Corporate power challenges democracy

George Monbiot, in the Guardian on 8th December 2014 wrote: “Does this sometimes feel like a country under enemy occupation? Do you wonder why the demands of so much of the electorate seldom translate into policy? Why the Labour Party, like other former parties of the left, seems incapable of offering effective opposition to market fundamentalism, let alone proposing coherent alternatives? Do you wonder why those who want a kind and decent and just world, in which both human beings and other living creatures are protected, so often appear to find themselves confronting the entire political establishment”.

And in conclusion he wrote: “Corporate power has shut down our imagination, persuading us that there is no alternative to market fundamentalism, and that “market” is a reasonable description of a state-endorsed corporate oligarchy. We have been persuaded that we have power only as consumers, that citizenship is an anachronism, that changing the world is either impossible or best effected by buying a different brand of biscuits. Corporate power now lives within us. Confronting it means shaking off the manacles it has imposed on our minds”.

It strikes me that whilst our conservative governments pay a great deal of attention to other sectors in our society such as Trade Unions and the ‘corruption’ they are accused of waging against the State, they seldom address or in fact raise the spectre of corporate power. We in Australia know only too well that it exists in our mass media and mining companies who hold sway over electors through editorialising and million dollar marketing campaigns to protect their profits and power. 

Our democratic system, governments and courts are overwhelmed by their power and our political parties become beholden to their largesse when it comes to protecting their own power base. And the electorate at large is so intimidated by their messaging and persuaded by their nationalist rhetoric that our politicians are incapable or reluctant to challenge corporate power. It is identified by Monbiot as critical to our capacity and preparedness to address the global and local challenges that confront us, be they economic, social or environmental. 

The Guardian editorial has identified the additional threat to democracy in the form of transnationals that ‘straddle the globe like colossi, beneficiaries of the last century’s turbocharged capitalism’. It reveals that of the top 175 economic entities in the world in 2011, including whole nations, 111 were giant corporates. 

Professor Sikka of Essex University states the obvious yet hardly ever articulated response,  ‘Corporations have no loyalty to any place, people of community’. The editorial headline, ‘Transnationals are mighty, but not beyond government reach. Democracy could still battle back’, reflects there call for action by national and local governments to legislate, regulate and at the local level, ‘name and shame’. 

The Enfield Council in England for example is campaigning to force utilities to give work to local firms and for banks to lend more to local firms with the threat of being named and shamed.  

We need to build community awareness and action to ensure that our leaders are empowered to challenge corporate power and ensure that people come first.
  
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/12/08/there-is-an-alternative/

UK jigsaw is broken!

The devolution debate has continued in earnest following the Scottish referendum that saw a slim result for the No vote. The election of a new government in Westminster in 2015 will need to grapple with the twin challenges of the unity of the UK and membership of the European Union. The relative sucess  of the major political parties, now including UKIP, at the polls will define the future of the UK jigsaw.

The four nations of Scotland, Ireland Wales and England are much in the news with the recent debate in Westminster fueled by the Scottish referendum. There are many Tories who are pushing for English MPs only to vote on England matters and thus define more starkly the UK as a jigsaw of nations ‘independent’ from Westminster and Whitehall. ‘England for the English’ was the cry in the House of Commons early this month.

The United Kingdom is clearly battling its future on many fronts and people are not voting through their ballot box nor for now with their feet. In the last election 23 million people did not exercise their right to vote. That number exceeded the number who voted for both Conservative and Labor candidates. And devolution to many does not stop at the borders of the four nations but extends to local government and the need to grant additional powers and resources to the local level. This reflects the growing alienation from Westminster and the growing concern that the UK is broken and needs to be fixed.

An excerpt from a debate in the House of Commons on 16 December reveals the underlying issues surrounding devolution and the state of the nations.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab): Does the Leader of the House accept that 23 million people—more than voted Conservative and Labour combined—did not vote at the last election; that 10 weeks ago we came within 400,000 votes of the Union dissolving; and that a right-wing party is now coming in at 15% in current polling? Does he accept that the people are saying, “It’s broken; we ought to fix it”? Does he accept, too, that failure to include a comprehensive English devolution settlement based on the vehicle of independent local government and to substitute it with a minor issue of moving around the green benches of the Titanic on English votes for English laws just does not meet the historic need put to the right hon. Gentleman to do this job of putting forward a Cabinet Committee on devolution. Has he not missed that historic opportunity?

Mr Hague: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks, and I am grateful to his Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its input so far and its discussion of all these issues. This is partly about decentralisation and devolution to local government in England. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that that will address the problem here in this House where laws are made of having some Members able to vote on things outside their own constituencies and other Members not able to do the same. That is why we have to make sure that, in addition to decentralisation, we address that further issue here as well.

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s statement because of the democratic deficit that exists. I ask Opposition Members to imagine what they would think if we English Members of Parliament were to sit on the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament and vote on their issues. I am sure they would find that equally galling. I caution my right hon. Friend about taking the advice of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). It is no good saying that we should just look at the historical facts, because we cannot anticipate what may come up in the future that would need a veto from English Members of Parliament on English matters.

Mr Hague: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. It will always be valuable to look at the historical record, but we cannot forecast the composition of future Parliaments, or indeed the issues they debate. Irrespective of issues and party considerations, we have to try to put in place arrangements that are fair to the whole of the United Kingdom—including England.

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I never expected to hear such a load of rubbish from such a normally sensible person? It is inappropriate to call it a dog’s breakfast because any sensible dog would turn up its nose at it! The principle ought to be inviolable that the vote of every Member of this House should be equal on all issues that come before it. I give notice to the leadership of both sides that I shall vote against any other proposal whoever puts it forward, and including a Labour Government. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Mr Hague: Well, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) just made the case that it is broke. The right hon. Gentleman may prefer different solutions from mine, but as I say, some of his hon. Friends are advocating that it is broke. The right hon. Gentleman has to understand that there is not an equality between Members of Parliament now because, of course what we are able to vote on is already different as a result of devolution. That is the point that he is not taking into consideration. We all take due note of his concern and his opposition to any of these proposals, but it will not be possible to suppress and avoid this debate. This issue has to be resolved.