The UK

It’s been obvious since before the 2010 general election that the coming decade was likely to involve big constitutional changes in Britain: Scotland might leave the UK, the UK might leave the EU, the electoral system for the commons might change, or the House of Lords would be elected using a PR system. The probablility of each of these changes individual is less than 50%, but together, at least one is likely to happen. Any one would radically change the political situation.

Protests

2011 started off with the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, which wouldn’t have been possible without the internet. Then the masses rose up against Gaddafi, and with outside assistance in the form of air power, they were able to overthrow him. Across the Arab world, people looked to these examples and launched protests and demonstrations; which haven’t been successful in the short term, but have succeeded in changing the tone of the political process throughout the Arab world: people now expect Arab dictatorships to be fragile, which in turn causes them to be so. In Syria, Assad has managed to hang on, but is looking shaky: compare this to a year ago when his rule looked rock-solid.

The Arab spring inprired protests in other countries, notably Spain and Israel. Israel saw the largest proportional turnout, when 460,000 people (1 in 17 of the population) took to the streets on the 3rd of September. Two weeks later, Occupy Wall Street started, and spread across the USA and throughout the world. And in December we saw protests in Russia complaining about Putin rigging the general election.

These protests were about specific issues in their own countries, but had common and interlocked themes: (1) discontent that ordinary people are stagnating or getting poorer while the rich get richer, (2) a feeling that government cares about the rich elites rather than the common people, and (3) a desire for more democracy to solve problems 2 and therefore 1.

The role of the internet

The internet has been instrumental in causing the protests, because it makes it easier for people to get together of a common purpose. So we’ve seen the rise of hastivist groups such as Anonymous and Wikileaks.

The internet also harms powerful inyterests who will try to tame it (do do so, they would have to break it, although they don’t quite realise that), for example with laws such as the Digital Economy Act (in the UK) and SOPA (in the USA). To counteract this threat, we’ve seen the rise rise of a political movement based on the principle that everyone should be allowed to use the full power of the internet to enrich their life; I mean of course the Pirate Party movement. Pirates won their first great victory in 2009 in Sweden, when two Pirates were elected to the European Parliament, and their second great victory in September this year when 15 Pirates were elected to Berlin’s parliament.

Predictions

Now for the hard bit, some predictions. I’m not going to do any for next year, but over the next decade…

Firstly, we’re in for a time of accelerating change. Not necessarily on a year-for-year bases, but certainly on a decade-for-decade basis. The internet is going to be a major driver of this change as it fundamentally tears down and rebuilds every single human institution, Other factors, which I’ve not mentioned so far are the ongoing Euro crisis and the rise of China. The consequences of the Euro crisis will take years to work through, and will result in a different EU to what we have now: possibly one with an inner core and a few outer members.

China is likely to see the same sort of protests we’ve seen in many other countries, and the result will either be a democratic revolution, or a crackdown. Whichever happens, the Chinese economy will continue to grow more quickly than the world average, so their share of world GDP will increase. This will increase their power, and to secure oil they’ll become a major player in the Middle East.

Moore’s law will continue to make computers cheaper and more capable. Vested interests — for example the copyright industry — will be hurt and will respond by getting politicians to create ever more draconian laws, clamping down on the interent, removing the right ot a fail trial, instituting punishment on suspicion, attempting to ban general-purpose computing. They will fail, and opposition to them will result in the Pirate movement becoming an established actor on the political stage, particularly in Europe, with MPs in many countries.

There will be a flowering of democracy in the Arab world. Not everywhere, and there will be some backsliding, but by 2020 Tunisia will be widely seen to be at least as democratic as the UK and USA are now (OK, that’s a low hurdle to jump). So will Egypt, probably. In Syria, the Assad regime will not survive to 2020, though what replaces it may be something messy (think of the post-invasion civil war in Iraq). Some other Arab countries (perhaps Morocco and Jordan) may become democracies. Everywhere, the assumption will be that democracy is the future.

In Iran, there are two possibilities. The stealing of the Iranian presidential election in 2009, and the resulting protests, showed that conditions are ripe for a “Persian Spring”, and by 2020 a revolution will have happened there. Or, the other possibility is that Israel — with US tacit approval — will attack Iran; this will weaken reformers as Iranians rally round the flag, preventing a revolution.

I don’t know what 2020 will look like: but the difference between 2020 and 2010 will be bigger than the difference between 2010 and 2000.

legal enforceability is becoming increasingly difficult; the millions of dollars invested trying to enforce copyright have not stemmed piracy. Meanwhile citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it. Sadly, many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward.

Not only does it not work for citizens and consumers, it doesn’t work for artists either:

1000 euros a month is not much to live off. Often less than the minimum wage. But most artists, and not only the young ones at the early stages of their career, have to do so. Half the fine artists in the UK, half the “professional” authors in Germany, and, I am told, an incredible 97.5% of one of the biggest collecting society’s members in Europe, receive less than that paltry payment of 1000 euros a month for their copyright works. Of course, the best-paid in this sector earn a lot, and well done to them. But at the bottom of the pyramid are a whole mass of people who need independent means or a second job just to survive.

This is a devastatingly hard way to earn a living.

But even though Kroes realises copyright has dug itself into a hole, she thinks the solution is to continue digging:

We need to keep on fighting against piracy

Kroes admits the present strategy doesn’t work, so why does she want to keep on doing it? As Einstein pointed out, it’s insane to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. I think she’s pushing the pro-copyright party line because although she recognises the problem, she doesn’t have the insight to imagine any alternative.

As for alternatives, there are several. For example: live performances, merchandising, crowdsourced prepayment, frictionless micropayments, tip-jar systems such as flattr.  It may even make sense, some of the time, for culture to be funded by a broadband tax.

(see also Slashdot, ZDNet, Advanced Television)

On Liberal Conspiracy I recently posted that:

Public spending went up from 36% of GDP in 2000 to 48% of GDP in 2010. If the UK economy grew at an average rate of 2% over those years, that’s an increase of 63%. This is a vast sum of money, and if public services did improve by 63%, I certainly didn’t notice it.

For every problem, Labour’s solution was always to spend more taxpayers’ money.

Gastro George replied saying:

Comparisons of total government expenditure as a % of GDP are somewhat dependent on the level of GDP as well as the expenditure – and if you choose 2010 which is well after the crash then GDP is well down and expenditure on unemployment, etc. is well up because of that crash.

More reasonably, in the sense of a level playing field, expenditure went up from 40% in 2001 to 43% in 2007 (before the crash) – somewhat less and only a restoration of more normal expenditure after years of under-spending.

It’s true that 2010 is an unusual year to compare — and possibly unfair to Labour — because of the recession. However, GDP was still higher in 2010 than it was on 2000. If Labour had kept a tighter reign on spending in the good times, Britain would’ve been able to ride out the storm more easily.

I dispute Gastro George’s figure of a 3% increase (in public spending as a proportion of GDP): if you look at this graph, public spending as a proportion of GDP went up by more than that:

In absolute terms, from 2001 to 2007, it went up from £403bn to £514bn (both 2005 pounds), an increase of 24% in real terms:

If instead that £111bn had been spent on modest increases in benefits and major reductions in marginal tax rates for the poor, it would have helped them (and everyone else) a lot more than wasteful spending.

The problem with this country is that the Labour Party, as I’ve said, thinks spending more money is the solution to every problem, the Tories hate and despise everyone except the top 1%, the Lib Dems just suck up whatever their Tory masters tell them to, and the Tories and Labour together perpetuate the squalid gerrymander that is FPTP, which denies democracy to the British people.

So what would I do? My first answer is that I wouldn’t start from where we are now; if I’d been running the country, spending wouldn’t have been so high to start with. But we are where we are now, so it would be remiss of me not to have an answer for our current situation.

My solution would be to slowly decrease spending or keep it stable in real terms; over time, as GDP rises this would mean it would decrease as a proportion of GDP. The present savage Tory cuts are making a bad situation worse.

I wouldn’t cut benefits as the Tories are doing; instead I’d keep them at the same level but reduce tapers and marginal rates so no-one pays a higher marginal tax rate (including withdrawal of benefits) than anyone with more income than them. In particular, people on benefits would be allowed to earn up to £50 a week with no loss of benefits. One way this could be implemented would be by introducing a citizen’s income to replace the present benefits system — though the difference between that and a benefit system that is slowly withdrawn is merely a matter of which one is more administratively convenient.

I’d also build lots of houses and introduce a policy of affordable housing for all. This would not, incidentally, cost a single penny of public money. In fact it would save money since less would be spend on housing benefit (most of which goes to rich landlords, not the poor).

I’d abolish crap like the Digital Economy Act and encourage internet startups. If the USA passes SOPA/PROTECT-IP, then I’d encourage US internet companies to relocate to the UK together with all their staff.

And last but not least, I’d get money out of politics and introduce proportional representation for all elections.

Anyway, that’s why I’m not a Labour or Conservative supporter. I’m a Pirate because none of the other parties offers a left-libertarian solution to Britain’s problems, and because by-and-large they are utterly clueless about the internet and the effects it will have on society.

The Libyan war may be over, but rivalries rage on among some regional militias, leading to a mutual distrust that poses a challenge to the new leadership. Earlier this week, the rivalry was evident when dozens of fighters clashed at a Tripoli hospital in what residents said was the biggest armed confrontation in the capital in weeks.

The National Transitional Council needs to put a lid on this, quickly. If they don’t Libya could face a civil war, and end up an ungovernable hell-hole like Somalia.

The Occupy movements are about the values of the left [...] They have Mac laptops and use the free wifi at Starbucks, to the consternation of the right wing blogosphere.

These are the very sorts of people who, from the late 1960s onwards, formed themselves into punk and green movements, creating the Green Party in Germany, with similar parties also gaining ground elsewhere in Europe, a sort of protest against the system but – importantly – with a channel back into the political mainstream that has recently spawned the Pirate Party in Sweden and, most spectacularly, in the Berlin state elections in Germany.

I’m not sure I’ve describe the Pirate movement as a party of the “left” so much as one that is against unjust concentrations of power: we’ve known from the start that society is run by and for the big corporations, which is how they were able to buy iniquitous laws like the DMCA or Digital Economy Act. And so the theme that society needs to be rebalanced to work for the 99% is one that resonates with Pirates. (Incidentally, Worth is not the first person to see similarities between Occupier and Pirates).

Worth is right when he says the Labour Party is a broad-based organisation rather than an ideological one:

The problem for Labour or the Democrats in the USA is that these parties never really had their 1968 moments, the moment when the left became an issue of ideological identity as well as the political aspect of a workers’ movement, and for this to manifest itself through the political success of more than one party to the left of the centre. Held in place by the majoritarian election system, the broader left in the UK and USA has been poor at collecting up the alternative and non-unionised vote.

One difference between the Labour Party and Pirate Party UK is that while Labour is trying to get 40% of people to like them a little, the Pirates are trying to get 10% of the people to like us a lot. We’re not aiming to win FPTP elections, at least not yet, because that would be unrealistic for us. However, most elections in the UK are now held under PR: Scottish parliamentary and local elections, Northern Ireland assembly and local elections, the Welsh assembly, the London assembly, and European elections.

[Ed Miliband]‘s challenge is to be radical enough to appeal to the sentiment of the St Paul’s protestors, and to articulate lifestyle and values based politics within a still essentially traditional social democrat party. [...] Get them into the system and Labour could have the essence of a winning coalition in London in 2012 and nationally in 2015.

While some people who vote Pirate at non-FPTP elections may support Labour at Westminster elections, it’s likely that many won’t, at least until Labour change their policies — we haven’t forgotten it was Labour who passed the Digital Economy Act. If Labour want to entice Pirate-inclined voters, they need to apologize for the DEA, and have someone shadowing the Culture Department who has a good record on digital rights, such as Tom Watson.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou’s call for a citizens’ referendum to decide the future of Greece is direct participatory democracy in action. Yet the European leadership and the Elites who need global markets to remain in nosebleed territory are outraged by this unscripted emergence of democracy.

The absurdly hostile reaction to democracy in action reveals the ugly, sordid truth, not just in Europe but in the U.S. and other faux democracies: democracy is tolerated until it threatens the global markets that empower the financial/political Elite. Then it becomes a mortal danger to be subverted or overthrown.

The message is clear: saving the Eurozone’s banks and Elite bondholders is more important than mere democracy or national sovereignty: banks which assessed the risks and offered loans to Greece on terms they reckoned profitable are now the victims who must be “rescued” by the debtors.

Earlier today a report from Income Data Services noted that pay for the directors of Britain’s top businesses rose by 49% over the last year once salary, benefits and bonuses were counted. These increases were much greater than any increase in profitability or share price (+4.5%). They were also eighteen times greater than the pay increase for the average private sector worker.

Conservatives are understandably reluctant to intefere with the internal decisions of private companies but there are many options between doing and saying nothing and unacceptable statutory regulation of boardroom pay. The Conservative Party isn’t a true friend to capitalism if we defend everything that markets produce [...] The banking sector, for example, where the profits belong to the owners, directors and staff but the losses are picked up by the taxpayer. In the boardroom there’s a problem when remuneration committees are not transparent and where there’s a merry-go-round of directors sitting on each others’ boards and approving you-scratch-my-back bonus packages. I’d also add the housing market. The heavy regulation of planning means that those fortunate enough to own a house or ten are getting wealthier and wealthier and those without a foot on the property ladder are falling further and further behind.

The capitalism Conservatives support must be one where competition and transparency are always on the side of consumers and shareholders and small businesses. I’ve described this as a conservatism for the ‘little guy’. [...] We need more taxation of unearned wealth so that we can cut taxes on the entrepreneur, the small business and the low-paid. The choice is between a crony capitalism that protects existing businesses and existing wealth and a creative capitalism where new ideas and new firms can flourish.

I believe hell will freeze over before the Tories support any such agenda. The truth is that the Conservative Party is the party of bankers and fat cats, of crony capitalism, of rent-seeking, and will never ever put the interests of someone on average earnings (let alone the poor) above those of the rich.

Co-incidentally, the Pirate Party is currently having an open policy consultation where anyone can propose and debate policies, which will then be voted on by the whole party membership. (I note parenthetically that the Tories would never do this: if you want Cameron to consider a policy, you’d better bung him 50 grand. And the idea that the Tories would ever go for internal party democracy in policymaking is a non-starter.)

Tim Montgomery, a lot of the policies proposed in this consultation are ones you say you support. So I challenge you, if you really want a capitalism that works for the 99% not just the 1%, leave the Tories and join us in the Pirate Party.

In the general case, the people should have a referendum on whatever policies they want to. These will typically be ones that the people conside important and where the government is perceived to be thwarting the will of the majority.

The way to decide if that’s true of a particular question would be to use a revamped version of the government’s epetition websites. If the number of signatures for an issue minus those against is greater than a certain number (say 10% of the electorate),  then it could go to a referendum.

Occupy Wall Street is nothing if not tech-savvy. (One of the earliest criticisms was the preponderence of Macbooks among the protesters.) The protest has had a near-constant Livestream from the headquarters at Zuccotti Park, which has also broadcast from Times Square and during the now-infamous mass arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge. It’s a fixture on geeky forums like Reddit and SomethingAwful; even the Bitcoin community and the hacktivists of Anonymous are into it. The protest has also voted consistently to use open-source software for everything from its website to its accounting, and the still-grassroots funded movement is hip to crowdfunding sites Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, which raised money for tangential projects such as The Occupied Wall Street Journal. There are also more than 200 occupation-related campaigns on the Y Combinator-incubated WePay.com. “It’s not a coincidence that much of the success of the #OWS movement comes from their nimble use of technology to organize and get their word out,” the venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote on his blog.

This description would equally well describe Pirate Party activists. I think this is because Pirates and Occupiers are the same sorts of people. As an example of this, if you look at the ideas on Pirate Party UK’s open policy consultation, a lot of them are things that Occupiers would agree with.

Rick Falkvinge’s description of Pirate supporters would apply equally to Occupy supporters:

We [Pirates] are a lifestyle party for the entire younger generation, starting somewhere at 35-40 years of age. This lifestyle — digital natives, as some have called it, or the connected generation which I prefer — is being actively condemned and demonized by the old parties. [...] we are not primarily a five-percent party for technical people, but closer to a twenty-percent party for a connected generation, including the technical people.

So, there are large numbers of mainly young people totally disenchanted with the current political and economic system, and wanting change. Will anything come out of this? I don’t know. I do know that if you’d asked be a year ago whether it was possible that Gaddafi could be overthrown by a spontaneous revolution of his own people, I would have said it was impossible. But it happened. In Western countries such as the USA or Britain, how much easier must it be for us to force through real change, given that these countries are half-democratic already?

Summary:

Demand Real Democracy:
- Proportional representation
- Get money out of politics
- Recall elections
- Referenda
Demand Economic Justice:
- Enact Buffett’s Law
- End tax avoidance for corporations
- No more rip-offs due to complex charging schemes
- Affordable housing
Don’t Demand:
- That there be no spending cuts
- An end to capitalism

Demand Real Democracy

The situation we’re in now — and the reason for the Occupy protests — is that the economic system works for the richest 1% but not for the other 99%. In a democracy, the 99% would be able to make the system work in their favour, and we’d never have got to the point where we are now. But we are where we are now, so therefore we cannot be a democracy.

(That’s not to say that elections are entirely a fraud, as they were in the Soviet Union. The current arrangements are a half democracy; we need to make it a full democracy.)

Proportional representation

We need proportional representation because under FPTP, only two parties get a look-in and they can conspire to thwart the people’s will. But with PR, if none of the big parties does what the people want, it’s easy to set up a new party that can get elected (under FPTP, anyone can set up a new party, but it has very little chance of electoral success, so doesn’t affect the Labservatives’ cosy little duopoly on power).

A good electoral system would be STV, or AMS as long as the region size is big enough (the bigger it is, the more proportional). In STV, one can vote for a small party without it being a wasted vote (because it would be transferred to one’s next preference). In AMS or a list system, the vote would count if it elected someone, which it would do if the threshold was small enough. If AMS or lists are used, ideally the votes should be transferable as well, so that voters for parties who get less voters than the threshold still count.

Get money out of politics

At the moment a party with lots of money has a big advantage in elections. This means that big corporations can subvert democracy by donating to particular parties. This favours certain parties and certain ideas, and biases the system in favour of the 1%. What we need is a level playing field where all ideas compete on equal terms,

(The reliance of parties on large corporate donations subverts democracy in another way; it directly causes those parties to change their polices to favour corporate interests.)

So:

Corporate donations and large personal donations should be banned, no-one should be allowed to donate more that £1000/year to a political party.

Political parties should receive modest funding from the state, for example 10p/year for each vote they got at the last general/devolved/local/European election.

The state should pay for printing of election leaflets. At the moment, the state pays for political leaflets to be delivered at elections, but not for them to be printed. This obviously benefits the big parties since they can afford to have more printed. Instead, the state should allow each party or candidate to produce a single A4 advert, then all the adverts would be put together in a single brochure that would be printed and delivered to every household. This would also have other advantages:

• it would save money because the state would be delivering one leaflet per household not many (delivery costs, per leaflet, are more than print costs).
• it would mean that parties could no longer say a different message to different voters, but would have to be honest
• all the parties’ leaflets would be in a one handy package so they could be easily compared.

Recall elections

The people are sovereign, not the politicians. Therefore the people must have the right to kick out the politicians when they decide to do so, not just once every 5 years.

these should happen if enough voters in a particular electoral district want them. They should be possible if the voters don’t like what policies their politicians are doing; not just when politicians are caught in personal wrong-doing such as fiddling their expenses.

Referenda

The government’s epetition system should be beefed up. People should be able to vote against a petition as well as in favour. The popularity of a petition would be defined as votes in favour minus votes against.

If a petition is popular enough, it should automatically trigger a referendum. A smaller level of popularity should trigger a debate in parliament. This system should apply to all levels of government: local, devolved, Westminster, and Europe.

Economic Justice

Enact Buffett’s Law: no-one should pay a higher marginal tax rate than someone with more income than them. This should be true taking into account wages, income from investments and capital gains, It should continue to be true when loss of benefits is taken into account. It should also continue to be true when tax avoidance schemes (which the rich have more access to) are taken into account.

End tax avoidance for corporations. Corporations that make billions in profits should be made to pay their fair share.

No more rip-offs due to complex charging schemes. What do electricity and gas utilities, mobile phone networks, and private pension providers have in common? They all rip off their customers by having charging schemes that are impenetrably complex. They should be forced to simplify their charges, which would make it transparent when they’re overcharging.

Affordable housing. Everyone needs somewhere to live. They should be entitled to one where the cost to them is the cost of building and maintaining a house; at present whether one rents or buys, one has to pay an exorbitant price on top that profits the rich.

Some things not to demand

That there be no spending cuts. The public does not support a platform of no cuts; while many regard them as regrettable, the majority think they are economically necessary. And in any case, how many people can say know everything the government spends money on, and are assured that they is no waste whatsoever?

An end to capitalism. Either we continue to have a broadly market-based economy, or we have a centrally planned one. A centrally planned economy is not desirable, and even if it was, it would not be possible to persuade the British public that it was, given the examples of North Korea, Cuba and the Soviet Union. Instead we need to build a capitalism that works for the 99% not just the 1%.

I didn’t expect it to happen this quickly.

The Green/EFA group in the European Parliament has adopted Pirate policies on file sharing and DRM: namely that non-commercial file sharing should be legal, and it should be legal to circumvent DRM. The policy document is here.

To put this in perspective: the Green/EFA group is the 4th biggest in the European Parliament, with 56 MEPs (most are Greens; the 2 Pirate MEPs are also in the group). The EU, in turn is the largest economic bloc in the world, controlling 26% of the world’s GDP.

This means that when Pirates win in Europe, we’ll have won throughout the world, because once the EU adopts our policies, everyone else will soon after. They’ll have to, because once you have BitTorrent trackers and other file sharing websites operating completely legally in the EU, it’ll be impossible for anywhere in the world to stop file sharing, without shutting down their internet, and countries will not be able to shut down their internet infrastructure without destroying their economy.

Via Bright Green

Will the Germans be the first Pirate Party to be elected to a national parliament? Perhaps not: many other countries go to the vote before 2013. For example, the Swiss general election is later this month, and the Swiss Pirates are hoping to do well.