrate and the right to strike (workers are merely withdrawing capital like investors did with Northern Rock), I do not believe individuals who's jobs are provided and preserved by your and my taxes have the right to be opaque about how those taxes are spent.

LibDems and CCTV

A short while after the Election, I googled +LibDems +CCTV in order to try and find out more about what how Freedom Bill would affect CCTV. All I can seem to find in terms of the Bill is that it means "further regulation of CCTV".

However, in my search I stumbled across a good few local LibDem websites that report how keenly their local councillors and activists have campaigned in favour of CCTV up and down the country. If you look to the right of the page you will see I have listed a link to all the ones I have found plus a few other links that are both relevant and interesting.

The efforts of all the local LibDem activists that have campaigned for and supported CCTV are laudible and I absolutely agree with them. However, the "Do Gooder" element in the national party must be raising an eyebrow at this as it does not sit well with what I understand to be the party's national policy on CCTV. "Further Regulation" could mean anything from tighter licensing and curbs on authorised use to effective outright prohibition. And by the latter I don't mean legislation to outlaw the use of CCTV, but rather red tape measures (rather ironically) that will make it very expensive or administratively inconvenient to use.

My experience (yes, note I use the word "experience", not "opinion") is that CCTV works. As for civil liberties, I believe it protects them, rather than erodes them. It protects the liberties of those who go about their daily, law-abiding business; it protects property and the safety of those living or working in it. Is not safety, or at least the feeling of it, a liberty?

I do understand and have some sympathy will the libertarian concerns of intrusiveness and spying. But I would rather people were allowed to protect their homes and businesses with cameras rather than guns (the latter being the Libertarian view). After all, if we are talking about civil liberties, I consider cameras far more civil than guns.

So I will await and see what the Freedom bill brings and in the meantime, as the LibDems make their national opposition to CCTV more vocal, it will be interesting to see how many of those webpages I have linked to stay live...