Nov 242010
 
TumblrShare

For those of you who’ve been at all attentive, Paul Chambers has recently been convicted of tweeting an “obviously menacing” tweet.  House of Twits held a poll today on the matter and it’s clear, at least to a majority of Twitter users, that “obviously” isn’t the right word.

Which made me wonder what exactly a clearly signalled fake @pauljchambers account would constitute for the real world.  Let’s say such an account existed (which surely, by now, it must).  My musings essentially would then lead me to ask myself what the legal implications of such an entity might be.  If, at any point, such an obviously ironical and self-referential device threatened, for example, to do something nasty to a piece of privately-owned property, would the person responsible for running the account be taken to a magistrates court or a kangaroo court?  That is to say, to a court of law or a court of lore?  Or would he or she not be taken to court at all?  Surely, with such a frame around it, there could, in this case, be no mistaking of intentionality.  This version of Chamber’s persona would be interpreted as having been set up exclusively as a piece of satire.  And you’re not going to tell me that the state is now outlawing the right to satire.

Where, in fact, the satire is clearly and duly signposted as being so.

Even in medieval times, the jester had his place.

*

Perhaps it is entirely apposite that the airport mentioned in Chamber’s unhappy tweet was named as it was.  For both this matter of ill-advised tweets and today’s demonstrations by students against government cuts don’t half make me think we’re back in the times of Sherwood Forest’s Merry Men of yore. 

You know what I mean: that time when an Englishman’s home (“obviously”) wasn’t his castle – and the Sheriff who held sway had an absolute and arbitrary control over everyone who ever dared move a constitutional muscle:

#Gove on the BBC: My heart and mind is changed by reasoned argument and debate. Emily: so your mind could be changed Gove: No #demo2010

Enough said you say?  Personally, I think we’ve only just begun.  And “obviously”, I would argue. 

Now wouldn’t you?


TumblrShare
Nov 232010
 
TumblrShare
Zaphod Beeblebrox – Wikipedia

So then.  This is the truth of the matter.  As dear old Zaphod might have said:

“On the one hand, we need to make welfare spending cuts of £7 billion because our housekeeperly household economy can’t stand the strain.

“On the second hand, we surprisingly discover that we are able to support Ireland with £7 billion of our hard-earned welfare spending cuts because their neo-liberal economy (and our business mates) can’t stand the strain.

“And on the third hand, we suddenly decide we can, after all, afford a £6 billion bank holiday, which business informed us we couldn’t afford three years ago, in order that we may celebrate Adolf Hitler’s wedding anniversary …  That is to say, what I really meant to explain, in order that we may celebrate the marriage of two very nice but moderately irrelevant individuals.  On what incidentally happens to be Adolf Hitler’s wedding anniversary.”

So let’s just run this past the populace again.  First we get exposed to savage twenty percent public spending cuts because our economy is tottering over the edge of a precipice.  Then that precipice disappears and the money we’ve saved can be used to prop up Ireland’s neo-liberal and worker-unfriendly policies.  Finally, on top of that, we quite gladly factor in another £6 billion of regal bank holiday allowances.

I wonder what the CBI would say of all of this now.

Clearly a decision taken by a committee of the truly wise and good.


TumblrShare
Nov 102010
 
TumblrShare

Tom Scholes-Fogg has just tweeted that:

Police Sgt has severe cuts #demo2010

My immediate response – to myself alone I hasten to add, before I put virtual pen to electronic paper here -  was “So does the United Kingdom”.

There will be more of this because those at the top are patient and know how to press buttons and those at the bottom are far less savvy and only know how to be pressed.  Violence is not only unacceptable, it’s also foolish.  But there are many kinds of violence – and laughing in the Houses of Parliament as massive spending cuts are announced is just one of such kinds.

And it’s an unhappy circumstance that it would seem our society believes the latter sort of violence, the emotional kind, is a far more justifiable, far less criminal kind.  It only hurts souls, you see – not property.

Therein the value our “civilisation” places on people compared to possessions.

I drag out and dust off my theory of Gaia as applied to politics (more here).  When you heat up a system at one end, you’re bound to get an explosive result at the other.

This is not to excuse individual acts of violence.  This is simply to try – with great difficulty and sadness – to understand what is happening. 

This is not a society which could aspire to being big at all but, rather, a nation which may shortly become emotionally bankrupt – and big-time.


TumblrShare
Nov 072010
 
TumblrShare

This morning, the BBC reports that:

Long-term benefit claimants could be forced to do compulsory manual labour under proposals being put forward by the government, it has emerged.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is set to outline plans for four-week placements doing jobs like gardening and litter clearing.

So let me get this straight.  And let’s imagine the situation.  A city up north somewhere.  You know.  The sort of place where the government is pulling out all the stops (or not, as the case may be).  You’re a public sector worker – a leech on the economy in fact (as per government propaganda): maybe you’re a teaching assistant or a nurse, or perhaps even a doctor surplus to requirements.  Or just someone who does their best to do the job of two people in an already overworked back-office operation in some council or other.

Let’s say, then, that you lose your job due to Coalition cuts.  Mainly through no fault of your own – though if we’re to be brutally honest you did vote Lib Dem, as per the Guardian‘s enthusiastic recommendation.  But so did many others who had absolutely no inkling that politicians lie (more here).

Unfortunately, and due to the very same cuts, as well as yourself a whole swathe of your locality’s highly skilled workforce also loses its jobs at the same time.  Remember the steel towns which depended so much on their main industry to survive?  Well, this is that story all over again.

It’s not that you don’t want to work.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  It’s that, actually, there isn’t any work to be found.

So anyhow, eventually, in spite of your degree (for which you were still paying off the student loan whilst you still had a job), you go for an interview as a gardener for a company called Serco (more here).  With photos of your beloved garden and certificates from your village’s annual garden festival, you are able to demonstrate an active interest and capacity in gardening and you duly get the job.

It’s only for six months, mind.  But then Serco’s like that, didn’t you know?  Socialism for the advantaged, capitalism for the disadvantaged.

You then proceed to do rather well at the role.  You even begin to see the upsides of working outside instead of sitting in front of a computer all day.  You look forward to proving how constructively you’ve integrated into new operational structures, how you’ve adapted to change.

The six months fly by and you fully expect to have your contract renewed.

Only for your team leader (or whatever they call them these days) to announce the week before your time is up that your contract will not be renewed as result of further spending cuts to public services – though not, curiously enough, to Serco’s contract with the council.

By that time, all your ex-colleagues able and willing to adapt to the new regime of minimal public services have already taken up the slack.  There are blessed few jobs now available in your locality – certainly nothing along the lines of professional gardener.

To cut a long story short (for only those who suffer in silence should deserve our approbation and understanding), you are eventually classed as long-term unemployed and become a part of that population of the lowest of the low, which Iain Duncan Smith describes in the following way:

Mr Duncan Smith said his plans were designed to reduce welfare dependency and make work pay.

He said: “One thing we can do is pull people in to do one or two weeks’ manual work – turn up at 9am and leave at 5pm, to give people a sense of work, but also when we think they’re doing other work.

“The message will go across; play ball or it’s going to be difficult.”

When you read this, you splutter a little (though very much under your breath – you don’t want to upset the neighbours).  You even remind yourself that, at one point, you tried to get a job as a groundsman for the local football team.  Now if that isn’t playing ball …

Finally, you find yourself called to a tape-recorded interview with an officer at the local unemployment office (or whatever it’s called these days) where you are informed that you have been identified as one of the many long-term unemployed and that you need to break the cycle of dependency you have acquired over the past year or so. 

You respond constructively and openly to the suggestion, saying that you would be most happy to take on any job that might help your family move forward and out of such dependency.  Your officer (or maybe they call them caseworkers these days) says that actually they have something else up their sleeves: in the light of your recent experience, you’re going to be asked to volunteer as a gardener at the local park, where you’ll be working with other workshy individuals on a 30-day placement.

Hopefully, your prior experience as a middle manager at your local NHS trust will hold you in good stead – and if you are prepared to take on a leadership role during your placement, this would clearly help with updating your CV in preparation for other placements you might be inclined to accept over the next year or so.

*

This, of course, is just me weaving a silly tale where I indulge my penchant for seeing the worst in everyone.  Things like the above don’t happen in real life – nor will they, even under this government.

Or will they?

I do wonder sometimes, don’t you? 

Whether this is “Alice in Wonderland” or actually – even – Kafka we’re beginning to realise that we’re suddenly terrifyingly up against.


TumblrShare
Nov 062010
 
TumblrShare

The video below, from richard.blogger, is a lovely piece of slideshow-type YouTube.  Just as effective as Captain Ska’s “Liar Liar” (see my previous post and the comments at the end), it tells an awful story of wily surreptitiousness on the part of this Coalition government.  Please watch it to the end and understand its sorry thesis, as it builds a wall of unassailable logic with a brick-by-brick effectiveness.

The public clearly does not want this – yet the government is trying to get away with the full privatisation of the NHS in all but name.

This government, if any government, deserves to be both mercilessly and wisely tracked twenty-four hours a day.  Let’s hope more people like richard.blogger decide to take up the challenge and fight on the side of an intelligent and unremitting truth.


TumblrShare
Nov 062010
 
TumblrShare
Wikipedia

Phil Woolas has received a basting (probably in all three of the word’s meanings) for having lied about someone’s character and personal integrity – though not, interestingly enough, their policies.  What the judges don’t make so apparent in their judgement – by a remarkably revealing slip of the judicial tongue – is if it is nevertheless all right to tell porkies about policy.  If the case does go to judicial review I wouldn’t half be interested in knowing whether the question could be raised and resolved with rather more clarity.

Evidence of lies in politics abounds, though.  This Mirror article published today, which describes the massive NHS porkie Cameron appears to be trying to sell us, as his government hides cuts of half a billion pounds, also lists just a few of the U-turns the Coalition government’s partners have already committed:

Vat Rise: Tories said they had “no plans” to raise it. Lib Dems opposed it. George Osborne said it will rise to 20% in January.

Pensioners: Before the election, Cameron said winter fuel allowance and bus passes for pensioners would be protected. Fuel allowance being cut.

Voting Reform: Tories opposed changing system, but signed up to a referendum on alternative vote next May.

Immigration: The Lib Dems opposed a cap on foreign workers coming into the country before the election. They now back its integration.

Police Numbers: The Lib Dems pledged to increase officer numbers in every area. Now forces face cuts of up to 25%.

Tuition Fees: The Lib Dems pledged to abolish university fees. They”re being trebled.

Frontline Services: Before the election, Cameron said: “Any Cabinet minister, if we win the election, who comes to me and says, ‘Here are my plans and they involve front-line reductions’ will be sent back to their department to go away and think again.” Now there are 19% reductions across most government departments.

So perhaps it is time we started collecting evidence of such lies and presenting it for judicial review.  We first need a case which sets a precedent – but once that is achieved, the floodgates will clearly open in what is clearly a rapidly corrupting body politic.

And how should we collect this evidence?

Following and adapting slightly Ivo’s original suggestion, I would propose we do this in the form of YouTube videos.  Here’s an intriguing starting-point, which came my way via Labour Matters and prompted the content of this post – Captain Ska’s “Liar Liar”.

Yes, I know.  You’re going to say there’s nothing new in viral advertising – which is what, in a way, this would constitute.  But I would wish to push the concept quite a bit further beyond simply propagandising our point of view.  I would suggest actually, really, seriously collecting the kind of evidence of deliberate intent that would stand up in court, so that at some time in the future we might use the laws of our land to the benefit of the vast majority of people currently suffering.

Essentially what I am saying is that the Coalition government is in the process of committing a series of avoidable acts and critical aggressions on the subjects of this nation and it needs to know that there will come a time when it will be unable to wriggle out of payback day.

The evidence is already overwhelming.  It is now our moral obligation to collect it and prepare it.


TumblrShare
Oct 312010
 
TumblrShare

What an unsavoury bunch!  We have thirty-five leaders of thirty-five large companies who argue in favour of massive government cuts.  We have one large telecommunications company with a history of clever offshore tax dodges (India and Britain at the very least).

And we have a Coalition government aiming to make hollow the welfare state.  Even as private companies massage the nature of the capitalist miracle and confuse us into believing that those who truly drain the state are those in the public sector.  When, in reality, the appetite which the private sector exhibits for externalising unhappy costs (from cleaning up nuclear waste to managing risk effectively) means that the state through its taxpayers – ie through you and me – ends up paying for these nasty bits and bobs which would otherwise reduce the equity of such companies and make the aforesaid capitalist miracle a far more down-to-earth affair.

I’m not suggesting that large companies don’t provide any benefit to society.  What I am suggesting is that if they try to surf the wave of ideological imperialism our current government is generating, we will all find more reasons to examine far more closely – both inside and outside of work – their tax schemes, their structures and their ways of doing and seeing.

Boycotting the thirty-five companies mentioned above is not an entirely happy act – it will hurt the blameless workers who cannot effect real change within their companies without considerable pain in already difficult circumstances.  And this, of course, will divide the trades union movement.

No one is blameless and no one is to blame.  We all go along with inequalities at work and we are all victims of such inequalities.

But something must be done to encourage those who care to understand the complexity of economic and social relationships in modern societies that their voices are not lone ones and this does not have to be a wilderness.
____________________

Update to this post: Kate has published another article on the subject of the boycott which can be found here at Liberal Conspiracy this afternoon.  Meanwhile, a petition is gathering pace here, with a useful link to a Guardian article on the subject of Vodafone here.


TumblrShare
Oct 302010
 
TumblrShare

Externality is simply explained here on Wikipedia:

In economics, an externality (or transaction spillover) is a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices[1], incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. A benefit in this case is called a positive externality or external benefit, while a cost is called a negative externality or external cost.

In these cases in a competitive market, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits of producing or consuming a product or service, producers and consumers may either not bear all of the costs or not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity, and too much or too little of the good will be produced or consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society, while fire-proofing a home improves the fire safety of neighbors. If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits, such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved.

Many companies only function on the basis of externalising on the rest of us their most unpleasant costs.  Essentially, they get something for nothing.  No wonder they then have so much spare cash to divide up between their cuddly shareholders.  Chris has an interesting take on banks which Paul picked up on the other day:

Are UK banks worth anything at all? I’m prompted to ask by Mervyn King’s recent speech, in which he says “of the many ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today.”
One remedy he discusses is a levy on banks’ profits. He likens this to a Pigou tax, which is intended to internalize the externalities generated by banking – the main externality being the risk of a crisis.

Chris’s quite radical – I might even say mind-blowing – conclusion?  As follows:

You can quibble with these numbers in all sorts of ways. One reason why King is not enthusiastic about the levy is that it is so hard to truly estimate what it should be.  (Another issue he doesn’t mention is that the incidence of the levy might not fall upon banks at all). But the fact remains. A large part of the private value of the banking sector arises solely from the fact that the costs of its activities – the risk of a crisis – are externalized. In an efficient market economy – one where private costs equal social costs – banks might not have much, if any, equity value at all.
Perhaps nationalization isn’t a wholly bad idea.

More from Chris on this latter idea in a subsequent post can be found here.

Meanwhile, all this talk of externalities does make me wonder if the success of modern capitalism isn’t an entirely hollow sham.  If a corporation’s moral responsibility is only to make profit for its shareholders, its moral imperative (whatever its marketing-speak alleges) will be to make such a profit any which way it can.  Thus, for example, we have institutions such as banks which make it their business to add value by managing risk then externalising on the backs of millions of workers who find themselves out of their jobs, out of their homes and on the streets the cost of failing to manage such risks adequately, professionally and wisely.

And if you don’t believe me, just look at what the externalising on the rest of us of the implications and costs of the banking crisis has done to my wife’s profession:

[...] Higher Level Teaching Assistants are now part of the fabric of teaching and learning in many schools and they do an excellent job supporting teaching in any number of ways. It is also worth remembering that they are excellent value in terms of the education budget as a whole. No-one could suggest that they have been over-rewarded in the past and there was no likelihood that that might happen in the future.

Now [with the latest government cutbacks] it is gone and there is a free-market. Schools can pay the national minimum wage, mess about with hours or contracts and make whatever demands they like. And, at a time of increasing unemployment, they will get away with it under the guise of making cuts. Academies and free schools can do what they like as well in terms of new contracts. It’s a real shame. Schools reflect society and transmit values to the next generation but the behaviour of the coalition and Michael Gove in this area shows their contempt for schools, society and values.

As the author of this Labour List article also points out:

The coalition doesn’t like [the idea of teaching assistants] because it doesn’t fit with their values. They want to work teachers hard and make sure they are in classrooms, as if somehow they have been sneaking out of their responsibilities by using support staff. They want parents to run their own schools and either to be set against teachers or used as a device to lever standards from outside the school. They think a voluntary system of school helpers sits much more comfortably with the big society objectives. They don’t want to see an expansion of public sector work. When you are driven by this ideology, the SSSNB is clearly a waste of time.

Consequently, in the light of such moves and in line with the philosophy of externalising your negative costs onto others, it all seems to become pretty clear: the big society idea comes out of what for most large companies run on Friedman’s unabashed principles is essentially that sop to public opinion we call corporate social responsibility.  More often that not, personal and individual acts of volunteering carried out in extreme good faith which just serve to whitewash the real business of these companies.

That is to say, the grand and shameful business of getting something for nothing.

Seen in such a light, modern capitalism isn’t a miracle at all.  It works because half of what it truly costs we already pay for as taxpayers – and now, it would seem, in an additionally burdensome manner, very soon as volunteers paradoxically compelled to volunteer.

Thus it is that the real socialist drain on society hasn’t been the public state but – rather – the private.

Which is precisely how business has got something for nothing and why the big society idea will mean more of the same.

More profit for free for those companies who can – and less free time with family and friends for the rest of us who can’t.


TumblrShare
Oct 262010
 
TumblrShare

This sort of story – and there seem to be rather a lot of them beginning to appear at the moment – just makes me wonder a little more.  The Coalition really does want to go the whole way – whatever that might mean and wherever they may end up going.  And it doesn’t seem to care what it says any more, just so long as it makes people unsure of its true intentions for long enough to get away with what it really intends to do.

I can’t work out whether:

  1. they know what they’re doing and won’t let on, or
  2. they don’t know what they’re doing and won’t let on, or
  3. they don’t know that they don’t know what they’re doing and, of course, don’t know that they need to let on

Whatever the situation, we’re probably stuffed.  As Chris at Stumbling and Mumbling points out, self-deception is an awful state for leaders to find themselves in – not perhaps exactly for themselves but, certainly, for the rest of us:

The general phenomenon here is simply illusory superiority. Everyone likes to think they are better than average, and it is always easy to believe in things it is comfortable to believe. Self-interest breeds self-deception.
Among the likes of Clegg, though, I suspect there are two specific forms this takes.
One is a belief that one can offset one’s privilege by doing good works; noblesse oblige. This is not wholly unreasonable; the Tory lady doing charitable work is not entirely a mythical figure. In Clegg, however, it takes a warped form. He says he was “propelled forward [into politics] by idealism”. He fails to see how convenient it is that his particular form of idealism brings with it power and money.
Secondly, there’s the perception that one has merit.Toby Young writes:
The aura of privilege that surrounds the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister shouldn’t be mistaken for aristocratic hauteur. Their sense of entitlement doesn’t stem from good breeding, but from their conviction that they’re meritocrats. And in a sense they are. After all, admission to Britain’s top public schools, as well as Oxford and Cambridge, is at least partly based on merit.

This is, of course, laughable. But that’s the point. Self-deception is hugely powerful.

How have we arrived at such a frightening situation?  Our leaders generally embrace self-deception after their second term in office – not six months into their first.  So have these leaders really embraced it already?  Do they already believe they are bigger than the events they juggle so mercilessly?

Do they already believe they have the right to put theory before people?  Do they already believe they have the obligation to put an experiment before the interests of the subject?

These governors of ours are truly children of Blair.  Pressing buttons, making robotic the relationships between such alleged servants of the state and the served themselves, controlling the mass media with promises of corporate endowment … yes, the morality is non-existent.

They are in it for themselves and yet, I am sure (in some way sincerely), believe this is not so.

If only this were not the case.  If only it were quite otherwise.
____________________

Further reading: this, from John Naughton the other day, would have made interesting reading and viewing.  A little like Wallander interviewing Blair – in the nicest possible way.  At least, this is what I think John led us to believe.  I made a mental note of the link and went back to the story today to watch and learn.

I was ready to warm to Blair even as I knew I shouldn’t.

And then I discover that where the revealing video should’ve been, all we had was a black screen.  Fortunately, a bit of digging around the Internet uncovered the following code – which should now work.  Let me know if it goes offline again and I’ll do my best to update.


TumblrShare
Oct 212010
 
TumblrShare

Labour List has an interesting summary of some quite familiar arguments on the subject of how ideological the Coalition cuts really are.  You can find the article here.  The summary as follows:

The truth is the Conservative Party are pursuing an ideological commitment to cutting public spending and reducing the size of the state. They are doing exactly what they came into politics for, and using the deficit created by the financial crisis as cover. From freezing child benefit to cutting social housing, this is a right wing Conservative Party pursuing a right wing ideological agenda.

The article goes on to conclude that:

The majority of people in this country voted for parties whose manifestos did not specify an immediate and drastic reduction in the long term role of government. The British people do not share the Tories’ ideological obsession with reducing the size of the state. Of course the deficit must be reduced, but it should be done so to deliver growth, not to achieve an ideology. The big question is why the Liberal Democrats are allowing themselves to be used as cover for a right wing Tory agenda.

This is pretty much the received opinion most of us on the left would be happy to subscribe to right now.  But I can’t help feeling there isn’t another side to the whole affair we would be less prepared to acknowledge – another side we would probably prefer not to contemplate.

The pendulum swings of British politics, where long-term agreement and consensual behaviours – that is to say, sustainable conversation and dialogue (exactly what Cameron promised us in the Rose Garden the day the Coalition government was launched) – do not easily find their place, don’t half make me wonder if it wouldn’t be reasonable to apply James Lovelock’s hypothesis of Gaia to what has been happening for decades here in Britain:

James Lovelock defined Gaia as:
a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet.

The hypothesis runs as follows:

The Gaia hypothesis, Gaia theory or Gaia principle is a controversial ecological hypothesis or theory proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeorhesis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis,[1] it was named the Gaia Hypothesis after the Greek primordial goddess of the Earth, at the suggestion of William Golding, Nobel prizewinner in literature and friend and neighbour of Lovelock.[2] The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism.[3]

Let’s play a game then, shall we?  A substitution exercise of sorts.  The same passage, but with political terms many of us might be more familiar with:

The Disraeli hypothesis, Disraeli theory or Disraeli principle is a controversial political hypothesis or theory proposing that the British body politic and the sociocultural components of Britain (welfare state, public and private sectors, economic structures and international relationships) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the  conditions in British politics in a preferred homeorhesis. Originally proposed by Miljenko Williams as the political feedback hypothesis, it was named the Disraeli Hypothesis after the British primordial god of political endeavour, at the suggestion of Nick Robinson, Nobel prizewinner in blogging and friend and neighbour of Williams.  The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the British body politic as a single organism.

Perhaps the most consistent expression of the Disraeli hypothesis would be the one-nation conservatism practised by Harold Macmillan and others.  (Though Robinson would probably beg to differ on this matter, as he often does on many others – partly because he’s quite possibly a card-carrying trades unionist of an utterly unconvincing nature but mainly because he’s a practising wally.)

*

Back to the serious point of the exercise, though.  Gaia – or the Disraeli theory as I have chosen to describe my alternative – is a closed system which attempts to compensate its extremes.  Perceived over rather longer stretches of time than we are accustomed to in our day-to-day lives, perhaps this is all that is happening in the pendulum politics I mentioned above.  We had thirteen years of New Labour spending – realistically speaking, as ideological as anyone on the progressive left could hope for – which the closed system I describe, only half in jest, must at some point see itself obliged to compensate for in some way or another.

In one sense, perhaps, New Labour did lose the election.  In another, perhaps, the Coalition did beat our lot back.  But not enough in either case to warrant an outright victory on any side.

It all looks pretty grim right now.  But electoral wipeout will one day affect those the system decides it has to.  And the process will continue ad infinitum.  All we must realise is that whatever we do, excess will eventually be compensated for and find its contraposition.

I have no answers here, I hasten to add.  I’m unable to draw any cogent conclusions for the moment.  I just do feel, at a very instinctive level, that if you push your luck too far – that is to say, ignore the component of good judgement Iain Martin talks about on his blog today – you will eventually find yourself paying in one way or another.  Whether your name happens to be Tony Blair or whether it happens to be David Cameron.

What’s an entirely selfish act of course, and here I am pointing my finger at George Osborne, is when you push not only your own luck but that of sixty million people.

Then a different series of pendulums within pendulums tend to operate on the individual in question.  And a generation’s hopes and aspirations are destroyed in the process.


TumblrShare
Oct 212010
 
TumblrShare

I ask the above question because snowflake5 asks the following questions:

The most stunning thing that came out of the CSR for me was this: The ConDems are planning to increase the International Development budget by 37%. A 37% increase on what Labour spent (even in boom years). 37%!

And they are cutting the welfare budget by £18bn, and aiming the distress squarely on the most vulnerable such as the disabled.

They are taking mobility money away from people who can’t walk and p***ing it away overseas? Really?

If Gordon Brown felt we couldn’t afford an extra 37% for international development because it would come at the expense of our own vulnerable, then we really couldn’t afford it.

Perhaps call-me-Dave wants to ensure that nascent superpowers such as India can afford aircraft for their aircraft carriers? What other explanation is there?

That last question hangs heavily in the air.  And it truly makes me wonder if the overseas development budget is a kindness on Osborne’s part or is there simply to generate a massive soundbite which then allows him to batter the Labour opposition with. 

Can we fairly imagine that Osborne picked out a very small number of flagship policies defended most dearly by Labour folk – and then chose to maintain or even improved on them simply to take the wind out of their sails?  Not because he believes in them but, rather, because he knows Labour would’ve savaged him if he hadn’t …

Are we acting in horrendous bad faith to even consider the possibility that Osborne may have been as cynical as this?

Thus it would seem that the poor abroad have now become a political football used by egos as powerful as Osborne’s to score – Rooney-like – both on and off the pitch.
 ____________________

Further reading: a fascinating post by Iain Martin blogging at the Wall Street Journal on whether Osborne is being “too clever by half”.  Some history and some pause for thought.  Whilst here you can find Alastair Campbell on those laughing all the way from the bank.


TumblrShare
Oct 202010
 
TumblrShare

I had a coffee.

That was me drawing a line under catastrophe.  Then I thought it could get no worse.

I’ve been through it all today.  All the stages of grief in eight hours:

The progression of states is:[2]
  1. Denial – “I feel fine.”; “This can’t be happening, not to me.”
    Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of positions and individuals that will be left behind after death.
  2. Anger – “Why me? It’s not fair!”; “How can this happen to me?”; “Who is to blame?”
    Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Any individual that symbolizes life or energy is subject to projected resentment and jealousy.
  3. Bargaining – “Just let me live to see my children graduate.”; “I’ll do anything for a few more years.”; “I will give my life savings if…”
    The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, “I understand I will die, but if I could just have more time…”
  4. Depression – “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”; “I’m going to die… What’s the point?”; “I miss my loved one, why go on?”
    During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect oneself from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed.
  5. Acceptance – “It’s going to be okay.”; “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”
    In this last stage, the individual begins to come to terms with his mortality or that of his loved one.

So there you go.  After this morning’s spending review announcements by George Osborne, reaction has been fast and furious.  Mind you, as always, other bits of news – just as profound and just as significant – occasionally manage to wriggle their way out from under the stones of government obfuscation.  With a little help from our friends at the Telegraph, that is.  In a story headlined “Every email and website to be stored by government”, the paper says:

Every email, phone call and website visit is to be recorded and stored after the Coalition Government revived controversial Big Brother snooping plans.

It goes on to say:

It will allow security services and the police to spy on the activities of every Briton who uses a phone or the internet.

Moves to make every communications provider store details for at least a year will be unveiled later this year sparking fresh fears over a return of the surveillance state.

So on a day as busy as this one clearly is for cerebral stimulation, let’s just clear the decks a bit and think the implications of this one through.

On the one hand, Osborne, a man who has yet to form part of a general-election-winning government, deconstructs the state by 25 percent over four years – promising us as he does so the kind of state beloved of our libertarian pals.  And yet this very government – supposedly of the small and aforementioned liberating state – announces just the day before that the privacy of British citizens will be invaded as per previous New Labour plans.

So does this mean – and is it reasonable for me to conclude – that this much trumpeted Big Society actually equals Big Cuts and Big Brother? 

No saving graces at all.

That is to say, the worst of all possible worlds …


TumblrShare
Oct 202010
 
TumblrShare

This is the first time in my life that I honestly fear that my children will be worse off than me.

This is the first time in my life that I fear they will not get the university education I received.  This is the first time in my life that I fear they will not get the welfare and medical support I got when I fell ill.  This is the first time in my life that I fear they will not see the world as full of gracious and life-enhancing opportunities.  This is the first time in my life that I fear that they will not be able to choose their jobs and find a better place than I did – that they will instead have to fight, tooth and nail, their fellow men and women for the worst and most menial tasks the rich need us to carry out.

The kind of tasks which in this country we so love to hand out to the immigrants we delight in berating all the time.

Those tasks, even those tasks, we will take away from that labour which we will cruelly judge surplus to our needs – and we will assign it to our young, to those who will no longer have a right to aspire to anything better.

Yes.  Today is a first.

A first for many things.

A first where I wish I had come last.
____________________

Postscript: as a by-the-by, I notice the easy-to-read version of the spending review is impossible to fisk or link to page-by-page.  Perhaps for future occasions this could be contemplated as a feature to be added, as it would facilitate immensely proper analysis and discussion.  If, that is, this is what the Coalition government is truly aiming for.


TumblrShare
Oct 202010
 
TumblrShare

There is another way.  There is an alternative.  The big society idea which the government wishes to impose on us – and which may make us feel obliged to offer them something for nothing, as a result of the savage cuts of more than 25 percent over four years announced today – doesn’t have to be the only way.

Below, Alan Johnson’s email to Party members which I’ve just received, on the subject of Labour’s very own spending challenge:

I wanted to say something to you today, before I deliver our response to the Coalition’s Comprehensive Spending Review. George Osborne will insist that there is no alternative to his huge and unnecessary cuts – that is simply not true. There is a better way and that’s where you can help.

Click here to show your support for our alternative or let us know your ideas for a better way

This is about saying, “No. There is an alternative”.

I’m going to be honest with you, being in opposition does not mean that we can oppose every cut, or pretend to be in government. But it does mean setting out a clear alternative to what we regard as a reckless gamble with growth and jobs – a balanced approach that gets the deficit down without endangering the recovery.

You’re the expert on your local area, or how your family will be affected, so click here to tell us your better way

Today’s reckless gamble with growth and jobs runs the risk of stifling the fragile recovery. Our alternative will be fair and will recognise these are central to our economic strategy – not a side issue. It will treat the public as intelligent enough to understand that bringing the world economy back from the brink of catastrophe is not the same as paying off a credit card bill.

We all know that we must tackle the deficit, but we must protect growth, public services, and all of us caught in the middle enduring the most unfair of these cuts, too.

Alan

PS. It’s vital that we let the country know about our alternative and a better way to tackle this deficit and secure recovery – share your thoughts with us here at YourBetterWay.com

So go to www.YourBetterWay.com  and find out how other people believe we make this society better for us all.

As supportive a society as only Britain knows how.

Not the big society, but the big-hearted society.
____________________

Update to this post: Alan Johnson’s measured and thoughtful response to today’s announcements can be found here via Labour Matters.


TumblrShare
Oct 202010
 
TumblrShare

Can’t really add much to that headline, can I?  Here’s the link to Reuters which provides us with the background to the story about the cat-in-bin woman:

A British woman who sparked international outrage after CCTV film of her picking up a cat and dumping it in a rubbish bin was posted on the internet was fined 265 pounds ($420) for animal cruelty on Tuesday.

And here’s what David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised us on the day they announced the formation of their Coalition government:

In a relaxed joint appearance, the new prime minister stood side by side with his deputy at an open-air press conference and said the Lib-Con five-year fixed-term government would be underpinned by principles of “freedom, fairness and responsibility”.

Cameron said the appointment of six Lib Dems, including Clegg, to the cabinet was “a sign of the strength and depth of the coalition and our sincere determination to work together constructively to make this coalition work in our national interest”.

The prime minister said: “Today we are not just announcing a new government and new ministers. We are announcing a new politics. A new politics where the national interest is more important than party interest, where co-operation wins out over confrontation, where compromise, give and take, reasonable, civilised, grown-up behaviour is not a sign of weakness but of strength.”

Clegg said: “Until today, we have been rivals: now we are colleagues. That says a lot about the scale of the new politics which is now beginning to unfold.

“This is a new government and a new kind of government. A radical reforming government where it needs to be. And a source of reassurance and stability, too, at a time of great uncertainty in our country.”

So … um … where did all that go?  And how much do you reckon we should fine them for putting 500,000 public sector workers in the waste disposal unit?


TumblrShare
Oct 202010
 
TumblrShare

Cuts, any cuts, always lead to casualties.  Cuts are always a war of sorts.  They can be a war on waste.  They can be a war on behaviours.  They can be a war of an ideological bent.  They can be a back-of-the-envelope war waged by people who don’t know any better.

So.  A simple question.  Whatever the detail which will be announced today, certain stakeholders in society will inevitably go to the wall.  Who will these be?

Large companies, organisations and other transnational corporations?  No.  With the excuse/economic justification of shrinking profit margins, shareholders will be prioritised over workforce and ordinary people will go to the wall.  Large companies, organisations and other transnational corporations will, meanwhile, live on – as is always their wont.

You ever wondered if eternal life was within our grasp?  Well, it is.  It’s just that the legal figure we’ve endowed it with is actually the modern corporation. 

Small companies, corner shops and assorted sole traders?  Yes.  With the reason – not excuse – of zero profit margins, these rather more fragile and perishable goods will go to the wall in a painful and awfully slow-motion replay of all those parallel moments in capitalism’s dishonourable history (more here on why we should continue to keep the wolf at bay and here on the long and short of life).

And the final group?  Families, students, pensioners and those currently working for a living?  That is to say, those who wash, feed and clothe the workers and executives of the nation, those who still hope to contribute to a brighter future, those who have already contributed to an honourable past and those who are currently contributing to a shaky downturn*?

Well what do you think will happen to this last group?  What do you think they can do?
____________________

*For which, I might add, they are entirely blameless …


TumblrShare
Check Our FeedVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Facebook