- Everyone agrees that Transnational Corporations (TNCs) are so big that they can avoid any responsibility to local communities.
- Like any other business, TNCs are driven by profit for shareholders above all else.
- WMNEG does not condemn profit in itself but wants TNCs and all businesses to be accountable not only to shareholders but to employees, consumers and local communities.
- Citizens have so far ensured accountability through democracy but TNCs and business are on the whole not democratic.
- TNCs can and do by-pass local democratic institutions if they do not like what they do. National governments believe that they are powerless to control TNCs lest they put their economies at a disadvantage in the global market.
- If they want to control TNCs and make them accountable to communities all the nation states will have to get together and agree what is to be done.
- There is no supra-national machinery at present that can do this job. Those that do exist, such as the World Trade Organisation and the European Union are all the side of the TNCs and in favour of removing even more barriers to their freedom.
- The United Nations could do it if it were given the resources and the mandate to do the job. It could become an integral part of its role to prevent conflict between the nations of the world.
- In the meantime those of us including WMNEG who criticise the operation of TNCs in the global market can only protest and mount negative campaigns.
- The alternative strategy is to support local communities in taking unilateral action to protect themselves from the impact of TNCs and other irresponsible businesses.
The antidotes to globalism for communities to adopt are:
(a) increased seIf-sufficiency,
(b) resistance to TNCs and
inward investors so as to extract “responsible behaviour” agreements from them,
(c) diversification and break-up of over-dominant industries.
- These tactics could be supported by local authorities and trades unions in particular.
The role of WMNEG could be to
(a) promote locally self-sufficient economies that rely less on inward investment and TNCs,
(b) promote diverse economies that do not rely on a single large industry,
(c) campaign for a new supranational democratic body to agree the rules by which TNCs will be accountable to local communities and,
(d) argue for the democratic control of business by all its stakeholders.
Steve Beauchampé pays tribute to the community activist and Birmingham Press columnist who passed away earlier this week.
Alan Clawley, who has died from cancer aged 74, was the kind of tireless campaigner that every community needs more of. The causes that he became best known for – saving Birmingham’s modernist central library from demolition and championing the work of its architect John Madin – may not have been the most popular, but Alan fought for both tenaciously, assiduously and with a relentless determination that was both an example, and an inspiration, to others. That he was supported in his efforts by such informed and respected voices as those of English Heritage (now Historic England) and the Victorian and 20th Century societies, and by knowledgeable local architectural experts Joe Holyoak and Andy Foster, speaks volumes for the strength of his arguments.
Fearlessly taking on both councillors and senior council officials over the library, exposing their cant, their ill-informed interventions, the deep flaws in their arguments, Alan presented a coherent, convincing case for the defence. He scoured official documents, challenging a decision-making process that had clearly reached its conclusions before it had examined the evidence, shining a very bright light on its shortcomings in a way that no elected councillor came close to. And he did so incessantly, initially via the online pages of Adrian Goldberg’s Stirrer website and, following its closure, via its successor, the Birmingham Press.
What his Council opponents wanted at Paradise Circus were 60-storey towers, what they are now getting is a bland, urban office scape as forgettable as Madin’s imposing inverted ziggurat was memorable. Alan saw this coming; he read the planning applications, poured over the Paradise Circus development plans and strategy documents…and when it came to the new Library of Birmingham, Alan repeatedly warned of the project’s true cost and un-affordability, of how the city would end up with a central library reduced in size and offering a diminished service to that of its predecessor.
Whilst many councillors and high-ranking city officials derided John Madin’s work, readily approving or supporting the demolition of many of his key buildings, and colluding in trashing his reputation, Alan spoke out for surely the most important and influential of twentieth century Birmingham architects. This admiration resulted in a biography of Madin, published in 2011 (part of the RIBA’s 20th Century Architects series) and the first serious overview of Madin’s work. Alan wrote and researched two further books, Batsford’s Birmingham Then and Now (2013) and Library Story: A History of Birmingham Central Library (2016) and helped form the Brutiful Birmingham Action Group, its goal to increase appreciation of this much derided brutalist style of modernist architecture.
Yet there was more to Alan Clawley than the Birmingham Central Library and John Madin. Moving to the city in the early 1970s after training at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London, where he had graduated in 1969, he became involved in the Small Heath Park Housing Co-operative and was an active member of the Green Party, standing (as did his wife Hazel) in many elections (both he and Hazel were on the ballot paper for yesterday’s council elections), and he was a friend of Moseley Road Baths amongst many other community campaign groups. Indeed, so much of what Alan Clawley did was undertaken without the thought or expectation of financial gain, but because it was worthwhile and needed to be done. Surely a significant measure of a life well-lived.
May 3rd 2018
First published in the Birmingham Press
There was also a tribute in the Birmingham Mail
Alan was chairman of the West Midlands New Economics group and some of his more low-profile activities will be recorded here in due course.
Nancy Platts, a Brighton Labour Party councillor, who has worked for London Fire Brigade, Daycare Trust and Consumer Focus, points out that under the proposed new boundaries, the problem of ‘electoral bias’ means the Conservatives will only need a lead of 1.6% per cent to win a majority (less than they won by in 2017) – while Labour will need a lead of more than 8%.
One of the main reasons for this is a total lack of proportionality: under first-past-the-post, seats do not match votes – it is where those votes are cast that really matters. Huge Labour majorities do not equal more representation: instead, millions of votes are thrown on the electoral scrapheap. ‘Losing big and winning small’ is rewarded.
Westminster’s voting system splits the left vote, but projections by the Electoral Reform Society show Labour would now be Westminster’s largest party under the preferential STV system (used for local elections in Scotland).
A new report on the benefits of the case for fair votes makes clear that the experience of councils in Scotland as well as governments across Europe shows that proportional voting systems – where every vote counts – help to foster ‘consensual’ politics, where unions and civil society are included as key players.
Democracies with more consensual structures are more progressive, with larger welfare states and lower rates of prison incarceration and lower economic equality.
EU countries which have proportional representation have embedded trade union rights, high union density and extensive collective bargaining coverage use proportional electoral systems.
Nancy ends “There is increasing momentum for change both in unions and the Labour Party. It’s time to replace Westminster’s broken set-up and extend the progressive voting systems we see in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into Westminster.
“When every vote counts – with seats matching how people really vote – parties don’t just pander to wealthier swing seats and a handful of influential voters. They have to win support across the board”.
The arguments made during the first referendum in 1975 on “Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?” were, as I remember, largely economic, tied in with a vision of where the UK’s future place in the world ought to be.
Would it do better linked to the old Empire, most of which was now becoming independent, or as part of an expanding Common Market, free of internal tariff barriers, in non-communist western Europe?
It’s true there was some discussion about sovereignty. Formidable speakers like Enoch Powell and Tony Benn abhorred any tampering with the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament, as had Hugh Gaitskell before him, but such constitutional questions seemed to many people rather academic. It is therefore interesting to turn to the recent second referendum and there to the factors found to have influenced people’s votes (see the data provided by the Rowntree Foundation and Lord Ashcroft’s polls in the weblinks below).
Here the issue of sovereignty was cited as the main reason for opposition to the EU by those who voted leave, and economic prospects as third in importance. However the second most significant reason cited in the 2016 referendum on “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” was a new one: the better control of immigration.
Admittedly in 1975 immigration in general was a controversial issue – the “rivers of blood” speech by Enoch Powell 1968 had stirred passions – but the immigrants objected to then were not from Europe; furthermore, the free movement of persons in the EU, and the entry to the UK of a large number of them, particularly from Eastern Europe, had yet to come.
Between 1975 and 2006 the powers of European institutions expanded. After all, for markets to operate smoothly and effectively rules need to be applied by governmental bodies capable of enforcing them. For there to be a level playing field it was understandable that there should be freedom of movement of goods and services, with common standards, for example of weights, measures and hygiene.
Furthermore the players in the market – business people, workers and investors – from all countries needed to have the same opportunities everywhere. Hence the four freedoms of the single market (of goods, services, people and capital), mentioned in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, were set up in stages by the treaties of Maastricht 1993, Amsterdam 1999 and Lisbon 2009.
The European institutions responsible for regulations included the Commission (EU secretariat), the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and the directives so produced have become part of the law of the UK. Alleged infringements of the rules are brought to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg whose judgements are mandatory on any member.
(As an aside, it’s important to distinguish between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg. The latter is the court of the Council of Europe – founded in 1949 and consisting of 47 member states of which the EU 28 states are only a part – and concerned with the upholding of Human Rights, in particular the Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s decisions are not mandatory though have considerable authority; for example, when it decided that the UK was wrong in not giving prisoners the vote, the UK government refused an immediate change but has since come to a compromise.)
The UK now is in the formal process of leaving the EU. It began in May 2015 when the UK parliament voted by 544 to 53 to hold a referendum; this was held in 2016 with the question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” Though the margin of victory in the referendum was slight – 52 to 48% to the nearest point – the overwhelming majority in the parliamentary vote to hold the referendum and the long campaign leading up to it gave added weight to the final referendum vote and has made many MPs feel under an obligation to support a Brexit deal even if it is not what they personally would have chosen.
In October 2016 Theresa May said she would trigger Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty in March 2017; however, Gina Miller’s court case forced May to put the issue through Parliament and, in early 2017, MPs voted to trigger Article 50, with the consequence at 11pm on 29th March 2019 the UK is to be out of the EU.
At the time of writing both sides are proposing that there will be a transition period from March 29th 2019 to the end of December 31st 2020 after which all the changes will apply.
Furthermore, by the end of 2017 substantial progress was made in negotiations about the respective rights of EU and UK citizens, the financial compensation to the EU owed by the UK and the mutual desire not to have border posts between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
But what has still to be decided is the nature of the future relationship between the two bodies. The deadline for doing so and agreeing the transition has been set by David Davis and Michel Barnier as Oct 2018.
One option is for the UK to remain part of the Single Market. This would preserve London as a global financial centre but would entail accepting the four freedoms and the jurisdiction of the European Court.
Another is to retain membership of the Customs Union alone. That would mean no tariff barriers and so no need for border posts, for example in Ireland, but UK would not be allowed to make trade deals with other countries outside the EU.
The two remaining possibilities already on the table are,
first, for the UK not to leave at all,
or, second, to come out with no deal and move to the World Trade Organisation rules which would mean being subject to all the EU tariffs and doing any deals on an ad hoc basis.
What the UK government seems to be hoping for is a “bespoke” customs deal that does not prevent the UK making other trade agreements; this might mean avoiding border posts in Ireland by registering goods on which tariffs are due at the point of dispatch or by treating local trade around the border as so small that it can be disregarded.
Not unnaturally the EU is wary of this; what can start as a little local trade can expand vastly if smugglers get it.
How things will turn out eventually it is hard to be sure. The negotiators need our support – not least to conduct the negotiations in the right spirit. When passions run high it is very easy to demonise opponents.
What concerns me is that the UK should not lose some of the good things the EU has brought us, for example about the environment, conditions at work, and action against tax injustice.
One of the consequences of Brexit would be that vast quantities of EU directives would have to be brought over into UK law and adapted to fit our own institutions.
The (Great Repeal Bill) was read the first time in the House of Commons on 13 July 2017, and completed its passage through the Commons on 17 January 2018, by passing the Third Reading by 324 votes to 295. It has completed First and Second Readings in the House of Lords, and Committee Stage is scheduled to begin on 21 February 2018.
The necessary action, in a short space of time so that there is not a legal vacuum, is likely to give considerable power to government over against parliament, possibly in ways that cannot be afterwards reversed.
Even more concerning is the division the debate seems to have brought out within our own society. According to the studies of both the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and of Lord Ashcroft, the groups in general voting remain were those under 40, better educated, with good jobs, in London, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The leavers were generally poorer, unemployed or in less lucrative employment, and in areas not so much of high immigration but of a rapid increase in immigration over the last few years.
Maybe the divisions were already there but it has taken the referendum question to bring them out. The challenge now is to use the negotiations and the eventual decision and implementation as a means of fostering social and environmental justice for all, including migrants and refugees.
Though difficult, it is a moral and religious imperative.
John Nightingale, 11th February 2018
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/25/britains-1975-europe-referendum-what-was-it-like-last-time
The FT’s Gill Plimmer and Jonathan Ford make the points summarised below in the latest of a series on public services.
There is a growing consensus among both executives and industry experts as well as the public that Britain’s unique attempt to create competition on Britain’s rail network has not delivered.
Two decades on, passenger numbers have more than doubled since the last year under British Rail but how much of this is due to the benefits of privatisation, rather than the shift to the suburbs, increasing urban congestion and a rising population?
Privatisation has led to more services, and encouraged more users to pay higher prices, but it has not led to the productivity improvement needed to upgrade the network and stabilise the network’s finances.
Over the same period, London’s state-owned metro network, Transport for London, has grown just as quickly and delivered more state-of-the-art investment.
“It’s very hard for people to travel around and not suffer from the cracks in the system,” says Christian Wolmar, a train historian. “It’s everything, from knowing who to buy a ticket from to the signalling failure that delays the train to the lack of information when your train is cancelled.
- Journeys are often uncomfortable: 23% of customers commuting into London at peak hours have to stand.
- According to the consumer group Which?, delays of at least 30 minutes afflicted more than 7m journeys last year.
- Ticket prices have risen: they are now 25% higher in real terms than in 1995 and 30% higher than in France, Holland, Sweden and Switzerland.
- The latest average rise in fares of 3.4 %, announced on New Year’s Day, was greeted with outrage.
Wolmar adds: “It’s hard to know which is worse — fragmentation or privatisation — but I’d probably say fragmentation.” The government broke British Rail into three: track, rolling stock and train operators, and sold it in 100 sections between 1995 and 1997.
Fragmentation has encouraged each part of the system to prioritise its own profits rather than collaborating to improve the system.
“The train you catch is owned by a bank, leased to a private company, which has a franchise from the Department for Transport to run it on this track owned by Network Rail, all regulated by another office, and all paid for by taxpayers or passengers,” says John Stittle, a professor of accounting at Essex university. “The complexity is expensive.”
- The contribution from the state has almost doubled from £2.3bn in 1996 to £4.2bn in real terms in 2016-17,
- The cost of running the UK’s railways is 40% higher than it is in the rest of Europe, according to a 2011 government report by Sir Roy McNulty, who has long experience in transport regulation.
- According to the 2011 report, unit costs per passenger kilometre were roughly 20p in 2010, much the same as they were in 1996.
- In 2009 the Competition Commission said the owners of the trains could have cost the taxpayer as much as £100m a year by overcharging operators.
- It cost £4.1bn to provide maintenance and renewals work on the system in 2016-17, but the train operators paid only £1.5bn to access the nation’s tracks – half of what they paid at privatisation.
- The Competition Commission concluded in 2009 that the rolling stock companies could have cost the taxpayer as much as £100m a year by overcharging operators on leasing rates.
- The train operators have paid dividends of £654m between 2012-13 and 2015-16, compared with total operating profits of £868m.
- The Virgin bailout, National Express failure, early withdrawal of Stagecoach and the collapse of Railtrack have damaged the case for private rail ownership.
When National Express handed back the keys to the East Coast line franchise in 2009, it was renationalised under an arm’s-length government body called Directly Operated Railways. During the following five years under state control, it increased ticket sales, returned about £1bn to the taxpayer and delivered record levels of customer satisfaction.
Railway rolling stock — which is leased to the train operators for about £1.5bn a year — is still largely owned by three companies:
- Eversholt is owned by a Hong Kong company with a Cayman Islands subsidiary;
- Angel mostly by Luxembourg-based investors;
- and Porterbrook by another consortium of international investors, ‘Parent organization’, Deutsche Bank.
Some argue that track and train should be reunited and returned to public ownership. Jeremy Corbyn, the opposition Labour leader, has proposed putting the franchises back under state control as they expire and commissioning trains directly from manufacturers. An October poll by the conservative think-tank Legatum found nearly three-quarters of the UK population agreed with him.
Jonathon Porritt tweeted a link to Libby Brooks’ article in the Guardian about four Scottish councils who will be undertaking the first universal basic income pilot schemes in the UK, supported by a grant announced last month by the Scottish government.
She explains: “The concept of a universal basic income revolves around the idea of offering every individual, regardless of their existing benefit entitlement or earned income, a non-conditional flat-rate payment, with any income earned above that taxed progressively. The intention is to replace the welfare safety net with a platform on which people can build their lives, whether they choose to earn, learn, care or set up a business”.
Grassmarket and Victoria Street in Edinburgh
There is cross-party support across the four areas currently designing basic income pilots – Glasgow, Edinburgh (above), Fife and North Ayrshire – the projects have been championed by Labour, SNP, Green and, in one case, Conservative councillors.
Ms Brooks continues, “A civil service briefing paper on basic income expressed concerns that the “conflicting and confusing” policy could be a disincentive to work and costed its national roll-out at £12.3bn a year. But advocates argue the figures fail to take into account savings the scheme would bring. The independent thinktank Reform Scotland, which published a briefing earlier this month setting out a suggested basic income of £5,200 for every adult, has calculated that much of the cost could be met through a combination of making work-related benefits obsolete and changes to the tax system, including scrapping the personal allowance and merging national insurance and income tax”.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told a conference of international economists days after the critical briefing paper: “It might turn out not to be the answer, it might turn out not to be feasible. But as work and employment changes as rapidly as it is doing, I think it’s really important that we are prepared to be open-minded about the different ways that we can support individuals to participate fully in the new economy.”
Urban and rural councils will take part (above, rural Fife). Joe Cullinane, the Labour leader of North Ayrshire council, said:
“We have high levels of deprivation and high unemployment, so we take the view that the current system is failing us and we need to look at something new to lift people out of poverty.
“Basic income has critics and supporters on the left and right, which tells you there are very different ways of shaping it and we need to state at the outset that this is a progressive change, to remove that fear and allow people to have greater control over their lives, to enter the labour market on their own terms.”
Owen Jones recently called for shorter working week and harked back to a 2014 article by Anna Coote, head of social policy for the New Economics Foundation.
We have long called for shorter and more flexible hours of paid work, firstly in our report 21 Hours and more recently in our book Time on Our Side. Any move towards a shorter working week would need to be implemented gradually, alongside efforts to strengthen wage levels across the economy. But as long as that’s understood, there are clear benefits for environment, economy and society:
- A smaller carbon footprint: Countries with shorter average hours tend to have a smaller ecological footprint. As a nation, the UK is currently consuming well beyond its share of natural resource. Moving out of the fast lane would take us away from the convenience-led consumption that is damaging our environment, and leave time for living more sustainably.
- A stronger economy: If handled properly, a move towards a shorter working week would improve social and economic equality, easing our dependence on debt-fuelled growth – key ingredients of a robust economy. It would be competitive, too: the Netherlands and Germany have shorter work weeks than Britain and the US, yet their economies are as strong or stronger.
- Better employees: Those who work less tend to be more productive hour for hour than those regularly pushing themselves beyond the 40 hours per week point. They are less prone to sickness and absenteeism and make up a more stable and committed workforce.
- Lower unemployment: Average working hours may have spiralled, but they are not spread equally across our economy – just as some find themselves working all hours of the day and night, others struggle to find work at all. A shorter working week would help to redistribute paid and unpaid time more evenly across the population.
- Improved well-being: Giving everybody more time to spend as they choose would greatly reduce stress levels and improve overall well-being, as well as mental and physical health. Working less would help us all move away from the current path of living to work, working to earn and earning to consume. It would help us all to reflect on and appreciate the things that we truly value in life.
- More equality between men and women: Women currently spend more time than men doing unpaid work. Moving towards a shorter working week as the ‘norm’ would help change attitudes about gender roles, promote more equal shares of paid and unpaid work, and help revalue jobs traditionally associated with women’s work.
- Higher quality, affordable childcare: The high demand for childcare stems partly from a culture of long working hours which has spiralled out of control. A shorter working week would help mothers and fathers better balance their time, reducing the costs of full-time childcare. As well as bringing down the cost of childcare, working fewer hours would give parents more time to spend with their children. This opportunity for more activities, experiences and two-way teaching and learning would have benefits for mothers and fathers, as well as their children.
- More time for families, friends and neighbours. Spending less time in paid work would enable us to spend more time with and care for each other – our parents, children, friends and neighbours – and to value and strengthen all the relationships that make our lives worthwhile and help to build a stronger society.
- Making more of later life: A shorter and more flexible working week could make the transition from employment to retirement much smoother, spread over a longer period of time. People could reduce their hours gradually over a decade or more. Shifting suddenly from long hours to no hours of paid work can be traumatic, often causing illness and early death.
- A stronger democracy: We’d all have more time to participate in local activities, to find out what’s going on around us, to engage in politics, locally and nationally, to ask questions and to campaign for change.
Anna’s article followed a call for a four-day week from Dr John Ashton, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health. He called for the country to switch to a four-day week to help combat high levels of work-related stress, let people spend more time with their families or exercising, and reduce unemployment. Bringing the standard working week down from five to four days would also help address medical conditions, such as high blood pressure and the mental ill-health associated with overwork or lack of work.