It's Not Easy Being Green

The wonderfully wonderful Rt Hon David William Donald Cameron and all his really really awfully clever men and women (gosh they are so clever) in the cabinet have proved the fastidiousness and immensity of their political acumen beyond doubt by choosing a similarly awfully clever and really top chap in the form of Sir (oh my) Phillip Green to help cut that which turns the stomach of every sensible Briton, that which has reduced the minds of all who have gazed at it into to a gibbering incoherent madness. I am, of course, referring to the many headed evil machination that we of this earthly plane dare to name, THE DEFICIT.

To even utter that creature’s name in the public sphere without the obligatory shudder and splutter causes me a great deal of physical discomfort - already have I committed blasphemous error by referencing it in the same manner in my previous entries without the necessary stock reaction.

But enough of my vitriolic vernacular, back to the matter at hand and Sir Green. He really is a stupendous and alarmingly talented man - well, you’d have to be to be the 9th richest man in Britain! A man like that nears demigod status, and I for one feel privileged just to shuffle along in this same green and pleasant land as him- my countrymen would do well to emulate this attitude. I can think of no better person to assist this wrongly maligned Government in battling that unspeakable terror. For the Tories, this is getting back to basics, as Our Saviour used to draft in private sector entrepreneurs such as Lord Rayner to seek out and destroy the myriad inefficiencies in the civil service, under the guise of the ‘Financial Management Initiative’. Of course, Mr. Cameron and his superlative colleagues are merely carrying out the Lord’s (or should that be Lady’s) work to its natural conclusion, indeed, going one better than her in drafting a businessman to try and solve the entire government budgetary DEFICIT at large!

Sir Phillip Green, as with most men who have dared to make a living for themselves in this country, has come in for criticism previously when it was discovered that his business group Arcadia were accused of using slave labour a flexible and dedicated workforce in Vietnam to produce it’s goods

Green surely can’t be blamed for this, anyone whose anyone is doing it! Why, you can’t hope to be a good businessman if you can’t cut a few corners! Green’s chattering critics are just the type of people to slate his $1 billion pay cheque - green eyed monsters who screech ‘class war!’ at the slightest provocation. Investment is a coalface, and 1 billion is small change in order to appease a demigod. It’s only natural that the Conservative Party found Sir Philip Green so attractive - both well-bred institutions of the best background, both capable of leading this country out of the dark ages. This union can be nothing short of beneficial to all of us, and it would be downright seditious to state otherwise. I rubbish those critics who say that Sir Green has no experience of the public sector or macroeconomics at large - with his colossal vision it is plain to see he will bring the leanness and dynamics of the private sector to the bloated and nannied public sector! It’s elementary logic!

Green is excited to be taking up this role, as is the unfortunately named Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister. Maude said there was,

‘..a pressing need to push forward with both the efficiency and transparency agendas,’

These are certainly agendas and agendas of such importance that they must be be pushed with the utmost force - otherwise, our efficiency and transparency development will be well and truly arrested! I don’t know about you, but a country that allows its efficiency and transparency work to fall by the wayside is a country I don’t wish to belong to!

Oh, I hear them crying once more, the enemy within. They simply won’t stop until they’ve ruined this man’s career, till this government is in tatters and until this land is in irreversible decline and ultimately an anarchic state - all because their ‘livelihoods’ are at stake. Nonsense! If they had only worked harder and gotten to better positions in society they wouldn’t be in this mess! Their present predicament owes to their laziness, and they have no right to cast such a black mark against the poor Sir Philip Green. Here’s what the mob are bawling about now,

‘

Trade union leaders today challenged the credibility of Sir Philip Green's appointment to head a Whitehall spending review as questions persisted about the high street retail boss's tax arrangements.

The government has appointed Green – the billionaire owner of the clothing retailer Arcadia, which includes Topshop and Dorothy Perkins – to identify inefficiencies and savings in Whitehall departments.

But his suitability for the role has been questioned. Green spends part of his time in Monaco, a tax haven, and in 2005 his company paid a £1.2bn dividend to his wife, Tina. She did not have to pay tax on it because she is a Monaco resident.’

...

‘David Crow, political editor of City AM, said he received a tirade of abuse from Green when he asked him about his tax arrangements at the end of a telephone interview about the billionaire's new role.

Crow told the Guardian: "I asked him whether his tax affairs came up with anyone in government when they made the appointment. I had to ask him three times because he kept asking me to repeat the question."

Green told him he was the only person to have asked him about his tax status, adding: "What difference does it make if I live on the moon – the real question is whether I'm qualified to do the job."

Crow later phoned Arcadia to try to establish the facts about Green's tax status and was asked to put his questions in an email, which contained his mobile phone number.
The company appears to have forwarded the message to Green, who phoned Crow. "I got another tirade and then he asked to talk to my editor," said Crow.

He passed the phone to his deputy editor, David Hellier, who happened to be standing next to him. "And that's when he called me a fucking tosser," Crow said.’

Yea, uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

What Are They Doing To Our Country?

So the polite formalities have been done away with and the Tory Democrats are instigating a new period of Class War. We’ve already had the ‘get on your bike’ rhetoric, so consider this an extension in awfulness - new government, new politics folks!

From the Guardian:

‘The health secretary has unveiled a radical pro-market agenda for the NHS that would permit hospitals to leave public ownership to become "not for profit" companies, hand more consumer powers to patients and allow failing medical centres to go bust.

Andrew Lansley's white paper, which sparked anger from unions and some doctors, could, in the words of one analyst, herald the "denationalisation of healthcare services in England".
The plans could represent the biggest shakeup of the NHS in a generation, with a whole tier of the NHS decapitated: 10 strategic health authorities would be abolished by 2012 and the 150 primary care trusts scrapped by 2013; up to 30,000 managers face being cut or redeployed.
Lansley warned that NHS job losses were "inevitable" but said it was vital to switch cash from bureaucracy into frontline services. "The sick must not pay for the debt crisis left by the previous administration. But the NHS is a priority for reform too. Investment has not been matched by reform. So we will reform the NHS to use those resources more effectively for the benefit of patients."

At the heart of the blueprint are family doctors, who will take over the purchase of care and be overseen by an independent commissioning board and a new economic regulator. England's 35,000 GPs will be handed £80bn of taxpayers' money and be forced to form consortiums by 2013 – there will be no opportunity to opt out of the new system. These 500 consortiums will commission treatment from hospitals on behalf of patients. At present, the NHS works via primary care trusts and the Department of Health determines each trust's spending priorities, which involves managing GPs' surgeries.

The ambition is for GPs, who are, in effect, private businesses with a contract to provide services to the NHS, to help patients choose which hospital to use on the basis of detailed success rates, down to the level of individual surgeons.’

This IS privatisation as far as I am concerned. This is literally the hacking off, the maiming of a public service in order to appease the Profit God. Here we have a 65 year old institution, one of the last bastions of nationalised industry, soon to be cut up because we ‘don’t have enough choice’ in this country. This is such an awful, despicable move in an entirely awful and despicable catalogue IIhave trouble even venting my utter contempt for this policy, for this government and for all those people who helped the Conservatives/Lib Dems into power.

The callousness and the greed and the general vulgarity of this move is made even more breathtaking when once considers this piece of evidence;

‘John Nash, the chairman of Care UK, gave £21,000 to fund Andrew Lansley’s personal office in November.

Mr Nash, a private equity tycoon, also manages several other businesses providing services to the NHS and stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Conservative policies to increase the use of private health providers.’

There are no adjectives in the English language that have the strength to describe how hysterically evil this plan is and the Tories/Liberal Democrats are. I exhaust myself trying to find the words that encapsulate how diabolical the scum that we deign to name ‘our government’ truly is.

...On the other hand, let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. Let’s remember who made the privatisation of public services palatable in the first place:

‘By 2014 every hospital will be a foundation trust and all will be allowed to leave public ownership while still providing public services. This would mean they could borrow "off balance sheet" – fulfilling Tony Blair's original vision of the bodies being outside Treasury control.’

Neither are the coalition’s junior partners that much better. Vince Cable’s come out with a similar policy concerning the graduate tax.

‘in a speech entitled "the looming crisis", Cable warned that universities which were struggling financially would be left to go bankrupt in future.

The government wants to encourage the expansion of private universities and chains of globally-branded universities. This would inevitably lead to more competition and some universities would struggle, Cable said.’

Hail the McUniversity! Hurrah for the Coca-Cola College!

‘Universities had to be prepared for a period of contraction, he said. Britain is a poorer country than two years ago with a loss of income of over 6%, and future spending had to be adjusted accordingly. He called for the public to "rethink the case for our universities from the beginning".

He said: "The university sector has experienced half a century or more of expansion – in numbers of students, staff and institutions. There is enormous forward momentum. I wonder how many people in this room really – deep down – are psychologically prepared for a period of consolidation, perhaps even contraction," he said.

"We need to rethink how we fund them, and what we expect them deliver for the public support they receive."

But what’s the alternative to University? Around here at least, the manufacturing industry has been dead since the 1980s. A lot of kids have no other choice but to go to university in order for them to be able to get a job at the end. And because so many kids are going university, that also means that competition for jobs is that much greater, which in turn leads to less people being employed, in addition to those already unemployed at the current climate.

No prospects, no help, no hope - a government bent on screwing the poor and the spectre of mass unrest up and down the country. It’s like Thatcher never left!

May as well have some appropriate music for this - to Compassionate Conservatism!

ON YOUR BIKE!...You First, Iain

So we've already had the massacre of the budget out of the way, we know the big stories behind it and what is facing the cuts. I don't think we need to go over already well-trodden ground. But IDS, the artist formerly known as the Quiet Man, has eschewed his right to silence by announcing what could be the most idiotic move since the Budget.

The Telegraph writes:

'Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, discloses the move in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in which he outlines proposals to make the workforce “more mobile”.

..Mr Duncan Smith, the MP for Lord Tebbit’s former parliamentary seat of Chingford, disclosed that ministers were drawing up plans to encourage jobless people living in council houses to move out of unemployment black spots to homes in other areas, perhaps hundreds of miles away.

The former Conservative Party leader said millions of people were “trapped in estates where there is no work” and could not move because they would lose their accommodation'

Now, let's ignore the human cost of thousands if not millions of people upping sticks to move hundreds of miles to places they have no links or roots, no common familial or historical ties. Let's ignore the idea that the people living in these 'economic hotspots' might take exception to these large numbers of newcomers arriving in their town or city and increasing competition for housing and pay. Let's ignore the idea that people like living in certain areas because they have a history and family in the area. Let's also ignore the fact that the Tories are treating the unemployed simply as a faceless economic statistic without any intrinsic humanity. Let's deal with the economics of this idea, the flaws in simply getting people to move to area where the employment situation is much healthier.

Firstly, if this is really applied on a big enough scale, all it will do is hurry along the deaths of already struggling towns and cities. It's common to see and hear about the unemployment in 'the great Northern cities.' Indeed, what IDS is proposing is very similar to a report released 2 years ago by the Policy Exchange, whereby

'Cities in northern England such as Liverpool, Sunderland and Bradford are "beyond revival" and residents should move south, a think tank has argued.'

The problem with this is that with a large departure of people, the increase of ghost towns up and down the country is all but inevitable - the fear of creating 'economic blackspots' becomes a self-full-filling prophecy.

The second problem with this idea is that it is a cripplingly short-sighted one. Who's to say that those areas which are thriving currently will always stay that way? When there is an economic downturn, no one is sheltered from it barring the very rich. And as long as capitalism continues to exist these crises will be a common fact of life, the never-ending cycle of boom and bust. There is no assurance that areas will remain forever-prosperous, and should a future economic disaster hit these areas while this scheme is in place, you can bet there WILL be tensions between the old community and the new arrivals.

There is also an issue with how this policy would actually be implemented. It is implied that this is a strictly voluntary exercise for people in order to get them out of deprivation, to 'incentivise' leaving for better opportunities. But what if people refuse this offer? What if they choose to remain in the blackspots? If nothing was to happen to them, then there is really no point in having the policy. If the benefits of these people were to be cut, you exacerbate the problem you had in addition to undermining how 'voluntary' this scheme really is.

The policy is extremely 'abandon hope all ye who enter', (longstanding Tory motto since 1979) the solution being to simply move somewhere better. It wouldn't be an easy thing to accomplish, but what's wrong with attempting to fix these areas of economic disadvantage? Would it not be possible, ney, preferable to rebuild some form of productive industry in these failing areas? Could we not embark on a major public works programme, or create more of these green jobs we were promised in 1997? Is this not a worthy thing to aim for to save communities from destruction, early death and high rates of both drug addiction and violent crime? ...No, best move to Oxford, the proles will learn their place very easily there!

THE DEFICIT

You know that thing in the title? That odious, mysterious, omnipresent thing that we're supposed to hide the kids from? That giant economic monolith that we've been told won't go away until the nice men in the suits hack at it with giant axes? Well...

Britain's budget deficit came in lower than feared last month, the latest indication that the public finances are over the worst of the financial crisis.

The government borrowed £16bn in May, below last year's £17.4bn and less than the £18bn expected by City economists.

Encouraging stuff, right? Well...

"The big picture of course is that borrowing remains extremely high and additional measures to reduce the deficit will be required in next week's budget," said Vicky Redwood at Capital Economics. "Indeed, the government appears keen to act sooner rather than later, yesterday announcing additional spending cuts from the cancellation of pending projects. We expect tax rises and spending cuts adding up to perhaps £20bn per annum to be announced next Tuesday."

Marc Oswald of Monument Securities said the picture painted by May's data "to a certain extent looks rather better" than the OBR had assumed. However, analysts do not believe it will deter Osborne from announcing hefty cuts next week.'

No one should be surprised by this - so far, so Tory. Curious, though, that Osbourne and his coalition partners have proposed some measures which might be considered quite foolish when attempting to deal with THE DEFICIT. Measures such as cutting corporation tax, at a time when we are told that the cuts 'will effect all of us,' recognising marriage in the tax system and convering the employers' contributions to National Insurance payments.

What's interesting is how the deficit hawks have monopolised the narrative, not only in this country but throughout Europe as well. Germany, Spain and Ireland have all embarked to some degree on manic budget cuts. Jose Barroso championed Cameron & Co.s austerity programme as, 'exactly the right medicine". All of this in order to appease the markets. The markets were the reason we got in this mess in the first place, in the form of the banks. The markets are a wild, irrational animal out for blood and self-preservation - considering every economic crises that has preceded it, what sane individual would listen to it now? But getting back to the original point - alternatives to a programme of cuts are not even allowed into the public discourse, being largely the refrain of those on the political fringe. The idea that maybe there needs to be state subsidised growth is complete poison nowadays - partly as a result of the hangover from neoliberalism, partly as a long running enmity toward public sector services on behalf of the Tories. They did as much damage as they could in the 1980s - they're now back to finish the job.

The false dichotomy of public vs. private is shown up to be a crock - cuts in the public sector will negatively impact the private sector as well - but don't just take my word for it, see what this notoriously pro-Lefty organisation has to say:

'Britain's leading employers' organisation warned today that the economy's sluggish recovery from its deepest and longest post-war recession will see unemployment rise and consumer spending squeezed. In its quarterly health check, the CBI said that a temporary pick-up in the pace of growth this spring would fade as cuts in public spending start to bite.'

When even the CBI is looking a bit nervous about the size of the cuts on the table, you know something is very, very wrong.

Which Side Are You On?

The title of this post comes from a pro-union song by Pete Seeger, a very stirring piece that everyone should listen to (link)

It is also what a lot of people must be asking the Lib Dems after their pact with the Conservatives but a few weeks ago. Impressed with Clegg's performance in the leadership debates, it is understandable that many would flock to the Lib Dems in support of what they thought was the candidate for 'change'. However, the Lib Dems showed their true colours by demonstrating they were simply Yellow Tories, and gave Dave the support he needed to form a government.

'But Mr. Hawkins', I hear, 'Surely this is just sour grapes on your part? The Lib Dems simply went after the best deal, and you can't really blame them from trying to get into government - better to rule than be in opposition! Besides, they're still the Lib Dems, they've not done anything noticeably Tory.'

There is much to be said for this idea. I accept that Cameron is our PM and and the Tories are the biggest party in Parliament, as much as I detest it. However, the Lib Dems have shown that they are Tories with a different rosette, not only in their record on local councils, but also quite majorly in what they propose to do with Royal Mail.

The government is preparing for another potentially explosive confrontation with the postal unions by attempting to privatise Royal Mail, the Guardian has learned.

Vince Cable, the business secretary, is determined to press ahead with a restructuring of the group, which could embroil the government in a dispute with the Communication Workers Union

...

A majority of Tory and Lib Dem MPs back some form of privatisation, cancelling out any potential Labour opposition.

There you have it folks, in black and white. The Lib Dems are directly responsible for privatising a public service. The Tories can't really be blamed for this, they're doing what comes naturally to them, and what's been expected of them since the 1980s. They're still scum, mind, only we knew that much anyway. People at least knew what they were voting for with the Conservatives. But people really expected better of the Libs, and they have been well and truly sold down the river. And people will remember the part the Liberals played in this farce.

I don't need to point out that this sets a very dangerous precedent with regards to other public services. Both Tories and Lib Dems are hot on introducing 'private and voluntary' services where the State exists, under the guise of empowerment to ordinary people. In fact, this is just a roundabout way of privatisation, of making cuts a more palatable to the general public. It is a deception.

It's not only the Royal Mail that's facing the axe. The working class the world over is under attack. This is usually the case, though now with the worldwide recession, this conflict is becoming more and more apparent. But there are signs of a fight back. The lowest paid are being asked to foot the bill for this crisis, and quite rightly they are not having it. Protests are cropping up in Romania over similar but much more drastic cuts as we see here. In Spain, the public sector workers are proposing a general strike on June 2nd. The situation in Greece I have already touched upon, and needs no further introduction. As of writing, the injunction on the UNITE strikers in the BA dispute has been overturned, and there looks to be another round of strikes from there on in.

Increasingly, it's coming down to the workers against big business and their cronies in governments across the globe.

So tell me...which side are you on?

How to handle a Deficit

The Wrong Way

Take advice from:


Vote for anyone of these:


And soon your country could be in here:


The Right Way:

In a dramatic escalation of the anger unleashed by the economic crisis engulfing Greece, communist protesters stormed the Acropolis today as the euro and world markets plunged on concerns about the debt-choked country's huge bailout from the EU and the IMF.

Greek public sector workers today began a 48-hour national strike that is a first test of the Government’s ability to enact new austerity measures agreed with the EU and IMF in return for billions of euros in aid.

(Pictures courtesy of Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2010/may/05/greece)

Any Questions?

Eat the Rich #2 - Eat Richer

A minimalistic post from me today.

‘STUDENTS are facing rises of up to £1,000 a year in tuition fees under plans being drawn up by an official review that could eventually allow universities to charge the full cost of a degree.
Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP, wants to remove the current £3,225 limit on fees. Leading research universities could charge students an estimated £7,000 a year while fees for science undergraduates could rise to £14,000’.

Many senior figures support higher fees. They include Sir Roy Anderson, former rector of Imperial College London, who prepared a report for Mandelson on how universities can raise more money from non-state sources. “An immediate rise to double existing levels is needed,” said Anderson. “Then over a period of say three years, it may be desirable to lift the cap and let universities decide what they wish to charge . . . I believe in market forces.”

'One of the first state schools to take on a private partner has had to be "rescued" by the local council after it was deemed inadequate by inspectors.’

THE richest people in Britain have seen a record boom in wealth over the past year. Their fortunes have soared by 30% even though much of the UK is struggling to recover from recession and the near-collapse of the banking system.

It is the largest rise in wealth since the list was first published 21 years ago. Much of the increase is a result of the rebound in stock markets and property values after the government injected hundreds of billions of pounds into banks and the wider economy to stave off collapse.
The 2010 Sunday Times Rich List, published today, reveals that the 1,000 richest people in the country increased their wealth by £77 billion last year, bringing their total wealth to £335.5 billion — equal to more than one-third of the national debt.

‘The great only appear great because we are on our knees – let us rise.’ - James Larkin

St George's Day

So, St. George’s Day is upon us once more; a chance for people to do a bit of flag waving, sing Jerusalem and say, ‘England isn’t such a bad place to live, really.’ All pretty mundane, run-of-the-mill type stuff that English people are perfectly entitled to do: the Scottish celebrate St. Andrew’s Day, the Irish celebrate St. Patrick’s Day and the Americans celebrate Independence Day.

I have always felt slightly uncomfortable with expressing patriotism myself, for a number of reasons. When one talks about any belief there is always a stereotype to go with it; patriotism is no different. With English patriotism, we get the obnoxious, bigoted, couldn’t-make-it-up-PC-gone-mad idiot calling for the repatriation of whatever minority’s pissed him off and how we’re ‘strangers in our own country.’ Unfortunately, since the late 60s at least it seems to be what a lot of people associate in their minds when they hear the word ‘patriotism.’; they are patriotism’s most vocal proponents. The NF and the BNP have done us no favours in this regard.

Tied in with this is what patriotism itself entails. This concept is completely elastic and subjective – ask 3 different people what they think ‘patriotic’ mean and you’ll get 5 different answers. But in my mind at least is that is has often been tied to militarism and brutality. In the countless wars humanity has instigated, how many men and women have fought and died for ‘their country’? How many have been made homeless, destitute, widowed or orphaned but for those who did battle ‘For God, King and Country’? Like it or not, patriotism has always been a very useful tool for those in positions power to gain more power and wealth – consequently, the slaughter of the human race counts for very little. We’ve got to protect our 'interests' from Johnny Foreigner, damn it! He lives on a different patch of land, that makes him EVIL and us GOOD! Stop me if you think you’ve heard this one before...

I’m not suggesting that patriotism automatically leads to the concentration camp; there is nothing wrong with having pride in the place you come from, where you grew up , or even cheering your national football team (chronic though they may be). However, the minute you start excluding people as not being ‘good enough’, the minute you adopt an ‘us and them’ mentality with someone whose only crime was to be born in a foreign field, the minute you take this playground ‘my-country-can-beat-up-your-country’ nonsense seriously, is when the nastier element of human nature creeps in. This is unquestioning patriotism – what we need is a critical one. The courage to defend your country against attack, but the wisdom to not show undue aggression to others, and when to recognise when we are in the wrong.

The other problem is that where you come from is a grand, cosmic game of Chance. No-one chose to be born in a particular country, it was a sheer random circumstance that put you where you are. Is that a firm enough foundation for one to place pride in?

I find civic pride much more palatable for some reason. Different towns, different cities, different regions, here is where I think you see real differences – histories, accents, sport, ways of thinking and ways of life, even food and drink can be radically different between two cities but 20 miles away from each other. When you think of a country, you tend to think of it as one, homogeneous block – unchanging, static, and to be honest, a bit bland. It is a large unit which the human imagination has difficulty comprehending. Regions and cities are much more personal locations, small enough that a person can empathise with it or despise it outright. I find it easy to call myself Lancashire born and bred – I find it much more difficult to think of myself as English, ‘by the Grace of God.’

St George’s Day, I think, is worthy of support, and is a generally harmless occasion – we just have to remember that we are by no means perfect, and have never conducted ourselves in an exactly saintly manner, as history bears out. All I know is, England is a fine place for ale, and that suits me down to the ground!

Eat the Rich

In The Independent I came across this real piece of work, written by one Jon Moulton. Apparently we’re in a bit of a bind with the economy as of late (this was very surprising news for me) and our Jon’s getting a bit miffed that the politicians aren’t doing much about it.

‘In the past week our politicians have put on their most serious faces and addressed the economy. They have got into a wrangle about National Insurance contributions. Labour wants to increase them; the Tories don't. A lot of heat has been generated, much ink spilt. What it suits none of them to tell you, though, is that such talk is tinkering at the margins. The debt that Britain faces is monstrous, and neither Tories nor Labour will admit it. They prefer to quibble about the small change than admit that they are taking part in, in effect, a conspiracy on the British people. To make it worse, much of the media is allowing them to get away with it, presumably because they think – as the politicians seem to believe – that the public doesn't want to hear the bad news. In short, we are complicit in a con.’

So, here we go, another ‘captain of industry’ calling for ‘belt tightening’ in terms of public spending. In other news, the sky is blue and Eric Pickles is a Big Mac away from a massive heart attack. Nothing out of the ordinary here. But what particular brand of poison is Mr. Moulton trying to sell us today?

After taking us on a whimsical journey back to the 1970s (where not even the dead were buried don’t you know), Moulton makes some comparisons of how good we had it back then compared to now:

‘Actually, quite a few other things were better in the mid-1970s: unemployment was half of today's level. The 1975 decline in the economy was only one-seventh of what happened to us last year. And the UK had much less of the largely unmentioned other debt – mostly, the pensions promises that will have to be paid by future generations, which now represents perhaps 125 per cent of GDP but was near 20 per cent in the 1976 time frame. Not a reassuring background.’

Keep that unemployment tidbit in your mind.

We’re in such a terrible predicament, Mr. Moulton, whatever can we do about it?

‘’Increasing taxes is not going to get there. We need to get £50bn plus in each year to stop the debt from rising in five years' time. Look at the bickering about National Insurance rises – try 10 per cent on VAT as a political idea to make a good dent in the budgetary hole. It's inconceivable that our current politicians would have the stomach to do this. In any case, the tax load would probably become counterproductive with businesses and people moving overseas to less taxing environments.’

Gee, that’s awfully convenient, would it be ineffective because the tax burden would probably come down hardest on Mr. Moulton and his mates? Perish the thought...

‘Civil servants do not really generate growth, so a smaller private sector has to support a larger public sector.’

Oh boy. Bear in mind Mr. Moulton is the head of Better Capital and used to be on the executive board of Alchemy, both of which are ‘private equity groups’ (I,e, asset-strippers). If I were in that position, I certainly wouldn’t talk about civil servants not ‘generating growth.’

In fact, Moulton, as with most people featured on this blog, has some interesting baggage going into this debate. Back in 2000, Alchemy showed an interest in purchasing Rover, the car company in order to rescue it from tanking. Was Moulton interested saving jobs there?

"if we get it right, we can make a great deal of money" out of the Rover deal.

Need more be said?

‘Now that really leaves the only route to stability, which is to cut the public proportion of our economy, which means reducing spending, increasing the ability of the economy to grow and reducing the number of civil servants, and probably their pay and pensions. And the numbers are large: we need to take out several hundred thousand public sector jobs. We need to reduce the vast liability for public pensions that clouds our future. The politics – and human costs – of this are not palatable. Tough choices have to be made as to what we can afford’

Not content with being obscenely wealthy, Moulton wants to tell us little people we’re due for a royal screwing. If the situation in the 1970s was better because of the smaller amount of people unemployed compared to the present day, what the hell does he think it’s going to be like if we throw ‘hundreds of thousands’ of people into unemployment? Even if civil servants do not ‘generate growth,’ they still draw a salary that is then put back into the economy. How are we to relieve the burden on the State by putting more people on unemployment benefit? Out of all the article, I think this is the section I object to most. It’s what I’ve objected to publicly on this blog all along. Wealthy, unaccountable businessmen who don’t have recourse to the welfare state telling us that ‘tough choices’ have to be made,usually in the form of job cuts. Certainly, it’s ‘not palatable’, but its what’s best for us, for the country in fact! Best be good little children and go along with what our betters tell us. Do we get any say in it? Do we fuck.

I know what Moulton’s proposing will not be a voice in the wilderness. I know there’ll be a glut of MPs who are more than willing to give Moulton and people like him a fair hearing. Meanwhile, civil servants and, let’s face it, other public sector workers later on down the line will have to take the shaft once again. But then where there will moves to try and solve this through the usual channels, with, perhaps, a lobby of parliament, it’ll be fobbed off with the same old excuses. The voices of the many do not carry the same weight as the voices of the rich few. As the old song goes, One Law for Them, and another law for us.

We did not choose to get into these levels of debt, it was the wealthiest in society that was responsible for our present precarious position. Should they not be the ones to suffer for it? Their economics have led us into this disaster - why do they still continue to exist at the top of society?

The Joys of Living in a Safe Seat, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love ‘Democracy’

As those of you reading this blog may have picked up (I know you’re out there), I’m a Wigan-born lad, living in the Makerfield constituency to be precise. Makerfield and Wigan at large are industrial areas, or at least they used to be before the pits closed. As a result, they are about as staunch Labour as as you can find in this country. I don’t think I can overstate this. To give you some idea about how safe a seat Makerfield is, we have returned a Labour MP for the past 100 years. A century of Labour rule. Let that sink in for a minute. We’ve been electing a Labour MP back when the word ‘Labour’ actually meant something!

Now, I realise people might not be interested in the details of my specific constituency. That’s fair enough. But the example of Makerfield has wide-reaching implications with the run up to the General Election. Makerfield is certainly not the only constituency to be classified as a safe seat - there are many others like it up and down the country. The obvious problem with this, of course, is how a democracy be said to exist in these areas. When somewhere can return an MP of the same party for the past 100 years, to me that says that there is something fundamentally wrong with the electoral system in this country.

In name, at least, we have a democracy in the safe-seats; we are free to vote for any party on the list at the polling station, though it’s highly unlikely your choice will get elected if it’s not the incumbent party. But here lies another problem; is there even a guarantee of choice on the ballot paper? Here are the people standing in Makerfield:

Itrat Ali (Conservative)
Yvonne Fovargue (Labour)
Dave Crowther (Lib Dem)
Ken Heslam(BNP)

...Is this some kind of joke? What kind of choice is this? Here we have the 3 wings of the ‘Fuck The Proles’ party in all their resplendent glory, as well as the joke candidate from the ‘Fuck the Foreign Proles’ party. This isn’t choice, it’s the illusion of choice, and its a poor one at that. Although nominations for candidates conclude on April 20th, (should there be a new nominee worthy of support I’ll update this post), even if a credible alternative was put forward we come back to the problem of the Labour stranglehold on the constituency. Once again, I can guarantee that Makerfield is not unique for its lack of options in this election, hailed by some of those detached from reality as ‘the most exciting in a generation.’

So what can be done by those unfortunate enough to live in safe seats? The long term goal would be to support widespread political reform, with the institution of some kind of PR system. Obviously, we can’t simply wait for that to happen, there is a sense of immediacy with the election right around the corner. People may still want to vote but have no credible alternative to support. If you are in that position, I would suggest spoiling the ballot, perhaps by writing ‘none of the above’on the ballot paper. Spoiled ballots still get counted when the results come, and that’s the best bet if you’re in an ultra-safe seat. Of course, you could always give this fella some support:

Let Them Eat Cuts!

In the news this week, a Tory MP (isn’t it always) has called for cuts in public sector waste. Edward Leigh MP, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has called for ‘staggering’ waste to be slashed across the public sector.

“There is not a shadow of doubt that you can deliver the reduction in the [public finances’] deficit that we require by imposing massive efficiency savings and job cuts on the bureaucracy,” said Leigh as he prepares to step down after nine years in the post.
“It won’t be easy. The next government will have to be ruthless — whole programmes will have to be cut.”

He proceeds to outline quite exorbitant (if true) wastage perpetrated by the MoD and the BBC. These are the kind of cuts that few people could disagree with; even I’d be willing to see eye-to-eye with him on slashing the amount of consultants within the NHS (though I think we’d propose it for quite different reasons).

But what about Edward Leigh himself? Surely a man who takes the chair on the PAC would be the pinnacle of thrift and restraint?

“Together, Brigg and Goole MP Ian Cawsey, Scunthorpe MP Elliot Morley, Cleethorpes MP Shona McIsaac and Gainsborough MP Edward Leigh claimed more than £600,000 between April 2007 and March 2008.”

“The second highest expenses claim was submitted by Gainsborough MP Edward Leigh, who put in returns totalling £154,113 last year.”

Oh.

Not only this, but Leigh voted ‘very strongly’ in favour of replacing that wholly-useless ‘deterrent’ we call Trident. There’s Tory efficiency for you! (Info courtesy of TheyWorkForYou.com – Mr. Leigh’s record is very interesting indeed).

Leigh goes on to say that there is a precedent for public sector workers to take a pay cut, as many in the private sector would do so. He ridicules the idea that a town clerk from his county council could be paid £150,00 a year for their work. Yet without a hint of irony, he goes on to mention Amyas Morse, (Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office), who received a ‘seven-figure’ salary from Price Waterhouse Coopers, the auditing firm, yet is paid 80% less in his new public sector role. Whether it is a conflict of interest for a former businessman of an auditing agency to take a seat in the NAO is up for debate, yet I would not champion Morse’s commitment to cut his own pay as encouraging. Even if the cut is as large as Leigh states, it’s still a reduction from the millions to the hundred-thousands. In the grand scheme of things, Morse will not be forced do without the essentials or luxuries, unlike the majority of working people who are told to take pay cuts and wage freezes.

Here we come to the crux of the matter. I don’t want this post to be merely an attack on either Leigh or Morse. They’re symptoms of a much large problem, the problem of accountability. All the time we are told that there must be savage cuts in the public sector. By whom? By people who will not be affected by it, by people who have a disproportionate amount of say in what gets cut. Stuff that! If cuts are on the agenda, let the majority of people decide on what needs cutting. There’s a hell of a lot to choose from: public subsidies to private companies (in particular the train operators), PFI, Trident, public sector pay at the top end of the scale, the list goes on. Let’s make things a bit more... ‘level’, shall we?

The 'Labour' Party

Gordon Brown and the Transport Secretary Lord Adonis have come out today in condemnation of the proposed BA strike by Unite union members. The action would take place for 3 days from March 20^th and for 4 days from March 27^th, with BA announcing that they would run 70% of flights if necessary. The Tories have come out and condemned the action (surprise), with Eric Pickles foaming at the mouth and risking a coronary with this remark:

How can you talk about protecting jobs and beating the recession when you are so reliant on this increasingly militant union that is intent on bringing a British company to its knees?

Astute observers will remember Pickles from his stellar defense of expenses in Question Time.

An injunction has already been slapped on the union back in the dying days of ‘09, on highly spurious grounds. Brown has stated that should the strike go forward it would be ‘unjustified and deplorable.’ I am not so quick to condemn the actions of the strikers. All they are doing is attempting to secure their livelihoods with the only means that are open to them. Brown and the Labour Government do not have the best record when it comes to protecting the working class. They are not fighting in labour’s corner, and never have done. Let’s take a look at just a handful of industrial situations that Labour have come running to the forefront over.

Lindsy 2009

In January, 800 walked out of the refinery due to IREM introducing Italian and Portuguese workers in order to undermine a national agreement on pay and conditions. This led to further wildcat strikes in other parts of the country, such as the Grangemouth Refinery in Scotland. The dispute continued into June, when 700 construction staff were axed. 1,200 walked out spontaneously in defence of pay and conditions and eventually, 3,000 workers across the country went on strike in an impressive show of solidarity.

Brown saw what needed to be done, and without further delay declared that...

‘(the wild cat strikes)...are not defensible.’

Ah.

Vestas 2009

Here was the only wind-turbine manufacturing plant within the British Isles, a prime example of the ‘green economy’ that Labour were keen to push. In July ‘09, Vestas announced it would close its British operations, resulting in over 500 job losses in the Isle of Wight. Taking inspiration from Lindsey, the workers occupied the plant and demanded nationalisation in order to secure employment for their community. The Labour solution was to try and get Siemens to buy it, even offering £1.1 million to sweeten the deal. Why is it that we are paying a private company when it would be far simpler to just nationalise the plant?

Cadbury 2010

Not so much a dispute as a demolition. The American food giant Kraft took over Cadbury plc in February 2010. Not only was this the loss of a national institution, the Unite union predicted that 30,000 jobs would be put at risk as a result of this takeover. Always living up to expectations, Kraft subsequently announced 400 redundancies at a Bristol plant, with cuts on the way. Not only did Labour and Brown do nothing to stop the massacre, they actively encouraged it. When the takeover was announced, it was discovered that the Royal Bank of Scotland, a part-nationalised bank actually funded the deal to the tune of £630 million. This is at best negligence and at worse a declaration of war on the working class.

Looking through the records, if I were the BA workers at this point, I’d take Brown’s brow-beating as an incentive to carry on further action; it is the only chance they’ve got. I realise that there are those in the Labour party at present who are genuinely committed to the working class and will fight every attack on its conditions. All I will say is this: leave. Get out of the Labour Party, you are wasted on it. Hurry it's death along so we can get a real alternative in power.

House of Lords to be Abolished?

Saw this in The Times today:

'PLANS to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a wholly elected, 300-seat second chamber are set to be unveiled by the government before the general election.

Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is ready to unveil a draft bill on Lords reform in the next few weeks, a move designed to put the Tories on the back foot during the election campaign.

Although the plan is unlikely to become law before parliament is dissolved, Labour strategists hope it will open up a dividing line with the Conservatives, who will be reluctant to back any Labour reforms'

This is announced in the same week where the interminable expenses wrangling has reared its head in the Lords; the familiar tactic of citing parliamentary privilege to escape prosecution has come into play once again by the accused.

Of course, moves towards making the ludicrous and anachronistic entity that is the House of Lords more democratic should be welcomed, though this is presuming these measures will be followed through. In the run up to an election, all kinds of things are promised by the 3 major parties in order to both gain support and keep their opponents on the back foot. With many commentators predicting a hung parliament, it is unlikely that, should Labour get elected, they will not have a strong enough majority to pass this. When the Lib Dems are playing down talks of coalition, it remains to be seen what legs this piece of legislation has.

It's funny what comes back into fashion. In the early 1980s, abolishment of the House of Lords was one of the Labour Party's key manifesto pledges, and yet I do not see New Labour now being derided as 'far-left lunatics,' (although some of the sketchier blogs floating around will contend this) or this draft being termed 'the longest suicide note in history.' Perhaps the Labour Party is not as threatening to capital as once it was...

More to the point, the timing of this proposal is bizarre; why now? We have endured the worst economic crisis since the 1920s, unemployment is at 7%, and those in work have either had to take pay freezes or cuts. Furthermore, in order to cut the deficit, 'savage' cuts have been proposed in the public sector by all 3 parties at some stage in the election trail (though they have now since played down the gravity of the cuts). Employment, housing and welfare are of far more pressing concern than legislative reform at present: surely that should take precedent?

The proposals outline;

'The government’s reform blueprint would have all members directly elected, ending the tradition of party patronage. A proportional representation system would be used to select members, with voting taking place at the same time as general elections.

One-third of the new chamber would be elected on each occasion, with members serving three terms — 15 years — in a system similar to the one used to select members of the United States Senate. '

Hmm. Maybe it's just me being a bit of a stick in the mud, but it seems there's been a lot of
American import into the British political sphere lately. What with this televised, presidential-style debate with the 3 party leaders in the run up to the election, and now this reform based on the US legislature, it's worrying we seem to have run out of original ideas in UK politics.