Do Something About It

Recognise mistakes were made - and get on with it

It is easy to dismiss calls for the Prime Minister to apologise for the present crisis as cynical politicking by the opposition, or proof of a troubling popular appetite for the public humiliation of public figures. The Conservative website www.sorryfromgordon.com, riffing off the Elton John song "Sorry seems to be the hardest word", offers a singularly unedifying combination of both. It is thus important to remember that there are good reasons for demanding the Labour leadership recognise its mistakes, as well as bad ones.

The UK is not, contrary to what Brown has repeatedly tried to argue, well-placed to weather the present economic storm. Experts from the European Commission, the OECD, and the IMF all agree that the UK is in fact particularly badly equipped to face the challenges ahead. Successive governments allowed an allocation of labour and capital premised on the productivity of the financial sector to develop; now that that 'productivity' has been exposed as a mirage, we are left with an economic order that answers to non-existent demands. Brown's belief that recovery is simply a matter of restoring confidence, releasing credit, and resuming business as usual echoes John McCain's deluded insistence that 'the fundamentals' of the US economy were 'strong' during last year's US election. With one major difference - the American economy is less dependent on Wall Street than the UK economy is on the Square Mile.

The British economy is in need of radical realignment, and everyone knows it - this is one of the reasons the pound has plummeted in value against the currencies of other countries in crisis. It is important to get the banks lending again, but it is also important to recognise that not all businesses that were viable a year ago are still viable today. The reluctance of banks to lend is understandable, if blatantly hypocritical. Brown's 'steady as she goes' rhetoric is inappropriate for a country that is headed for the rocks.

But Labour is not the only party culpable for this crisis. The Conservative Party is the dog that didn't bark - because it recognised much of Labour's economic agenda as its own. Both the atrophy of industry and the cult of wealth can be traced back to the Conservative era of the 1980s and 1990s. Far from criticising lax regulation, the Conservatives' 2001 and 2005 election manifestoes pledged to cut regulation further. Looking back over the last twelve years, it is difficult to find Conservatives attacking the widening gap between the richest and the rest, or condemning Britain's excessive dependence on the financial services sector - both were, after all, what the market seemed to dictate. It is about time the Opposition showed some contrition too. Even when they got it right - criticising the level of government borrowing - it was for the wrong reasons: the Conservatives did not argue we would soon need the money to bail out the banks, or that we would be unable to repay our public debt due to global economic meltdown. And although retrospectively the state should have put more aside for a rainy day, it does not follow that government should tighten the purse strings now, while a storm is raging and there's a well-publicised hole in the roof.

If you don't see it's broke, you can't fix it; if you don't understand why it's broke, you might make it worse. It's time for apologies all round.

UPDATE
What about the Lib Dems?
The campaign calls on the parties responsible for the current crisis to recognise their mistakes. As a number of people have pointed out, the Lib Dems are largely innocent of the aforementioned errors, which is why this posting focuses on Labour and the Conservatives. We certainly don't mean to imply there are only two parties worth talking about. It's simply not true - or rather, it doesn't have to be true. There are progressive Lib Dem candidates, progressive Green candidates, progressive SNP, Plaid Cymru and independent candidates* that are all electorally viable, provided progressives coordinate their votes and pool their energies, constituency by constituency. The level of apathy in this country means that it has never been easier to win an election. That could be a good thing for progressives, provided we get ourselves organised; it could also be a very bad thing, if we don't.
* This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

What are we going to do with this petition?
We're going to present a copy to both the Labour Party and the Conservatives at the end of March. The aim is to make both of these parties face up to their past mistakes- if they feel like saying sorry, great, but what really counts is whether or not they change their policies and proposals accordingly. Obviously, that's going to take more than a collection of signatures. But this petition is more than a collection of signatures. Many of the people who've signed the petition have also signed up to Do Something About It; many more were members already. So if politicians refuse to listen, there will be consequences, and coordinated consequences at that. That's why it's vital you spread the word as well as sign your name. The next time you hear someone saying Brown should apologise, tell them where to go: DoSomethingAboutIt.org.uk.

NOD, 11 March 2009

Leave a Comment

....and you will never find time to 'learn lessons' if you are too busy denying them! Add to the above failures the crux of the problem of passive regulation "If you dont see its broke" which has been demonstrated again today by the report into Gatehouse school in Milton Keynes...and Ofsed's inspection of same...to quote this 'independent watchdog' "Ofsted can only provide a snapshot at any given time" and this is also for the Council to address and comment on" ...and the Council: "Ofsted as independent regulators have given this school an overall healthy rating from which we took our lead."...."you might make matters worse" A case in point is mental health services, where Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committees are responsible for underpinning evidence of compliance to regulation standards ....but to quote a local O&S committee chair "Our understanding of mental health issues is akin to wrestling fish!" So passive regulation is the main culprit I feel and regulation is untimately determined by Parliament,...and this is where it needs to be strengthened. The FSA failures has not only brought this country to its knees economically but is effectively allowing failures in child care services, mental health services, elderly care services and hospital acquired infections to go unchecked (although constantly re-reviewed and declared 'fit for purpose'....they are proven time and again to be flawed. If the initial process is fundamentally flawed then no amount to re-reviewing will identify this unless SMART(ER) is employed: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time bound< thenj Evaluate and Review for continuous improvement ....one without the other will not work! Front line workers must be free to concentrate on its clients and managers of front line services must be allowed to concentrate on its front line workers. It seems that all are concentrating on satisfying the process requirements on paper but failing to addresss the actual needs of the patient/service usetr/pupil/student/end user/ stakerholder ....or any one of the myriad of titles constantly bestowed from above. Yes, the time for a genuine apology has arrived and also the time for real change.

-Dee

Your "Recognize mistakes and get on with it embodies one significant mistake. You treat the story as one of two parties and the sadness is that it has played that way. But there are three main parties and the still small voice of the third party has been consistently wiser in its pronouncements than either of the others. Vince Cable is the person who has seemed like our best guide, and that's from before the big trouble broke. More about him next time.

-Christopher Browne

I sent a heartfelt reply about 9.45am wed 12 March 09. I wish I knew whether it arrived. I am a bit unclear, not having used the system before. Let me know, please, if you have time.

-Christopher Browne

Is 'mistakes' an appropriate characterisation of what is happening here? If an organisation does the same thing over and over again, in spite of the evidence, and achieves substantially similar results, why would their policies be viewed by them as mistakes? I fear that by framing what is happening as a 'mistake' you misinterpret political reality, discount history and 'fail' to advance a general understanding of the issue. This is not to suggest that the present situation was intended, rather it is to suggest that the policies were well crafted and delivered on their intentions. Politicians are not stupid people - characterising what they do as 'mistakes', 'errors' or 'blunders' is the mistake, it is the central myth that traps the debate in a logic disconnected from reality. It forces the discussion to revolve around the assumption that their intentions are honourable, that policy is primarily directed to servnig the majority interest. If you really want to Do Something About It, stop reinforcing this myth - deal with the basic beliefs and preconceptions that frame your campaigns so that they mirror reality.

-Paul Owen

Reading the above I am left somewhat confused. I am clear that things are not as I would hope them to be. However when it comes to policy, on what ever issue, is it not the case that no one truly understands what all the possible outcomes may be? It does seem a bit like that when you throw a brick in the water one can never be sure where the ripples may end up! I therefore propose that a better way forward is to engage with people and be honest and explain the intent of the decision and when it doesnt work as well as intended make changes or has unanticipated consequences be frank and change. It is in my view the process of decision making that is problematic.

-Bob Leitch

I agree with the petition and have signed it, but what will it mean in practice? When/where will it be presented?

-Duncan C

surely individuals must share some responsibilty for the situation now unravelling. people applied for 125% mortages, spent vast amounts on credit cards, remortaged their houses, I agree the banks need much more closer regulation, which was not accepted by either labour or the conservatives and both major parties allowed the destruction of the country's manufacturing industry to be replaced by the financial services.

-peter rainer

I think the government should give every person who is a British citizen aged 18 and over £7500 with the instruction that you can do anything you like with the money except spend it outside Britain. This would mean that most households would receive £15000 with that they could pay off bills, go shopping, buy a new car or save it in the Bank. The Banks would gain, business would gain, government would gain through taxes and the saving of not having to pay Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit/Unemployment Benefit. Taking people out of the Benefit cultural might make them want to stay out of it but whatever the senario they would be off benefits for a while. It would kick start the economy and keep people in work a win win win situation instead of taking taxpayers money and throwing it into a bottomless pit. Even if it didn't work it couldn't be any worse than at present.

-c coe

There IS another party. The one that was against the war in Iraq, and warned about the credit crunch as far back as 2005. The answer is to vote for the Liberal party at the next election.

-David Weight


				©copyright owners of dosomethingaboutit.org.uk, dsai 2009