Taming corporate power: the key political issue of our age

[Neo]

George Monbiot
The Guardian. Dec 8 2014

Big business and its lobbyists have taken control of our politics. But there is an alternative. In the first of a new series, here’s how we can take on the fat cats


Illustration by Nicola Jennings

Does this sometimes feel like a country under enemy occupation? Do you wonder why the demands of so much of the electorate seldom translate into policy? Why parties of the left seem incapable of offering effective opposition to market fundamentalism, let alone proposing coherent alternatives? Do you wonder why those who want a kind and decent and just world, in which both human beings and other living creatures are protected, so often appear to be opposed by the entire political establishment?

If so, you have encountered corporate power – the corrupting influence that prevents parties from connecting with the public, distorts spending and tax decisions, and limits the scope of democracy. It helps explain the otherwise inexplicable: the creeping privatisation of health and education, hated by the vast majority of voters; the private finance initiative, which has left public services with unpayable debts; the replacement of the civil service with companies distinguished only by incompetence; the failure to re-regulate the banks and collect tax; the war on the natural world; the scrapping of the safeguards that protect us from exploitation; above all, the severe limitation of political choice in a nation crying out for alternatives.

There are many ways in which it operates, but perhaps the most obvious is through our unreformed political funding system, which permits big business and multimillionaires in effect to buy political parties. Once a party is obliged to them, it needs little reminder of where its interests lie. Fear and favour rule.

And if they fail? Well, there are other means. Before the last election, a radical firebrand said this about the lobbying industry: “It is the next big scandal waiting to happen ... an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money ... secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics.” That, of course, was David Cameron, and he’s since ensured that the scandal continues. His Lobbying Act restricts the activities of charities and trade unions but imposes no meaningful restraint on corporations.

Ministers and civil servants know that if they keep faith with corporations in office they will be assured of lucrative directorships in retirement. As head of HMRC, the UK government’s tax-collection agency, Dave Hartnett oversaw some highly controversial deals with companies such as Vodafone and Goldman Sachs, apparently excusing them from much of the tax they seemed to owe. He now works for Deloitte, which advises companies such as Vodafone on their tax affairs. As head of HMRC he met one Deloitte partner 48 times.

Corporations have also been empowered by the globalisation of decision-making. As powers, but not representation, shift to the global level, multinational business and its lobbyists fill the political gap. When everything has been globalised except our consent, we are vulnerable to decisions made outside the democratic sphere.

The key political question of our age, by which you can judge the intent of all political parties, is what to do about corporate power. This is the question, perennially neglected within both politics and the media, that this week’s series of articles will attempt to address. I think there are some obvious first steps.

A sound political funding system would be based on membership fees. Each party would be able to charge the same fixed fee for annual membership (perhaps £30 or £50). It would receive matching funding from the state as a multiple of its membership receipts. No other sources of income would be permitted. As well as getting the dirty money out of politics, this would force political parties to reconnect with the people, to raise their membership. It will cost less than the money wasted on corporate welfare every day.

All lobbying should be transparent. Any meeting between those who are paid to influence opinion (this could include political commentators like me) and ministers, advisers or civil servants should be recorded, and the transcript made publicly available.

The corporate lobby groups that pose as thinktanks should be obliged to reveal who funds them before appearing on the broadcast media; and if the identity of one of their funders is relevant to the issue they are discussing, it should be mentioned on air.

Any company supplying public services would be subject to freedom of information laws (with an exception for matters deemed commercially confidential by the information commissioner). Gagging contracts would be made illegal, in the private as well as the public sector (with the same exemption for commercial confidentiality). Ministers and top officials should be forbidden from taking jobs in the sectors they were charged with regulating.

But we should also think of digging deeper. Is it not time we reviewed the remarkable gift we have granted to companies in the form of limited liability? It socialises the risks that would otherwise be carried by a company’s owners and directors, exempting them from the costs of the debts they incur or the disasters they cause, and encouraging them to engage in the kind of reckless behaviour that caused the financial crisis. Should the wealthy authors of the crisis, such as RBS chief Fred Goodwin or Northern Rock’s Matt Ridley, not have incurred a financial penalty of their own?

We should look at how we might democratise the undemocratic institutions of global governance, as I suggested in my book The Age of Consent. This could involve dismantling the World
Bank and the IMF, which are governed without a semblance of democracy, and cause more crises than they solve, and replacing them with a body rather like the international clearing union designed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1940s – whose purpose was to prevent excessive trade surpluses and deficits from forming, and therefore international debt from accumulating.

Instead of treaties brokered in opaque meetings (of the kind now working towards a transatlantic trade and investment partnership) between diplomats and transnational capital – which threaten democracy, the sovereignty of parliaments and the principle of equality before the law – we should demand a set of global fair trade rules. Multinational companies should lose their licence to trade if they break them.

Above all, perhaps, we need a directly elected world parliament, whose purpose would be to hold other global bodies to account. In other words, instead of only responding to an agenda set by corporations, we must propose an agenda of our own.

This is not only about politicians, it is also about us. Corporate power has shut down our imagination, persuading us that there is no alternative to market fundamentalism, and that “market” is a reasonable description of a state-endorsed corporate oligarchy.

[Neo]

Aditya Chakrabortty

The fashionable thing to say is that in a globalised economy states can’t keep up with businesses. That is to get the relationship the wrong way round. The reality is that states often give businesses their revenues and so their power. More than that: markets are created by states, who provide the infrastructure, the transports and the rule of law.

So let’s start asking businesses what they’ve done for us recently. If the state is going to subsidise the rail industry (and we will, until it’s eventually renationalised), ministers should insist not just on an intermittently punctual train service and a token contribution to the Treasury, but also better pay and conditions for staff, decent training, and a commitment to sourcing equipment in Britain.

This is what the Centre for Research in Socio-Cultural Change terms “social licensing” in its latest book, The End of the Experiment. The academics’ suggestions have been followed by one council in north London, Enfield. Officers and researchers sat down and worked out how much money its 300,000 residents sent the way of big businesses: 11 Tesco stores, for instance, provided the PLC with around £8m of its annual profit. And what did the area get back? Not very much, but the highlight included a community toilet scheme and some charitable giving from the supermarket’s corporate social responsibility department.

And so the council has started asking big businesses, such as utility firms, what they had done for Enfield recently. They’ve begun hassling banks to lend more to local businesses, the likes of British Gas to give more of their local work to local contractors with local staff – or run the risk of being named and shamed in the local press. It may sound small, but imagine if the same approach were taken by Holyrood or Cardiff – or by Westminster.

[MrG]

A very clear, plainspoken case against the corporate running aka corruption of American politics--7 minutes not usually seen on the Senate floor.

[Neo]

Considering that there could be an alternative to corporate capitalism used to be the reserve of tree huggers and underachievers. But the opinion of an alternative minority has become a prescient idea in this era of austerity. The power of individual corporations is now greater than the power of many individual states. The power of the net of corporations manifests itself as the focus and governing factor of our lives.

After 6 years of austerity for populations and social security for the corporations, during which the corporations have a firmer grip on power, when greater restrictions should have been put in place, it is now apparent that the foreboding of the alternative minority is well founded and life under a corporate feudalism is the reality for the majority of people.

[Neo]

This is the sort of thinking that the Right would jump all over, telling us that without the unfettered free market economy we would all be enslaved to a grey, totalitarian system without freedom or happiness. I think the shiny things have become less of a gift and more of a burden to them also.

[thaimeme]

Considering that there could be an alternative to corporate capitalism used to be the reserve of tree huggers and underachievers. But the opinion of an alternative minority has become a prescient idea in this era of austerity. The power of individual corporations is now greater than the power of many individual states. The power of the net of corporations manifests itself as the focus and governing factor of our lives.

After 6 years of austerity for populations and social security for the corporations, during which the corporations have a firmer grip on power, when greater restrictions should have been put in place, it is now apparent that the foreboding of the alternative minority is well founded and life under a corporate feudalism is the reality for the majority of people.

This is referred to as Corporatism - a binding fusion of state/corporations, usually under the guise of another political/economic infrastructure. An Oligarchical body that firmly emboldens such plutocracy circles - [again] that promotes itself as something else.

Today, it has become the overwhelming standard for most countries and their dumbed down populations worldwide. Twisted control and suppression.

Only the few benefit, creating a struggle and fancy amongst the commons.
It exist because that's the way we've become comfortable and conditioned so.

[buriramboy]

But the trouble is first forming a political party then getting people to vote for change to break the current stranglehold the main parties have, everyone knows the current system is broke for the majority but all people want to do is moan and whine about it rather than do something meaningful. UKIP like or hate them and ignoring their policies for the purpose of this thread have shown that the public want change from the old guard and it is possible to get a decent % of the public behind you in a relatively short period of time, more people/parties need to follow their lead be they on the so called left, right or centre as change isn't going to happen by people just sitting on their backsides. The current system only works for 5% of the population yet the majority of the 95% who the system doesn't work for will still vote for the parties that screw them.

[thaimeme]

But the trouble is first forming a political party then getting people to vote for change to break the current stranglehold the main parties have, everyone knows the current system is broke for the majority but all people want to do is moan and whine about it rather than do something meaningful. UKIP like or hate them and ignoring their policies for the purpose of this thread have shown that the public want change from the old guard and it is possible to get a decent % of the public behind you in a relatively short period of time, more people/parties need to follow their lead be they on the so called left, right or centre as change isn't going to happen by people just sitting on their backsides. The current system only works for 5% of the population yet the majority of the 95% who the system doesn't work for will still vote for the parties that screw them.

Or throw a Gandhi at them...
Don't participate - don't do business with them.

Live one's protest.

[buriramboy]

But the trouble is first forming a political party then getting people to vote for change to break the current stranglehold the main parties have, everyone knows the current system is broke for the majority but all people want to do is moan and whine about it rather than do something meaningful. UKIP like or hate them and ignoring their policies for the purpose of this thread have shown that the public want change from the old guard and it is possible to get a decent % of the public behind you in a relatively short period of time, more people/parties need to follow their lead be they on the so called left, right or centre as change isn't going to happen by people just sitting on their backsides. The current system only works for 5% of the population yet the majority of the 95% who the system doesn't work for will still vote for the parties that screw them.

Or throw a Gandhi at them...
Don't participate - don't do business with them.

Live one's protest.

If we're talking about somewhere like the UK it's not practical or feasible to not do business with them as most people live in towns and cities and therefor growing your own food and rearing animals is a non starter and you need gas, electricity and water etc. and we haven't even mentioned banks yet.....

[thaimeme]

But the trouble is first forming a political party then getting people to vote for change to break the current stranglehold the main parties have, everyone knows the current system is broke for the majority but all people want to do is moan and whine about it rather than do something meaningful. UKIP like or hate them and ignoring their policies for the purpose of this thread have shown that the public want change from the old guard and it is possible to get a decent % of the public behind you in a relatively short period of time, more people/parties need to follow their lead be they on the so called left, right or centre as change isn't going to happen by people just sitting on their backsides. The current system only works for 5% of the population yet the majority of the 95% who the system doesn't work for will still vote for the parties that screw them.

Or throw a Gandhi at them...
Don't participate - don't do business with them.

Live one's protest.

If we're talking about somewhere like the UK it's not practical or feasible to not do business with them as most people live in towns and cities and therefor growing your own food and rearing animals is a non starter and you need gas, electricity and water etc. and we haven't even mentioned banks yet.....

Well.....so much for independence, self-sufficiency, and freedom.
The same fuzzy ideals that some Western democracies promote and are indoctrinated with, yet doesn't truly exist.

Faux cultures pretending to be something they're not.

[Neo]

What can be done locally is that corporations are made accountable to the area they operate in, that a larger percentage of the money or resources they harvest through a store, a utility company or service is recirculated or invested back into that local economy.

It's not pie in the sky and it doesn't need an election to make such changes.
Local councils are bearing the brunt of the corporate free ride in their communities at a time when they are expected to make cuts to essential services.

If the government won't reign in the lack of accountability and responsibility of the corporations, then it's up to local level politics to demand that they put a greater deal back into society than they currently do.

[Neo]

Don't participate - don't do business with them.

If we're talking about somewhere like the UK it's not practical or feasible to not do business with them

It's part of the myth of the free market, the fear that if the corporations don't provide for us then we have less choice, less quality and less convenience.

There are many areas within towns and cities in the UK that are considered 'food deserts', what that means is that the area is served by a single chain market, Tesco, Co-Op etc, that has driven out other competition, but offers only the products that it carries. There is no variety, no diversity and no creativity. They are not always good value for money and it's not always a better product either.

[buriramboy]

What can be done locally is that corporations are made accountable to the area they operate in, that a larger percentage of the money or resources they harvest through a store, a utility company or service is recirculated or invested back into that local economy.

It's not pie in the sky and it doesn't need an election to make such changes.
Local councils are bearing the brunt of the corporate free ride in their communities at a time when they are expected to make cuts to essential services.

If the government won't reign in the lack of accountability and responsibility of the corporations, then it's up to local level politics to demand that they put a greater deal back into society than they currently do.

Local councils are their own worst enemy as they've made it near on impossible for small and independent businesses to survive, people who actually live in the communities and would spend their money/profits there. The supermarkets come along say they will create a 100 new minimum wage jobs and give some kickbacks in whatever form, the council bites there hand off not thinking about the death sentence they've just given to x amount of local businesses and the knock on effects that has as the local butcher and greengrocer would have sourced his produce locally where as the supermarkets buy in bulk from where ever.

Local councils are always going to be fuked though when comes to providing services, comes with having an aging population where the majority don't have the means to take care of themselves and it's only going to get worse whoever has the keys to power. If people think the last 5 years of austerity have been bad they are in for a real shock when ever someone has the balls to take the real hard decisions that will have to be made one day.

[Neo]

Saturday 13 December 2014

David Cameron has been accused of an unjustifiable bid to “buy the general election” as it emerged that ministers have quietly slipped through an unprecedented hike in the amount that parties can spend during the campaign.

Before this week’s official start to the runup to the 2015 general election, the Observer can reveal that the Conservatives have ignored Electoral Commission recommendations and secured a 23% increase in spending. With the Tories having amassed a £78m war chest over the past four years, they can now funnel huge amounts of cash into key seats.

The change to the law on candidates’ election spending, passed without parliamentary debate, was made despite a direct warning by the commission against such “excessive spending to prevent the perception of undue influence over the outcome of the election”.

[buriramboy]

Saturday 13 December 2014

David Cameron has been accused of an unjustifiable bid to “buy the general election” as it emerged that ministers have quietly slipped through an unprecedented hike in the amount that parties can spend during the campaign.

Before this week’s official start to the runup to the 2015 general election, the Observer can reveal that the Conservatives have ignored Electoral Commission recommendations and secured a 23% increase in spending. With the Tories having amassed a £78m war chest over the past four years, they can now funnel huge amounts of cash into key seats.

The change to the law on candidates’ election spending, passed without parliamentary debate, was made despite a direct warning by the commission against such “excessive spending to prevent the perception of undue influence over the outcome of the election”.

Does sound like Dave 'we're all in this together' Cameron is getting a bit desperate.

[zygote1]

Lost in the discussion is that the general public sets the agenda for those corporations. Investors own the shares of those corporations and demand high returns on their investments, Failure to comply results in terminations of executives or shareholder activism, such as class action litigation.

Shareholders today are represented by some of the largest pension funds owned and controlled by unions, governments, mutual funds and individual investors. Ask the retired teacher, or autoworker, if he or she believes in ethical investments and the answer is yes. Then ask that person if he/she would accept a 25-50% reduction in their pension fund if such an investment policy was carried out and the answer is no. Some of the sovereign pension funds would collapse immediately, if they were not receiving the returns they receive, and in order to remain solvent would oblige governments to increase pension fund contributions significantly and/or slash payouts. We are in a death spiral. The national and government employee pensions have a defined benefit and that means in today's low interest rate environment , the pensions have to get as much investment income as they can.
The Chinese , Russian and Arab Gulf investment funds control billions of $/Euros and such things as ethics are not a concern to them either.

In plain language, we are to blame, not the corporations, and we are ultimately responsible because we all want big returns. Greedy people set the conditions for those corporations.

[MrG]

In plain language, we are to blame, not the corporations, and we are ultimately responsible because we all want big returns. Greedy people set the conditions for those corporations.

Good point, but profits for pension funds are not the issue; control of the government and fiscal policy is. It is not the greedy populace or pension funds that should be blamed for wanting a fair share of the wealth, some of it made possible for the taxes that go into subsidizing the corporations with infrastructure--roads, etc.--that make their wealth possible. Look who controls the bilions that the corporations hold in their accounts overseas so they don't pay taxes. It's not the school teachers and "greedy pension fund holders" dragging the country down. It's the multinationals that have no allegiance to any nation and aren't afraid to strut it for all of us to envy.

[Neo]

Lost in the discussion is that the general public sets the agenda for those corporations. Investors own the shares of those corporations and demand high returns on their investments, Failure to comply results in terminations of executives or shareholder activism, such as class action litigation.

Rather disingenuous as the 'general public' that you speak of are neither general or public. The large majority of shares are owned by the affluent few percent and by other institutions. There is also a very singular perspective to your post,which is an inherent part of free market ethos, that the performance of a company should only be judged by it's financial worth.

[sabang]

In plain language, we are to blame, not the corporations,

In plain language, no we are not. Whilst I berate fellow citizens for their apathy, I might also rmind you that corporate entities are a part of our society too, with all the rights and obligations that entails.

As Warren Buffet pointed out, he pay less tax than his secretary. How is that fair?

[pseudolus]

Lost in the discussion is that the general public sets the agenda for those corporations.

Can not agree with this as the "general public" as a whole has very little control, say, influence from the agenda these corporations set by lobbying (bribing) governments. The largest by number demographic are those being squeezed and enslaved by big business; they have no choice especially as the bankers keeping inflation going through the roof with all the fame money they create on a daily basis.

The MO to keep the "general public" naive and ignorant to the activities, to make them love the big brands rather than be repulsed by them, is the biggest snake oil salesmen trick of the 400 years.

[longway]

I've mentioned this before, a viable 'None of the Above' option on ballots has the potential to break the stranglehold in the UK at the very least.

The brilliance is in how a NOTA 'win' is handled (NOTA 'wins' when more than 50% of voters choose it).

You allow the 2nd placed candidate to take office for a defined period of not more than 12 months, before the re-run is held again.

This gives the NOTA option huge power as there is plenty of time for stakeholders to understand why NOTA won and develop an appropriate response from it happening again, and it makes voters very comfortable in choosing NOTA when they don't feel represented as the is a robust system that deals with that choice in place. It maintains political stability, avoids voter fatigue and politicians will have nowhere to hide.

Its not just pie in the sky, NOTA UK, have been instrumental in persuading a parliamentary select committee to consider it as part of a package of voter reform.

More info here: www.notauk.org

At the very least check out the video(s):

[Bettyboo]

Its not just pie in the sky, NOTA UK, have been instrumental in persuading a parliamentary select committee to consider it as part of a package of voter reform.

& would that work in Thailand too?

[thaimeme]

Is the corporation a person??

[longway]

^ Jade Donavanik one of the drafters of the new constitution said he wants to expand the power of the 'no vote'. He 'gets' it.

'Key to new charter is a strong informed citizenry' - The Nation

There is also a possible legal angle to pursue with any country that has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as has the UK and Thailand

Here's the outline of the case in from the draft of a blog I am trying to get published at 'Democracy Audit'

A NOTA with formalised consequences is a democratic prerequisite. It is possible that it may also be a legal requisite for any country that has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as has the UK.

To concentrate on Article 25 (b)
To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(bold my own)
In any dictionary the relevant definition of will is: expressing desire, consent, or willingness
Any of the above is impossible without a ‘None of the Above’ option; NOTA is required for free expression of the will of the electors. It is difficult to see any way around it.
How can the free expression of the will of the electors be guaranteed unless their consent has been sought and subsequently given or withheld? It seems ludicrous to even conceive of it.

as to the chance of getting a viable NOTA option in Thailand

[Bettyboo]

^ much doublespeak there, mate (not you, him...).

The politicians, the people, the businesses, none of them are to blame, per se - it's the powerful patronage systems that are above the law. Each country has their own set of mafias who have gotten themselves into those positions, often over many generations, so in Britain the old-school bankers and land owners have had the power to raise themselves above the law and political systems, to dictate politics. Recently massively wealthy oil and pharma companies have joined the corrupt bankers in owning the politicians. Foreign states, such as Israel in the UK, also have massive investment and power in political systems through lobbying, jobs after political careers have ended, moving between government and big business to draft business legislation, etc, it's just cronyism... In America it is rife, In Britain it is rife and in Thailand it is rife.

People do also need to be involved at local grass routes politics as a safety mechanism against centralization and federalization where the combined and distanced (from the people, from visibility...) grouping of power has nothing to do with democracy or efficiency and everything to do with corruption and cronyism. Of course, the crony capitalists and head of patronage networks want to turn people off of politics, into reality tv, closing down local political channels, eliminating transparency, claiming a higher order, a higher 'good', whether this is in the guise of protecting the people against 'terrorism' or insane nationalism with a higher colour...