The Battle for Europe

It may have been two over two decades since the end of the Cold War, the great ideological struggle of the last century between capitalism and communism, but there is a new ideological competition between American neo-liberalism and European ‘welfarism’. Europe is caught right in the crossfire; both geographically and ideologically in between the USA and former USSR. What we are facing is not so much a ‘cold war’ as an ‘invisible struggle’, a struggle that permeates our economic management, our politics and our society; right down to Europe’s, and especially Britain’s, soul. Despite what some American preacher has been saying, the ‘end of history’ is not upon us; neither the rapture or in the sense Fukuyama preached.

European social democracy is at its lowest ebb ever, with only five nations not governed by conservatives (four and a half if one considers co-habitation in Cyprus). What has happened? Why has it happened? Social democratic parties must bear some of the blame; we lost our ways, drifted from being a movement and started being a party disconnected from the electorate. Many, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, are mired in corruption; others such as France and Denmark decide to play dirty. We all stopped believing. Our lack of solidarity and passion has been catastrophic. This is our first challenge; to give the hydra of 27 heads one voice. Then we can stand up to those who hurt our people. Our will is seen on the streets of Athens, Barcelona and London and our steel is on the nib of the pen.

But the American way has not yet triumphed and we will never give in; discontent at the current system is evident. Look to the streets. We must put up a fight, and for that Labour needs to unite with its European neighbours to stand up and say “no”. No we will not be slaves to the economy, no we will not compromise the welfare of the people to save banks, no we will not slash and burn what we have built. We will defend our European heritage, our ‘welfarist’ beliefs and our welfare states.

Who is this “enemy” then? International bankers, speculators, markets and organisations, in particular the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and the parties that support them – the neo-liberal, economic laissez faire, new right, Reaganist parties.  

Parties that support the American model can roll back the state all they want; we’ll roll it right back out – let the people decide; do they want private hospitals where basic treatment becomes unaffordable, private schools where a decent education is the preserve of the rich, private prisons which release gangsters instead of employable citizens? Do they want the elderly to freeze, the poor to starve and the oppressed exploited? I believe that Britain does not want that; we do not want the American model because their beliefs are incompatible with our society, both present and ideal. This is about where we situate Britain; west to the land of the free markets, easy living and “me first” or east to the land of social justice and balance, of compromise and deliberation.

Britain, and Europe at large, is caught in a web of impeding American ideology. International organisations, particularly the WTO, World Bank, IMF, UN and NATO, are all vehicles for American ideology that have overstretched their authority. The IMF is dictating the policy of Greece, Portugal and Spain by encouraging deregulation, privatisation and competition – the unholy trinity of neo-liberalism. While North Africa erupts in democratic fervour, Europe has lost it to banks. The IMF was originally set up as an auditor for accounts but now is governing domestic policy without a damn towards the social ramifications; let unemployment soar, let poverty reign, burden the tax payers with debt as long as the banks are safe.

The American model puts the economy first, a tempting prospect as a healthy economy can justifiably help people; but the European model puts people first, the economy must serve the people – otherwise, what’s the point? Today the PIGS nations are in the gaze of international bankers, tomorrow the UK. There’s no way Greece can stand up alone and refuse to pay back its loans, but with the rest of the EU we can stand up to American ideology, to the banks and the international crooks and refuse to pay. They will lose billions, but that’s their fault for lending irresponsibly. An economic deficit is no excuse for a moral deficit. This is the direction we must take Britain; away from the interests of the banks and back to the interests of the people and extend this mission to cover the whole EU.

The American way has seeped from our economic thinking into our society. Contrary to the anti-immigration voice, the greatest threat to British culture is not from immigration or Islam but from American cultural hegemony. Fast food, proms, malls, rampant consumerism, individualism, “me-first”; this is what has damaged British culture and communities. Competition as a basis for the economy has seeped down to become the basis of society. A quote from a bumper sticker; “The one who dies with the most toys wins”. European and British society is based on co-operation; there is little room for competition.

There is nothing inherently wrong with American neo-liberalism, and I am by no means anti-American. But such a creed is incompatible with European values. They inherently are against state intervention; it’s in their history and their blood. We can use the word “socialism” without being burned alive. Let American ideology govern America and European ideology govern Europe. Most importantly, we should accept our differences; the last thing we need is another Cold War. And that is why Europe needs its own voice and ways of doing things.

The EU is the body that can step in and stand up to international markets. Greece cannot refuse to pay back the banks without a heavy handed backlash, but a united Europe can. The EU was not set up for the people but for the government, it has been gradually shifting towards the people through the introduction of elected Parliament and soon elected Commission, this is a chance for it to put its foot down for the people of Europe. This is the chance for the EU as a whole to unite and bring some order to proceedings; end speculation, end reckless loans, end the policy of putting the interests of the banks first.

From this, a new continental consensus is needed to rival and replace the Washington Consensus. Our consensus will be based on responsibility, welfare and co-operation. Britain needs Europe to overcome the banks. Our basis should be, or rather, must be, ‘welfarism’. We are the land of the welfare states; the land that puts people before profit and rights before riches; the land that leaves no child behind, no pensioner alone, no man in poverty; we do not fear our state but see it as a tool to help society. Our continental beliefs must be defined, defended and practised but it can only prevail with solidarity between our states; a place Britain belongs.  

Britain must choose. It is not a choice between red and blue, socialist and conservative, or even USA and Europe; the choice is ‘welfareist’ state or the neo-liberal state, freedom or responsibility, co-operation or competition. Sic Semper Tyrannus was the call of the American Revolution against tyranny; we face a new tyrant in the form of international profiteers, a new fight that Europe cannot afford to lose.

Britain belongs in Europe; we need to take up our seat, lead the way and turn from the immoral and incompatible American model. We are European, let’s start acting like it.

Opposition Going in the Opposite Direction

In light of the mounting criticism at the current Opposition, a review of the role of the Opposition needs to be established. Like most aspects of the British political landscape, the unwritten constitution means that we can effectively make up our own rules, yet paradoxically are rigidly bound by custom. The leader of a cabinet, shadow or proper, can either act by consensus and be more of a chairperson, or be “Presidential”. They can either use the civil servants or surround themselves with personal advisors. The role of Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are not defined.

But while there has been countless works on good governance for Prime Ministers, very little attention has been given to the other half of the house. One recent book by Nigel Fletcher, a BBC article about that book and a research group The Centre for Opposition Studies whose website shows signs of dormancy are about the sum of what the Leader of the Opposition has to go on. Very little attention has been given to the role of the Opposition, and yet it plays such a vital part in our parliament.

Given our hilariously undemocratic system whereby the ruling party can effectively pass any legislation, the criticism and presence of the Opposition plays an incredibly important balancing role. An effective Opposition is essential to a healthy parliament, except it is up to the government to listen to its criticisms. Working on the basis of “criticism is constructive, cynicism is corrosive” (a quote from our good friend Tony Blair), a good government listens to criticism and a good Opposition gives constructive criticism.

In that light, the Opposition should not be a stumbling block to the government but should help develop government policy. This is my main argument recommendation. Further, the Opposition should never oppose policy for the sake of opposition. This is the fallacy the Conservatives fell in time and again; they opposed top up tuition fees yet now fees are tripled. Believe it or not, there are some government policies I agree with, and I’m sure there’s some the shadow cabinet agree with. In that case, it is their duty to scrutinise but they should not be afraid of praising policy or even aims of the government. For example, I praise Ken Clarke for identifying re-offence as the cause of most crime yet his proposals for dealing with re-offence deserve scrutiny. The Opposition should work with the government to deal with re-offence; have parallel plans, compare, improve and even come to an agreement. This requires the Opposition to stop moaning and start legislating; to stop being a stumbling block and help the government. In the end, we all want the same thing; a better Britain.  

When the government is down, the Opposition should help it back up, not kick it. All cynicism does is create an aura of negativity which needs to be ousted from politics. This negativity is why people do not trust their politicians, it is why we get turned away on the doorstep, and it is why turnout and membership is down. Parliament must move beyond the attitude of “us and them” perfectly summed up in Spitting Image with the benches chanting like football terraces. We need a cross-party consensus to eliminate negativity and clean the dirt from the face of Parliament. It is the responsibility of the Opposition to criticise but not to be cynical, to scrutinise policy without falling to argumentum ad hominem. Maybe then we can start to rebuild trust with the people so sorely needed.

The central theme that is needed more than anything else in Parliament is respect; we do not agree with them, but let’s respect them. We do not agree with their ideology, policy, proposals or even methods; but, as hard as it is for us to believe, they are only doing what they think is right. On an ethical note; there is no such thing as an “evil” act, no man acts consciously “bad”. They have their way and beliefs, we have ours, we disagree but that is healthy. They are not ‘stupid’, ‘evil’ or ‘fascist’. We should keep criticism healthy, positive and constructive and maintain a positive air of respect. Politics should be a chamber of debate that reaches a constructive conclusion by consensus, and yet turn on to Prime Minister Questions or most debates between rivals and one witnesses a shouting down match.

For this to work, the Opposition needs to have a plan. They need to ask “if we were in government, how would we respond?” This is a far more positive question than the current “what have the government done wrong today?” or “how can we undermine them?” Actions speak louder than words, which is unfortunate for the Opposition because they cannot easily pass policy (though as recommended above, they should endeavour to develop policy); their arsenal is limited to the voice. In this respect, Labour are failing; I know that the party has a plan concerning the NHS but we have not heard it. That is not wholly the fault of Labour as the media are naturally more interested in what the government plans than the Opposition. The powerless Opposition is dejected; they literally have to shout consistently to be heard.

An active Opposition is an effective Opposition. I’ll try and be unpartisan in this assessment, but the Conservative Opposition 1997-2010 was useless. This may partly be an effect of Blair’s command over the House and how rejected they were in the 1997 and 2001 elections. They wasted their time in Opposition, they asked all the wrong questions, they did not plan for government and now look; the ‘Big Society’, as I previously discussed, is a PR man’s afterthought, their prison reform will fail (prisons cannot be privatised), their hospital reforms are being rejected, their education reforms are nothing short of destructive, they are still not defined in foreign affairs.

I’ve been saying this for a year; Labour is fundamentally a social movement for a fairer, freer and safer society, it does not need to be in government to make society a better place. Government is just a tool, albeit a very useful one, to achieve our aims. Though we do not create legislation, the party must remain active; it must not sit back and moan but actually help the image of politics while maintaining a presence in the community. Opposition is not a time to sit back and complain about things – the people can do that themselves.

The Opposition plays a potentially major role in our Parliament, yet it is an ignored and overlooked role. It is a role in dire need of review; we may run by tradition (the tyranny of custom – Mill), so then we must create new customs. The Opposition should be positive, respectful, prepared, logical, know the ideology of their opposite better than the opposite (has Mr Miliband read Friedman or Hayek? Lots of ammunition there). Effective Opposition undoubtedly leads to more effective and more democratic government both in the present and the future – and maybe even to the promised land of popular politicians. (Nah, bridge too far there).

I’ll leave with the quote I used above; “Criticism is constructive, cynicism is corrosive” (Tony Blair).

The Pursuit of Fallacy

Economic policy for the past thirty years has been geared towards “growth”. This has been a tragic error; our economic policy has been geared towards a fallacy. The consequence of this has been an explosion in social inequality and unemployment, and a disintegration of communities. Money has, rather predictably, not made us happy or fixed all our problems. Although as a nation we are more affluent, as a society we are no better off. Economic policy should shift its focus from “growth” to employment.

Growth is arbitrary. If the economy grows by 2%, does that make me 2% richer? No, and even if it did everyone would be 2% richer, therefore everything would be 2% more expensive and taxes would be 2% higher. Wealth is relative, so if everyone in society gets proportionally “richer”, no-one gets richer. Likewise, if the economy shrinks by 2%; does that make me 2% poorer? I don’t feel any poorer. What's the fuss about? Why are millions of people losing jobs because some banker or speculator "feels uncomfortable"? Did he miss breakfast? Is his mansion not yet big enough? What is “growth” anyway? Will we keep growing? To what and why? This “growth” only happens at the top and yet the effects of the inevitable bust are felt at the bottom.

Yet it is the quest for this phantom called “growth” that causes governments to accept neo-liberalism as an economic policy. Policies thus followed are deregulation, privatisation and competition. Schools, hospitals, prisons and security forces cannot be exposed to any of these factors. For one, these sectors all lack the ability to make a profit, the only incentive for doing anything apparently. But critically, such an approach will make them unfair. Just look at the USA; up to 20% of Americans cannot afford basic health care, their state schools are notoriously poor and their prisons turn petty thieves into hardened criminals while also trapping them in a cycle of depravation and crime. This is not the model to emulate, but these are the policies the quest for “growth” will produce. If economic “growth” means social depravation and institutionalising inequality, it is not a worthwhile price.

Neo-liberals proclaim freedom of the market as a fundamental freedom; employers should be free to pay whatever they want, get materials from wherever and charge whatever. It is liberty; the freedom of individuals from government interference. But what about the freedom from want and the freedom from fear? The freedom from wanting more is surely a freedom against consumerism and the freedom from fear of losing one’s job and fear of poverty is fundamental. The pedestal of liberty and freedom from which neo-liberals stand is flawed; freedom, paradoxically, means limitation (JS Mill).

Bertrand Russell: “The aim of politics should be to make the lives of individuals as good as possible. There is nothing for the politician to consider outside or above the various persons who compose the world”. The doctrine geared towards “growth” does not fulfil this aim. The neo-liberal doctrine is not the answer because prosperity and growth are not the questions; the questions are welfare and social wellbeing, to which the answer is employment.

Economic policy should be geared towards employment. The elimination of poverty is the number one priority of any and all government; unemployment is the biggest factor in poverty, which itself is a factor for crime and other social problems. Employment is so central to wellbeing and a happy lifestyle; an employed person is less likely to commit crime, an employed person is less dependent upon state welfare, an employed person is generally healthier not to mention more self-determinant. An employed person, generally, has a better life and is more useful to society. Ultimately, employment is not only beneficial to the individual but also to the state.

The focus on growth emphasises statistics rather than the social reality. Statistics blur the reality; if one man has ten cows and nine men have none then statistically each man has a cow. The social reality is that one man has all the cows and nine men are in poverty. Irish GDP per capita was higher than Britain; yet Irish poverty rate was also far higher. Statistically, the Irish were richer than the British; the reality was that the Irish were poorer. Economic policy needs to move beyond statistics. Employment gets back to the social reality.

Labour needs to get back to the social reality; out of the chambers of Whitehall and back onto the streets to become a social movement once again. We are a people’s party, the people’s party, and we need to reflect that. Yet our practise betrays our; Blair earns millions giving speeches, Prescott has two Jaguars, our Labour politicians live in mansions and travel first class. Are we still the people’s party?  Labour was founded on the toil and oppression of the working man with the aim of improving their conditions – we succeeded, but the fight is not over. It’s been said time and again, Labour lost touch with the social reality.

Politics is about helping people; eliminating poverty, allowing the individual to fulfil his aspirations and potential, and, ultimately, making people happy. We are not reaching some utopian end, there are no scientific formulae whether it’s Marxist or Hayekian, politics does not serve some higher authority or concept. Economic policy has been misguided; it does not eliminate poverty nor does it help the majority of the people. To this end, it has resolutely failed. To this end, Labour has failed. Labour’s economic policy should a priori put employment at its centre, yet for the past fifteen years it hasn’t. Labour, in theory, represent the working man, we know the social reality of the current economic system and if we are not fighting for fairness and for a change in this economic system then who is? Labour needs to go back to representing the people. A fundamental shift in how Labour conducts its politics is needed, and its economic focus needs to be realigned. Simply put; if we don’t, who will?

The capitalist economy is always and will always be boom and bust; the bigger the boom the bigger the bust. Therefore, regulate and limit the boom in order to manage the bust. The less drunk we get, the better the hangover. A few bad eggs does not mean we should kill the chicken. Let’s not be blind to the benefits of capitalism and the flaws in socialist economics. The system needs reform, not revolution; an increase in regulation, not full state control; a focus on co-operation over competition, not enforced redistribution and requisitioning. And yet we need a new consensus, a new economic model that enshrines our European welfarism above American marketism, a model which puts people before profit and rights before riches. We need a new European consensus; there has never been a better time to create one. Only European socialists are willing, but we need to unite to stand up to American ideology.

Our economic policy should reflect our social values and aims; do we value egoism? Ethically, no, it is an undesirable quality. Do we value competition? Again, no; co-operation is of greater value in our society. Socially, benevolence is desirable. Practises commonly seen in the economic sphere would be deemed socially unacceptable though not always illegal. Our social aim is the elimination of poverty, yet our economic aims are profit and prosperity, for a few arbitrary numbers to become bigger. To echo the sentiment of Lionel Jospin; “Yes to market economy, no to market society”.

A system where some people make a profit from millions losing their job, where a few make money from the suffering of the many, where they are willing to spread rumours to encourage a nation to default ("they" did this to Greece the other week), which rewards greed and punishes nations which value workers dignity, where there is still over three million children in poverty yet houses billionaires - that system is not the system to pursue or be proud of. Hopefully, in the future people will look back with disgust. But why wait then?

Unfortunately, the market economy has permeated to create a market society of competitive consumption and egoism. Friedman argued that the only social responsibility of the markets is profit, and Hayek said that altruism and solidarity are virtues to overcome; these are the founders of the Washington consensus – their ethics are abominable. A fiscal deficit is no excuse for a moral deficit.

To this end, there are two economic principles useful for both domestic and national economics; never owe anything to anyone (no debt), and never spend more than what is raised. These are two fundamental pragmatic principles to be held in order to avoid the pain of the boom where bankers over step their boundaries (see how the IMF is dictating policy in Greece, Spain and Portugal).

Growth will not tackle poverty, employment will. Growth will not make people less dependent upon the state, employment will. Growth does not allow all to achieve their aspirations and potential or make each man an inclusive member of society, employment does. Growth creates social inequality, employment unites. The success of economic policy must rest on employment and its effect on the social reality, not growth. While the aims of the economy are different and contradictory to our social aims, we cannot have a stable order. The economy must serve society, not vice versa. By changing this focus, we can better serve what and who is important.