The Future of Globalisation? - Part 1

The unrest has started. Across Europe, the discontent is starting to spill over into action. In Greece, riots over the death of a teenager have been replaced by protests by farmers. In Latvia, protests are turning into riots. In Lithuania, the same. In France, a general strike disrupts the country. In Iceland, quiet little Iceland, protesters and riot police share the streets, and a government falls. And in staid, polite old Britain, wildcat strikes are occurring.

At the World Economic Forum, politicians and plutocrats haunt the stage of their old successes. They appear shell-shocked, stunned by how quickly the world they built, the system they created, has started to crumble around them. Like Miss Havisham, they are unable to move on from the scene of their humiliation and disaster.

It isn't meant to be like this, they tell themselves. For decades, people in Europe have taken to the streets to demand a move to their capitalist system, for ever greater 'reform' of their economies. Look at the states of eastern Europe - they have raced to remake themselves as zealots of capitalism, rushing to embrace membership of the EU to calcify the market's grip on their countries.

But now...

It's not hard to see why this is happening. Not surprisingly, people are worried. No, more than that, people are scared. They are afraid of the chaos being unleashed around them, chaos that is starting to expand and endanger their livelihoods, their families, their well-being.

But in addition to that, people are angry. They are angry that those widely seen as having caused this chaos are not only getting away with it, but have taken vast sums of money for their troubles. They are angry that banking executives seem to believe that taking money from the tax-payer for themselves is acceptable. They are angry that politicians are letting them get away with this. They are angry that those who caused this, in business and politics alike, seem to be those who will be least effected by it.

And it is this potent mixture, of fear and rage, that is driving people onto the streets. And our current crop of politicians, brought up in a culture of managerialism, of bureaucracy, of technocracy, don't know how to react to so much naked emotion on display.

But the people out protesting aren't protesting just because of the state of the economy right now. Yes, that has been the trigger, but it is only providing the catalyst for other, and longer held, dis-satisfactions to rise to the surface.

Look at France. The ostensible reason for the general strike was that the government was bailing out banks and fat cats, but not protecting jobs and helping workers. But France has been a simmering cauldron of unrest for a long time now. Sarkozy came to power promising a broad swathe of reforms to the economy, to French society. The generalised unrest this has provoked in a significant section of French society has been galvanised by the current economic crisis.

In the Baltic states, there is rioting on the streets. There are predictions of dire economic collapse - 4.5% in Lithuania, 7% in Estonia, and an incredible 10% in Latvia. The fear this causes has joined with the anger over the steady reform of their economies to fit in with the rest of the EU.

And now Britain. No, we're not rioting. We generally leave that to the hot-heads on the continent. But we have seen a sudden and unexpected flurry of wildcat strikes. At almost 20 locations, across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, workers have walked out, held protests, demanded to be heard. These are unofficial strikes, illegal strikes, acts that could see these workers losing their jobs. But they went ahead anyway.

I've heard claims that there is no way these actions could spread, that these are just minor blips. The argument goes that people won't strike, because they would be too afraid of losing their jobs. But if workers are already scared about losing their jobs, if they already feel powerless, what is going to stop them?

And don't fall into the easy trap of believing the only people who would join these protests, the only people who could possibly object to foreign workers, are racists, closet or otherwise. No, in a situation like this, where it appears a company is bringing in cheaper labour from elsewhere, it is not racism for these British workers to act against it.

They are simply acting in their own economic self-interest - by attempting to stop companies undercutting the prevailing wage rates. It is the same economic self-interest that causes people to join unions. And yes, this kind of protectionism can be bad for the economy as a whole. But people will act in their economic self-interest, we are told. Just as bankers acted in their own economic self-interest, to the ultimate detriment of the economy as a whole.

A capitalist system requires people to act in their own economic self-interest. That self-interest has to be moderated by the rules and mores of a society, from government, from the people. We need to provide incentives to act in a way that is good for society as a whole, or disincentives to behaving in a way society doesn't want. At the moment, the disincentives towards taking action aren't working.

So what do we do? How do we deal with this? This is not a matter of dealing with this narrow sector of industry, that of construction contractors in the energy industry. We have seen the wave of unrest and protest that is sweeping the continent. All it needs in any country is one small spark. (And yes, despite the left-wing leanings of many of the protests, I think a country run in fear of revolt is a bad thing, because I'm a "democratic socialist" - the first word is important too. In addition, any protest that the BNP sends supporters to runs the risk of stopping being about protecting workers, and becomes about victimising different workers.)

Continued tomorrow...

Government must release cabinet minutes on lead-up to Iraq war

Guardian article - Information tribunal orders publication of minutes following battle by campaigners

Sometimes you have to love the Freedom of Information Act and the rule of unintended consequences.

UK Treasury committee to grill chiefs who led banks to disaster

Treasury committee to grill chiefs who led banks to disaster - Times Online

About time.

Paying to Protest in UK

Jo Adetunji: Did you know … that you can be charged by councils for demonstrating against them?

I think this is a subject that is going to become more and more relevant as the various legislation that ahs been put through in the past few years starts to be applied.  Many people will start to be very surprised at just what is now being criminalised, monitored, controlled, or chargeable.

Obama-mania

So, it's happened. The USA has finally got rid of Bush, which means the rest of the world has as well. In exchange, we get Obama, a man who has an enormous pressure of expectation on his shoulders.

Obama has already done good things. He has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay internment centre, allowing those there to either be released, or face a court, as should have happened years ago. He has repealed the ban on funding family planning organisations around the world that dare to talk about abortion. Already, he is starting to repair the damage done to the USA's reputation around the world by the previous incumbent.

But this post isn't about Obama, or how wonderful or not he may be. This post is about the reaction to him from us, from Britain, and from the Labour Party.

The reaction to Obama has been ecstatic, and fawning. Like the screaming crowds greeting a pop-star, our politicians have been going goo-eyed over him, dreaming that some part of his lustre may somehow rub off on them. They have been scrabbling to touch the hem of his robe, hoping that somehow this will make them instantly popular.

Yesterday I suffered a moment that made me practically embarrassed to be British - not something that happens often. (Except when we play the Australians at cricket.) I turned over to the BBC News channel to see it had broken out the BREAKING NEWS banner. "My," I thought, "what has caused this? What shock to our country, what devastating disaster, or what joyous news, what happy event?" I didn't have long to wait. The banner streamed across the bottom of the screen: GORDON BROWN SPEAKS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA BY TELEPHONE. In-depth analysis followed, where the highly intelligent Stephanie Flanders made guesses as to what they may have spoken about.

Now look, I know a lot of this is the product of 24 hour news channels, where they have to fill their time with ever-increasing amounts of inanity. But come on, this was like a bunch of teenage girls screaming with excitement that that special someone had called them. Does anyone actually feel proud of our Prime Minister because he took a phone call? Does anyone feel our standing in the world is enhanced? Does anyone really feel it matters a damn if our Prime Minister is the first foreign leader Obama spoke to, or the second, or third?

Then there is the cringe-inducing case of Dawn Butler MP. I just don't know what to say about that. It's just... embarrassing.

Not to forget the Labour Party's dreadful new fund-raising push. They have seen an energising, exciting, successful campaign by a left-leaning (relatively) figure, and decided the best thing to do is... try and get some cash out of it. Yes, yes, I know that the party needs money, I know they are getting desperate. But is this really the lesson they want to learn? Do they really think people are going to donate money to the Labour Party because they think Barack Obama is a good guy?

We are suffering from a lack of confidence, from a lack of belief in ourselves. Yes, Obama is exciting and inspiring. But that doesn't mean that our response should just be adulation, and a desperate attempt to get some reflected glory. When did our country become so craven that that the best we can hope for is that the President of the USA calls us first? When did our politicians become so lightweight that standing next to someone people like is their favourite tactic?

I'm embarrassed that my country now believes in itself so little that it judges its worth by how quickly the US calls. I'm embarrassed that our politicians feel reflected glory is the best they can hope for.

The Labour Party, indeed the whole political class, seems to want the lesson from Obama's victory to be one about tactics. About how social networking can make a difference. About how blogs can get people to donate. About how Twitter can reach thousands instantly. About how a thriving and vibrant online presence can make people donate money and time.

I can understand this desire. I really can. If it is just about tactics, then it can be replicated. It becomes a cookie-cutter approach that can be rolled out by check-list, simple steps to achieve complete digital dominance. To achieve a critical mass that will help achieve electoral dominance.

I can understand the desire for that to be the lesson, I really can. But it's just wrong.

Obama's campaign didn't attract millions because it was online. It didn't attract millions because it communicated regularly. It didn't attract millions because it was shiny and new and digital and whatever buzzwords you want to throw at it.

No, it attracted millions because of the message. Because Obama came out to a country that was deeply divided, that had been wracked by internal divisions for 8 years, that had faced disaster, attacks, murders and wars, that was now facing economic catastrophe, and the collapse of the system they had been following for decades, he came out to that country and he told them it was OK to hope again. That things can improve. That if they all work together, they can make their country, and the world, a better place. That it was OK to talk about changing the way the economy, and society, worked. He came out and gave a message at odds with that being given by both the Republicans and, initially at least, the Democrats.

The Labour Party here particularly has a problem with this. How can they provide answers to the chaos they have presided over? How can they tell people they will make it all better, when they are the people who took us into this mess? This isn't about the stale argument over whose fault all this is, it's about the perception and feeling of the electorate, which isn't going to be swayed by the incessant sniping over why we are here.

The country is scared. We are nervous, and worried, and we don't know what is going to happen next. Confidence is plummeting. The economic system we have followed for decades is falling apart around us. We are embroiled in two wars. We've been told to fear a vicious assault by terrorists.

Obama spoke to people. He spoke to their dreams. He spoke to their hopes. He spoke to their aspirations. He told them it was going to be OK. He gave them answers to the chaos unfolding around them.

The lesson to learn isn't that you need to campaign online. The lesson is that you need to speak to the electorate. You need to listen to what they want. You need to listen to their fears and their hopes, and you have to address them. The lesson is that you need a message, that you need substance, that you need to be willing to say what you think has to be done now, not because it is popular but because it is right.

In short, you need to be a leader.

It remains to be seen if any British politician of this generation can do that.