WDIE Masthead

Year 2006 No. 72, August 23, 2006 ARCHIVE HOME JBBOOKS SUBSCRIBE

Climate Change: Confronting the Crisis

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Climate Change: Confronting the Crisis

For your information: "The End of the Blair Era Is a Springboard for Renewal"

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
4 issues - £2.95, 6 months - £18.95 for 26 issues, Yearly - £33.95 (including postage)

Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10


Climate Change: Confronting the Crisis

By WDIE journalist

On the afternoon of Saturday, July 22, a meeting was held at the Mind Centre in Yeovil under the heading of "Climate Change: Confronting the Crisis". The discussion was themed around the issue of the relation between climate change and culture.

            A presentation was given by composer Michael Chant. He began the meeting by saying that climate change is now recognised as a reality. A succession of natural disasters has brought the issue home to all: it is no longer considered a marginal concern, but of concern to everyone. Hurricane Katrina, for example, at the very least exposed how unprepared major governments are for dealing with natural disasters.

            Along with the increase in wars and aggression and nuclear weapons, climate change is now one of the most crucial issues affecting the whole human species. Therefore, climate change is to be looked at in the context of the development of human society.

            However, the approach of the government is to look at the problem as a technical issue. Committees are set up, each with its minister, but the question is of such importance that people are asking: is the government taking the question seriously enough? An issue of such concern to the future of humanity cannot simply be looked at in a technical sense.

            The approach (and generally that of the "Western" governments) can be characterised by two features. Firstly, rather than accepting responsibility itself, the government offloads responsibility onto individuals in society. Secondly, the government raises the issue of the impact of any measures on business; the problem of climate change is subordinated to the aim of making business competitive.

            But, who is setting the agenda here? Who makes the decisions? Climate change is so important as to be part of the agenda of all concerned people. There is a whole point to develop: the relation between human beings as a whole to the environment.

            In this respect, it is also a cultural matter. As a musician, Michael Chant spoke about the long tradition of being inspired by the environment. It is a question of how human beings relate on a human level – the environment is beautiful to human beings. Without human beings, it is simply a collection of things: rocks, clouds and so on. With the government, human beings are left out of the question.

            Culture is meant here in the broad sense: not only art, but the sciences; the whole product of human ingenuity. This includes how people relate and the kind of society people live in.

            This relates to the key issue of social responsibility. Tony Blair likes to speak about the globalised world. In this view, it is only the Western governments who should decide what is democratic for the world, and so on.

            But on the issue of social responsibility, suddenly it is no longer the concern of such governments. For example, the closing down of industry in the West Midlands is not their responsibility; again, this comes back to the passing of responsibility onto individuals.

            This presentation of points for consideration was followed by enthusiastic discussion, people giving their ideas and views on alternatives and what needs to be done to change the situation.

            Michael Chant then performed the first paragraph of his new composition Climate Action, one of a number of pieces being written by concerned composers for the Symposium and Concert on Climate Change in London to be held on July 1 next year. It was preceded by The Croppy Boy by Cornelius Cardew and Well, well, Cornelius by Howard Skempton.

            Finally, moving into another room, participants watched the new video "The Question is Really One of Word and Deed" by Stuart Monro on the political and cultural work of Cornelius Cardew, providing a fitting end to the afternoon's events.

Article Index



For Your Information

The End of the Blair Era Is a Springboard for Renewal

By Michael Meacher*, Guardian, August 3, 2006

The UN has now labelled the pulverisation of Lebanon an "illegal war", yet still the UK has not called unequivocally for a ceasefire. This defiance of British and international public opinion not only diminishes our standing in the eyes of the world, but also raises, yet again, the issue of how those in power are held to account for their decisions.

            There are many such examples in Britain today. What mechanism is there to prevent the prime minister unilaterally giving support to a US attack on Iran, embroiling Britain in a conflict that the public overwhelmingly rejects? How can the government be dissuaded from carrying through further fundamental structural change in the NHS and education system that carries neither electoral sanction nor public support? When Tony Blair abruptly overturns his own 2003 energy white paper and announces that Britain will go nuclear "with a vengeance", even before the energy review he himself set up has reported, is policy-making now a matter of personal diktat? If not, how can effective counter-pressures be brought to bear? When Gordon Brown declares his support for replacing the Trident nuclear missile system at a cost of up to £25bn, even though many believe it now serves no useful purpose, are we to take it that such ex cathedra statements are now how policy is made?

            Power is now more centralised in Britain than at any time since the second world war. Within Whitehall power has been sucked upwards to No 10, and at the same time it has drained away from the cabinet, the parliamentary Labour party and the national executive and funnelled towards more presidential rule from the centre. Unlike in the US, however, where power is shared between the president and a countervailing Congress, presidential power in the UK commands every aspect of the power structure and, with few exceptions, can enforce its will without consultation or concession. The division of powers, on which the unwritten constitution of Britain has depended for centuries, is being eroded. The checks and balances have all but collapsed.

            One little-noticed episode illustrates how far this process has gone. The legislative and regulatory reform bill that recently went before parliament unprecedentedly granted ministers power to alter acts of parliament without parliamentary scrutiny and to exercise virtually untrammelled executive power. The government was forced to amend its more extreme provisions, but even the revised version creates a major shift of power within the state, which could not happen in other countries without a change to the constitution.

            How can these things happen? There are several factors. An enfeebled parliament is browbeaten by a ruthless use of patronage, the timetabling of all-important bills and a culture of compliance. The parliamentary vacuum is then colonised by a few unelected aides and advisers round the prime minister who, on his behalf, arrogate to themselves significant power over policy formation, press communications and liaison with the other key players in business, finance and the media – without any accountability to parliament or the public.

            We need a new constitutional settlement whereby parliament reasserts its democratic rights across all policy and procedure areas where its authority has been usurped. As the Blair era draws to its close, this should be the springboard for a democratic renewal. A new cross-party convention should be established to draw up a blueprint to present to the people of this country for their approval.

            Some areas for reform are already clear. If cabinet appointments had to be ratified by the appropriate select committee of the house, which should also have power of recall, ministers would be jointly accountable not only to the prime minister but also to parliament.

            If select committee membership was decided not by the whips but instead by a secret ballot of all MPs, with a quota reflecting party strengths and members electing their chair, the committees would have much greater independence and authority. If the members and terms of reference of committees of inquiry (such as the Hutton and Butler committees after the Iraq war), when proposed by the prime minister, were subject to parliamentary vote, their findings would command much greater respect. Parliament might also have the power to appoint such committees itself where the government refuses to do so (for example over rendition flights).

            If the liaison committee, made up of chairs of all the select committees, could table motions for debate and vote on the floor of the house from time to time – once a month, say – control of the house agenda could be shared, at least partly, with parliament itself. The royal prerogative, whereby the prime minister can unilaterally declare war and make international treaties, should be ended. There is a growing consensus that the Lords should be transformed into a Senate with at least 70% of its members elected. Critical extra-parliamentary appointments – including permanent secretaries, key ambassadors, chiefs of staff and heads of the security services – could require parliamentary ratification. All these measures would restore democratic control. And if the honours system were supervised by parliament – or, better still, abolished – it would remove a source of potential corruption.

            In tandem with these reforms, each political party will need to consider what changes in party procedures are necessary to secure real and genuine accountability of leaders to their members. Mechanisms to hold the leader (and deputy leader) to account would certainly be part of any changes. In the Labour party that could mean restoring party conference delegates' right, recently removed, to make nominations for their choice of leadership.

            But democracy goes wider than parliament or party. If major bills were examined first in accessible televised hearings in parliament, members of the public could offer online comments to the bill committee. If referendums were made available, on carefully drawn criteria and with a guarantee of balanced media coverage, the public could have a decisive voice on some of the most serious issues. And, perhaps, the fraught issue of proportional representation should now be seriously reconsidered if the excesses of autocratic power are to be curbed.

            This issue of political accountability underpins every other issue of contention in Britain today. The current malaise – and the feelings of impotence and disengagement among the British public – can only be tackled with major reforms.

*–Michael Meacher is the Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, and a former environment minister.

Article Index



RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Daily Internet Edition Index Page