viernes, 27 de abril de 2007

Gallagher: el fin de la gobernabilidad concertacionista



La oportunidad de la derecha
David Gallagher

Viernes 27 de abril de 2007
El Mercurio


En su cuarto gobierno, la Concertación ha demostrado que ya no es válido su argumento más potente para mantenerse en el poder: el de darle gobernabilidad al país. La coalición está dividida. Entre sus filas hay políticos en franca oposición al Gobierno. Muchos DC parecen buscar pretextos para salirse de la Concertación, si bien no está claro adónde irían, dado que su afán de corregir el modelo los coloca a la izquierda del espectro político. La Concertación ya no entusiasma a la ciudadanía, porque ya no tiene ideales y sueños: de allí que se multipliquen las protestas callejeras y, en general, la "acción directa". El Transantiago y EFE demuestran que a la Concertación le queda poca capacidad de gestión. Hay corrupción. El modelo económico, que la Concertación ha administrado bien desde 1990, parece despertar en ella cada vez más recelo. Y ese recelo le hace daño al mismo modelo. Porque los funcionarios se sienten con permiso para entrabar las inversiones, y se mina la confianza, lo que desemboca en una tasa de crecimiento inadecuada.

A menos que la Concertación se revitalizara en forma casi milagrosa, su continuidad en el poder más allá de 2010 podría llevar al país a un grado de mediocridad de objetivos y de gestión francamente peligroso. La economía podría empezar a estancarse de verdad, creándose una fatal brecha entre la realidad y las expectativas. La frustrada ciudadanía podría, claro, optar en ese momento por la derecha, pero podría también optar por una versión nativa del chavismo. Por eso es tan irresponsable la esperanza que tienen algunos en la derecha, de que el Gobierno se vuelva más populista; de que, por ejemplo, caiga un Andrés Velasco, lo reemplace un ministro más suelto de trenzas, y se produzca un descalabro. Aun si eso ayudara a la derecha a llegar al poder, es una aspiración poco patriótica. La verdad es otra: el populismo en América Latina, lejos de abrirle el camino a la derecha, genera cada vez más voluntarismo populista, hasta degenerar en dictadura, como en Venezuela.

La verdadera preocupación de la derecha debería ser la de encontrar un camino propio que encante al país. Para eso necesita trabajar en dos áreas: la de la renovación de sus liderazgos, y la de la renovación de sus ideas. En el primer caso, urge democratizar los partidos, para que sus líderes se midan en elecciones y puedan surgir caras nuevas. En el segundo, la derecha tiene que mostrar que está bien en los rubros en que la Concertación está mal. Que está unida. Que tiene capacidad de gestión. Que poblará el Estado con la mejor gente, y no a través de cuoteos. Que, por tanto, Chile se irá liberando del despilfarro y de la corrupción. Pero, sobre todo, que tiene una coherente y ganadora visión de país. La derecha rara vez se ha atrevido a salir a defender las ideas liberales que en Chile son la fuente de nuestro éxito relativo. A defender la competencia como instrumento moral para contener la codicia; a defender la iniciativa privada y la toma de responsabilidad personal como la vía para realizarse como ser humano, y de allí poder ser solidario con eficacia; a defender la creación de riqueza, sea espiritual o material, como la forma en que el individuo le retribuye a Dios o al planeta por su propia creación. El pensamiento liberal es entendible para cualquier ser humano; apela a sus emociones más nobles. Por eso, cuando es comunicado con convicción, adquiere una tremenda fuerza electoral. Es algo que la izquierda chilena, fuera de una notable y valiosa minoría, no ha querido entender. Ésa es la gran oportunidad que tiene la derecha.

martes, 24 de abril de 2007

Atención apocalípticos: El futuro es de Googlezon



Umberto Eco, en Apocalípticos e integrados (1965), habla de dos tipos de reacciones frontalmente opuestas frente a la nueva cultura de masas. Por un lado están los apocalípticos, con una resistencia total al cambio que les hace ver cualquier novedad como una amenaza para su estabilidad. Los integrados, en cambio, solo ven ventajas en esta nueva sociedad.
Bueno estimados apocalípticos, vean este "video" de notable factura realizado por un ficticio Museum of media history y empiecen a preocuparse. La conspiración para controlar al mundo entre Google y Amazon ya comenzó.

domingo, 22 de abril de 2007

Se baja Miliband



Tal cual. Miliband no se enfrentará a Brown para ocupar el puesto de primer ministro. Así, la mano derecha de Blair duerme tranquilo esperando el día de la votación. Pero para muchos, esto es el fin del Nuevo Laborismo. Claro, la renovación real del proyecto debería venir de una cara nueva, evitando el continuismo que representa el Chancellor. Y parece que Miliband, si bien tenía la ambición, no pudo contra la máquina del blerismo. En fin. Pero como la política inglesa tiene ese fino toque de distinción, Milliband se encargo de decir "Yo votaré por Gordon" a través de una columna en The Observer. Aquí van algunos estractos donde propone una nueva forma denominada New Labour Plus. Es cierto, parece un nuevo producto Duracell pero es un poco más que eso. Lo más rescatable: su visión del estilo pólitico que los nuevos tiempos demandan.


I will vote for Gordon
Domingo 22 de abril, 2007
The Observer

In 1997, people felt that voting Labour was a vote for change. In 2007, we need to recapture that sense of vision, hope and excitement. To do that, we need a political project broader and deeper than New Labour 1997-2007. It is New Labour Plus: the good things about New Labour, from a strong economy to investment in public services to help for the poorest, plus new emphasis on the power of individuals and communities to shape their lives, from climate change to social care, supported by effective government at national and European level.

My view is that a Labour victory in 2009/10 needs to be based on three planks. First, the vision thing, ideas that can excite people about where we want to take the country over 10 years. We need change from the Blair years, not to go back on New Labour, but to resuscitate it. Second, delivery. The record since 1997 needs rehabilitation, because it is far better than suggested by daily headlines, but people will only listen if we are honest about mistakes and lessons as well as successes and progress. And third, political culture. We need to renew our political structures and style as well as our policies.

People want to be players in the economic, social, environmental and political decisions that affect them. They want to feel that their fate is not constrained by their background. That means budgets in the hands of people, more devolution from central to local government, new ways to empower people not just through education and training but also at work. On climate change, it means pushing as far as possible individual as well as business and governmental efforts.

Third, we need to be serious about new politics. This is partly about style - being up-front about choices and mistakes, being open to questioning and criticism - but it is also about much more.

It is about real commitment to political pluralism, from local government to the House of Lords. It is about finding new ways of connecting to voters than through conventional media. It is about thinking through how political parties can become agents of social and economic change in communities and not just electoral machines.

For 10 years, we have been remedying the problems we inherited. Now we need to shape Britain's future. We do have a clear view of the good society - more equal, more secure, more confident. It is based on real empowerment for individuals and communities, an open society that promotes equal opportunity and collective responsibility, and global engagement for citizens, cities and companies as well as national government.

We need to work on that vision, hone its components, put it into more accessible language and show the public that we can build on the start we have made. I think we can and will succeed.

viernes, 20 de abril de 2007

Tony Blair: conversando en la despedida



Tony se va. Y justo ahora, usted tendrá la oportunidad de conocerlo. Mala señal. En este video, Tony y Gordon le abren las puertas del poder a la ciudadanía para conversar, para escuchar sus inquietudes. Pero la formula no funciona. Es distante y ajena. Los políticos aparacen de un lado y el ciudadano en el otro. La señora juanita maneja el taxi y ellos van de pasajeros. Usted manda un texto vía celular y tal vez es seleccionado. Y para rematar, los ministros contestan sus preguntas en un call center con menos humanidad que los telefonistas de la Teleton. Un intento por acercar la política a las personas que está muy lejos de la innovadora formula New Labour.

Pero no es todo. El laborismo busca también un espacio en la red y "Labourvision" es la nueva apuesta. Se trata de un canal en YouTube del partido laborista para "iniciar un dialogo horizontal con los ciudadanos". Las comillas son parte de la famosa frase de David Cameron en el lanzamiento de webcameron, hace un año atras...



miércoles, 18 de abril de 2007

Cameron: más que una gran campaña



David Cameron nuevamente está innovando, pero no solo en materia de comunicación política. Esta vez, el Party Election Broadcast es solo un boton de muestra de los contenidos que hay detras del Modern Conservatism. Política local, participativa y por sobre todo, humana.


Este video es el lanzamiento de la estación Tory. No solo es emitida desde "webcameron" sino también desde "ConservativeTV" y señal abierta. ¿La razón? El 3 de mayo hay elecciones locales en UK, donde triunfar es un paso clave en la estrategia "localista" impuesta por el new conservantism. El objetivo es sencillo: hacer de los Torys la mejor opción para las generales del 2009.
La factura es notable. Un lenguaje directo y simple, camara en mano, junto a los ciudadanos jugando de visita, enfrentando los temas y respondiendo desde el imperio del sentido común. Una catedra para los politícos de la nueva generación.
En palabras del propio Cameron, "Pienso que es vital que los políticos esten en contacto directo con la vida de las personas, oyendo lo que tienen que decir, dando respuestas directas... Yo creo en la Resposabilidad Social. En confiar que las personas haran las cosas bien."

sábado, 14 de abril de 2007

David v/s David: "I need, I want & I can"





La primera división de la política inglesa presenta al nuevo chico nuevo: David Milliband. Su perfil es comparado permantemente con David Cameron: 41 años, egresado de Oxford y MIT, diputado Laborista y secretario de medioambiente de Blair.
Milliband es para muchos, la próxima carta del nuevo laborismo. Frente al desgaste de Blair y su sucesor Gordon Brown, David representa renovación y una perfecta opción para hacerse cargo del otro David. Tanto así, que a principios de abril escribió esta brillante columna llamada Mi visión para el futuro. Y si bien dentro del partido Laborista existian muchas dudas sobre las intenciones de Milliband frente a Brown, estas líneas las despejan todas.



My vision for the future
David Miliband
02 April 2007
The New Satement


Politics requires many virtues - organisation, ideas, resolution, luck. But chief among them is the hardest to define: that elusive sense of being in tune with the times. Political parties succeed when they join their values to deep economic, social and cultural trends. I am convinced that a fourth election victory, and fundamental changes to the landscape of Britain, are possible precisely because a more demanding, educated, savvy population want the power and control that modern progressive politics can offer. I believe the opportunity is as great as at any time in the past 60 years.

In the years after 1945, people said: "I need . . ." I need the basics of a civilised life: good insurance against pain and economic misfortune, a decent education and housing. The Labour Party understood that mood, shared it and enacted policy to make it real.

The fit was both philosophical and administrative. Labour's governing ideas of community and fraternity were perfectly suited to a society that had lived through the most binding of all common experiences, a war against an aggressor. Labour's strategy - the state as the provider of social goods such as healthcare and education - was no more than a continuation of the evident success of the wartime economy. Millions of lives were made better as a result.

In the 1980s, "I need" was replaced as the dominant philosophy by the politics of "I want". A political philosophy emerged which, again in its ideology and its methods, understood the times. The Thatcher government licensed this materialism, encouraged aspirations and captured a new constituency. Its method was simple: get out of the way. The revolution was never completed. The state actually grew in size.

Millions of people, every bit as aspirant as those who had been rewarded, were left behind. Some communities missed out altogether.

The government stood by. The helping hand of the state had been scorned, replaced by the invisible hand of the market. We are still living with some of the consequences of those times: the families struggling to get on the housing ladder; the young people outside education, training or work, unsure of their futures. The politics of "I want" collapsed under its own weight. In the end, no society can be the sum total of individual desires.

Since 1997, Britain has changed in some ways more fundamentally than new Labour promised. It is a different country - richer, fairer, more confident. I also think it is being driven forward by a new spirit. I call it the politics of "I can". The era of "I can" is the culmination of the long decline of deference and automatic authority. It is the late flowering of individual autonomy and control. It is, in other words, one of the founding ideas of left-of-centre politics: to put power in the hands of the people.

In the "I can" era, people want to be players, not just spectators. They want to be contributors, not just consumers. Technology is enabling these aspirations to be fulfilled and new institutional models to emerge. In South Korea, the online newspaper Ohmynews has, as its motto, "every citizen is a reporter". It is the first "paper" in the world where the majority of the content is written by freelance contributors who are mostly ordinary citizens. YouTube and MySpace enable citizens to create and distribute content, shifting power from traditional broadcasters and record companies to citizens and small groups.

Politics cannot stand apart from these changes. A generation is coming to political maturity that expects not just high standards of provision, delivered quickly to specification, but also real control.

David Cameron is groping for this when he talks about social responsibility. But it is not enough to say that the world would be a better place if people showed social responsibility. This soon becomes a new code for malign neglect, the old Tory idea in fancier dress.

An "I can" society asks new things of citizens, and demands that they acquire new skills. But it also requires very different government institutions. That is why social and economic change today require government leadership and profes sional innovation, as well as mass mobilisation.

In the battle against climate change, an "I can" society enables citizens to become producers as well as consumers of energy. Within ten years, all new homes will need to sell energy back to the national grid, with citizens getting a fair price for their electricity. The power stations of the future will draw energy from a million roofs, rather than just a central generator.

"I can" must be combined with a sense of "we can" - the belief that there is a shared willingness within each community that individuals' actions will be reciprocated by others. The best way of getting citizens to invest in energy-efficiency measures is not just to appeal on the basis of individual self-interest, but to target a whole street or ward and make citizens feel part of a wider drive to tackle climate change. That is why energy policy in future must be a matter for local government as well as national government.

In public services, an "I can" service will continually ask: how can we devolve power, funding and control to the lowest appropriate level, while maintaining high national minimum standards? Can teachers and children inject more creativity into what is learnt, where and how? Can communities manage public spaces, from parks to community centres? Can the criminal justice system become more connected to the communities it serves, with courts based within communities, and citizens able to have influence over sentencing (as happens in the pioneering Liverpool experiment that Charlie Falconer described to the cabinet two weeks ago)?

This is not a zero-sum game between government power and citizen power; it is a genuine partnership that breaks down the divide between producer and consumer.

In the economy, "I can" companies and public sector organisations will inspire their employees to go the extra mile and apply their creativity in the workplace. Employees will be offered more power, responsibility and autonomy, from options to buy a stake in the company to the opportunity for further training.

These changes must be underpinned by changes in the way we govern. Strong local government in cities such as Manchester, Sheffield and Exeter has been the heartbeat of economic growth and social inclusion. But, in truth, new Labour has been better at strong national leadership than at nurturing strong local institutions of self-government. Yet look at our membership cards: they say clearly that we are pledged to put power, as well as wealth and opportunity, in the hands of the many not the few.

The concentration of power in Westminster is as antithetical to our ambitions of a more equal society as is the concentration of power in the private sector.

Creating institutions closer to citizens, open and accountable to their communities, able to reconcile conflicts and competing demands, is the way to tackle the sense of powerlessness that can seem pervasive. That means we need to fight the instinct of bureaucracies and political parties to hold on to power. One hundred towns and cities with the leadership, confidence and power to lead British economic, social and cultural renewal should be our aim.

New Labour has joined together the twin drives to meet needs and to fulfil aspirations. The next phase will be to capture the politics of a people who can now do so much more. That is a project that should excite everyone for the years ahead.

martes, 10 de abril de 2007

¿Es Chile un sapo? Por Mario Waissbluth



Chile, mirando otras experiencias internacionales, debe desarrollar planes estratégicos de largo plazo y que integren propuestas(y acciones) de múltiples actores sociales: universidades, centros de estudios, empresas, sociedad civil, etc. Y si bien la visión que propone Waissbluth no es nueva, es clave en el proceso de globalización acelarada en el cual estamos inmersos.

Que Pasa
Marzo 30, 2007


Irlanda

Navegando, navegando, me topé con el Ireland National Development Plan 2007-2013, publicado en enero de este año. Fresquito del horno. Si no cree, googlee. Me produjo espasmos de envidia, de la mala. Es un documento elaborado por el gobierno de este país de 4 millones de habitantes, que sabe que en el mundo global nadie le hará ningún favor.

El informe se redactó habiendo recibido previamente 77 contribuciones de órganos regionales, empresariales, el Consejo de Competitividad, la Homeless Agency, la Asociación de Criadores de Purasangres, el Concejo Municipal de Fingal y quien quiera que quiso mandar sus propuestas.

Viene firmado por el primer ministro, el vice-primer ministro y el ministro de Finanzas. Constituye la continuación del Plan 2000-2006 y, bajo licitación pública, fue evaluado externamente -para verificar su consistencia- por el Instituto de Investigación Económica y Social. Si esto no es transparencia y participación ciudadana, no sé lo que es.

Ciertamente no es un conjunto de promesas vagas -"lineamientos", "se privilegiará la?", "se propenderá a?"- ni un saludo a la bandera. Traduzcamos un párrafo textual:

"Transforming Ireland -A Better Quality of Life for All es el mapa de ruta del futuro de Irlanda. Para optimizar nuestras opciones necesitamos este mapa, que focaliza los desafíos centrales en: a) La remoción de los cuellos de botella en infraestructura que impiden un desarrollo económico y regional balanceado; b) Equipar a nuestros niños y jóvenes con la educación y competencias necesarias; c) Crear y mantener oportunidades de empleo de alto valor; d) Redistribuir el ingreso; e) Crear estrategias regionales de desarrollo para comunidades rurales; f) La protección del medio ambiente. El financiamiento proviene completamente de los recursos de nuestros contribuyentes y está diseñado para generar un retorno económico real. En los próximos siete años invertiremos 184 billones de euros (nótese: aproximadamente US$ 10.000 anuales por habitante), incluyendo 54 billones para infraestructura económica, 20 billones para la empresa, ciencia e innovación; 26 billones en capital humano, 34 billones en infraestructura social y 50 billones en inclusión social".

Todo bien detallado, ítem por ítem, año por año, con propuestas osadas e innovadoras. ¿Se habrán vuelto locos estos compadres? ¿Volvieron a la planificación soviética? ¿Ya no creen que la mano del mercado lo orienta todo? Raro, porque harto capitalista que es ese país.

Australia
Sigamos sufriendo. Google ahora nos permite adentrarnos en el National Food Industry Strategy de Australia, elaborado por su Ministerio de Agricultura hace cinco años, en consulta con entes empresariales, rurales, etc. Vamos viendo lo que dice: "Una agenda de acción que involucra a todos los actores en el desarrollo de la estrategia... la industria identifica las tareas y acciones necesarias para desarrollar su potencial (...) si esta industria va a continuar desempeñando un rol clave, es necesario un cambio radical de pensamiento, políticas públicas y esfuerzo de la industria, y una gran cooperación entre la industria y el gobierno".

Este "plancito" comprometió 20 millones de dólares anuales del gobierno, por 5 años, para implementar 23 medidas muy concretas: siete de ellas en el ámbito de la capacitación, educación, investigación e innovación; cuatro en una estrategia de penetración de mercados internacionales; siete en el ámbito regulatorio y de ambiente de negocios; tres de sustentabilidad ambiental; y dos para asegurar la ejecución y comunicación del plan.

Como esto ocurrió hace cinco años, seguí googleando, hasta que encontré que en los siguientes cuatro años del plan sus exportaciones de alimentos pasaron de 13 mil millones a 18 mil millones de dólares americanos. Su exportación alimentaria per cápita ahora es cerca del doble de la chilena. Hoy exportan más del doble de vino que nuestros sabrosos carmenere y merlot, lo cual explica, al menos en parte, por qué nosotros andamos gastando plata en quemar parronales mientras ellos se la gastan en promover inteligentemente sus exportaciones.

Chile
Desde que la capacidad de planificación nacional quedó destruida en Odeplan -alrededor de 1985-, y en que la propia palabra planificación se convirtió en una obscenidad hasta hoy, pensar el país de largo plazo y tomar acciones al respecto habían prácticamente desaparecido de la discusión pública. Cada ministerio sectorial tiene su agenda propia, y Hacienda de vez en cuando hace algún intento, en los ratos libres que le deja el manejo de la caja, de orientar el buque en el corto plazo con las lucas.

Algunas cosas hemos hecho en Chilito, claro está. Hace como un año tuvimos un espasmo de Chile Potencia Alimentaria pero todavía no sabemos qué pasó. Tuvimos una Agenda Digital que brilló, murió y parece que será rescatada. El MOP retomó recientemente tareas de planificación de infraestructura regional largamente descuidadas y difíciles de coordinar con la casi inexistente planificación urbana, económica y ambiental del territorio. Conama nos anuncia la planificación de cuencas. Hay un cierto despegue de agencias de desarrollo productivo en regiones, aun cuando todavía sus instrumentos de acción no están particularmente claros. El Consejo de Innovación lleva como un año amenazándonos con sus clusters. Está bien y qué bueno, pero? too little, too late, too uncoordinated. Por cierto, parece que en regiones somos más capaces de ponernos de acuerdo que en esta atormentada capital. En el Congreso, ni se diga.

¡Qué rabia! Aquí preocupados de sacarnos la mugre entre nosotros, y allá en Australia, en Nueva Zelandia, en Irlanda, preocupados de sacarnos la mugre a nosotros y a todo el que se les ponga por delante. Nos inventamos un modelito de organización política bien bueno para retornar a la democracia y pésimo para competir en el mundo. Está obsoleto, anquilosado, no sirve para competir en el globalizado siglo XXI, hay que venderlo como fierro viejo.

Somos un país chico, muy alejado de las principales rutas de comercio, con vecinos turbulentos, con una tendencia demográfica regresiva y una población que mayoritariamente no entiende lo que lee. No muy buena plataforma para competir que digamos. Y lo peor es que estamos tan pero tan ocupados en sacarnos la mugre mutuamente, que ni siquiera nos damos cuenta que el mundo nos va a pasar por encima. Es como la biología del sapo. Si se lo tira al agua hirviendo salta, pero si se le calienta el agua de a poquito, entra en un dulce sopor y termina convertido en guiso francés nouveaux cuisine. "Chili au pobretón avec faranduleux et politiciens populistes". Fuimos y seremos siempre refinados, eso sí.

jueves, 5 de abril de 2007

Why the rich should now be made to pay



Anthony Giddens, el sociólogo conocido como el arquitecto de la "Tercera vía", publicó esta columna en la revista The New Statement (02 April 2007). Desde una perspectiva crítica y directa, se hace cargo de los aciertos y fracasos de los años de Blair en el poder en materia de desigualdad. Lo hace proponiendo 16 políticas para hacer de UK un país más equitativo. Las empresas y los ricos se llevan la demanda más significativa: son invitados a un profundo cambio cultural respecto a sus responsabilidades con la comunidad, incluyendo impuestos a la riqueza.
A su vez, le raya la cancha a Gordon Brown y le aclara al partido laborista que el foco en la clase trabajadora impuesto al partido conservador por David Cameron es una señal potente.


Britain remains a society with too many inequalities, too many barriers to opportunity for those at the bottom. "Not enough redistribution!" say some. If only things were so simple. Redistribution there must be, but much more besides.

Average income in the UK has grown substantially since 1997 - 2.4 per cent a year to the end of 2005. London has had the highest rises. However, if differences in house prices are taken into account, there is far less variation between London and other areas in spending power. There has actually been considerable redistribution towards pensioners (a term I dislike), single parents and children. The proportion of older people living in poverty is smaller than the average for the population as a whole. In 1997 there were 13.8 million people living in poverty, as measured after housing costs, or 10.2 million before housing costs; these figures have fallen to 11.4 million and 9.2 million. A fifth of the population now lives below the poverty line (60 per cent of median income), compared to almost a quarter in 1997.

The government failed to meet its declared target of reducing child poverty by a quarter by the end of the financial year 2005. Although 700,000 children were lifted out of poverty, reducing the overall number to its lowest since the late 1980s, this figure was still 300,000 short of the target set.

Ministers pledged in 1998 that child poverty would be halved by 2011. If present polices are maintained, however, the level will not differ much from now on. Like other forms of poverty in Britain, child poverty is a relative measure. The government's target of "eliminating" child poverty by 2020 has not yet been clearly defined. Three countries in Europe have managed to achieve child poverty rates of just 5 per cent - Denmark, Norway and Finland - which is about as close as anyone could ever get. Yet even achieving a rate of less than 10 per cent would represent considerable success for British society. A significant change in policy is required, now, if the 2020 target is to be met.

Those on the old left seem to think it easy to reduce inequality: you take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Yet the rich, however defined, are a tiny minority. If they are to be taxed more, it should be for reasons other than just a little more redistribution, otherwise it would do virtually nothing to alleviate the structural problems that make the UK so unequal. Here are 16 policy areas that could make a difference.

1 Make reducing child poverty a driving force, as just mentioned.

2 Conventional redistributive mechanisms should stay in place, but they should be adjusted. Congestion charging and parking charges in cities, for instance, can be designed to have a progressive content - many poorer people do not own a car; the proceeds can be channelled into improving public transport; drivers of larger cars can be made to pay more.

3 Active labour-market policy (the New Deal and welfare-to-work) is important in reducing the disruptive effects of job loss. But because of rising levels of technological change and international competition, we need to explore policies that will help workers even before jobs start to be lost. The present policies are like throwing people into a pool to see if they can swim and helping them only once it is clear they can't. Far better to prepare them. The possibilities include using vouchers for in-work training for those in vulnerable industries, as part of an agreement to accept lower wages for a period. Such schemes, usually involving employers, unions and the government, are already being pioneered in some European countries. In Austria, work foundations have been set up to provide a network of resources for workers who become redundant. Where a company is forced to lay off large numbers of workers, those who stay in their jobs make a contribution as a gesture of solidarity. The company makes a larger overall donation. Those who lose their jobs contribute half their redundancy payments. The state also provides support for retraining and job search.

Helping hand

4 We should start to think of employment or wage insurance. Two-thirds of workers who lose their jobs earn lower wages when they find new work. Wage insurance would replace a substantial proportion of lost earnings for up to two years. A pilot version exists in the US. Under the programme, workers have to show that they lost their jobs as a result of trade competition, be over the age of 50, make less than $50,000 in a new job, and be re-employed within six months of being made redundant.

5 On average, older people in Britain have become better-off since 1997, but 17 per cent still live below the poverty line. We should aim to get to 60:60 - 60 per cent or more of those over the age of 60 in work, in full-time or part-time jobs.

6 People who live in embedded poverty may have few skills, have problems with drugs, fall into a life of crime and find it hard to sustain lasting relationships. The experience since 1997 shows that policies based on benefits or tax credits have little impact, partly because of low levels of take-up. An important approach is intervention targeted at the very young. Research shows that, at the age of two or three, children can establish behaviour patterns that are very difficult to break. Another factor is housing. About 50,000 people nationally, who might otherwise be on the streets, live in hostels or temporary accommodation, but these people cannot find more permanent homes. There are also large numbers of "hidden homeless", who are sleeping on the floors of friends or family members. The government has invested millions in repairing existing council houses, but more social housing is the only feasible solution for those at the bottom.

7 Research shows that even owning a small amount of capital can make an important difference in life. People who own assets at the age of 23 generally earn more ten years later than those without them, even when income, class and gender are taken out of the equation. The government's Child Trust Fund pays £250 to every child at birth. Children from poorer backgrounds get double that sum. The fund is topped up when the child is seven; again, there is more money for poorer children. The child cannot touch the money - nor can the parents - before he or she reaches 18. Surveys show that poorer parents appreciate this scheme.

8 Poverty is an endemic condition for some, but there is also far more movement in and out of poverty than we used to think. We should recognise that much poverty is biographical. People fall into poverty through specific life events and episodes, such as divorce or the break-up of a relationship, leaving the parental home, illness or, of course, losing a job. It follows that we should not concentrate policy solely on those who are poor at any one time, but upon those just above the poverty line.

9 The relationship between work and non-work has grown more complex. We should think of policy more in terms of the lifespan, rather than the here and now. This means seeing employment differently from the way we did in the past - as a temporary state or an expression of long-term employability. A guiding ideal, for both sexes, might be a 30-hour working week over the entire career of the in dividual, with various interruptions or career breaks and allowance for part-time work.

10 The Women and Work Commission found that the gap between the pay of men and women working full-time in 2005 was 17 per cent in hourly pay rates. Although this has closed somewhat, there are several reasons why women still tend to lose out, all of which could be eased by policy intervention.

11 Two-thirds of those claiming Pension Credit are women. At the moment, 85 per cent of men are entitled on retirement to a full basic state pension, compared to 30 per cent of women; only 24 per cent of women have that entitlement on the basis of their own contributions. The government has introduced a new contributory principle, but it will not do much to help in the immediate future. The pension system, moreover, remains extraordinarily complex.

12 Lifestyle changes are starting to influence inequalities a great deal - not just reflect them - especially in health. The remedies here will have to be behavioural rather than simply economic. It has been found, for example, that improving the diet of children with special needs, and combining this with exercise, significantly improves their attitudes and attainment.

13 Giving an effective choice of school to parents from poorer backgrounds must be backed by further policy strategies. One indicator of underprivilege is entitlement to free school meals. Just 3 per cent of pupils at the best-performing state schools fall into this category - showing the extent of "middle-class capture", but also that the pre-existing system was not fair. The average nationally is 17 per cent. The government has made some innovations to try to reverse this. The new school code suggests introducing a lottery-type admission system, to stop parents gaining admission for their children by buying houses nearby. Some city academies already operate random allocation policies, ensuring that certain children from poor backgrounds get a place. The new code is mandatory and will cover anyone applying to state schools in 2008, but other policies must be explored.

14 Labour has largely left private schools alone. Gordon Brown says he wants to increase spending on state schools to the level of private ones. That is a laudable intention, but it can't be realised overnight. Some effort has been made to oblige private schools to show social responsibility. In the UK, the private system is explicitly geared to providing advantages for the sons and daughters of those already advantaged. And it works: 48 per cent of students at Cambridge attended a private school, and 45 per cent of those at Oxford, although only 7 per cent of the population as a whole is educated at such schools. The government has been reluctant to support the scheme pioneered by the philanthropist Peter Lampl, but it should show more interest. The Belvedere School in Liverpool is private. Lampl has given funds to help it operate blind-needs admission. Anyone who qualifies for entry is guaranteed a place, regardless of financial circumstances. The scheme has been a remarkable success, with children from a wide range of backgrounds represented at the Belvedere.

15 Universities could look at a scheme originally introduced, somewhat surprisingly, in Texas, and now taken up in France. In 1997 the state of Texas introduced a policy whereby all students graduating in the top 10 per cent of their class in high school are guaranteed university entrance. As a result, the proportion of students from poorer backgrounds and minorities has grown steadily. Evidence so far shows that students admitted in this way perform as well academically as those accepted in the usual fashion. It is easier to apply the idea in France than in the UK, because of the centralised nature of French higher education. Yet either the government, or universities themselves, could agree to pilot a similar scheme in a city or region.

16 Finally, what about the rich? What about the way corporate leaders' salaries have been pulling away from those of their employees? What about the City high-flyers making millions in salaries and bonuses? Should Labour, as Peter Mandelson once remarked, be "relaxed about people getting filthy rich"? No!

Assets for a few

Labour can no longer be against entrepreneurs, the driving forces of economic success. But becoming wealthy should carry with it social obligations, such as to give something back to society, to pay tax in full, and to encourage social and environmental responsibility within companies. For several decades after the Second World War, the ratio of top executives' earnings to average income was stable. In the 1980s, it began to accelerate away and has not stopped since.

There is no official richness line in the same way as there is a poverty line. Let's say arbitrarily that "the rich" are the top 0.05 per cent. Labour should consider introducing a wealth tax of the kind found in some other countries. Wealth is more unequally distributed than income, with a high concentration in the hands of a few. The economist Edward Wolff has suggested for the United States a system based on the Swiss model. Assets would be taxed annually, according to a steeply progressive scale. Those with assets under a specific threshold would not pay, with steeper rates cutting in at, say, £1m in assets. This system would generate about 1 per cent of total revenue - more than would be achieved in the UK if income tax were raised to 50 per cent for people earning more than £100,000. It would be easy to administer, Wolff says, because it could be fully integrated with personal income tax.

The proceeds of such a tax, if implemented here, should not go into the Treasury coffers, but be devoted to a specific purpose - for example, helping children from underprivileged backgrounds get into higher education. Those contributing substantial sums to charity could be absolved from the tax.

Reducing tax evasion and getting rid of the loopholes that make widespread tax avoidance possible should be priorities - as far as possible on an international as well as a national level. The Conservatives have talked about abolishing inheritance tax, but the strategy should be to make it more progressive. At present only 6 per cent of inherited wealth is taken in tax. A steeper rate at the top (in addition, again, to keeping control of loopholes) would be fairer and would generate more revenue (the Budget made some changes in this direction).

Philanthropy is clearly one of the main responsibilities of high earners, because they should give back to the society that has helped them realise their opportunities. In the US, top earners in effect pay a voluntary tax on their earnings, and large numbers accept the obligation. Some prominent figures have given away virtually their whole fortune, especially towards the end of their lives. There is not the same culture of philanthropy in this country, and despite the introduction of tax incentives, there is not yet the same level of tax breaks.

In October, top managers at Siemens in Germany were awarded a pay rise of 30 per cent. The company was in the middle of restructuring, and many workers stood to lose their jobs. Most of the workforce had already accepted pay cuts through agreements that reduced their hours of work. Faced with an uproar, the executives announced that they would donate their pay rises to help workers in a subsidiary whose jobs were threatened. In Britain, the management might have been praised for keeping the company on an even keel in the face of overseas competition. Our business culture needs to change.

"We must show that . . . we will be a party that is for working people, not rich and powerful vested interests." Who said this? Not Tony Blair, not Gordon Brown, but David Cameron. Labour should take note.

MySpace organizará elecciones primarias virtuales en EE.UU



Publicado el 5 de abril del 2007 por La Vanguardia

San Francisco. (AFP).- El sitio de internet MySpace anunció el martes que planea organizar en enero de 2008 elecciones primarias virtuales para establecer los aspirantes demócratas y republicanos a la Casa Blanca.

Estas elecciones virtuales, sin valor legal, tendrán lugar el 1 y 2 de enero de 2008, antes de las primeras elecciones primarias reales, que comienzan tradicionalmente en Iowa (centro de Estados Unidos) y New Hampshire (noreste), precisó el sitio en un comunicado.

"La comunidad de MySpace dará a Estados Unidos el primer vencedor de las primarias de 2008", dijo Chris DeWolfe, presidente de MySpace. El voto virtual estará abierto solo a los ciudadanos estadounidenses.

MySpace, que pertenece al grupo de comunicación News Corp., lanzó recientemente un espacio exclusivamente consagrado a la elección presidencial en Estados Unidos.

Las verdaderas elecciones primarias son organizadas por los partidos republicano y demócrata para designar en cada Estado a los delegados del partido que acudirán a la convención nacional encargada de designar el candidato a la Casa Blanca.

La elección presidencial será el primer martes de noviembre de 2008.

miércoles, 4 de abril de 2007

Política en Chile: más que nada, indiferencia




Domingo 1 de abril de 2007
Sondeo El Mercurio-Opina:
Indiferencia y desencanto, el nuevo fenómeno ciudadano
Claudia Guzmán

El 73,7% cree que el cambio de gabinete fue innecesario, insuficiente o, simplemente, le es indiferente. A menos del tercio de los encuestados le importa la paridad y más de la mitad cree que el nuevo equipo político lo hará igual o peor. Ni el mea culpa ayudó: un 59% mantiene su opinión sobre Bachelet y el 20,8% la empeoró. ¿Esperanzas? Un rotundo 61,4% no le ve solución al Transantiago.



Las cosas no se han hecho bien", reconoció al inicio de esta semana la Presidenta Bachelet. "Y se seguirán haciendo igual... o peor", fue la respuesta del 67,6% de las personas que participaron en un sondeo realizado tres días después.

Este jueves 29, cuando el descontento por el Transantiago se mezcló con el vandalismo adolescente y el activismo político, una encuesta El Mercurio-Opina salió a buscar la evaluación del último ajuste del gobierno de Bachelet.

Cuatro ministros que salieron y seis que llegaron, incluido un nuevo timonel para el transporte, no fueron suficientes para pensar que las cosas podían mejorar.

¿Qué pasó? Un nuevo fenómeno ciudadano rodea a la Presidenta que en marzo de 2006 tenía 65,3 % de apoyo y que, un año después, bajó a 42,8%.

REACCIONES ANTE EL NUEVO EQUIPO POLÍTICO: Del optimismo total al escepticismo ante gabinete y paridad

Al iniciar su gobierno, el 57% de los encuestados por El Mercurio-Opina pensaba que Bachelet lo haría igual a su antecesor y un optimista 28% creía que todo sería mejor. Apenas el 9,5 opinaba que sería peor.

A poco andar, al cumplir sus 100 días y tras la revolución pingüina, el 60% pedía un cambio de ministros. Pero cuando éste vino, la evaluación hacia el Gobierno no mejoró.

Lo mismo -y más- pasa hoy. El cambio de Gabinete del pasado lunes está lejos de ser aprobado o de ser recibido con expectación.

El 73.7% cree que el cambio de gabinete fue innecesario (28,5%), insuficiente (33,3) o, simplemente, no tiene opinión (11,9). Un rotundo 59,3% cree que la Mandataria lo realizó bajo presión y, a la hora de evaluar su oportunidad, el 40,9% dice que da lo mismo que haya cambiado de ministros hoy, mañana o ayer.

¿Por qué la indiferencia? Porque el 67,6% cree que las cosas van a seguir iguales (47,8) o peor (19,8). Los optimistas, eso sí, siguen teniendo representación (28%)

Otro motor de desencanto es la paridad. En marzo de 2006, el 91% creía que tener igual cantidad de mujeres al mando haría que el gobierno funcionara mejor (41,5%) o igual (49,5%). Hoy la equidad de género es un tema que poco importa (34,7%) o que es bueno terminar (31,9%). Sólo el 26,2% sigue creyendo en los beneficios de la igualdad.

TRANSANTIAGO: Sergio Espejo, un mártir sin causa

Si el descontento en los primeros 100 días de gobierno vestía tenida escolar, hoy el conflicto no tiene edad. Pasa por todas las generaciones, sexos, estratos sociales y viaja a bordo del Metro, de un alimentador o de un troncal.

Los cambios políticos gatillados por el Transantiago están lejos de recibir buena evaluación. Tanto es así, que un rotundo 61,4% cree que el nuevo ministro Cortázar no podrá mejorar la situación. Y, lejos, las más desesperanzadas son las mujeres (68,1%) de estrato social bajo (75,2%).

A transporte revuelto, ganancia de pescador. Sergio Espejo deja la cartera con un apoyo que ya se quisiera la mismísima Bachelet: 50,4%. Y entre quienes lo defienden vuelven a marcar presencia mujeres (54,2%) de bajos recursos (56%).

Es precisamente ése sector de la población el más desprotegido, el que más incide (con un 28%) sobre el 20% de personas que empeoró su opinión respecto de Bachelet tras el mea culpa presidencial.

El sector más pobre de la población es el que más incide (con un 28%) sobre el 20% de personas que empeoró su opinión respecto de Bachelet tras el mea culpa presidencial.

FICHA TÉCNICA:

Universo: Residentes en los hogares del Gran Santiago con teléfono fijo y 18 años o más.

Tamaño de la muestra: 800 unidades. Distribución proporcional por comunas y niveles socioeconómicos.

Máximo margen de error: 3,5% y un nivel de confianza de 95% para los resultados totales.

Tasa de respuesta: 62,5%.

Fecha de aplicación: Jueves 29 de marzo de 2007.