Opening
I have been thinking about why people, the Labour Party, most other
organisations, and pressure groups, seem to lack vitality. People feel
restricted, and impose restrictions on themselves unnecessarily. This
contrasts
with the peace movement in the 80s that was not in anyway restricted.
Also
after the Second World War people expected, and got many things they
needed
such as the N.H.S. Now people who agree that they want something, but
argue
it can't be done because of budgets or perceived public acceptableness
these are restrictions, and are new examples of applying the old divide
and rule method. By contrast someone who had been educated at a public
school may say "there is no such thing as can't". The subject of this
talk
is why people feel restricted, and how we may together change that in
ourselves
and in others. This would amount to a change of culture, where to have
power, and responsibility is a natural accepted right of every citizen
of this country. The Problem I think that in many respects most people
prefer to have other people who are brought up to be rulers, rule them.
That is I believe the reason that we commonly have, appalling company
management,
and appalling government, in this country. The rulers, some of whom the
electorate could remove, are happy because they can rule with divine
arrogance,
and the ruled, can blame the rulers for everything because they are not
responsible for anything. This is, not how it has to be. My view of
America
that Jim Munves, who spoke to this branch, told me about, and my brief
visit to New York confirmed is that; Another Way The United States
although
far from perfect, for example a smaller percentage of the population
votes
in presidential elections than the percentage of U.K. voters who vote
in
Parliamentary Elections. At a local level the U.S. is very good. Their
system is based on anarchy, but where the people know they have rights
set down in their constitution. They say what they think, and expect
what
they say to count, which contrasts with our way. In New York I only had
time to see one example of this; Things that Local Government does, are
publicly accountable. By comparison here public rights don't really
exist
the rights we think we have now are often taken away or we give them
up.
In the U.S. people are taught to speak, to debate and how to run a
meeting
properly, at school, they use our own Roberts Rules of Order, which is
the basis of our own Parliament. Originally the American Constitution
was
written for all Americans although the slaves, and women did not have
so
many rights, the Civil War, and Martin Luther King contributed to
improving
those things later. In Britain people seem to see that there is a
problem,
but have been mislead about what it is, I think there is a tide for
change
building up. They feel powerless to do anything about what I believe is
the route of the problem that is, privilege power, the House of Lords
and
the Royal Family. These or other interests are really ruling using
Parliament
to manage the Country for them. It seems that we would not allow a
visionary
equivalent of a Martin Luther King for working people in Britain to
appear.
One important difference between the U.K. and U.S. is that government
in
the U.K. has absolute power over almost everything. Naturally people
feel
and are largely powerless at a local level by comparison with the U.S..
A county council may not spend modest amounts of money on a new school
building for example even if they can finance it they have to get
approval
from central government. In the U.S. government powers are limited by
the
reserve clause, that is: The People and States have all the powers not
reserved to the Federal Government by the constitution. States are in
tern
limited by there own reserved clause, leaving power to the people and
villages.
Our boroughs and county councils operate by permission of central
government
and can be abolished by government, they are therefore accountable to
central
government, not directly to local charge payers. The U.S. Federal
reserve
clause I mentioned would mean that a council could not be abolished by
the government, whatever for example outcome of an inquiry into the
future
of local government may recommend. You remember how quickly government
dispensed with the Greater London Council in 1986. The american system
is not perfect, George Bush was the head C.I.A, the drug dealing agency
that became well known after Oliver Gate. Also Neil Kinnock abandoned
Unilateral
Nuclear Disarmament straight after his visit with Reagan. These are
examples
of how rights that American citizens have, do not extend to other
countries.
Within their own country it is looking unlikely that they will get any
form of National Health Service however popular it is. We should
remember
that the Labour Party started as an organisation of working people
demanding
rights for themselves, which is a very important aspect of the party.
This
differentiates us from the nineteenth century Liberals who were working
for the less fortunate not themselves. The party's origins always
included
relatively comfortably off people trying to get better conditions for
working
classes, the Fabians for example, there part was, and still is vital.
For
that reason, it is vital that the party continues to be a movement of,
for want of a better word, the working classes, but not solely. It also
follows that, without direction and vision from the grassroots, the
labour
party may take the roll of managing the country for the rulers, in the
same ways as the tory's do. The tory party sees itself as managers
using
our token democracy to, as I said before, run the country for their
superiors.
They are either the old ruling class, big money or the americans, and
occasionally
the people if there is enough popular demand to say keep the N.H.S. In
copying the tory way the labour party will show that there is no other
way of governing than by the old tried and trusted arrogant ways we
have
always known. The rulers are still in control using their old methods
to
set the agenda. Many people don't vote because they don't see the
point,
they may say that all political party's are the same. They are right if
you view the political party's as alternative managers for the rulers,
or they don't feel they are part of the movement or party, I can see
positive
changes in this respect. I think people must be enthused to demand more
open government, the demanding being the change of attitude by people
required,
but how do you enthuse people to believe they can demand, and expect
change.
This must be what socialism is about. Ordinary citizens should feel
that
they are part of society, contributing by work or other ways, and take
part in the decision making that effects their life. As opposed to the
tory view that is; you must be money centred, a very bad import from
the
U.S., must respect your superiors, and do what they tell you, the Willy
Whitelaw "nanny syndrome". Thinking for your self, and doing because it
is right is unnatural, and should be treated like all forms of
nonconformism
that is squashed. What Can Be Done? I would like the labour party to
promote
the teaching of how to communicate your concerns (peace studies) and
applying
that to making government open, with the understanding of the reasons
for
wanting it so. This can be done by the teaching of conduct of meetings
in schools, and to adults. The party does this a bit already, but not
well
enough because the reason for conducting meetings properly within the
party
has been forgotten to some extent. People need to be equipped with the
basic skills needed to make open government work. They could then use
these
powers to call or participate in public meetings with the powers to
overturn
the decisions Decision Makers make. This is what happens in the United
States, (the choice is that or to keep our present system where
sensible
lords making sure not to many bad things become law). This will mean
that
elected members also must be better equipped to cope with this degree
of
public scrutiny, that I expect, would happen simultaneously. Many
mistakes
will be made learning how to use power and responsibility this must be
stated so that the mistakes don't become reasons not to proceed, in
other
words warn against division. People in power must accept that they are
the servants of the people who elected them, people will check, and if
necessary overturn the decision maker's decisions. In effect we would
all
be joining the ruling classes there being no other class. Divided and
Ruled
The peace movement had some success, although we have more and far
better
nuclear weapons now than we had in 1979/1980. It would be far from
alright
to show General Dynamics promotional film of cruise missiles flying
between
the mountains as we saw on TV in 1980. Or arguing that the policy of
first
strike, destroying all the enemy bombs before a war has started, is
alright,
and that is not just because the big enemy has gone. The pressures from
outside the peace movement to divide and rule did not work at all. This
was because people involved in the 1960s had learned that the peace
movement
became divided on what was or was not acceptable for the peace movement
to do, that finished the movement then. This time round nothing was
unacceptable,
from Greenham Common Women and Non Violent Direct Action to M.P
lobbying
by conventional means, off cause we had nothing to do with the National
Front who were also antinuclear. The tory infiltration that occurred,
was
dealt with and stopped, because of good communication within the peace
movement this meant that when lies were fed in, they were very quickly
corrected. The corrective action was taken at grassroots level, not
imposed
from the top. As an opposition party, we are very caught up in
division,
the divide and rule, I mentioned in my opening. I'm not saying we are
the
most divisive, but for all the labour councillor/governor/M.P skills in
operating effectively where decision making occurs. The tory's laugh at
us that is the green, lib dem, and labour party because all the time we
squabble, they have power. Perhaps we should stop it? To Recap An
interesting
quotation from the book 'A Short Illustrated History of the United
States'
by James Munves: "In freeing themselves from british rule, america did
not win liberty. Liberty is not a prize, it is a condition of life the
condition of being able to choose how one will live and of being
responsible
for the consequences." [Page 28 first column] I would not say that the
american model, the french, swedish, any communist, our own, or any
other
model is the best we have to develop our own, we can pick the good bits
from other examples as well. We have to inspire the demand for a
different
outlook that would be revolutionary for this country. A cultural change
that cannot be given as a prize such as a British Bill of Rights, a
Constitution,
or proportional representation of any variety, these are not the
solutions.
But the condition of life demanded by everyone is that everyone has a
right
to say what they think, and expect what they say to count. The things I
mentioned a Constitution etc, we need anyway, and promising them can be
a part of enthusing people who are demanding them. They need to be
demanded
as rights not given as a token. In the same way we should not be
demanding
jobs for all, but should be demanding a useful purpose for all. We can
right now take a part in decision making process as a party by
submitting
our opinions to various public enquiries, local, and kent county
council
consultative documents. In other words using, and developing what
powers
we already have to their full potential. Our meetings should aim to
have
purpose, not be the purpose or an obligation, and should be enjoyable,
they do not always have to transact business. When they do transact
business
it should also be an exercise in running a meeting properly, and the
business
should be of interest, not the petty day-to-day running that some
groups
bring to meetings. Conclusion You have heard of sick building syndrome,
we have sick country syndrome it has always been so its not just
Thatcherism.
Whatever you chose to protest against, if you can be bothered, such as
stop roads being built through natural country side, Band the Bomb, or
whatever else, the establishment will never let you win. The one
exception
was the repeal of poll tax. The Tories claim to be the party of low
taxation,
they would say it was politically important that ordinary people won
the
battle for lower taxes. Their purpose was to ensure that the argument
that
flat rate taxes are unfair, was largely replaced by there own.
Therefore
reenforcing the lesson that, there is no point in resisting you will
never
win, and you won't capture much public support anyway. The repeal of
Poll
tax was a token victory (an exception that proves the rule). The
changes
I would like to see can only occur if we are confident that we can
change
things for the better, and more, we should assume these rights as if we
always had them. They are available if you can confidently express
yourself
anyway. We should have respect for knowledge, experience, expertise,
enthusiasm,
but should question authority, and imposed solutions. I will stop at
this
point and ask how do you change people?
__________________________________________________
My answer to the question is: Change yourself.
Andrew Lohmann 03-02-95
Last changed 02-07-01, 06-01-04