The Postal Strike

Yesterday, I let our local Postman know he has the full support of our household, in striking. He told us thanks, and that they are going to need all the support they can get.

I’m getting mildly bored of the coverage the Media seems to be giving the Postal strikes. Purely because across the media, including the “impartial” BBC, all I see is small business owners complaining about their invoices not being sent, or regular people in the street complaining that their nephews might not receive their Nintendo DS in time for Christmas. There is very rarely postmen explaining the reasons for the strike action. The first thing that strikes me about both of those arguments, is how utterly selfish they are.

The first (the small business owner), is merely thinking about his or her own wealth prospects. The strikes threaten their wealth. The nature of business, is indeed “I’m more important than everyone else“. The less industrial action, even if the action is justified in bringing about much needed regulations to improve the working conditions of the workforce, the better when it comes to business. It is the reason the CBI opposed minimum wage….. they wanted us for as cheap as possible, so they could make as much as possible. It is the reason why Primark are able to get away with abusing the child populations of Bangledesh. Because it benefits business. It is the reason why Trafigura tried to gag the Guardian, into it’s discovery that they’d knowingly tried to cover up their part in the Côte d’Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal. It threatens their wealth. It’s the reason Insurance Companies in America manage to attract ridiculously naive members of the American public, into opposing Universal Healthcare by using such discourse of the privileged few, manipulative terms as “Socialism” and “Freedom“…… They’ve somehow (quite impressively) managed to convince a large section of the American public, that the ability for a private insurance firm to make a lot of money, is more important than the rights of a poor man to get a decent quality of healthcare. It is the reason why the Conservatives have successfully managed to take the debate away from the fact that their free-market ideology has failed miserably, and onto the fact that they plan to drastically cut public spending. Selfishness. The very basis of business. When in comes to the Postman strike, the rich elites (and their blind, idiotic followers) do not care how badly the postmen are treated, as long as their wealth is secure.

The second, is arguably less intelligent. They aren’t out to protect their own wealth (when living in a system that rewards selfishness, protection of ones own wealth, is the natural reaction, especially from a business class). The “I’m expecting a parcel that hasn’t arrived because of the selfish postmen!!!” argument, isn’t even worth listening to. It’s even more frustrating, that these idiots can vote.

Onto the strike itself, Peter Mandelson (A LABOUR MINISTER!!!!) said of the strikes, that Royal Mail faced “a very poor future” if modernising efforts were not realised. I’m not entirely sure what he means. He sounds very Thatcher-esque, but of course he used the word “modernising” instead of “privatisation“. Are we better off, as a society, with the privatising of British gas? Or BT? Are our bills less expensive than they were? Is the service they provide, much better than it was? Not particularly. Can you actually get through to BT when you need them? No. They’re useless. We all know it. So what are we actually expecting from the “modernising” of Royal Mail? All that privatisation achieved, was handing over democratic institutions that worked for the benefit of the whole of society, to private hands that work for the benefit of enriching shareholders. Suddenly, democracy is very much under attack. Suddenly, key institutions (gas and heating especially) are not working in the interests of society, they exist as money making opportunities and nothing more. Suddenly, the minority (the rich) rule the majority (the rest of us), and that, by definition, is so horrendously undemocratic, it’s unjustifiable. Do we want that to happen to Royal Mail? Because if it does, post will cost far far more than it does now.

Why don’t they start, by improving management? Why attack the workforce first? There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows bankers to destroy the economy, yet live out the rest of the days, free from prosecution, on a beautiful beach somewhere exotic….. yet allows public workers to bare the heavy burden of “cost cutting” in order to bring down a debt, caused, by the private market.

Royal Mail said in May 2009, that they needed to impose a pay freeze on 181,000 Postman and other staff. The average Royal Mail worker, takes home £347.61 a week before tax, whereas the UK average worker, takes home £438. The Royal Mail CEO Adam Crozier, whilst freezing the pay of very low paid, below average salaried workers; increased his own salary, to £1,000,000, and took home a bonus of £2,000,000. And people have the fucking nerve to blame the Posties for being “greedy“? If you genuinely believe the workers are making a fuss over nothing, you are not worth debating with.

It isn’t even as if Royal Mail are struggling (When your boss takes home £3,000,000, the company isn’t struggling); in the nine months to December 2008, Royal Mail made £255,000,000…… in profit! That’s up from £162,000,000 in 2007. Showing the biggest profits the company has ever made, and then rewarding your staff who achieved that, with a pay freeze, and pensions that do not follow the rate of inflation, whilst enriching yourself, is pathetic and totally unjustifiable. But, they wear suits and ties, so apparently that makes it okay these days, to be a bit of a crook. Royal Mail are hardly facing a huge struggle weathering this recession, and certainly doesn’t justify huge pay freezes, mass redundancies, increased shifts (sometimes 50% added to their usual round, and given no extra time to complete it, or extra pay), whilst the boss works three times a week, and enriches himself with horrendously large pay packets.

It seems all too convenient, that after the announcement that Mandelson wanted to sell off 30% of Royal Mail and the general public opposing such a move….. that suddenly the service takes a dive. Could it be, that the Government needed to somehow make the service look like it needed “saving”? Because the service suddenly took a downward turn this year, for no obvious reason (Royal Mail made an all time record profit in 2008….. hardly struggling, or needing to cut costs).
The public in general didn’t support the selling off, because Royal Mail was working fine. So, it has been systematically abused, badly, to look like it needs “saving“.
The problem for the Government is….. it doesn’t need modernising, or saving, because it made a huge profit (it’s biggest ever) and far surpassed all it’s targets. The Government, and Royal Mail management, seem to be suggesting that the product isn’t broken at all……. but it needs fixing anyway.

Labour have massively disappointed me over this problem. They have backed management the entire way. A lot of jobs will be lost through “modernising” despite the fact that Royal Mail made it’s biggest profit ever last year. Shouldn’t that money be going to securing jobs? Why aren’t the very Party set up to advance the cause of workers, actually doing that? It’s a little concerning.

We know what we want from Royal Mail. We want a Post Office not too far away, we want a good daily service, and we want a Postie that everyone knows and talks to. We don’t want 30% sold to a private firm who’s main objective is to enrich the boardroom. We want a service that works for the public, not controlled by incompetent, out of touch bosses, or the private market.

I fully support the Posties in this. Because the moment we stop supporting their right to strike, we are giving management the green light, to impose whatever ludicrous working conditions they so wish on the workforce, purely because they know the public, with it’s obsession with consumerism, will oppose the strike.

Is it obvious that I’m a little bit of a Socialist?

The Radical Press – Presentation

I wrote a script for a University Presentation, on “The relevance of the Radical Press today“. I think I may have turned a little bit too Chomsky-esque with the points I was making.
The script itself, is just a guideline for me to rant further when I felt the need. I thought i’d post it on here for two reasons. Firstly, because I haven’t posted anything for quite some time (too much work on my hands) and secondly, because, well, I quite enjoyed writing it.
So here you go……

————————————————

The Relevance of the Radical Press in the 21st Century.
The effectiveness of the radical press, is linked in theory, to where the power lies. In the 19th Century, power lay quite firmly with the State. Throughout the 20th century, power transferred from the State, to private hands. And when power lies in private hands, control over that power comes from the top, the rich. There is a little give and take but by definition, private ownership over the mass media, means that any radical ideals are quickly suppressed. And whilst journalists may indeed say that they are not harassed into saying anything they do not wish to say, that they’re free from pressure – they’re right. But, the only reason they’re in a position not to be pressured, or harassed is because they have demonstrated the ability to say the right thing, for the big business that employs them. If a writer for The Mail, suddenly became a radical left wing writer, he’d be out, championing the overthrow of the Capitalist system isn’t in the interests of the big business media. He certainly wouldn’t have been employed in the first place had he shown what the business media would see as threatening to their established power. Where’s the radical press when you need it?

When ultimate power lies with the State, (as it did when the radical media began it’s ascent in the 19th Century) the media is of course expected to be the official mouthpiece of that State’s elites, often censored. The radical press obviously grew out of discontent with that particular media system. Eventually, when taxation failed to drive the radicals out of the media, freeing the markets happened to be fantastically affective. The very rich could afford to now start up a national daily newspaper, whereas the working class papers struggled to produce a weekly paper at local levels. And as the new big business media discovered they had inherited from pro-government publications of the past, the best way to ensure obedient and ignorant, to your system, is to limit debate and opinion, to decide exactly what shouldn’t be propagated and in particular, radical ideas.

Advertising plays a huge part, still, in the suppression of any form of radical press. For example, the Times reported in 2005 that General Motors had pulled it’s advertising for the L.A Times, after the L.A Times called for Rick Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors, to be sacked.
Morgan Stanley went one step further in May 2005 and added threats into it’s advertising contracts with newspapers across America, the following:
“In the event that objectionable editorial coverage is planned, news agency must inform Morgan Stanley, as a last minute change may be necessary. If an issue arises after hours or a call cannot be made, immediately cancel all Morgan Stanley ads for a minimum of 48 hours”. Advertising, big business, has the potential to control what makes the news, and that HAS to be just as worrying as government doing the same in the 19th Century. The press doesn’t challenge this established order. Radicalism dies even more.

Newspaper circulation, became big business very quickly, ruled by a new group of elites, possibly more dangerous than before, given that they were unelected, and very very powerful. Dependence on advertising helped them along beautifully. Radical papers could not attract advertisement, and so were effectively beaten out of the market by the wealthy. And so far from the government distorting the market, advertising quite radically distorted the market in favour of those with money. As the radical press of the 18th and 19th Centuries started to die down, thanks in general to the freeing up of the markets, it kind of created a new monster, in the form of big business. Of course, big business and government then intertwine until they are relatively the same thing. For example, A man named Andy Coulson, who was editor of News Of The World at the time of the phone hacking scandal, was responsible for the many many journalists who were undertaking these criminal activities, in order to get publishable stories……… News Corp, then (because they’re free, and just love transparency) paid to cover up the full scope of their illegal dealings and the problems Coulson was very much responsible for. Which, begs the question, which the mainstream media seem to be ignoring (I’d guess because they all have a few appalling skeletons they’d wish to stay quiet) why is Andy Coulson now in a position of quite intense power, as Director of Communications and Planning for the Conservative Party. Is it then, a stretch to suggest that Cameron, who has agreed to ditch ofcom, may just be a figurehead for people like Murdoch? Ultimate power, rule by the people, it could be argued, is now privately owned. Where is the radical press when you need it?

So it could be suggested that if Government is effectively privatised, bowing to the whim of big business, then the apparent “impartiality” of the BBC is threatened even further. If government and big business interests are one in the same, then we have problems.
For example, in June 2004, BBCs Washington Correspondent Matt Frei spoke with joy at the handing over of sovereignty and freedom to the Iraqi people from coalition forces. The BBC News described it as an “historic day for Iraqi democracy”. Yet, for the next few years at least, thousands of troops remained in Iraq (which be definition, isn’t “freedom” or “handing over sovereignty“), and the government was actually appointed by America, not Iraqi democracy. The BBC seemed to be sucking up to the Government and the Western perspective on the handing over of sovereignty. So it’s clear to see that the whilst the State run BBC does indeed at times show a Governmental bias, the Private media shows a bias toward whatever the owner or the advertisers wish. Both, are dangerous.

American Writer Henry Adams in 1900 said:
“The Press is a hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell lies where the interests are concerned.”

Over 100 years later, and I think we’ve finally got to the stage where Adams can be proven wrong. With the advent of Web 2.0, more and more people can become journalists, radical or not, with absolutely no formal qualification, and no duty to enrich shareholders or please advertisers. And there are a few about already. They give their opinion, they offer radical views that have been suppressed for quite some time. They aren’t censored in any way, and have no affiliation. I myself keep my own political opinion blog, and I read a great deal more. They can provide the public with stories that the papers are banned from reporting. For example, Côte d’Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal, involving the shipping Company Trafigura. Trafigura managed to ban the Guardian from reporting the fact that the Guardian had documents proving that Trafigura had effectively covered up their part in the scandal. Not even Parliamentary discussion on the subject was allowed to be published in the Guardian about the subject. But, the story broke on blogs across the World before any Paper was allowed to publish it. This shows the power of this new form of radical press. This new radical press doesn’t pretend to be objective. The Daily Kos, refers to itself as having a liberal bias, and Guido Fawkes blog is very much an anti-Labour leaning blog. The World Socialist Website offers it’s perspective on World events, from a Socialist point of view. A new web based free radical press has unlimited power and scope and could potentially prove to be the catalyst that brings down the power that big business and government seemingly have over the media.

———————————————–

Thoughts?

The incompatibility of Capitalism and Democracy

“Democracy and Capitalism are like two persons bound in a tempestuous marriage that is riven by conflict and yet endures because neither partner wishes to separate from the other.”
- Robert Dahl

The economist, Friedrich August von Hayek, once suggested that Democracy can only possibly exist within a Capitalist system of the economy. I’d suggest Mr Hayek is contradicting himself with that statement, because by definition, he is offering no room for choice. Democracy exists for the benefit of Capitalism, or…..for the benefit of Capitalism. That isn’t Democracy.

The contrast between the ideals of a Democratic State and the ideals of Capitalism are in fact, so far removed from each other, they come very very close to being entirely incompatible. That very incompatibility is obvious. It isn’t about immigrants flooding the border, it isn’t about National identity or race, or too much public spending, it isn’t about freedom of choice (the freedom to choose whether to watch X-Factor or Strictly Come Dancing, is a pathetically blinded excuse for the word “Freedom“…you have no real choice), it isn’t about Communism vs Capitalism, all of those points are just a smoke screen employed by politicians who are acquiescing to the needs of big business.

My (perhaps naive understanding of Democracy), is that the key institutions that govern our lives, along with the people who are empowered to make the big decisions that ultimately affect our lives, must be accountable to the people. And yet, this Western ideal of Democracy has the opposite affect. If anything, they seem to be in conflict with each other, sometimes quite violently.

On the one hand, we exercise our right to vote in free and fair elections, by choosing a leader who has very little control over our lives. On the other hand, the key institutions of our society (or what I’d define as key institutions) are further and further privatised; and so power over such institutions is therefore concentrated into little Centralised States of their own, known as “Corporations”, in which the CEO has little or no desire to advance or protect the common good, of Humanity. Similarly, the CEO is not accountable to the people, he/she is accountable to the shareholders only. And since shares (and property – the key to Capitalism – in general) is so very limited, it stands to reason that not everyone can participate in it. Those who do participate in the race for property, lose out, to only one winner. It’s competition, a race to the finish. Those who win “deserve” it. Those who lose, well, tough. The majority therefore, lose out. Which i’m pretty sure anyone will tell you, is massively undemocratic.

In fact, a CEO accountable to share holders, is the exact opposite of Democracy, because the majority, have no say. We are therefore, controlled by Corporate interests, with absolutely no direct accountability to the people. This is ultimately proven to be the case, given that it has taken many many years under Capitalist rule, for the vast majority of workers to be paid a decent wage…..and even then, Business had to be forced, by the Government, to pay a wage greater than just enough to keep the worker alive. The Confederation of British Industry opposed the Minimum Wage. As did the Conservative Party. Which brings me neatly onto my next point.

It is no coincidence that as Markets grow ever more free, political parties become ever more right winged in terms of their economic policies. The Thatcher Government destroyed the power of the Unions in the ’80s, and privatised key institutions such as British Gas with the Gas Act of 1986. This of course lead to huge price increases implemented by people who run British Gas (Centrica) and have no direct accountability, other than to share holders. In July 2008 Centrica announced it’s Gas prices would raise by a record 35% and it’s Electricity prices by a record 26%. It blamed the rise on soaring wholesale energy prices. In May 2009, it then cut those prices, both by 10%. That’s still a huge increase in Gas and Electricity prices. Robert Hammond, a Gas and Electricity consumer expert working for Consumer Focus, said of the cuts: “We would have expected much bigger reductions considering that wholesale gas and electricity prices are half what they were at their peak last year“. Between winter 2007 and winter 2008, the number of deaths caused by fuel poverty (20 years after privatisation set out to free up the markets, to flourish wondrously) rose by 7%….. the biggest increase, since records began.

Arguably the most powerful institutions in the World; Banks. For years, banks had campaigned against regulation. They wanted total autonomy. They were in control of our money, they were using our money for their risky and ultimately hellish investments and bets, but they wanted us to be as far away from our money, and ultimate power as possible. Whilst they had our money, and our homes under their control, the guys at the top were enriching themselves (and continue to do so) despite actually losing our money, and our homes. Those people were not democratically elected. Damn right they should be heavily regulated now. The public sector then bailed out the excesses of Capitalism, and now the public sector is going to pay for it, through tax cuts for the rich, and public service cuts for those less wealthy. Why is no one fighting this? Those banks that received public funds, should pay a huge share of their profits, back into the public system.
Perhaps the key principle of democracy – rule by the people, for the people – apparently doesn’t apply to such powerful and essential institutions, such as Banking. But does apply, to when our rubbish bins get collected. Society is a little bit backward.

My point being, that democratically elected Governments of the past, have worked tirelessly to pass key institutions – that existed to protect the people and to provide a safety net, to the people – to very centralised, very concentrated, very greedy private hands, whose jobs rely solely on how much money they make for their shareholders, not at all for how pleased the majority of the public is with the work they are doing. It is only a matter of times, before the World’s water supplies, change from “The Pacific Ocean”, to “Microsoft Ocean”, in which you have to pay an extortionate price to swim in. Or “GE Spring” in which it’ll cost you to drink from, despite the Spring being a natural resource, that no one has the right to own. You may think this is an extreme example, of Democracy being eroded by Capitalist interest, but the World Bank recently adopted a policy of complete Water privatisation across the World, leading to Corporations (again, unelected, having no desire to serve the public good) such as “Monsanto” collecting a net income, of around $68,000,000 last year alone.

Ironically, democratically elected governments, pursuing Capitalist reform of their market place, are helping to almost overthrow the democratic order of power, and place it in the hands of untouchable Kings, in charge of their own little Corporate Nation, free to use whomever they wish, without fear of rebellion. Much like the Kingdoms of old, these Corporations concentrate Wealth at the top of the hierarchy; proven quite self evident with the fact that 33.4% of the total Wealth of the USA in 2001, was owned by 1% of the population. Whilst the bottom 40% of the population of the USA in 2001, owned 0.3% of the Wealth. What good is “Wealth creation” if it doesn’t trickle down? The argument that Democracy has aided Capitalism is weak at best, it thrives on the notion that in all Capitalist States, sporting Democracy as their rule of the land, the GDP has risen sharply. This, is often cited as proof of the two’s compatibility. Of course, it only works if you measure the Wealth of a Nation by the concentrated wealth of the people at the top. If you chose to focus on the plush lifestyles of those at the top, whilst choosing to ignore the miserable conditions of those at the bottom, then yes, Capitalism and Democracy are very much compatible. Which in turn, means you are focusing on the minority rather than the majority, and so by that very logic, your thought pattern, is undemocratic.

What then happens, and it’s the logical next step in the Capitalisation of the World, is that business interests infect the very heart of Government. They become influential characters behind the scenes, and so private money is pumped into political parties, via campaign contributions, in return for favours that aid the wealth and power of Corporations. As pointed out in the my previous blog entry, The Director of Communications and Planning for the Conservative Party, was once the chief editor of the News Of The World…….owned by Rupert Murdoch…..who is currently on a rampage against media regulation in the UK……. of which it just so happens that David Cameron has agreed to ditch the media regulator Ofcom, if he were to become the next Prime Minister of Great Britain. Given that he is accountable to the public, shouldn’t Cameron be asking us if that’s what we want first? Rather than catering to the needs of a businessman? By that very logic, the Businessman’s vote, is more important than the votes of you and I, and therefore, again, Capitalism promotes undemocratic principles.

Perhaps the old Conservative mantra that “less government interference in private affairs” is necessary for the advancement and freedom of society, should be twisted and turned into “less private interference in government affairs” is necessary for the justice, security, and fairness of humanity in the future. I’ll go with that one.

The Man who controls the World

“We’re all in this together” cried Shadow Chancellor George Osbourne during his speech at the Conservative Party Conference yesterday. Which, is slightly insulting given that (according to The New Statesman), Osbourne is worth upwards of £4,000,000. His lovely house in Nottinghill (which explains the Tories obsession with cutting inheritance tax), his beautiful cars, his £5000 fee per article written in the Spectator, and his inherited credentials including the Osbourne Baronetcy of Ballentaylor. So what he meant to say was, the rest of us are in this for the long ride, worrying about jobs and how secure we are in our homes, whilst Osbourne and friends tell us we’re on our own, with no help from the next Government whatsoever…. in fact, they’re even going to cut our help to as less as possible. Nice. Thanks.

The Media, seems to be giving the Conservatives a free pass to Government. One wonders why. It is the deregulation of the financial industry that ultimately lead to this crises (blame Brown if you so wish, but it would not have been any better had the Conservatives been in power). In fact, when statutory regulation was introduced by Labour, the Tories opposed it. Which, in simple terms, means that if the Conservatives had been in power these past twelve years…… we’d be in a far greater mess than we are in now. When William Hague was leader of the Conservative Party, he is quoted as saying:
“As prime minister I will make deregulation one of my top priorities. I will drive deregulation from the centre and I will promote ministers not on the basis of whether they regulate enough but on the basis of how much they deregulate.”
Which, means that he would have left bankers, and mortgage lenders to do as they please, without any oversight whatsoever. Hague could not have been more wrong, if he’d have been George Osbourne making the wrong decision on every aspect of this crises. The crises we’re in today exists, because there was not enough regulation and oversight.

Why haven’t the media picked up on this?

The Sun certainly has a motive for backing the Tories.
The Murdoch’s, owners of News Corporation have recently taken swipes at the BBC, for the fact that it is a non-profit organisation with global reach, meaning it apparently distorts the market, especially given that the BBC’s online content is free….and Murdoch wishes to start changing for Sky’s online content. Apparently the BBC run the risk of becoming a dangerous tool of the State. Nowhere, does Murdoch accept that without the BBC, the Media, and so News in general, will run the risk of becoming a dangerous tool of News Corp, given that News Corp currently runs:
BSkyB, The Sun, 20th Century Fox, Fox News, 17.5% of ITV, Sky Italia, Sky Deutsch land, Myspace, Vogue, The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Australian Daily Telegraph, The Australian Sunday Herald Sun, The Australian Sunday Mail, The Australian, News of the World, The Times, Dow Jones Newswires, BulgarianTV, Israel 10, LNT Latvia, National Geographic Channel; all among many many more holdings.

The Tories, have agreed to revamp the media regulator Ofcom, ditching much of it’s regulatory functions – if they were to come to power, which means Murdoch, The Sun, and Sky can get away with saying just about anything. In simplistic terms, it means Murdoch gets to exert potentially dangerous political power over another Country, much like he does with his American news network, Fox News. We do not want a Fox News in this Country.

During the Summer of 2008, Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law paid (around £34,000 in total) for the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, to fly Santorini (a Greek Island) for private talks on a yacht, with Rupert Murdoch. Also in Santorini for the talks was a lady named Rebekah Wade……………. Editor of The Sun.

It is no coincidence, that a couple of days after Murdoch spoke in the Sun, stating of David Cameron:
“What does he really feel in his stomach? Is he going to be a new Thatcher, which is what the country needs? The UK desperately needs less government and freer markets“
Cameron then made a speech, in which he said of Ofcom:
“So with a Conservative Government, OFCOM as we know it will cease to exist.“

When Murdoch says he wants “freer markets“, what he means is, he wants to control more of as many markets as he can. It also means he’d quite like to get away this time, with phone hacking, to get a story. A man named Andy Coulson, who was editor of News Of The World at the time of the phone hacking scandal, was responsible for the many many journalists who were untaking these criminal activities, in order to get publishable stories……… News Corp, then (because they’re free, and just love transparency) paid to cover up the full scope of their illegal dealings. Which, begs the question, why is Andy Coulson now in a position of quite intense power, as Director of Communications and Planning for the Conservative Party?

Without Ofcom, we in Britain are very much in danger of becoming a media circus, as is America, built on misinformation, bullying, misplaced anger, and an overriding right winged agenda, built around further empowering the Murdoch clan; where responsible journalism is very much a thing of the past. Through Cameron, England is likely to become Murdoch’s bitch.

Simply one more reason, why out of principle, I can never vote Conservative.

The real benefit cheats

“Education must provide the opportunities for self-fulfillment; it can at best provide a rich and challenging environment for the individual to explore, in his own way.“
- Noam Chomsky

Daily, we see adverts on the Television encouraging all of us to tell the Nazi’s authorities if you know a Jew benefit cheat. Suspect everyone. Don’t talk to your neighbours unless you’re questioning them, under an intense light, around a table, with a one sided window. Hide in your attic, writing a diary, if you happen to be Anne Frank a single mum obtaining a few extra pounds in benefits to help feed your kids, because you’re apparently an evil stain on the fabric of British society. The papers are talking about it, the Tories are constantly talking about it, the Welfare state is coming under attack from everywhere. And yet, we’re conveniently encouraged to ignore, just forget, put to the back of our minds, as if it isn’t important, the issue of Corporate tax evasion and avoidance, that cost us all an absolute fortune in lost revenue, but happily enrich those at the top. I wonder who’s behind this little Media scam.

The leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, today told the BBC that he intends to force those who are out of work, back into work. Whilst the sentiment is indeed welcomed, I cannot help but feel it’s a little short sighted. Firstly, it is my (perhaps flawed) understanding of Conservatism, that only the elites, the wealthy and the well educated deserve jobs they actually desire. It speaks to my anti-Tory side when I hear such simplistic statements from Right Wing stating that they wish to get people back into work as quickly as possible. What these sort of statements suggest, is that a bunch of people who are currently claiming benefits, will be shoved into jobs that completely disintegrate any form of individuality they had left. Forced into largely fatuous jobs in Tesco, or McDonalds, to further enrich the guys at the top, seems to me to be nothing more than transferring dependency from the State, to hugely influential Execs. It is hardly ideal. It certainly isn’t the answer.

Surely a system that allows those at the top to reap massive wealth, hide their taxable wealth in offshore accounts, and keep wages low whilst they themselves reward themselves with huge salaries and bonuses, which in turn seemingly fails to “trickle down” as promised, is merely perpetuating the need for a strong welfare state? If we are truly to tackle unemployment and a State dependency, it would be my (perhaps flawed) suggestion that we start at the top, and revamp the entire system. It may be a great place to start, from a non-Tory perspective (given that they appear to have completely ignored this issue, choosing instead to focus on a full out attack – designed to please those voters who have a home and a car and a safe job – on those on benefits) to bring up the subject of the most costly benefit and tax abuses to the UK economy – Corporate tax avoidance.

According to his interview in The Sun, David Cameron has set out his ten goals for a new Tory Britain. The “Progressive Conservative” (as he previously described himself), has set out plans to drastically cut public spending, give tax breaks to the rich, Corporate tax cuts, and force people to work for whomever the Tories wish them to work for. I’m not sure a Tory politician could be any more regressive than that. So that’s the “progressive Conservative” label dead and buried. It also strikes me as rather punitive, that a man who along with progressive, labelled the Tories “the party for the Environment” has not once mentioned an environmental policy as one of his main policies. Apparently, tax breaks for Corporations is far more important.

He also fails to mention that whilst benefit claimants certainly do impact our economy, it is such a minuscule level in comparison to Corporate tax avoidance schemes. The Commons public accounts committee estimated that Corporate tax loopholes cost the UK up to £13bn a year in lost revenues. The National Audit Office, in 2006 released a document showing that of Britain’s top 700 Companies, 60% paid far less than £10m in Tax, which accounts for less than 2% of what they actually owe. If I started to do the same, I guarantee middle class England would demand I be put straight into prison for cheating the system.
According to The Guardian:
“The UK-based drinks giant Diageo plc has transferred ownership of brands worth billions of pounds, including Johnnie Walker, J&B and Gilbey’s gin, to a subsidiary in the Netherlands where profits accrued virtually tax-free. Despite average profits of £2bn a year, it paid an average of £43m a year in UK tax – little more than 2% of its overall profits.“

Meanwhile, bailed out British Bank, Lloyds Group, after receiving £17bn of taxpayer money, is being investigated for encouraging tax avoidance with an undercover Panorama investigator posing as a wealthy customer. The Lloyds banker refers to income that is paid through Hong Kong, to clients in order to “get around the European Savings Tax Directive” is caught on film saying:
“It’s of no interest to us whether you tell the taxman or not. It is not our business.” It stands to reason then, that when Lloyds (who I bank with) tell me they’re committed to responsible banking, they’re lying, quite pathetically too. Whilst Lloyds Group cut wages, cut jobs, forcing more onto the benefit system in the process; their execs are enjoying hugely inflated salaries and bonuses. The……system…..is……wrong!

Surely if you’re going to punish those who cost the system relatively nothing, you also have to seriously punish those who cost the system an absolute fortune, as is the case with Corporate tax avoidance. Yet, The Tories haven’t said a word on the subject. Not only that, but the end product of extreme tax avoidance across the UK economy, works only to pour extra fuel on the fire of dependency. The more a firm profits and the little it gives back, or “trickles down” the less wealth there is in circulation, the more unemployment rises. Corporate Stalinism, as I like to refer to it as, is the real stain on the fabric of British society. No politician will address it though, because our wondrous democracy relies on these Corporations, to fund it.

For me, the only way to really solve this mess of unemployment, would first be to refuse to cut public spending, until the economy picks up (which it is doing, but would not be doing, if the Tories had their way and just did nothing). Secondly, I would insist on strong penalties toward Companies dedicated to tax avoidance. Close loopholes. Once loopholes are closed, i’d cut our Trident fleet from four Nuclear Subs, to one Nuclear sub. The money saved, would then be used to to slowly ween claimants off such dependency and onto a ladder they actually wish to be climbing, to train them and put them into work they wish to be doing, work they are enthusiastic about, which the state funds for a certain amount of time until they’re employable in the sector they wish to be employed, rather than saying “okay, your benefits are gone, go get a job shovelling shit for the rest of your life”. Eighteen years of Thatcherite economics, “forcing” people back into work, did little but force the homeless rate to triple, whilst suicide rates reached their ultimate peak. It didn’t work. You cannot perpetuate the myth in people’s minds, that they are largely worthless, and only useful when Burger King toilets need cleaning. It will never work. Educating people away from the desire to consume, to out-do your neighbour, or to be a good little Corporate bitch, and toward the desire to be individual, to realise what it is you’re good at, what it is you want to do, how you wish to achieve it, is the course that education needs to take. Educating generation after generation to think the same, act the same, talk the same, like grooming them before a race where the finish line is covered in an illusion of “wants“, is a complete failure. Moreover, it will never solve the debt crises, which will continue to loom over us for decade after decade. It is never going to solve the issue of those who can work, not working. We then get a Tory government who slash benefits, and the homeless rate mysteriously doubles, suicide rates shoot up, riots take place. We then get a Labour government and unemployment sky rockets. No one thinks outside the box. The same tired policies, over and over again. Failed ideologies. We need something new.

Let’s also be clear, it isn’t the public sector that failed us all, it was the private sector. This idea of course, is unheard of, if you’re a Tory.