Archive for the ‘International Development’ Category

Just what is Liberal Conservatism?

Monday, April 19th, 2010

This week is set to be the International week of the 2010 Election campaign. So in theory, we should all understand a little more of what William Hague’s Liberal Conservatism is all about. Ahead of the week I’ve just read the Tory manifesto International affairs section and am still puzzled. I’m hoping, but not expecting a little more clarity during the week.

Rightly, the manifesto identifies that more than ever the interests of nation states are interconnected, economically and politically.  But the policy solutions still seem ideologically unclear and unsound.   

While the answers to Britain’s domestic challenges are met with a shrink-state response, the manifesto calls for “a concerted response from the state” in its international chapter.

There also seems to be a glaring contradiction in Conservative policy to the European single currency, varying between forthright hostility to a guarantee for the public to have their say:

a Conservative government would never take the UK into the euro.”

And later “We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.”

Now, I’m not advocating that now is the right time to join the Euro, but a manifesto is always the right time to be clear what your position is.

The document is unclear of what One World Conservatism is or what Liberal Conservatism would achieve. But from the Tories foreign policy record, I don’t relish the prospect of these ideologies guiding British foreign policy.

Let’s not forget these things as we move into the international week of this election David Cameron went on a free trip to South Africa, funded by a lobbying group founded by a former member of the South African military intelligence to bust sanctions against South Africa. Let’s also not forget that when Labour took office our international aid budget was in decline and we where losing a beef war with Europe. And today in the European Parliament, the Tories lose more legislative proposals than the Liberals, Greens and Communists because of Hague and Cameron’s self-imposed exile from the mainstream grouping.

In the week ahead let’s continue to take a long hard look at the Tories and ask Cameron and Hague, just what is your vision for Britain in the world and where would we be if we took your advice?

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Labour should build on trade, Europe and a revised interventionism for a fairer world

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

This article was originally published here for Progress on the 15th January 2010.

A Labour campaign on foreign policy should argue that the values which define our party should also define our international agenda. Values of internationalism, a global solidarity with those in greatest need, and the need to protect those who are vulnerable and suffering are traditional Labour values which we apply at home and should apply abroad. These are the cornerstone of our movement. They define our approach to all policy areas and separate us from our opponents.

We should focus on three key aspects in Labour foreign policy campaigns. Firstly, we should continue to use foreign policy as a vehicle for economic growth within our nation and beyond our borders. Secondly, we should commit to drawing up a new doctrine for intervention and, thirdly, we should not being afraid of leading in Europe and in other international institutions.

To take the first strand, Britain is a trading nation and needs access to the wider European market. As we move from recession to recovery our agenda for growth will require continued access to the global market to secure jobs and prosperity at home.

In the second instance, there is a need to reassess how and when interventionism occurs, and place it in a consistent framework. This should be founded on a clear relationship between morality and the rule of law. Interventionism cannot be founded upon hubris, neocolonial ambition or economic aspiration. The burden of intervention must also be carried by those who can share it, using international action for military and humanitarian causes.

And lastly, a key component of Labour’s international policy has been to recognise that the EU is more than just a market to trade with and should be used to strengthen Britain’s role in the world. However, there is a need to settle the economic argument that EU membership costs Britain more than we get in return. We must also defeat the political argument that pooling our strength leaves us weaker rather than stronger. In this international context Labour should continue to argue for reform of our global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank in order to secure a stronger system for global economics and build a more equal world.

British voters stand much to lose if a Tory government were to represent Britain in Europe again. Many of today’s Tories are obsessed by ‘process Europe’ and rarely by ‘policy Europe.’ We understand that Britain is strongest at the heart of Europe.

Labour has shown strong influence on the international stage. Those who want to tackle our energy and climate policies, to forge a fair way out of the economic crisis, to protect us from threats of terrorism, to continue to build a European economic area of shared prosperity and stable growth, and promote a positive agenda for the developing world know that Labour has delivered and will continue to do so.

The Tories meanwhile are isolated, alienated and on the wrong side of the argument. Hague’s liberal Conservative approach would result in a disastrous marriage of isolationism and inaction, a policy that leaves Britain vulnerable and alone, and the world a less fair place.

Labour recognises that the world has changed since the fall of the empires. It is Labour that understands that to achieve for one nation you have to work with others. Labour’s foreign policy is an agenda for a better Britain and a fairer world and that’s a cause well worth fighting for.

This is an abridged version of the international policy chapter from the Young Fabian report ‘Fast forward: The next generation of progressive politics’

Brian Duggan and Marie Loewe are, respectively, international officer and equalities officer of the Young Fabians

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Labour Campaign for International Development

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

A number of Young Fabians have been involved in the establishment of the new Labour Campaign for International Development. Here, LCID Chair, David Taylor tells us what the organisation is about, and invites all YF members to the official launch with Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP.

Labour has transformed the lives of many people in the last decade, and nowhere has the impact of a Labour Government been more acutely felt than in international development. For many of us, eradicating poverty is the reason we joined the Labour Party, and there is much to be proud of.

Since 1997, Labour has helped lift 3 million permanently out of poverty each year. We’ve helped get some 40 million children into school. Polio is on the verge of being eradicated and 3 million are now able to access life-preserving drugs for HIV and AIDS. 1.5 million people have improved water and sanitation services.

Tackling global poverty has been high on the agenda of our Party, and we want to keep it that way. That’s why we, a group of Labour activists, have recently set up Labour Campaign for International Development.

We want to keep international development high on Labour’s agenda, and to push our Government to build on its success and be bolder and go further still, in a similar way to our fraternal friends at SERA do on the environment.

We also want to use it as a vehicle to bring people who care about global poverty and other single issues in to the Labour Party. Be they young people engaging in politics for the first time, or former members who’ve turned away from party politics, we want to engage them.

First and foremost, we need them to vote Labour. In the lead up to the election, we’ll be scrutinising the Conservatives to show just how much damage they would do to everything we’ve fought for over the last decade. Even if their promise to match our pledge to spend 0.7% on aid could be believed, it is what they would spend our aid money on that is most damaging – the same failed private sector solutions that failed in the 1980s. No one must be complacent of the Tory threat, or think that a vote for the Greens or Lib Dems will bring any more than a Tory Government.

But we can and will be more positive than that. We’ve got a proud record on development and we intend to shout about it to anti-poverty campaigners. By encouraging them into the Party, we can gain from their skills and energy and, we hope, help invigorate the Party in the process.

LCID is a growing organisation, and we’d love to have your involvement. We’ve set up a blog with regular news and comment at LCID.org.uk, and you can become a fan of our Facebook page to get regular updates.

To formally launch LCID, the Rt Hon Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development, will be speaking at an event in the House of Commons on 02 February at 7pm. Please visit our website to RSVP.

We look forward to working with everyone in the Party over the coming weeks and months to keep Labour in Government transforming people’s lives and lifting millions out of poverty.

by David Taylor, Chair, Labour Campaign for International Development

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Give me a break

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

This week, Nestle has announced that KitKat will be going Fairtrade, following Cadbury’s lead last year. I’m glad I prefer Twix.

Those who know me well are more than aware of my objections to the Fairtrade scheme. In brief, these objections include:

1. Minimum price guarantees incentivise wasteful production by distorting market signals. Farmers no longer respond to consumer demand, adjusting production accordingly (or exiting an industry where overcapacity exists). This is exactly how the CAP works. I doubt many supporters of Fairtrade would argue that CAP is a good idea, so why be overjoyed at the creation of another, albeit smaller, protectionist system?

2. Minimum price guarantees disincentivise technological innovation*. Why waste resources on new equipment when you’re guaranteed money for old rope?

3. Minimum price guarantees disincentivise improvements in quality of the product*. Actually, they incentivise the reverse – as a farmer, I can make a higher margin by allowing the quality of my product to degrade in the knowledge that I will continue to receive a minimum price.

4. The Fairtrade scheme creates an insider/outsider problem, which increases the living standards of some of the world’s poorest farm workers at the expense of those outside of the scheme, who become relatively less well off.

5. The Fairtrade scheme erodes entrepreneurialism. The scheme design creates a framework in which producers are incentivised to maximise their returns within the confines of the scheme, rather than what would be optimal within the economy as a whole.

Of course, some of these problems could be overcome if all participants within a market were part of the Fairtrade scheme – then competition between suppliers for contracts may at least partially reverse the effect on incentives the minimum price guarantee has. But in this scenario, the fair-trade foundation would set market prices, which is akin to command and control communism and thus not particularly attractive – resources are inefficiently allocated.

My biggest concern though relates to the implications of wholesale switching to fair-trade inputs by manufacturers. When multi-national organisations believe it is in their interest to switch to fair-trade inputs, they have obviously calculated that this will be commercially beneficial to them in the long run. In turn, this implies sufficient demand in the marketplace.

But increased demand amongst consumers implies they would rather pay more for the same product (and in some cases an inferior product) – the “guilt premium” – in order to alleviate the consequences of a fault with protectionist trade regimes, rather than put pressure on governments to dismantle the source of the problem (barriers to trade).

At the extreme, fair-trade consumerism absolves elected officials of the responsibilities to solve these problems at source. Surely this is a bad thing?

*I’m aware that the Fairtrade premium **could** be used for these ends, although it is not always the case that they are.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon


Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.7.3, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.