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