The Labour movement column
By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter
The left used to be all about ownership. Democratic socialism saw ownership as power. Without common ownership, there couldn’t be socialism. Hence Labour’s old Clause IV: equity was premised on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Then the Gaitskellites and the revisionists got their hands on the concept. The journey from the late 1950s to the final repeal of the old Clause IV in 1995 was a forty year march of the Labour party away from paying much heed to ownership as a means of creating a more equitable society. If you forage through the verbiage of the current Clause IV you find such gems as how Labour will work to ‘promote equality of opportunity.’ Nice to know but such words float into the ether before long.
While the left was quickly dragging itself away from discussing any meaningful concept of ownership a very different thing was happening on the right: it was very actively discussing ownership and it proved to be an intellectually and politically reenergising discussion. Meanwhile, the new Clause IV doesn’t even mention ownership.
Privatisation and the distribution of share capital in the formerly nationalised companies to create a new share-holding class; selling off council houses to help build the asset base of the working classes; and the general encouragement of a share-holding democracy: it is the right that has made the running. And Labour has largely just accommodated what has been - until the later privatisations such as rail and the attempted privatisation of the Royal Mail - a popular agenda. It turned out that people quite like to own a piece of the wealth.
Even now it is largely the right that is making the running. Language such as the need to ‘recapitalise the poor’ has entered our political lexicon over recent months. The Demos progressive conservatism project and Red Toryism forge ahead on this agenda. The former are proposing new community obligations for banks, the use of national insurance as an asset rather than as a de facto additional income tax, and more flexible welfare that can be channelled into property investment.
Why this should be a uniquely conservative agenda is not clear. All these ideas should hold appeal for the left also. And yet, just as was the case with council house ownership, the left is missing a trick. As Demos has indicated, the poorest 25% of Britons own just 1% of the nation’s wealth. What greater wake up call could there be for the left of British politics to engage vigourously in this debate?
David Cameron’s own thinking is influenced by progressive conservative ideas. Where he has moved, however, it has been - just as was the case with Margaret Thatcher before him - to benefit proactive middle classes. Who will benefit from an increased ability to found new ‘free schools’ if it is not the sharp-elbowed?
This underlines the dilemma for the left in reengaging with the ownership agenda. The historical memory of being forced to defend a model of public ownership - nationalisation - that had over-reached itself is strong. Technocracy is in retreat: first from the economy and now from public services. And yet the left - in the old-style social democratic tradition - has been too slow to let it go at every stage of the process. Not only has it found it difficult to let go, it has failed to rethink how new models of ownership might actually serve rather than hinder or obstruct fairness without harming efficiency.
Part of the problem is that the language is so slippery and inexact. Let me be clear: I do not see public and common ownership as the same thing. In fact, they are in many ways in opposition. Public ownership in general removes power from people. Common ownership hands it back. Public ownership is collective; common ownership has individual ownership at its core. Public ownership is technocratic and elitist; common ownership is democratic and involving.
A few green shoots do emerge. Cooperative schools stop short of local ownership but still embody some of the principles of what common ownership is about. There of 25 of these and the DCSF sees this expanding to 200 in the next year or so.
Some thinkers have started to engage with common ownership again. Stuart White has been one of the most active thinkers in this arena. It helps to adopt a republican ethos which is about distributing assets as well as political power. In his Building a citizen society, White quotes no less than John Rawls:
"The idea is to….put all citizens in a position to manage their own affairs and to take part in social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect under appropriately equal conditions.”
The spirits of GDH Cole and RH Tawney live on.
LabourList’s own contributor Chris Cook, who must surely be due a more mainstream hearing, has been arguing the case for some considerable time, applying considerable creativity in the process.
The state does so many things that could involve, capitalise, and empower us all. Whether it’s building social housing, investing in research and development, promoting renewable energy, delivering community based public services, enabling and providing utilities, the state as owner, enabler or regulator has a powerful position. That power could be dispersed to us all by giving us genuine ownership of assets and decision-making. This is a theme that was picked up by Michael Stephenson, General Secretary of the Co-operative party (which I have just joined!) yesterday:
“[With co-operative and mutual models] the quality of service is not dependant on the commands of producer interests or the whims of market forces but on frontline expertise and the needs of the people that they serve. Public assets are locked into community ownership, providing further protection against privatisation and asset stripping.”
This is all grist to the left’s mill. And yet we let David Cameron make the running on dispersing power and opportunity through redefining the state. This is our natural territory yet an historically acquired reticence holds the left back.
What makes it more barmy is that the public would be willing to listen and engage with a reformist programme. As a BBC/Globescan poll last week showed, 57% now believe that the problems associated with capitalism can be addressed through reform and regulation. 40% believe that the government should play a more active role in owning or controlling major industries.
It would seem that the general public still think in private v public terms. Well, it may take some deft political entrepreneurship but with imagination and a renewed engagement with ownership on the left the notion of public ownership could be replaced with common ownership. This is not just a ‘wouldn’t it be good if?’ This is a necessity for an invigorated and invigorating progressive politics.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Two things I would say.
1) The state mustn't merely change the manner of its statist tendencies, and become an enforcer of participation in 'the commons' - these things are organic, spontaneous, unpredictable even, and cannot be run from the centre. I think the best the state can hope to do is remove those barriers that present a genuine obstacle to the development of a more vibrant social arena. Phrases such as 'getting the public involved' are anathema to me, and anyway are misrepresentative of the apathy that lots of people feel: far better to say 'remove those barriers that stop the public getting involved'.
2) On a more general point, ownership would ideally consist in more than just the common, and multiple forms of asset ownership should be encouraged. For the poorest in particular having multiple sources of assets/income/security would help insulate against the risks such ventures inevitably entail.
I have been forced to take action to save my companies during the last three recessions and my employees had to accept, lower salaries and short time hours in order for the business to survive.
But still Labour want more out of Private Businesses to fund the 8 million doing nothing and keeps increasing NI and taxes on the average worker whilst creating an enviroment where the rich can get stinking rich and the rest of us can go hang, we're just cows to be milked.
Every Labour administration has made the poor poorer and are set upon punishing the middle classes who have actually pay for every Labour Policy, the problem is they are now tapped out after 12 years of Bliar and the totally inept Mr Brown, so whats left to redistribute?
how about the million+ Property Portfolio Hoon has made from flipping his expenses, how about Jacqui Smiths 2nd home in redditch!, or one of Balls and Coopers houses, I think you get the point?
I think Chris has it right when he talks about pre-distribution. Redistributing earned income I believe is grossly unfair and not at all condusive to a productive society.
Given the current apathy towards politics and politicians I believe it is important to get the public involved in public life wherever possible and the concept of mutualisation appeals as a way of getting the public involved in business and capitalism.
My worry is that there will be no practical difference between redistribution and pre-distribution. I do not want to see money of those willing to work hard to better themselves "redistributed" to those who don't want to work.
I want to see a situation where there are mechanisms for the lowest paid to better their situation, maybe through assisted investment in stocks or other assets. This was the genius of council house buyback. It wasn't handouts, it was a genuine mechanism for the lowest paid to advance themselves and encourage asset ownership.
I don't think the left are capable of implementing these measures. I feel that the left are far more interested in hurting the rich than helping the poor. This sort of policy would appeal more to Daivd Cameron than GB. Cameron has made noises towards localism and increased public involvement so I think this would be far more suited to him.
Well, I think you'll find we agree on quite a few things but do have a fundamental disagreement which we have thoroughly explored.
I even agree with you that 'redistribution' in the sense of taking away something which has been earned is misconceived and unfair.
As you know, I prefer a forward looking approach which I think of as 'pre-distribution' for which the key mechanism is the sharing of the unearned rental income and gains which are derived from privileges granted by society.
It does surprise me that an obviously intelligent person like you cannot see a qualitative difference between earned and unearned income as a basis for collecting whatever resources are necessary to carry out the functions we agree need to be carried out collectively in a civilised Society.
Duncan, redistribution on the scale you want will never occur as the first thing that would happen is people like me would move our wealth and likely ourselves elsewhere leaving you nothing to redistribute and us not spending in the economy.
Oh and why did Marx and Engels only drink peppermint tea?
Because proper tea is theft.
Duncan calls for the mutualisation of Northern Rock and I think this is an excellent idea.
Given the change in the world order this will be the way forward in preserving the wests ability to sustain jobs. The Tories will miss this opportunity and it will be a missed opportunity.
Actually, I think these ideas have broad appeal. It is a matter of experimenting with a few things, starting an intellectual and popular discussion, and communicating why common ownership gives people more control over their lives.
The CoSLA/ Scottish Government agreement is a good example of cooperation between levels of government. What I'm proposing goes a few steps further than that. I'll float an example that I'm working on in the next couple of weeks. But I'm actually also talking about devolving power from LAs to communities. Or to be more precise, individuals, service providers, and businesses in local communities.
You are right to question the political model as well- spreading ownership also implies spreading political power- they go together for me. Will these ideas get an airing? I don't know but I'm willing to give it a go. Will others join me?
Good article - and, as ever, interesting comments from Chris.
I'm all for a mix of different ownership structures. I'd remutalise Northern Rock as a start.
The US handling of Chrysler is also worth considering - now owned by government, unions and Fiat.
It's a huge problem than the poorest 25% hold just 1% of wealth - although the top 10% having 56% is just as big a problem. An open policy of redistribution is called for.
That's before we even get into considering what we mean by 'wealth'.
The problem for the current crop of politicians in the Labour PLP (especially at the top) in embracing these ideas requires the giving away of power, control, micromanagment and diktat because what you are describing is subsidiarity, putting decision making and its associated fiscal autonomy at the lowest effective level. A concept both Gordon Brown and David Cameron have great difficulty with as seen in both's response to the Calman Report.
As the SNP / CoSLA concordat is proving; the removal of the central command model of local government (common to both the Tories and New Labour in England) and its replacement by subsidiarity brings greater accountability and responsibility at a local level. Scottish Councils have greater freedom to decide their priorities and how they spend their allocation. The down side is they can no longer point the finger at national government as all the targets have been jointly agreed by both parties within the allocation provided. In effect the relationship is now a form of Co-operative process and involves councils in greater consultation with their public over important decisions and national government in close consultation on over all service provision targets with CoSLA. This is, in turn, why Willie Bain's campaign on 'local' crime and transport was a bit farcical as the services he was complaining about are run and funded by Glasgow's Labour lead Council.
So do you think FPTP 'Power Hungry', Back Pocketer' or 'Glory Seeker' of Westminster will consider engaging in this discussion; me - I have my doubts as to do so brings up serious questions about the urgent need for Parliamentary reform at Westminster and the restructuring of the Civil Service.
"We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich."
"We are all Thatcherites now."
(I interpret the first-person plural pronoun "We" as equivalent to "The Labour Party")
Does THAT sound in the least bit redistributive to you?
Out of interest can anybody tell me if they remember Mandelson ever saying anything in one of his speeches or elsewhere about the Labour Party's commitment to helping the poor and needy?
Chris- all you say above is on the money. The only thing holding us back is a failure of imagination. The problem with much of the reaction to this is that we have all been locked in this state v private mentality. And I have to say that your articles have been amongst the thinking that has encouraged me to look afresh at these questions. There is really something in it. David Cameron has his nose ahead on this front but he could very easily be leap-frogged by the left....back to imagination.
This is not really a right v left question either. It is about different models of ownership. In the sense that common ownership is about mutuality it has attractions to the left. But republican thinking- and that is where a lot of this fits- goes from the liberal socialist left to one-nation conservatism.
Finally, I'll be revisiting this in the near future with an idea about how this can be applied locally. There, a teaser.....
I think that there are new possibilities emerging in relation to the fundamental infrastructure of legal rights and obligations that underpin our society.
The result is that we may look again at (among other things) the nature of "ownership" itself, and realise that in fact the choice is not - in fact - that between Public = Owned by the State and Private = Owned by a Joint Stock Limited Liability Company or an Individual. There is here in Scotland a 'Not Proven' verdict between the absolutes of 'Guilty' and 'Not Guilty'. I observe the possibility - using emerging legal tools - of new 'co-ownership' property rights between the absolutes of Freehold and Leasehold in land; shareholder value Equity and bank-created Debt in finance and so on.
When I refer to 'Common Ownership' I do not mean 'owned by the State' as an entity, but rather 'owned by the people in common'. The rights and obligations of the property relationship (property is not a 'thing') may then be shared within consensual framework agreements.
Such interactive, consensual, and collaborative agreements are normal in (say) Japan, the Islamic world, and other traditions, and indeed form a distinct strand of French jurisprudence known as 'contrats de societe'. This distinguishes them from the one-way 'contrats de mandat' agreements which are the bedrock of 'Anglo Saxon' legal tradition and which are imposed either by Statute ("Law"), or by Judges ("Equity").
The beauty of such interactive and consensual agreements is that they may be adopted by any two or more people who happen to agree to do so, and they are valid across borders and jurisdictions. They are complementary - not alternative - to any other agreements, and may be rapidly adopted without any need to legislate.
No-one will impose these agreements on the 'right wing' libertarians who frequent this site, any more than they could be imposed on us for our own good by the nationalising pro-State 'left wing' users of the site.
These emerging partnership-based policies of the Common Wealth require only action. People will try them, and if they work, do it again, plus improvements. While theoreticians on left and right are discussing what we have done, we may simply act again and create our own realities on the ground.
the reason the left have been not as loud is because the right-wing torys in the party have squashed debate through bullying , At the moment there is nowhere that reprsents the left ( apart from the vile bnp) , When we have welfare reforms (that the torys agree with ) that will harm the most vunralbe , We have seen over 12 years them wine and dine the bankers (Fred goodwin , Knighted for services to banking) , we have gone around and privatised everything that we can , A choice between left and right would be nice at the next election .
ricki