A Political Agenda – Part Four

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

The mantra Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is one which embodies environmental NGO’s approach to waste. This covers all areas of waste – in other words, before throwing anything out for refuse collectors, consider carefully whether it can be reused in some form, and if not, if it can be recycled, and then take appropriate steps. And even then, when buying products, consider those primarily which do not add to the problem of waste – reduce the need to even consider reuse and recycle. This is from a consumer’s point of view and is a rationale available to everyone.

However, producers need to take on this mantra too, into the processes they use to create goods and deliver them to the market. Now, it appears that we have just hit a problem. The Market, in itself, depends on supply, demand and the exchange of ‘market value’. From the standpoint of a Producer, this Market imperative does not sit alongside the notion of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle very easily at all. The Market requires consumption, and therefore the whole idea about limiting the ‘supply’ of goods (including packaging) that leads to a potential reduction in consumption and thus demand, goes against prime Market principles. Producers are set up to maximise revenue with an appropriate level of profit – in some cases, to maximise profit, depending upon the Market. Maximising revenue, and profits requires high turnover of goods and low levels of cost. Embracing Reduce, Reuse, Recycle as a principle is in opposition to some significant degree to these Market principles.

The other aspect of how waste is currently managed has been determined by free-marketeers using these Market principles. For example, a market in recyclables has created a demand of some degree for waste; the use of incinerators to depose of some types of waste, has created a market in waste. Once again, there is a clash between the ideal of environmental citizenship (as both a consumer and a producer, using Market terms) and the Market imperatives of supply, demand and the exchange of ‘value’. This, in my view, is insurmountable, and either one or the other must apply. It is obvious from the environmental impact point of view, that it needs to be the non-Market methodology which prevails. This requires the removal to a very significant degree of Market principles from environmental issues such as waste management. The Market tries to ‘buy’ everything – the right to pollute, the right to produce waste, etc. This is not a sustainable approach.

Local Government and a Parliamentary ‘Council Act’

In an earlier essay (A Written Constitution) the need for a Parliament Act, governing all principles and operating procedures and processes of the houses of the National Assembly, was laid out as an Article in the proposed Written Constitution in that document. It is also necessary, given the objective of commonality across the nation for standards of government, to have the National Assembly (with input from Councils) pass a ‘Council Act’ which has a similar function for defining the principles and operating procedures and processes of each and every Council across the nation. With the idea of a common national Civil Service which caters for all levels of government, the corresponding idea of commonality of procedures and processes goes hand in hand. Parliament in considering such an Act must obviously take input in all areas from those experienced in local government, and produce legislation that works for everybody.

The Journalists’ Lobby

At present the government holds fairly frequent unofficial and unattributable press conferences to disseminate its message on any particular subject. This whole process is managed, and some manipulated by government communications departments. Attendees have to to invited, and anyone can be refused access, all statements are unattributed and live video and audio is not permitted.

This needs to change. Again in a previous essay entitled A Written Constitution, the idea of an Office of National Information, independent of government and parliament was raised to enable genuine Open Government and to provide a more significant emphasis on the freedom of the media.

Requiring government to hold regular and frequent, fully attributable and largely open (media organisations can apply yo the ONI to attend and should not be prevented from doing so) press conferences, which are live (video and audio) on broadcast and digital media, and which address issues not only introduced by government, but those requested by the media, should be the norm.

This will end government control of the media in this area.

The Lobbying of Parliamentary

The connection between citizens and their representatives is essential to ensure openness and access at all appropriate times (erring on maximisation) in a vibrant participative democracy. The lobbying of parliament and members of the National Assembly is an important part of this.

However, the current system (if that is what it can called) is opaque and open to abuse. It needs to change and the arguments for changing it are very strong.

The registration of lobbyists is very lax and does not provide full transparency. It is confused in its aims and lacks clarity of objectives. It should be broadly scoped to cover all aspects of the issues raised around the lobbying process. Funding for the register is limited and needs to be consolidated, with the position of Commissioner for Lobbying being put in place with an appropriate level of support staff, and powers to enforce the rules. There is an argument to put this office under the proposed Office of National Information, so that the default is full transparency.

The whole system needs to be extended to all areas of government – National, and currently, devolved administrations, as well as covering local government, with a common set of rules, and administration thereof, across the board.

Full transparency would uncover the activities of organisations who employ consultant lobbyists and in fact, the rules should deter consultant lobbyists and ensure that the root organisation lobbying for their own interests are the main participants in the lobbying process itself.

On a specific subject, politically-motivated organisations such as think tanks should be also deterred from lobbying government or parliament directly, and instead should be directed to the policy units of individual political parties, where they can attempt to influence policy at the right point of entry.

In a fairly typical response to critical issues, the UK government’s response has been light-touch regulation which leaves plenty of loopholes and entry points for abuse of the system. This needs to end.

There should be a central website attached to the office of the Commissioner of Lobbying within the ONI, where any citizen can post comments and input on major legislative proposals. This is participative democracy in action

Canada (and the USA) are again leading the way here with their system of rules and regulations which determine how lobbying can be both transparent and open to use by all. The details are at https://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca/en/rules.

In addition to comprehensively strengthening the lobbying process, some additional areas of law should be enacted in new lobbying legislation as follows:

• It should be illegal to use personal communications devices for government or parliamentary business
• It should be a criminal offence if MPs digital or written communications become somehow unavailable – ie no deletion of communications, no “loss due to system failures”. The individual MP should be responsible criminally for the availability and transparency of all parliamentary/governmental communications
• All Special advisers must be transparently identified and their interests fully registered

The Funding of Further Education

Further (and higher) education is in a very difficult situation. Funding is limited on all fronts, and funding issues are driving policy in universities and colleges, rather than educational imperatives. British universities and colleges exist primarily to provide British citizens with opportunities to further themselves in a wide number of ways, and to provide highly educated people coming out of the far side of their courses to contribute in perhaps a more significant way than they would otherwise to the well-being of a wider citizenship, by innovation and participation in the development and success of businesses and enterprises, among other things. Universities in particular, also provide an opportunity with their research arms to contribute to the birth of new industries and enterprises by partnering with government and business to enable new economic opportunities for the nation and its citizens.

Government needs to decide how the funding of these key objectives is to work. By abrogating its strategic role in this area, and giving all the decisions on funding to the establishments themselves, could easily result in short-term focus and a switch from the key purposes of these organisation to simply a scramble for funding.

Providing all capable and keen applicants an entry to further and higher education without a massive financial burden hanging over them is vital. Also the encouragement for foreign students to attend British institutions should be fully on the agenda, but not merely as an exercise in providing funding. Foreign student places should be seen as both a top up capability for universities in particular, and also as a way of culturally opening the country’s arms to welcome students from other nations across the world.

Using overseas students and connections to overseas educational establishments as a route purely to boost finances is not an acceptable way for funding to be guaranteed. The limiting of visas for overseas students should also not be used as a political method simply to control immigration.

Low interest student loans for living expenses is probably acceptable, but course funding should be covered by tax-based funding from government.

Taxation – central and local

Currently, and fairly uniquely amongst western nations, the vast majority of taxation in Britain is collected centrally by national government, and an extremely small amount is gathered locally. The advantage of this are that central government can balance expenditure and investment across regions and districts by reallocating funds from ‘rich’ areas to ‘poorer’ ones as is seen fit. However it puts local government largely at the mercy of central government when it comes to funding, and whilst it shouldn’t happen, political manoeuvring can lead to the distribution of finances being used as a weapon to manipulate local government in the interests of the ruling government. In a system of government defined by election by Single Transferable Vote (Proportional Representation) this may be less of a problem, but is still open to abuse.

To push revenue collection through taxation to a more regional or local level, such imbalances can be alleviated somewhat, but central government would still need to reallocate some funds to make up for differences in the notional ‘wealth’ of each region or local area. Putting revenue raising powers more in the hands of regions and localities would allow citizens to be more connected to the public services and the provision thereof in their local areas, along with regional or local decision-making, in cooperation with central government, business and academia to invest in regional missions.

Conclusion

This essay sits in parallel with the three previous essays with the overall title ‘A Political Agenda’, and should be read alongside those others. It may be that the author produces further essays in this set as ideas come up, or areas for discussion raise themselves.