These supporting arguments do not sit in the main line of argument, some are subjects in their own right. The whole subject of democratic renewal is complex and many topics are interconnected
Enquiries and Reports
In no particular order; Hillsborough, Steven Lawrence, The Post Office Horizon System, countless child deaths involving social services, the Black Report, Undercover policing, Dawn Sturgess, Lampard, Bloody Sunday, Omagh Bombing, Thirlwall and more…
The point is we look backwards but lack mechanisms ensuring changes follow. My contention is that by including citizens, and users on the boards of all bodies delivering services we would have better scrutiny at the time, less likelihood of organisations closing ranks and being defensive and more chance of making sure improvemnt are implemented.
Scapegoats
After the crash of 2008 the people administering Libor were the only ones to be tried, no one senior has ever been brought to account. It was the cost to us of propping up the banks in 2008-9 that was the immediate cause of Austerity (Osborne's 2010 budget) which is still runining public services bedevilling the public debate.
Years after Bloody Sunday the state decided to go after a squaddie who was young at the time and being used in a policing role for which he wasn’t trained.
The Post Office went after postmasters (who demonstrably had no mysteriously acquired assets) instead of dealing with the systems and contracts, and when there was clearly no case to answer where were the legal professions ethics?
The point is this; we need to meaningful accountability - that means the people at the top need to know that if they mess and hide it they will be held to account but paradoxically we need a leaning and no-blame cultures in organisations - the only conceivable way this can be done would be to bring people into the process.
Secrecy about contracts
I am thinking specifically about Sheffield’s trees, but this goes right to the top, think of G4S – still getting government work, Carillion, or the contract clauses embedded into PFI which mean schools cannot cut back on grass cutting to bolster capitation when the budget is tight.
We get a form of ping pong between the part of government that owns the service and the companies that deliver it - one referse you to the other and back and forth it goes, accountabilty is diffuse and unclear.
Regulators interpret their duties narrowly and to the letter e.g. in the water industry the regulator was looking at the financials and not analysing investment, repairs, investment, future demand and sustainability. Even when focused on the financials it totaly missed the inherent risk finiancial engineering - of loading up debt free orgaisations with debt - let alone the ethics of using it to pay dividends.
The point is that contracts for he deliver of public servives should at the very least be in the public domain
How some businesses behave
Louise Haig was criticised for describing PO as a rogue operator (for its use of fire and rehire), because the parent company UAE owned DP World being courted for its investment.
In the Independent’s report “Labour MP Liam Byrne, chairman of the House of Commons’ business and trade committee, sought to play down the row, saying Ms Haigh was “absolutely right” to criticise P&O’s past behaviour, but that new legislation would regulate how the firm can treat its staff.”
This is curious, what is not being made very evident in the reporting is that the proposed investment is for a Freeport and one of the attractions of Freeports to multinational business is not just that they always provide tax breaks but in some instances they have exemptions on workers’ rights; that is why they appeal to libertarian, small state, neo-cons.
The previous government was progressing the London Freeport already, its briefing to Lord Dominic Johnson was that DP World are “major investors in the UK through the London Gateway and are a key partner in the delivery of the Thames Freeport” the briefing suggested Johnson tell the Dubai company that he was “confident” that “DP World will be economic beneficiaries of the Freeport’s project.”
Trade Unions are banned in the UAE.
We already know that the previous government was going to give exemptions on worker rights “But free ports in the UK won't be bound by this rule, so anyone working in them is likely to have less protection at work – not only with the EU but with the rest of the UK as well.”
We will have to wait and see if this Freeport gets an exemptions from Labours Employments Rights Bill which was introduced into parliament on October 24th.
The point is even badly behaved business gets a seat at the table and many politicians collude in giving them access. Citizens, workkers, supplierd and customers need to be included, corporate governance need to be reformed. Comapnies that willl not play ball need to be excluded -if they walk away we can buy out the assest and create a worker/user led ferry company along the lines of John Lewis or more radical a full blown worker owned coop.
Growth when global Heating should be changing everything
The Labour government is insistent on bringing business into government and still committed to growth. It has been hosting an investment summit of multinational businesses (see also comments in note 3). There seems to be no recognition that the world has changed. The latest report by the IPCC says; “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all…The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years.”
As I say in my previous essay “Global heating and parochial politics” we cannot make a substantial difference in terms of the carbon emissions themselves (we are too small) but we can get our own house in order and lead; the summits we should be leading in are those addressing the key issues of our times – how to have prosperity without growth.
Going for growth is yesterday's answer, collectively the world is facing its disastrous consequences. In comparison to what is needed from our politicians, going for growth is a crass error of gigantic proportions. In the context if this blog post it will make more people poorer in the meantime (we will lose security of supply on food and fuel).
Good Process
Although I have some views which may appear radical I am not trying to win control of a party, finess an election and acquire dictatorial power though a majority of seats built on minority opinion. My contention is that a good process will deliver better outcomes - if pople are truly engaged and can determine both politcy and oversee its deliver I will be able to put in my contribution and be happy to live with thw results. What we have now is a travesty that PR alone will not fix as I blogged after the election
There are signs that some on the other side of politics (to me) get it. Poor processes do not guarantee poor result but they do make tham more likely and mopping up more difficut. Overcentralisation means the centre is overworked and so become shoddy or ineffective, when the centre is also cut back it makes it even even worse. Local government capability has been destroyed (e.g. we didn't use local public health in the pandemic, its nearly impossible to get a stement of educational need, there are hardly any educational psycholigists)), ideas become policy with to few checks and balances and there is no follow up. See Rory Stuart in Politics on the Edge (ISBN 978-1529922868) and Sam Freedman (who was a senior policy adviser to Michael Gove between 2010 and 2013) Failed State; Why Nothing works and how we fix it, (ISBN 978-1035026593)
In holistic political economy a good process goes futher than these criticisms and requires the input of citizens, they should be selected by sortition for the reasons articulated by Aritotle - to protect us against plutocracy.
To recast Bill Clintons slogan, it not the economy, "its the process, stupid"