Dangerous financial recoveries and false economies

Even as the people of the UK are told that the country is heading out of recession, there are those who see the prospect of recovery as tinted with danger. The fears of these critics lie in the possibility that the path chosen to lead us out, lays no foundations that might prevent us from falling right back in again (Elliott, 2013).

The trouble is - and this is something that will nag at all three major parties, who have all pledged support for austerity and for a leaner state - the critics have a point.

The problem is that Britain's wealth is not underpinned by any form of industrial infrastructure. All effort has been geared, almost entirely, towards financial speculation, and the UK's industrial base has been allowed to stagnate and waste away. With it too went the working class jobs that paid wages and created consumer demand.

Going into the 2010 UK General Election, the Liberal Democrats had plans for government investment to set about undoing these problems. Their plans included putting into place the groundwork for a green energy industry, which would convert old shipyards into centres for green energy production (The Independent, 2010).

Such plans would have paid off both in the short and long term: new jobs, reduced dependence upon importing external sources of energy, plenty of new and lasting industrial manufacturing work in green energy technology, and on top of all else, a more environmentally friendly future.

However, destructive corporate investment habits have forced the UK down a different path out of the mire. Rather than the road paved by human attempts to positively interfere, nature's unrestricted course has been taken instead. Attempts to improve the world are being cut away in favour of competition. In favour of the survival of the fittest. But this choice betrays only a short memory.

The sovereign debt crisis, the core of the present troubles and the foundation upon which stands the architecture of austerity's justification, was not the result of wanton helpfulness. Neither was it the result of irresponsible levels of offering healthcare, nor the deplorable excesses of offering bread and shelter to those who are starving and homeless.

It was the result of the collective resources of the people being turned into a colossal investment fund with which to create the single largest financial bailout in history. It was the result of money gathered together for the building of roads, and hospitals, and schools, and for insurance against sickness and savings for the future; it was all of that money being redirected to prop up a marketplace that had put all of those things in jeopardy in the name of selfish profit. Because the selfish profiteers had become too big to fail.

The state was damned if it did, and damned if it didn't.

Particularly so, since those who benefited from that bailout, and continue to profit, still have influence. That influence is being used to ensure that the very states by whom they have been rescued, stay firmly out of the way next time.

The withdrawal of the state, along with the ever ongoing weakening of the power of the labour movement, has left capital excessively powerful and virtually unchecked (Hughes, 2011). Fears are that a new, false, economy will be constructed out of the wreckage of the old one, and, like a car constructed out of two broken chassis, there will be too much focus on just getting to a particular destination that the condition in which the passengers arrive there, if they arrive at all, will not be sufficiently considered.

We must plan for more than just escaping the present situation. We must also think about the future and ensure that the welfare of the people cannot be so threatened again.

==========
References:
==========
+ Larry Elliott's 'UK economic recovery built on shaky foundations - again'; in The Guardian; 27 October 2013.

+ James Tapsfield & Joe Churcher's 'Conservative Party Conference: David Cameron defends Tory plan for seven more years of austerity'; in The Independent; 1 October 2013.

+ James Chapman's 'I won't reverse the cuts if I become PM, says Miliband: Labour's election pledge to keep austerity budgets'; in The Mail; 22 June 2013.

+ Rowena Mason & Patrick Wintour's 'Nick Clegg persuades Lib Dems to stick with austerity'; in The Guardian; 16 September 2013.

+ The Telegraph's 'Nick Clegg wants disused shipyards to become production centres for wind turbines'; 11 February 2010.

+ David Harvey's 'Crises of Capitalism'; RSA Animate on YouTube; 28 June 2010.

Liberals, co-operatives, and the dangers of a tarnished image

The ongoing saga of the Co-operative Bank's financial trouble is sad for everyone. It is also a threat, since, in the sad way of the world, the failure of one example can tarnish a whole branch of thought (Peston, 2013).

The immediate danger is that, while its fragilities are revealed, the chance will not be taken to improve the co-operative economic model. That the opportunity for progress and improvement will be missed in the desperate scramble to create a profitable now.

But there is something further to be considered. When parts of the co-operative and mutual models are tarnished, it risks also damaging the image of anything else connected to it. In particular the ideas of a democratic workplace - ideas that offer a real possibility of solving the corporate corruption and distorted distributions of wealth that created the financial crisis - depend very much an avoiding traps such as this.

It is an odd form of contradiction that western nations have fought wars in the name of democracy, and yet should be so reluctant to extend democracy beyond the very limited choices that people have in political settings. The workplace has proven to be the area into which western society has been most reluctant to accept democracy. Trade unions and the labour movement have been heavily suppressed in many countries, and the rights of workers to protest, and how they can protest, their working conditions is still a heavily debated topic (Hope, 2013).

Recently, amongst the main parties, it has been the Liberal Democrats who have been the most vocal in arguing for co-operative values. Their party leader Mr Nick Clegg has called for a movement towards a John Lewis economy (Clegg, 2012), and the popular former-deputy leader Mr Vince Cable stated his belief that co-operatives might be a way to address the major failings of the banking world that played such central role in the financial crisis (Co-operatives UK, 2009).

This is an important step in the pursuit of self direction and personal autonomy, which are central to personal growth. It is also an important step for Liberal Democrats. For that party, untrusted amongst left-wing voters for years thanks to their attachment to capitalistic market economics, a move in the direction of mutualism will certainly help them to forge their own position. It offers them a chance to differentiate themselves from the small-state capitalist Tories, and the big-state social democratic Labour. Furthermore, the preamble to the Liberal Democrats' party constitution is very compatible with these ideas (Donaldson, 2013):

'We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary.'

For democratic states to be able to claim any kind of kudos for being democratic, democracy will need to be a general rule, rather than an exception consigned to the political arena. Democratising the economy, democratising the workplace, is the only way to end the ideological inconsistencies of western society, and it is a direction that comes with benefits.

'Every man must be left quite free to choose his own work. No form of compulsion must he exercised over him. If there is, his work will not be good for him, will not be good in itself, and will not be good for others.' (Wilde, 1891)

By working for themselves, to aims that they hold dear, with the freedom to choose, individuals have the potential to become so much more. In fact, the right to choose and be self-directed is at the core of our development into beings of greater comprehension, understanding and reasoned action.

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.' (Mill, 1859)

Unless competition serves to enhance these purposes, it is no more than a distraction; at best a holding pattern, a check on greed and corruption, a novelty; and at its worst is intensely divisive, turning people against themselves and their own interests.

Liberals are arguing, from within the Liberal Democrat party, that co-operatives and the democratic workplace present a solution to the economic and political crises we currently face. It is to be hoped that when the dust settles on the Co-operative Bank saga, sense and progress will have prevailed. That the ideas liberals are supporting will not be tarnished by the failure of one bank. That what comes out of this exposure of weakness is a better, stronger, and more refined solution for tomorrow.

==========
References:
==========
+ Robert Peston's 'Co-op pays for past sins'; BBC; 29 August 2013.
and Robert Peston's 'Nationwide: 'Don't call us Co-op''; 15 November 2013.

+ Christopher Hope's 'Boris Johnson: I give up trying to persuade Coalition to bring in anti-strike laws'; in The Telegraph; 22 May 2013.

+ 'Nick Clegg calls for a 'John Lewis economy'' on the BBC; 16 January 2012.

+ Cooperatives UK's 'Vince Cable calls for co-operative solutions to the economic crisis'; 2009.

+ Iain Donaldson's 'Opinion: Liberal Democrats have a unique position on co-operatives. We should use it.'; on Lib Dem Voice; 22 September 2013.

+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism'; London, 1891.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

Eleanor Roosevelt, Labour and the Living Wage

The living wage has recently been the subject of debate in Britain. The UK Labour Party has made a point of putting it at the centre to their response to the ongoing economic struggle, should they win the 2015 General Election (BBC, 2013). However, Labour are not the first to see the positives of the living wage.

Eleanor Roosevelt - who campaigned for the civil rights movement, for gender equality, for human rights, and for the New Deal when First Lady of the United States - also made the argument for a better standard of wages:

'Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is an adequate wage.'

The Labour Party, in trying to ensure the acceptance of this more 'adequate wage', are trying to sweeten the deal with tax concessions for employers who adopt it (Wintour, 2013). However, there arguably shouldn't be a need for such incentives.

The Roosevelt Institute have sought to debunk as a myth the idea that there are negative effects to a living wage (Chong, 2013). The myth claims that minimum wage schemes reduce the likelihood of full employment, by over-inflating the amount that businesses have to pay workers for unskilled labour. As a result, the myth concludes, the numbers trapped in poverty will increase as there will be less work to go around.

The Roosevelt Institute's own investigation suggests that that the 'higher wages = fewer jobs' argument is not backed by economic studies. The studies they cite suggest instead that there is no real downside to rising wages, but some real positives. Employees with more money make it easier to keep profit making enterprises afloat and flourishing. And by guaranteeing a minimum acceptable quality of life for even those with no skills, there is a guarantee also that they will be healthy enough to develop skills in the future.

Certainly from the Keynesian viewpoint, rising wages pose far, far less of a threat than falling wages. John Maynard Keynes' theories proposed that when an economy was suffering from the effects of a recession, the government aught to intervene to save what it can; in order to alleviate unnecessary suffering and maintain the existing infrastructure for future economic use.

Part of that process means propping up demand. By ensuring that there are always people with enough money to be able to spend and consume, there is also always an assured market for the products of paid labour. For Keynes, the failure to prop up demand would only exacerbate the problems caused by recession.

Fundamentally, the Institute's argument presents treating employees fairly, by paying them fairly, as ultimately economically beneficial, both in the short term - by creating a solid customer base and fighting off poverty - and in the longer term - by ensuring the health, time and space needed to develop more complex skills.

These arguments certainly back the UK Labour Party's advocacy of the living wage. But they do not suggest further financial incentives to be necessary. As Eleanor Roosevelt argued, what is needed more is a better settlement for everyone involved in a society; a settlement based on fairness.

'It seems to me that all fair-minded people will realize that it is self-preservation to treat the industrial worker with consideration and fairness at the present time and to uphold the fair employer in his efforts to treat his employees well by preventing unfair competition.'

That should mean policy-makers tackling better regulation of unfair practices; and furthermore searching for ways to extend and enhance consideration and fairness in both the economy and society at large. Only through the extension of a fair deal for all can people be ensured of the health, time and space needed to develop more complex skills and innovate.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Ed Miliband pledges living wage tax breaks for firms'; 3 November 2013.

+ Eleanor Roosevelt's 'The State's Responsibility for Fair Working Conditions'; in Scribner's Magazine; March 1933; from Eleanor Roosevelt & Allida M Black's 'Courage in a Dangerous World: The Political Writings of Eleanor Roosevelt'; Columbia University Press; 2000.

Also quoted in Crash Course US History; 'The New Deal'; 18 October 2013.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Ed Miliband sets out tax rebate plan for living wage'; in The Guardian; 5 November 2013.

+ Emily Chong's 'Debunking the Minimum Wage Myth: Higher Wages Will Not Reduce Jobs'; Roosevelt Institute's Next New Deal Blog; 7 August 2013.

Doctor Who's 50th Anniversary will celebrate a show with a simple concept and an idealistic message

Doctor Who, ostensibly a show about travellers running away from rubber monsters, down corridors and around Welsh quarries, has reached its 50th anniversary. While the basic concept of the show itself is fun enough, to have run for 50 years takes something more. And it takes something special to be, as Craig Ferguson put it:

'...beloved by geeks and nerds. It's all about the triumph of intellect and romance, over brute force and cynicism'.

At least part of what sets Doctor Who aside is that it possesses an idealistic streak. The half-century of stories about the renegade Time Lord, known as the Doctor, are about idealistic people from idealistic worlds. Explorers who seek out wonder, beauty and adventure. And in those adventures, violence is never shown be particularly ideal. So much more than many shows, particularly within the sci-fi and fantasy genres, violence is most often shown to be the particular tool that defines individuals as villains.

There are numerous examples in the rebooted series. In the two-parter, The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances, the Doctor celebrates when 'everybody lives', including those who had been his enemies. In the series two episode New Earth and in the series three finale Last of the Time Lords, the Doctor does not seek vengeance against villains but rather justice, and retains hope for their reform.

In the series six episode A Good Man Goes to War, there is a particularly telling moment. The Doctor raises an army to free and protect his friends in a strategy that ultimately proves futile. As the dust settles the Doctor is confronted by his friend and ally River Song who challenges his pursuit of these war-like policies and his intervention against dangerous villains. River warns the Doctor about the affects that inspiring fear in others may have on him and his enemies.

That point in reinforced when the Doctor first meets his current companion, Clara, in the series 7 episode Asylum of the Daleks. The Doctor admits that he has been trying to stop fighting the Daleks fire with his own, when a Dalek-converted Clara points out that fear of the Doctor has only made the Daleks stronger.

Doctor Who does something incredibly important. The show offers us heroes whose heroism is usually in the face of violence rather than wielding it. Violence is rarely glorified, and where matters come to violence there are usually negative impacts that go beyond the immediate - for those who wield it as well as those who suffer at its hands. Furthermore, it often finds a way to create drama and find resolution without resorting to violence.

Doctor Who presents us with diplomatic and intelligent heroes, who seek to find diplomatic and intelligent solutions to the problems they encounter. Those are the kind of examples the world sorely needs.