From: Liberal Conspiracy

A key political battleground now exists around the issue of creating a fairer system of capitalism. Ed Miliband initiated this agenda and now both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have said they want a move away from ‘crony capitalism’ to ‘responsible capitalism’.

However, at the first opportunity – on boardroom pay – the Government failed to take the required action (introduce worker representation at board level). What we need some strong ideas to make capitalism fairer – and here are five that can achieve this:

1) Equality in educational opportunity
Capitalists often pride themselves on their belief in ‘equality of opportunity’. Yet from almost birth, many children are at a huge advantage – through education at private schools. To put this into perspective, 32% of teenagers at private schools gained three A/A*s at A Level last year, compared to just 8% in the public sector.

There should be an immediate end to the current system of tax breaks worth £88m per year and tax-deductible donations to independent schools.

Further down the line, a review should be held looking into the viability of preventing schools from charging fees and selecting pupils. Instead, a lottery style application process for places could be considered as an alternative approach.

2) Fairness over worker pay
Workers currently face a squeeze on their incomes; whilst those at the top have seen their salaries rise at a much quicker rate. The Spirit Level, by Wilkinson and Pickett, showed that countries with the most unequal pay ratios – are also the ones with the most societal problems, such as poorer health and lower educational attainment.

To change this, consideration should be given to the idea of having an earnings structure in companies which ensures the lowest paid earn as a minimum a certain percentage of the highest – perhaps 10 per cent. So theoretically, if the highest earner took home £200,000 per year, the lowest paid would have to receive a minimum of £20,000.

3) Taxation on wealth
The hoarding of private property is perhaps the most historic example of ‘crony capitalism’. It is reported that just 0.6 per cent of the population own 50 per cent of all rural land. Indeed, a core of just 1,200 ‘aristocrats’ own 20 million acres of the land in Britain (out of a total of just 60 million).

In order to change this, the Mansion Tax should be immediately implemented, whilst a Royal Commission should be introduced to consider the viability of a land-value-tax. Andy Burnham spoke frequently of the latter during his Labour leadership campaign and the tax has already existed in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Estonia and Russia.

4) An end to monopolies
The existence of monopolies is an example of market failure, and indeed, is economically inefficient and socially undesirable. Capitalists should be in favour of strong competition policy to correct the imperfections of the market; unless of course they support the crude dog-eat-dog, free-for-all of an unregulated system.

The maximum fine for being guilty of illegal anti-competitive acts should be increased to subsume a substantial percentage of the worldwide revenues of offending firms. Freedom of Information rules should also be extended to private organisations that provide public services, to ensure that their practices uphold the same high standards expected of the public sector.

5) Greater employee ownership
Co-operatives and mutuals have a social conscience, their workers are usually happier, productivity is often better than in private companies and there is greater equality in the proceeds of success. John Lewis is a prime example of this and indeed the Government has indicated that a Co-operatives Bill will be introduced in the next Queens Speech.

However, it is vital that co-operatives increase as a percentage of the private sector, rather than being used by the Government, as some suspect, as a mechanism for yet more privatisation of public services. In addition to tax breaks for new co-operatives, consideration should be given to the idea of making large companies reserve a percentage of their shares for the average worker.

Just tinkering around the edges won’t alter our existing system that maintains the status quo in which the wealthy few hold all the aces. Instead we need radical change that will put power and control in the hands of working people, resulting in capitalism for the many.

From: Left Foot Forward

The general concept of holding a referendum does seems particularly appealing, given that it gives genuine decision-making power to the people on major issues. Yet after the fiercely fought – and some, myself included, would say nasty – referendum campaign on a new electoral system last year, it seems a sense of déjà vu is upon us once again with the Scottish campaign.

The NO2AV campaign was littered with lies, damn lies and statistics. The posters they used during the campaign had images of babies lying ill in hospitals, using these spurious and emotive pictures to link AV with reduced healthcare spending. They even deliberately misrepresented the amount AV would cost to implement on their posters.

This campaign of misinformation really was a sign of a failure in democratic institutions. People only have the means to make a fair value judgement when they have accurate information – but sadly the lack of oversight in this case allowed for a perverse agenda to win through. The Electoral Commission should have been able to step in last year during the referendum campaign, but unfortunately lacked the powers to do so, as it only deals with political parties.

There are signs however that this approach has started again in Scotland. For example, suggestions that Scotland wouldn’t be able to set their own interest rates if continued using the pound. Yet after Czechoslovakia split, two new currencies were used – the Czech Koruna and Slovak Koruna – with both countries having control over their own. However, it is not just the policy in the spotlight, with Jeremy Paxman even comparing Alex Salmond to Robert Mugabe on Newsnight last night.

Today, Salmond will formally launch a public consultation on the dynamics of the 2014 referendum, despite earlier attempts by David Cameron to impose the rules of the game on the Scots himself. The strong mandate of the SNP gives them complete legitimacy to consult the Scottish people and then organise the referendum themselves.

There is also simply no legal reason for an order be passed to make a Scottish independence referendum binding – unless of course the UK Government itself intended to ignore the result, which would provoke a constitutional crisis. Rather, this is simply yet another attempt to shape the agenda from Westminster and undermine Salmond.

The UK Government should more than most understand the right to self-determination, following invasions in recent years of places such as Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. It’s difficult to understand how the Government can justify intervention in others parts of the world in the guise of human rights and democracy, when it seeks to restrict Scotland’s own right to choose.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "all peoples have a right to self-determination" and that "by virtue of that right they are free to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. This is surely therefore the important principle and indeed the world’s most recent nation state, South Sudan, was recognized quickly by the UK following its independence.

What we now need is a fair campaign, with the Scottish people deciding the rules, with a respected oversight body monitoring the campaign. After the farce of the electoral system referendum last year, another tainted campaign won’t speak volumes for fairness or democracy.

From: Left Foot Forward

Ten years ago to the day, the United States government opened the now infamous Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

George W. Bush saw the camp as an opportunity to hold suspects for unlimited periods of time, for unspecified, alleged crimes, without proper legal recourse. In fact, the camp stands diametrically opposed to long-standing international conventions on human rights, the U.S. Constitution and the ancient right of Habeas Corpus, which has existed in judicial systems since the 13th century.

But should we really be that surprised? The United States has shown contempt for international institutions for many years.

For example, they decided that the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction in the United States. They also often veto UN Security Council resolutions against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the international community. The US also withdraws funding from international institutions that don’t align with their own interests, most recently UNESCO.

It is important to understand the shocking treatment prisoners of Guantanamo Bay have faced over the past ten years. Those detained ranged from a boy as young as 14 to a dementia sufferer aged 89.

Detainees suffered horrific instances of mental and physical torture during their stays in the camp, including cruel and unusual punishments such as sleep deprivation, exposure, solitary confinement and enforced stress positions. Many of the techniques used were copied from Chinese torture techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions.

The one remaining UK resident in the camp, Shaker Aamer, has four children with his British wife, one of whom he had yet to meet. His lawyer has stated that he is “completely innocent” and “gradually dying” inside the detention camp. In fact, Wikileaks released details of the case against Mr Aamer and legal experts have argued that this evidence wouldn’t stand up in court.

Over the ten-year period, a total of 779 prisoners have been held at Guantanamo, without charge, trial or an opportunity to challenge their alleged criminal actions. Of the remaining 171 inhabitants, 89 have been cleared for release or transfer to elsewhere, yet no one has left since January last year.

It is hard to argue against the premise that a camp of this nature could only have been devised by a totalitarian or rogue administration. History will look back on the camp and those who devised it in very unfavourable terms.

President Obama had pledged to close the detention camp, but just a year ago signed a Bill preventing the movement of its prisoners onto US soil or to foreign countries. In fact, this was a pledge many people believed in, and may have played a part in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama back in 2009.

Nothing is likely to change in 2012, with Obama up for re-election and the Republicans contesting him ready to pounce on anything that could be misrepresented as ‘anti-American’. The shameful attack ads on Jon Huntsman are testament to this.

If and when Obama wins re-election, he should be free to press home his agenda and make good on his promises, given the need to no longer look over his shoulder. American Presidents, rightly or wrongly, have tentacles that extend right across the world and should therefore look to make decisions in the interests of the international community.

Whether Obama joins Bush Jr., Cheney and co. in the history books will be much dependent on the decisions he makes following the election in November this year.