This is forwarded from a list concerned with the development of a new
"third" way (neither "capitalist" nor "socialist")...to framing public
policy in the United Kingdom.
What is particularly interesting about this is that it has the formal
endorsement of UK PM Blair, who invited selected participants from the
e-discussion around for a seminar to Downing St.
Mr. Blair has also discussed these general ideas with Mr. Clinton in the
the context of the attempt at creating a centre left Anglo-US "New
Democratic/New Labour" axis.
Anyone in Canada interested in exploring the possiblity of parallel
discussions?
Mike Gurstein
----------Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 12:09:49 +0100 (BST)
From: Diarmid Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: uk-policy Downing Street and after
David Halpern has suggested that I post some thoughts on the Downing Street
seminar. I've also reflected on further developments since..
First, let me say that my impression is that Blair's openness to new and
possibly very radical thought is genuine. This means that we all have the
option to influence both the underlying political philosophy of the government
and its consequent policies - if we can find the arguments to convince him.
Secondly, I think that he has identified a real gap between statist social
democracy and laissez-faire libertarianism. And I think this gap arises because
they seem to be such opposites that no one bothers to look for the common
ground between them. And yet in fact that common ground does exist, in the
contradictory facts of human nature, that while we each exist in isolated
consciousness we must co-operate to survive, and indeed by co-operating we can
achieve the best results both individually and collectively .
For those that need convincing that cooperation for maximum individual benefit
is a logically sustainable position, rather than simply one of sentiment, I
would direct you to Peter Singer's essay in this month's 'Prospect' magazine
where he discusses the logical game of 'Prisoner's Dilemma' which demonstrates
that situations can arise where mutual co-operation produces better results
than those of individual self interest. For a theory of how this can arise at
an even more fundamental level you could look at an essay of mine at
http://www.abel.co.uk/~febl/tst/principles.htm
Blair lists his fundamental ideals as justice, liberty, fairness, progress and
economic efficiency, and his basic premises as being that 'individuals rely on
others to the fulfil themselves' and that 'government is about using power
collectively to achieve individual aims in a just and fair way'. Yet he and Roy
Hattersley, who I'm sure would endorse at least the first three of these, and
wouldn't reject the others if appropriately defined, can't agree on how they
are to be put into practice. But if we could help them to agree - what a
supremely powerful coalition that might represent - sensible old Labour and
dynamic new Labour united for common goals. That would surely be unstoppable
and could kick-start the social movement that Blair ultimately wants a 'Third
Way' to become.
I think that we can help them to agree. The break comes at three important
points:
1) Redistribution through taxation
2) Public ownership of enterprise
3) The role of the unions
I think that by looking at these issues using a different framework Blair and
Hattersley could indeed come to agree.
1) Hattersley believes that giving the 'poor' greater resources would result in
greater 'cooperation' in society. Blair is less convinced and is worried about
the consequences of higher taxes on the rich because this would reduce
incentives. The reality is that both are relying too much on a money-value
model of society. Hattersley relies too much on the benefits of the transfer of
income, Blair puts too much emphasis on money as an incentive. In fact by
transferring power and control of real resources rather than money to the
'poor' and altering the incentives to the 'rich' to be less money-oriented both
could gain.
2) Public ownership in its traditional form is in reality not much
distinguishable from private ownership in that it results in top down
management which, at the margin, runs the enterprise to serve the interests of
the managers at the expense of everyone else. In any case 'ownership' is surely
an inappropriate concept for human organisations - what is important is how the
individuals' efforts are channelled to a common aim. Currently in a business
the aims of the shareholders (as far as they're able to express an opinion) is
to see steady dividend income and a rising share price; the managers' aims are
to make sure they get their bonuses, they keep their jobs or if they don't they
can move easily to the next job. They also seem to like making deals that while
giving them a thrill and a high profile, often aren't very good for their
shareholders or employees! Employees are mainly interested in their salaries or
wages and their working conditions. Customers are interested in price and
quality - as far as possible. Taxpayers are (or should be) concerned about the
consequences to health or crime etc of the businesses' output and working
practices. Although these different aims may coincide, they frequently diverge
or even conflict quite markedly. And yet often the different groups actually
represent different aspects of the same people - and certainly in the economy
as a whole most of us have multiple roles. In any case, as I hope I have
convinced you, we are interdependent, and the condition of others in society
has an effect on us. So we need to re-direct business to maximising individual
quality of life or human benefit in sustainable ways. If this is a common aim
we can then utilise the synergy of cooperation. In this case the public/private
distinction becomes irrelevant and businesses compete in a market of human
benefit value rather than money value.
3 The traditional role of unions has been that of 'organised antagonism' to
management. Because this results in a single point of contact between those on
the shop-floor and those directing the companies' operations and strategy there
is a bottleneck of communication and the division of aims is perpetuated.
Clearly unions too have been a way of 'using power collectively for individual
aims' but there comes a point at which the end must take over from the means
and this can only be done by broadening the base of communication within
companies - ensuring that the voice of every individual has the opportunity to
be heard by every other across all levels. I think Roy and Tony ought to be
able to agree on this.
A comment near the end of the seminar by a distinguished academic and former
Labour MP was possibly one of the most important, expressing the view that 'the
ability of humans to learn and develop could be the foundation of a new
ideology'.
Two premises of such an 'ideology' would be:
1) Since learning and development is an ongoing process its ultimate outcome is
uncertain. This means that no human ever ceases to have potential for a
profound positive input into society.
2) We have moved into a new phase of evolution - where survival of the fittest
no longer applies to individuals, but to ideas and their potential to benefit
the human race at both the individual and collective level.
Could the areas of common ground I have suggested here form the 'detailed
working political philosophy' that David Halpern believes is 'within reach'?
Diarmid Weir
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing
