Home » Posts tagged 'Shibley Rahman blog' (Page 4)
Tag Archives: Shibley Rahman blog
Results of the "Second Life" survey
A common strand underlies much of what we do: the law, legal education and legal services. That is in real life. These days, technological developments are also driving fundamental changes in customer behaviour and expectations. This creates exciting opportunities for businesses that use such communications. It especially throws up the challenge of finding better ways of engaging with customers. Law schools and professional legal services firms are themselves businesses, are keen to position themselves in the market using such innovative advantages. This article is about the world of “SL” (SL), one very important contemporary example.
The LegalIncite “SL” Survey 2011
To get an overview of current attitudes to SL, a survey was advertised on the BPP VLE Blackboard (“the Survey”), Twitter and Facebook. There were 20 respondents in total; this article will refer to main findings from this small study where relevant. There was an even spread of ages from 16 to 63. 95% of these said they enjoy using computers, and 85% said they are good at using computers. However, only 26% said they would wish to join SL currently.
History
SL is an online virtual world developed by Linden Lab, which was launched on June 23, 2003. SL users, called Residents, interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore the world (known as “the grid”), meet other residents, socialise, participate in individual and group activities, and even create and trade virtual property and services with one another. Since opening in 2003, “SL” has experienced strong growth. Now some 1.3 million people around the world log on to live out their second lives.
The economy
SL has an internal economy and internal currency, the Linden dollar (L$). L$ can be used to buy, sell, rent or trade land or goods and services with other users. Virtual goods include buildings, vehicles, devices of all kinds, animations, clothing, skin, hair, jewelry, flora and fauna, and works of art. Services include “camping”, wage labour, and business management. L$ can be purchased using US Dollars and other currencies on the LindeX exchange provided by Linden Lab, independent brokers or other resident users. Profits are derived from selling virtual goods, renting land, and a broad range of services. 84% in our survey said that they did not like this notion of real-life money being exchanged for L$.
Many argue that it is impossible to divorce SL from regulation. On July 26, 2007, Linden Lab announced a ban on “in-world gambling”, in fear that new regulations on Internet gambling could affect Linden Lab if it was permitted to continue. The ban was immediately met with in-world protests. 74% of respondents in our Survey felt there should be laws on gambling.
Law School
At Harvard, Charles Nesson, the Weld professor of law, is offering “CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion,” not only to Harvard Law School (HLS) students, but also to Extension School students as well as Internet users across the globe. Nesson drummed up interest in his ‘filled-to-capacity’ course through a YouTube promotional tape in which he describes its content after a dramatic entrance on a scooter. The tape is mostly narrated by his avatar, a significantly younger-looking SL persona. His daughter, Rebecca N. Nesson , a Harvard Law School graduate and Harvard computer science doctoral candidate who is co-teaching the course, also makes an appearance in the promo, saying, “in SL, the possibilities of what we can do are endless” as she, in fact, transforms into a butterfly.
Legal services
Across the pond, Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW), which has a substantial media, technology and intellectual property service, has become the first major, international law firm in England to open an office in a virtual world. David Naylor is the FFW partner behind the initiative, and apparently found much support from FFW in investing in this project given its existing client-base; his avatar is “Solomon Cortes”.
The two-storey virtual office boasts the same meeting rooms, corporate art collection and giant presentation screens that can be found at any self-respecting City firm. It even includes a roof terrace with a water feature. Multi-national businesses such as Dell, Nike, Mercedes and Calvin Klein have sought to establish their brands in SL and David hopes that having a virtual presence will help attract them as clients in the “real world”.
Various corporates have already expanded their branding to virtual environments too. Nike has a virtual clothing store, and car manufacturers such as Nissan, Pontiac and Toyota have entered SL. There are even businesses that specialize in launching and integrating real-world brands into the virtual world
SL is not yet sufficiently developed for a debate to have taken place over which, if any, legal jurisdiction applies. However, David insists that, with real business being carried out and real money changing hands albeit in SL’s own virtual currency, companies operating there need legal advice. So far the list of businesses operating in the virtual world is not limited to standard retailers with a tangible product to sell. Professional advisers such as ABN Amro, Accenture and PA Consulting have already established a presence and rumours are circulating that several accountancy firms are planning similar moves.
In addition to attracting new clients and winning publicity for the firm, David believes his new office can be used to help existing clients and staff by hosting virtual seminars, conferences and training days. It will also be a useful recruitment tool in the increasingly competitive market for young legal talent. Like real life, there is a close relationship emerging between legal education and professional legal services.
The Law
An impressive 79% in our Survey felt that SL needed some sort of regulation, but a smaller proportion (63%) believed there should be a ‘comprehensive set of laws’.
It is estimated that each day in excess of $1 million USD worth of transactions take place in SL. Therefore, it is no surprise that the virtual economy of SL has resulted in trademark and copyright infringement lawsuits being brought in U.S. courts. In a lawsuit filed on October 24, 2007 in the Eastern District of New York, a group of virtual merchants selling virtual products in SL sued Thomas Simon. The virtual merchant appellants claimed that Simon willfully made unauthorised copies of their copyright and trademark protected products, and Simon misrepresented that the products he sells are authentic ones. The appellants sold adult-themed virtual items, including furniture, shoes, and skins to cover the avatars. The complaint included claims of unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act, and counterfeiting of a registered trademark. This case settled in December 2007.
Bragg v Linden Labs (2007)
Indeed, real life can meet the virtual world of SL. In 2006, Pennsylvania lawyer Marc Bragg (“Marc Woebegone” in SL) brought a lawsuit against Linden Lab, when his account was unilaterally disabled by SL administrators. Linden Lab claimed that Marc Bragg had violated their Terns of Service by URL-hacking the SL virtual land auction website in order to gain access to otherwise unavailable auctions. As a result, Bragg was able to purchase virtual land within SL valued at $1,000 for approximately $300. Bragg’s account was suspended while Linden Lab conducted an investigation, and later closed completely. Bragg argued that by closing his account, Linden Lab also dissolved his virtual assets, which he valued at between US$4,000 and US$6,000.
This case was particularly interesting as the Court held an arbitration clause within Linden Lab’s Terms of Service – a web-based ‘clickwrap’ agreement – to be invalid. The clause was held to be unconscionable as there was no room for negotiation, the clause was inconspicuously printed, and since no other virtual world offered ownership rights, Bragg was deemed to have no alternative market choice. Additionally, the arbitration procedure was deemed too expensive to offer Bragg any realistic recourse for disputing Linden Lab’s actions. However, overall, ss proceedings continued to advance, perhaps the most interesting aspect of this case to date has been the Court’s willingness to engage with the concept of virtual property rights.
Conclusion
In less than a decade, a virtual world has evolved at a staggeringly fast rate. In this time, businesses for products and services have evolved, but so also has the scope for problems. Like real life, the law has developed to try to solve these problems, and it may be getting to the stage now where it can begin to anticipate new problems. It remains to be seen whether a set of comprehensive laws will develops, and what jurisdiction these laws will have, or whether the law will progress on a case-by-case basis as a judge-made law. Whatever the exact mode of evolution, innovative and talented lawyers will be especially keen to follow the progress of SL, in its effect on the law, legal education and legal services.
Second Life Survey
“Second Life” is a virtual world, where you can buy virtual property with virtual money, and indulge in virtual activities, but there’s an increasingly a law surrounding “Second Life”.
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading questionnaire tool.
Mixed messages from Theresa May and the Riot (Damages) Act
Both Theresa May and Yvette Cooper referred to the events of Saturday as “violence”, but this also appeared to encompass the separable offences of assault and battery (offences against the person), aggravated trespass against land (where intention to produce a commotion must be proved), and criminal damage. The issue for the Home Secretary is how to allow the judiciary to punish and deter unlawful and illegal behaviour, and possibly to cause the legislature to enact new measures to deal with these new times of civil unrest at specific focal points.
The discussion led by May and Cooper was wide-ranging, and there was a very interesting aside which the Home Secretary said very quickly in passing. She referred to the Riot (Damages) Act 1896. However, according to a previous BBC article, it’s possible to use the Act the other way, such as Fortnum and Mason could in theory use the Act to recover money themselves for any damages from Saturday. For example, in reference to a previous claim, the BBC wrote,
“The claim is being made under the 1886 Riot Damages Act, which allows companies and individuals to sue the police over damage caused during civil disturbances.”
The issues about the said Act have never been properly resolved. Police authorities in 2002 had been trying to get the government to repeal the section of the 1886 act after disturbances in the north of England last summer. Bedfordshire Police Authority at that time resisted an attempt to make it pay £38m for the damage caused in the fire at the Yarl’s Wood immigration centre, arguing the bill is archaic and can no longer be justified. The original act was designed to charge the local police for failing to prevent people behaving in a “riotous or tumultuous” manner. It was also invoked after riots in Moss Side, Toxteth, London and Bristol in 1981.
The original Riot Act 1714, punishable ultimately by the death penalty, fell into misuse, and was in time superseded by the Public Order Act. It might seem odd that Theresa May is contemplating the enforcement of the Riot (Damages) Act 1896, in reference to the weekend’s events, two days’ ago. I suppose it would be possible in that it has never been repealed, and is in fairness younger than the Offences against the Person Act 1861 which governs assault and battery.
I don’t understand why Theresa May should wish to invoke the Damages Act? Lawyers are very keen at looking behind the purpose of any statutes enacted. The point about this statute is to charge the police for failing to prevent riots. However, Theresa May was (rightly) giving the impression that she fully supported the Metropolitan Police in upholding English justice in difficult circumstances.
The discussion is on the BBC iPlayer. “House of Commons” on the BBC iPlayer.
A brief (unreviewed) history of the Riot Act is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
It's hurting but it isn't working – Ed Miliband's brilliant response
Ed Miliband’s speech was brilliant with this incredible ad lib:
“George Osborne at the weekend aspired to be a mix of Nigel Lawson and Michael Heseltine, with typical Conservative hubris. He’s more like Norman Lamont with an iPod playing ‘Je Ne Regrette Rien'”.
Remember this?
Well, this is the text of today’s response by the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing his UK budget for 2011.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chancellor spoke for nearly an hour.
But one fact says it all.
Growth down last year, this year and next year.
It is the same old Tories.
It’s hurting but it isn’t working.
What did he say last year about growth?
Judge me on the figures.
Well judge him we will.
Every time he comes to this House, growth is downgraded.
Last June, 2011 growth down from 2.6% to 2.3%.
In November, down again.
In January what did the Prime Minister say?
His three priorities for this year were growth, growth, growth.
And what happened?
Growth is down, down, down.
And taking account of all the measures.
What is the Chancellor’s singular achievement?
To deliver a budget for growth that downgrades the growth forecasts.
Down this year to 1.7%.
Downgraded next year too.
It didn’t happen by chance.
It happened by choice.
His choice.
And it’s the wrong choice.
To go too far and too fast.
There was another way.
In his own words from the June Budget – he chose to go £40bn further and faster in tax rises and spending cuts than our plan to halve the deficit over four years.
It’s the pace of cuts that has seen consumer confidence fall in almost every month since the General Election.
In his first Budget the Chancellor promised:
“steady and sustained economic recovery”.
And when last September’s growth figures came out, the Chancellor took the credit.
He called the figures “a vote of confidence” in the Government’s economic policy.
But when the economy contracted in the fourth quarter, what did he do?
He blamed the snow.
Mr Deputy Speaker, even he must appreciate the irony.
Because while the Prime Minister was grounded from his Christmas trip to Thailand, the Chancellor was on the piste in Klosters.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I guess it was the right type of snow for a skiing holiday.
Just the wrong kind of snow for our economy.
But what is it about the British snow?
They had worse snow in Germany…
…a big freeze in France…
… in the US – the worst blizzards for decades.
But despite all of that their economies grew in the fourth quarter.
And while our growth forecasts have worsened, theirs have improved.
The German economy is forecast to grow more strongly than it was last year.
So is the US.
Growth in the world economy has been revised up.
But which is the ma jor country downgrading its growth forecasts?
The United Kingdom.
It’s not the wrong type of snow that’s to blame, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It’s the wrong type of Chancellor,
…the wrong type of chancellor, in the wrong type of government
With the wrong priorities for Britain.
He also promised in June that his Budget would deliver “low inflation”
And what has happened?
Inflation has risen month after month after month.
It didn’t simply happen by accident.
It is happening because he took the wrong decision on VAT.
Same old taxes.
Same old Tories.
And he promised us falling unemployment too.
And what has happened since he gave his first Budget?
Over 60,000 more people looking for work.
And today we are told in the Red Book unemployment is forecast to rise further.
To this Tory Government, just like the ones of the past, unemployment is still a price worth paying.
And many people will wonder what world the Chancellor was describing today.
In the constituencies of over 130 Members of this House, 10 people are chasing every job.
One in five young people looking for work.
Communities seeing libraries and children centres closing.
Families seeing their living standards squeezed.
Not just this year, but year after year after year.
And what does the Government say to communities losing jobs?
Let me tell you what they recently told the people of Newport, justifying the closure of their passport office.
It said the redundancy payments of the staff being sacked would provide a “boost in trade for the local economy”.
What kind of planet are these people living on?
On growth, on inflation, on unemployment – on the promises he made, the Chancellor couldn’t bring himself to admit the truth.
That his second Budget tells the story of the failure of his first.
At this stage of the recovery growth should be powering ahead.
Unemployment should be falling fast.
And every month when unemployment is higher than it should be it stores up long-term damage.
Every month when growth is lower than it should be, it hits the future potential of our economy.
The problem is, instead of admitting it, he refuses to change course.
What did the Energy Secretary say?
If the figures change the Government “should not be lashed to the mast” of their reckless gamble.
It should be willing to change and think again.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it’s not as if they haven’t had practice at the u-turn business.
They’re becoming the past masters.
On forests, school sport, housing benefit for those looking for work, even on the vanity photographer, they have been forced to climb-down.
But on this, the issue that matters most, they are least willing to change.
At the weekend we learned something new about the Chancellor:
Apparently, his political aspiration is to be a blend of Nigel Lawson and Michael Heseltine.
Mr Deputy Speaker, another comparison springs to mind.
Because we see the same refusal to change course we saw from the Tories in the early 1980s.
The same hubris and arrogance of the early 1990s.
He’s more like the political love child of Geoffrey Howe and Norman Lamont.
Next thing we know, he’ll be ordering in the champagne and singing in the bath, je ne regrette rien.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a growth Budget.
It is not a jobs Budget.
It is a Budget for more of the same.
From a complacent, arrogant Chancellor.
In a complacent, arrogant Government.
It’s hurting but it isn’t working.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us not forget, these are not just the Chancellor’s decisions.
They are not just the Prime Minister’s decisions.
They’re the Deputy Prime Minister’s decisions too.
He is an accomplice to this Tory plan.
When it comes to the economy, the man who coined the phrase alarm clock Britain has the snooze button well and truly on.
Nobody voted for this deficit plan.
Least of all his Liberal Democrat voters who were told in promise after promise that he would never countenance it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if I can put it this way, is it any wonder no-one wants to share a platform with him.
On the measures he proposes to support growth, we will look at them.
But there is little reason to believe they will make the difference to growth we need.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has already factored in every single measure he’s just announced.
And they still produced today’s downgraded growth forecast and higher unemployment figures.
And it’s no wonder.
An enterprise zone proposal dusted off from the 1980s cannot undo the damage of a deficit plan that goes too far and too fast.
It didn’t work then, it won’t work now.
And you can’t blame people for being sceptical when the Chancellor says he’s got a new flagship policy for growth.
Because what happened to his last flagship policy for growth, at the centre of his June Budget?
Does anyone remember the national insurance holiday
He was strangely silent about it today.
In June he boasted it would help to protect the areas worst hit by his cuts.
He stood at that despatch box taking credit for the 400,000 small firms he said would benefit.
How many have actually benefitted?
Mr Deputy Speaker, he’s been strangely shy in revealing the figures but someone let slip to the Financial Times.
By mid-January it wasn’t 400,000.
It wasn’t 40,000.
It wasn’t even 4,000.
It was less than a half of one percent of the number he prom ised, just 1,500 businesses.
And his green flagship policy, the Green Investment Bank.
I think his energy Secretary had it spot on.
“Ducks quack, and banks borrow as well as lend.”
Well his green bank can’t borrow for the next 5 years.
And this policy is a lame duck.
On his incentives for small firms, we will look at the detail
But I have to say, his decision to cancel flexible working for families with children between 16 and 18 is extraordinary.
Only this Prime Minister could take the credit for championing a policy with Mumsnet, and then a few months later take the credit with small business for dumping it.
You’ve got to ask Mr Deputy Speaker – has he no shame?
The idea that families needing flexibility imperil our economic future is frankly absurd.
And tells you all you need to know about this Government’s values and how they think our economy succeeds.
Greater insecurity as t he route to greater prosperity.
Well we take a different view.
Flexible working is yet another broken promise from the broken promise Prime Minister.And while we’re on the subject what about one of the biggest broken promises of all.
Remember what he said before the election?
He, the Prime Minister, was banker basher in chief.
He was the man to deliver, and I quote, a day of reckoning for the bankers.
It’s not a day of reckoning, it’s business as usual.
Last year Labour’s bonus tax raised £3.5bn.
And this year their bank levy raises just £1.9bn.
A Tory Government cutting taxes for the banks.
Instead of doing that he should have used the money to reintroduce the Future Jobs Fund, build 25,000 homes, and boost enterprise.
They are not taking the long term steps to build the high skill, high wage economy of the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, they are failing on growth, and they are failing on living standards too.
What did the Prime Minister say before the election to families receiving tax credits?
He said that below £50,000 a year, their tax credits were safe
When Labour said otherwise, the Home Secretary said this:
“That is a lie, and it is irresponsible for Labour to be … worrying families needlessly”.
But what is the truth?
Next year, over one million families with incomes as low as £26,000 will lose all their tax credits.
They should be ashamed of their broken promises.
All part of the cost of living crisis they are imposing.
The Chancellor trumpeted the rise in the personal allowance.
But let’s look at the facts.
He came along in the June Budget and put up VAT, costing families £450 a year.
Now he’s got the nerve to expect them to be grateful when he gives them a fraction of their own money back.
Let me tell you what the Institute for Fiscal Studies told us this morning: “there is an awful lot of giving with one hand… and taking away with lots and lots of other hands.”
It’s the classic Tory con.
And what about their decision on petrol?
He’s done the same thing again.
He’s cut duty by 1 pence.
But he’s whacked up VAT on fuel by 3p.
Families won’t be fooled.
It’s Del Boy economics.
For a two earner family both on average wages, after VAT and tax credits, it’s the same as 5p up in the basic rate of income tax this year and just 1p down next.
What do the British people know from history?
Every Tory tax cut ends up costing them more.
Same old Tories.
Same old deceit.
We needed a Budget that changed the direction of economic policy.
We needed a Budget that protected the Promise of Britain that the next generation does better than the last.
We needed a Budget that changed course on cutting too far and too fast.
The Chancellor said at the weekend with his customary modesty that he had completed his rescue mission of the British economy.
After this Budget, it’s not the Chancellor who is rescuing the country.
It is the country that needs rescuing from the Chancellor.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when families look at this Budget,
Look at the squeeze on their living standards,
Look at the job losses in their communities,
They will conclude:
It’s hurting but it isn’t working.
A dismal growth plan sets today's agenda in the Budget
Today’s ‘Growth Plan’ will restrict leave for parents, more public services to be outsourced, R&D tax credits, and more enterprise zones, but it is difficult to assess whether the markets will accept this as a particularly credible growth plan.
The Sir John Vickers report on the future of the investment banks will be an useful first step in determining what to do with the regulation of the banks, which must be addressed. Ed Balls must outline the vital importance for the need for this, given that the Conservatives or the Labour Party have previously not done this. The scope for this is large, but might include comprehensive stress tests for new financial instruments.
“Judge me on the facts” is what George Osborne wants, and the facts are we have a rise in VAT, a fall in consumer confidence, massive cuts, rising unemployment, higher inflation and possibly higher interest rates.
Labour should not allow the public sector investment to be mantra for the cause of the recession. Public satisfaction in the NHS was highest ever recorded, we have lowest National debt before the world recession, and it is difficult to claim that the primary blame of the economic crisis was over-spending in the public sector.
Osborne will wish Balls to specify where he would cut, and indeed Ed can say that he would cut less, and specify precisely the areas to cut. There could be a bank bonus tax, which we could use to get the unemployed back to work, especially construction workers whose faltering output in Q4 was a contributing factor to our poor growth. Osborne can make a stop to duty rise, which Labour would have done. Furthermore, Osborne’s argument that he is unable to reverse the rise in VAT due to Europe needs scrutiny by fellow journals and expert advisors. However, the investment banks are very important for GDP in this country, and many industries are reliant on them.
The budget
I have a terrific regard for the University of Oxford and the PPE course (Politics, Philosophy and Economics).
As an educationalist, I think it is a very clever combination of three subjects taught to a hugh standard by three separate examination schools. However, as a neuroscientist, I think the subject is ahead of its time. For me, it represents whether the markets operate with free will or deterministically, and whether its expedient for governments to make decisions around such findings, inter alia. And the list of PPE graduates is a wonder to behold: Andreas Whittam-Smith, Guto Harri, Mary Ann Sieghart, Nick Cohen, Nick Robinson; and of course, Stephanie Flanders, Hugh Pym and Ed Balls. I was disappointed, but not particularly surprised, to see George Osborne not on this list.
With the ritualistic nature of the Budget, it is easy to forget that the budget for any business entity represents the pivotal focus of budgeting (as the name would imply) and forecasting. This is interesting in the context of the overall business strategy, and provides an important exercise for seeing the progress of the organisation with its economic goals. In summary, we saw inflation go up to 4.4% yesterday, GDP is going down (although hopefully it is likely we will avoid a ‘double dip’ of two quarters of negative growth seeing us back into recession), unemployment rising particularly youth unemployment, and interest rates probably about to go up. The danger with the cuts strategy, of cutting quite so much fast so fast, was that we would risk slow growth, with people being laid off in the public sector with the private sector not picking up the slack, as the Tory-led government had hoped. This would mean there would be less spending power, more unemployment benefit being paid, less tax revenue, and the deficit actually not being cut as fast as desirable. It is also incredibly depressing for morale. Many of us have felt that even if the deficit is paid off fast the wreckage that would be produced socially would be difficult to recover from. Hence, we at Cambridge, have a somewhat different emphasis. We don’t call it “Politics, Philosophy and Economics”, but “Social and Political Sciences”. You’ll see this perhaps this Saturday…
A new website for Legal Awareness
“Legal Aware” is on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Legal-Aware/132118340190157
And on Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/legalaware
And also as a blog.
There are specialist pages on:
The May Elections and a conservative outcome
Of course, I’ve heard the speak about how we live in a country, England, that is fundamentally left. I am not convinced. I still believe that, as a country, we’re very conservative, with the small ‘c’. Not ‘C’ for the other word I commonly encounter in relation to the coalition’s cuts on Facebook.
The implications of this for May 6th are pretty straight-forward. We go from a position where people were voting to keep Cameron out to a position where people vote to keep Clegg out. A vast majority of people feel that Nick Clegg has been utterly useless in government in voicing any concerns about EMA, tuition fees, and a vast gamut of themes. Therefore, they simply won’t vote for anything that remotely represents him. This could mean that people will vote Conservative or Labour, according to what will achieve that aim. I do not feel that there is widespread hatred to the cuts, as there is possibly towards the tuition fees. There is an unspoken sense that many members of the general public do appreciate the argument that it’s unwise to spend £120 million/day on interest. I would not be surprised if the Conservatives actually do rather well in the elections. It is not impossible that, with the current electoral system, they could even win. There is, of course, a huge number of people who oppose the rate and depth of the cuts, but they might find the odds voting against the sitting government heavily stacked against them.
And what does being conservative mean for the AV vote? Well, in this new breaking pledge era, Labour’s previous commitment to it is not that important. It does mean, however, people might vote in favour of keeping the status quo, particularly if it means that the second choice doesn’t come out as victorious (a Nick Clegg clone), or if they simply don’t understand the new system. If the country votes ‘No’ for AV, it might be seen as a tacit indorsement for David Cameron, but it will be difficult to ignore the impact this has on Nick Clegg. No matter how hard the spin doctors tell us to keep the issues separate.
Avoid labels unless you can define them
In Labour, we have an obsession with trademarks or brand names. We invented ‘New Labour’, and then had trouble defining the moment of its precise dissolution partly because we couldn’t define what it was. Tony Blair’s ‘fans’ continue to cite that he never lost a General Election, but do not seem to concede that Margaret Thatcher was so deeply unpopular that he could have achieved very much more. Certainly, we need now to examine what exactly Labour is doing. It has coined the term ‘the progressive left’, but it threatens to be a repackaging of an ill-defined concept.
The attractive notion for Labour, including socialists, is that there remains a body of voters who vote against the right, including Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. It is then easy to call them ‘left’ and ‘progressive’. As a pendulum of national feeling, the latest by-election was useless, although many congratulations to Dan Jarvis for winning the Barnsley by-election with approximately 15,000 votes (10X the LibDem vote, at least). But it is too early to write off the ‘progressive left’.
The reason for this in my opinion is clear. Labour has made massive mistakes in civil liberties, although it did enact the Human Rights Act to enshrine in law the European Convention of Human Rights. The problems with human rights have come from the legislature misapplying the Convention, not the Convention fundamentally itself, in my view.
Also, it can’t be ignored that the Gini coefficient of inequality shot up under Tony Blair, following Margaret Thatcher, not ameliorated by Gordon Brown whose moves on corporation tax was very inequality-friendly. Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as personalities, i.e. Ed and Nick, do not hold the solution to forming the ‘progressive left’. The party members do. We need to take account of those people on the left who don’t feel that such massive and fast cuts are unavoidable. We need to articulate the fact that we do not make an assumption of marketisation. In other words, if we are to maintain the NHS as measurable-outcome driven, we need a proper formulation of the measurable outcomes in wellbeing which must be developed for assessment of healthcare interventions in dementia and other care of the elderly. If not, we cannot simply assume marketisation.
If Nick Clegg and Paul Burstow (the Liberal Democrat health and social care minister) can, with the Liberal Democrat party, define that it agrees and will vote with marketisation for the next five years, for example, then good for them. Otherwise, they should acknowledge that there is a ‘progressive left’ – but we should avoid using the title unless we can define it with precision. The reality is that many innocent LibDem councillor candidates may take the hit for the unpopularity of their national policies, but in that case such candidates should really take a long hard look at where their party is heading. And for that matter – so should we, in Labour. For example, we are only just kept afloat by Union money – the overriding consensus is that we don’t listen to the Union members enough. If we become elected, we should not misuse the privilege of power, as we have done so so often in the past.
