I’m having a bit of a “row” with Sunny Hundal at the moment over on Facebook about his support for a “High Pay Commission”. I think the idea is probably well meaning but just barking up the wrong tree.
A genuine review (or even call it a commission if you must) of the best way to tackle excessive executive pay would be welcome - but as soon as people started suggesting that this may result in maximum wage regulation ratios, 90% taxation and a national “incomes policy” - it is simply a non-starter and even a distraction.
By co-incidence PIRC and the Railway Pensions fund are holding this “Say on Pay” event next month on UK’s experience of shareholders vote on remuneration (trends in Executive Pay both pre and post company AGM votes, level of shareholder opposition to remuneration reports).
There is actually currently no legal reason why we cannot get real independent shareowner representatives on Company boards and remuneration committees.
Personally I feel that we can only really tackle excessive pay when we have effective industrial and shareowners democracy. Don’t forget that employee representation on Company Boards is relatively common in many parts of Europe. Why aren’t we talking about this issue?
There also needs to be better regulation and fairer taxation but a High Pay Commission as currently spun will achieve nothing and set us back. IMO.
I’m not suggesting that Tom P agrees with me on this issue but I like his blog “about me” statement
“I'm interested in getting the labour movement and the Left to understand the capital markets properly. There's plenty that needs fixing, but we need to get beyond simplistic anti-City and anti-business rhetoric to do it”.
The “left” have got to stop retreating to their “Bash capitalism” comfort bunker whenever financial policy comes up.
8 comments:
Hi John,
I can't agree that just because it's a non-starter we shouldn't have anyone saying it. How else do you plan to push the boat out? Dan Hannan wants to get rid of the NHS as it is - the Tory high command doesn't like it but the grassroots do. The grassroots haven't told him to shut up, have they?
I'm not anti-business or anti-city. My article you link to suggests economic reasons why looking at over-hauling remuneration is good for our economy
Presumably, a High Pay Commission would look at ideas around employee representation. It would open a debate.
"The “left” have got to stop retreating to their “Bash capitalism” comfort bunker whenever financial policy comes up."
Yeah, because I hear no end of people saying how wonderful capitalism is and how deserving those poor bankers are ;-)
It never ceases to amaze me how Labour activists are so sensitive to the media's accusations the party might be socialist....
Hi Sunny
It may be the old story that we agree on the goals but not the route.
Hi Charlie
Another ongoing theme - socialism -what is it all about hey? revolution or reform? China or Cuba? old lab v new Lab? a balanced mixed economy or wholesale public ownership?
Personally with regard to the Labour Party I agree with "our Harold" that it owes more to methodism than marx.
So you don't think the Labour Party is anti-capitalist. I agree - and I think that's the reason it is fucked electorally. You cannot serve God and Mammon ;-) Though Bliar, who has converted to Catholicism and now hangs around with billionaires, thinks it is possible...
It might have helped in the 90s that Labour reached a deal with big business allowing the media hostility to the party to cool - but the expectation of voters was not that Labour would stick with Tory economic policies.
The share of national income going to workers has fallen, and the wealth of the richest has risen, since the post-war consensus on a mixed economy was demolished by Thatcher.
Obviously, any questioning of the Thatcherite orthodoxy will be attacked. Look at how the Tory press reacted when Northern Rock was nationalised.
Labour rightly criticises the Tories as being the "do nothing" party as regards the current recession - but if Labour will lose the next election if it will "do nothing" to create a new consensus to extend democratic participation.
Hi Charlie
Tactically I think you are wrong. The main reason why Labour is under threat (apart from being in power the longest it has ever been in its history and therefore vulnerable to calls for “change”) is that the Tories have finally decided they are fed up of being in opposition and moved towards the centre.
Which is whether you like it or not, the battle ground for hearts and minds in this country.
The Labour government has stupidly alienated part of its core vote. I hope they will about face on this – but even if they did - electorally I simply don’t think this will be enough to make a difference in a general election.
Politically the Labour Party and especially when in government has from its very early days never really been anti-capitalist despite the rhetoric and Clause 4. It never will be either IMO. Certainly there have been a number of important and vocal members who were.
The Party is stumbling and mumbling at times but on the whole is a pragmatic anti-dogma movement whose aim however imperfectly expressed and at times delivered is to improve the lot of working people by the ballot box. Nothing more and nothing less – this is Rule number 1. That is socialism to me.
The Party will “pick and mix” whatever ideology is on offer at the time in order to further that aim. Whether that will be setting up the NHS or making Peter Mandelson effectively deputy prime minister.
I am an unabashed supporter of a mixed economy. I believe in a strong public sector and a strong private sector. There are things that the public sector does well and there are things that the private sector does well.
Therefore I have to face the logic of this decision and admit that I am not anti-capitalist either. I am against the excesses of capitalism but I don’t want to get rid of it.
Where you draw blood in your comments is your assertion that the share of national wealth for workers has reduced. If this is true (and I think it is) then unless the total wealth for workers has increased significantly, the Labour Party needs to rebalance its priorities (remember rule number 1). But it will do this within the context of a mixed economy.
I still think that we will win the next election because although the Tories may have claimed to have moved to the centre their core economic polices and instincts are still the same. Their solution is still Adam Smith free markets, slash public spending and cut taxes for the better off. This won’t wash with the Great British Public.
The government needs to get its act together better and if the economy improves in the next 9 months we will win.
I like your phase the other day about “fair markets” not “free markets”. I agree in the fairness but also agree that there is a role in the economy for a “market”.
I was once at a meeting with Tony Cliff (it’s a long story) where I also gave him the benefit of such views. He didn’t seem to mind. He replied back by saying this is like riding bareback across the desert on a galloping camel (workers under capitalism). Or something like that.
John, you are correct to say the Tories are stronger and that this is a factor in Labour's woes. They've got their act together in terms of realizing that there is little public support for overt policies of selling the NHS, etc.
No, a reversal of core support won't on it's own win the next election - and I'm sure the threat of a Tory government will increase turnout - but the impact of losing much of the core vote AND the swing-voters could mean that Labour is finished for a generation, or just finished.
I would argue that New Labour's alteration of Clause Four represented an abandoment of the strategy to "improve the lot of working people by the ballot box". The substance of the old clause four related to extending democratic participation through common ownership for the common people - through an expansion of mutuals, co-operatives, ESOPs, state and municipal ownership.
If a party no longer talks about challenging wealth and privilege - giving working people the opportunity of ownership and control in the workplace - then it's pretty much given up on empowering working people. And then that means working people give up on that party...
And how do we apply the principle of improving the lot of working people in a mixed economy? New Labour has kept in place the most harsh anti-union laws in western Europe - thus refusing to let workers help themselves improve their lot through effective trade unionism.
When we were growing up, it was a given that Labour were more for ordinary people and the Tories were for the well-off. But a generation growing up under New Labour won't have this association - for them, Labour will mean putting capitalists in government, not putting them out of business.
btw - fair markets, that was is slogan by a certain gordon brown. Like british jobs, I'm sure he has no intention of trying to implement such a policy...
Hi Charlie
The Tories have retreated to the centre on social matters and trying to fudge economic questions. Whether they believe it or not they will probably keep their mouths shut until after the election.
The core vote and swing voters are different creatures. Clause 4 rightly or wrongly poisoned our relationship with many voters. The dishonesty of having in place a policy that practically no-one either believed in or thought possible was unsustainable.
It’s a pity Blair had to do it. The new clause is weak because it does not commit the Party to achieving anything – i.e. the most equitable system of social justice via a mixed economy.
I feel no sense whatsoever that working people are giving up on the Party because of a lack of “opportunity of ownership and control”. No such feeling at all. When I tip toe about and talk to people at work about such issues it is almost as if I was talking complete gobble-gook to them. Not all of them – but the vast majority.
You are right about trade union powers – we need more bite to enable us to improve workers conditions which will encourage them to join and participate. Chicken and egg. I suspect that we need to change as much as the Party to bring this about.
I’m sure in our communities when we were growing up Labour was for ordinary people and the Tories were for the rich. But there has always been significant working class "fish and chips" Tories. My own union was started by one. Society has changed since then and we now we do have people who genuinely aspire to being maybe not “rich” but definitely not to be “ordinary”. There is no concept of putting capitalists out of business.
If the “Left” (whatever this means) cannot win any meaningful support in the midst of this mother of all recessions which was clearly, clearly caused by blatant capitalist failure and massive fraud then there is no hope whatsoever for true anti-capitalism (IMO). But - never say never I suppose – this is after all what makes politics (the art of the possible) interesting. But please...
Thanks for the info on the source of “fair markets”. If I get a chance at conference this year (I’m a CLP delegate) I will try and ask him about it – maybe have more success that my workers capital one?
I don't recall meeting anyone who had a problem with Clause 4. But for the few who dominate our economy... Blair's focus on a trivial matter when becoming leader was about signalling to the ruling class that Labour was harmless under his control.
My point about kids growing up under New Labour is that the strength of the feeling that Labour was on our side won't be there. Working class tories are still there, but the number of young people joining the Labour party is reduced (not that the Tories are doing well, either).
As for workers owning the enterprises in which they work - not a difficult thing to convey, surely? I recall sociological studies which show most people aspire to own a shop or other small enterprise, a family business if you will. The cooperative movement greatly overlaps with the Labour movement. Getting back to growing up in a Labour-loyal community, the Co-op group of businesses were held in high esteem - because the profits were shared.
Word is that when Gordon was looking for a vision thing during his leadership bid, that "cooperativism" was given consideration. I suspect that the Tories will revive their "conservative co-ops" in an effort to soften the blow of their massive cuts in spending.
Post a Comment