GESTURE LEGISLATION
The UK government published another criminal justice white paper proposing to limit defendants' rights. The proposals include:
* further limits on jury trials; * abolishing the rule against double jeopardy which means encouraging prosecutions for serious crimes on inadequate evidence in the knowledge that the Crown can have a second go if better evidence turns up later; * forcing defendants to accuse themselves by handing over to the prosecution witness evidence that does not support the defence case; * widening the use of indeterminate jail sentences.
The stated aim of the measures is to fight crime by increasing the rate of convictions. If this were true it would be irrational in any case since criminal justice cannot be used to prevent crime only to punish it. But it cannot be the true aim since the conviction rate in the criminal courts overall is already 97 per cent. Even in the few cases that do go before a jury it is 88 per cent. The criminal courts, with or without juries, are already a machine that processes individuals accused by the authorities and gives them a criminal label and a punishment.
There is little real connection between the new measures and crime. New Labour passes criminal justice statutes at the rate of two a year because appealing to popular fears is all that it has to offer. Invoking the interests of the victims of crime is a cheap source of 'moral' authority for a political class with nothing positive to offer. The criminal justice bill when it comes will throw away hard won civil rights as a gesture to keep government looking resolute.
KEYNESIAN SPENDING IS BACK
In February US President George Bush injected $379 billion (£266bn) into the US economy in the form of defence spending, on the pretext of fighting the 'war against terror'. This week British Chancellor Gordon Brown pledged to spend an additional £61bn on health, education, housing, crime and defence - a massive boost in 'public investment'. For all the rhetoric about market liberalisation, government is back in the business of boosting the economy by generating demand, in what appears to be a coordinated international effort.
Whether the medicine will have any positive effect, though is unclear. Conventional economics might suggest that the secular fall in share prices, kicked off by 'profit warnings' (and evidence of inflated profits), is evidence of a slump. But the course of share prices has been a poor indicator of economic performance for some time now. After all, it was the five-year climb in share prices that persuaded Americans that the economy was making substantial gains on the basis of new technologies. That proved to be an exaggeration, and the fears of recession are equally exaggerated.
The period from 1995-2000 was marked by an expansion of the market system, drawing more sections of society, like women and minorities, and more parts of the world into paid employment. It was made possible by the defeat of organised labour. Low wages made it more profitable for companies expand by employing more people, than by investing in labour-saving technology - extensive rather than intensive growth. For all the talk of new technologies, the expansion of those employed actually pulled average labour productivity down, with the expansion of menial jobs. When the chair of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan could find now evidence of increased productivity in the service sector, against his 'new economy' expectations, he simply altered the figures (see Maestro, by Bob Woodward).
The profits that would have been directed towards new technology were instead redirected towards the stock markets, as individual shareholders and companies 'expanded' their capital by buying shares at inflated prices. Companies 'grew' by buying up dubious assets like competing 'brands' and companies that were wildly overvalued. This house of cards was bound to fall down sooner or later. But its relationship to the productive economy is by no means straightforward. A big fall in middle class incomes will be particularly problematic for governments already suffering from low popular enthusiasm.
Consumer spending plays an excessively important role in the 'new economy', because the other component of demand, companies' investment in technology is much lower than it has been in the past. No doubt government spending can have an initially positive effect by artificially boosting demand, and in Brown's case, the accumulated reserves allow much room to manoeuvre. But there is little likelihood that a government boost to the economy will arrest the fall of the stock market.
-- James Heartfield The 'Death of the Subject' Explained is available at GBP11.00, plus GBP1.00 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'