Why I am a Marxist

What is it that makes me a Marxist? What underlying principle guides my mindset in that direction? Those are the questions I have been asking myself, and I have come to a very basic conclusion. I am not an activist, I like to think, and to try to understand and to articulate the conclusions I come to. So, what conclusions have I come to on this specific area of my min? What is it that makes me a Marxist?

It isn’t about waiting for the “revolution” to come. It isn’t about nurturing an insane idea about a conspiracy in which global power and wealth is controlled by the Bilderbergs. It isn’t about praying every night for the state to control the means of production. It isn’t about ironically displaying a Che t-shirt everywhere I go, or trying to put myself into the exact same camp as Trotsky, or Lenin, or putting a little cross on a political spectrum. It isn’t about wishful rhetoric on stalls across England, handing out Socialist Worker leaflets and declaring that Capitalism is about to fall. It isn’t about turning a blind eye to the fact that thousands of people live off state handouts, purely because they do not wish to work. It isn’t about stooping to the absurdity that the Right Wing often stoops to when it points out the Soviet Union as the failure of Marxism or points to Cuba as the evil of Socialism, because if it were, I could point to Reagan an Thatcher’s support for Pinochet and right winged murderous thugs throughout Central America as proof of the brutality of Capitalism; but i’d be wrong to do so. What makes me a Marxist in the most basic terms, is the necessity to distrust authority that bases itself purely on abstractions, in this case; wealth. Capitalism in this sense, is like religion; we are expected to submit to a higher authority, an authority that actually doesn’t really exist and is purely a construction of the time period that we inhabit. If we look at that constructed power structure from “outside” of the confines of the context of our historical position, we must laugh at the absurdity of our apparent necessity to hand our lives over to people who pay the lowest possible fee for our labour, whilst extracting and squeezing as much out of us. It is degrading, and it certainly isn’t “freedom”.

To expand a little on that, it is the sense that the very foundation of Capitalism – the owner of a business is entitled to the largest piece of the profits, because he invested capital in the first place – is a man made ideal that is loaded with flaws. I will attempt to articulate a couple of the flaws I see.

Firstly, capital by itself is pointless. Capital must fuse with labour to be worth anything. Labour without capital is not pointless. Labour can build, create, innovate, feed and save lives. Capital by itself can do nothing. Capital is a seed in a dark room on a table. Labour is the soil, the sun, and the water. Therefore, the guiding force and the most important aspect of the deal between capital and labour, is labour. If my boss leaves the workplace for a week, the place still runs just fine. If the entire workforce leaves for a week, the company will be in financial peril. That is the practical example of the notion that labour is the most important force in the productive World. Profit on the initial investment, is simply interest, created by someone else. It is not productive in itself. Buying a road and charging people to use it, or buying a house and renting it out, is not productive. Capital is not productive. The fact that it is then passed down to the children of the Capitalists – which makes the claim that Capitalism is based on individual merit, seem laughably hypocritical – suggests a class consciousness within the Capitalist classes; a desire to perpetuate their class attacking meritocratic principles in a sort of Capitalist paradox in which inter-family socialism is desirable, as long as it doesn’t spread beyond their own class.

We talk of productivity of the workforce, not of the capitalists. The labour of the man with the capital is irrelevant. He will usually monopolise some sort of administration work within the company, which need not be monopolised. Apart from that initial injection of capital, he is largely pointless. Stock market speculation and gambling is also not a productive use of capital. The inherent flaws in this system, Marx believed would eventually lead to its downfall.

It is easy for a working public to take shots at people on benefits, as it is all the media tends to talk about. We seem though to turn a blind eye to Corporate tax cuts. It is odd, because people at the top of the Corporate ladder will have used a thriving public sector – education, health service, roads – at some time in their lives which provided the framework necessary to climb the ladder to great wealth. By announcing Corporate tax cuts, the Tory Government is effectively burning the ladder up which their donors climbed to make it difficult for others to follow, destroying opportunity for the next generation, whilst at the same time ensuring that those who used the system previously, now pay as little back into it as possible. Corporate tax cuts represent a huge piece of the Welfare pie, going to the people who need it least. That, is wrong.

Secondly, Marxists recognise the key element of Capitalism is the accumulation of capital. You set out in the market place with capital, you buy labour, you sell your product or service, and you make your capital back with more in profit. All well and good, until you hit what Marx termed as a limit to capital. Capitalism doesn’t deal too well with limits. Limits can include competition, and to get around that limit, capital will buy up competition until there is very little left. It is the reason why large coffee producers can flood African markets, buy up the small family run coffee producers, and put the staff to work for pittance in factories in poor conditions, working extremely long hours. Capital needs to consolidate power. Democracy used to be a limit. Capital bought democracy when it became the norm for multinationals and the super rich to fun political parties and candidates. It is the reason why 81% of the $19,000,000 that was spent on the 2006 election from the big oil lobby, went to the Republican Party in 2006. That money was well spent it seems, given that in the run up to the Bush Administrations refusal to sign up to Kyoto – the climate change UN protocol – briefing emails were leaked from US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky office before meetings which thank ExxonMobil executives “active involvement” in framing climate change policy. Which is odd, because in 2003, Exxon’s head of public affairs, Nick Thomas told a House of Lords Science Committee:

“I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United States government or any other government to take any sort of position over Kyoto.”

He lied. The Bush Administrations climate policy, was dictated to them, by the most powerful and wealthiest oil companies in the US.

Democracy isn’t the only limit to be overcome. The limit in 2007/08 was 25 years worth of stagnating wages for everyone apart from the very wealthy, whose wages increased year on year in Western democracies, most notably in the UK and US. To ensure demand across the marketplace continued to thrive despite wages stagnating, Capitalism blew down this limit, by introducing a market for very very easy credit. The problem with this is that money is now entirely backed by debt and nothing else. The mortgage markets didn’t fail; Capitalism failed. This means that subprime mortgages and the securities that backed them were just products of a system that has crises after crises built into it. Don’t be fooled by the right winged rhetoric that instantly blamed and attacked the public sector and the welfare state. This sovereign debt crises is a crises of Capitalism that has been cleverly shifted away from the people who caused it (people who started off with vast amounts of capital, destroyed the system that allowed them the opportunity to make that fortune, and then left quietly with vast amounts of capital, whilst the rest of us are told we must suffer austerity) an onto the most vulnerable – those who do no have vast amounts of capital or political influence. Capitalism is amoral. Morality is not a part of Capitalism. That is why regulation is necessary.

And lastly, I am deeply suspicious of the very concept of Capitalism in regard to the individual worker. The idea being that the Capitalist advertises a job vacancy because he needs labour to fertilise his capital and gain the profit. The worker needs a job. The Capitalist buys the labour of the worker. The worker consents to allow the Capitalist to live comfortably off the back of his labour, for a very small amount of money – the lowest possible amount actually because the supply of workers is far greater than the demand for production. The worker consents to this rather odd deal, because if he doesn’t, he will starve to death. An example of this can be seen with “Family Dollar”, a chain of US discount stores. The CEO Howard Levine took home base salary of $948,654, a cash bonus of $1,894,615, stocks granted of $1,338,224, and options granted of $1,308,528. So you’d think, with wealth like that, Levine would have the human decency to pay his staff a decent wage, especially given that they are expected to work such long hours? Well, no, unsurprisingly he doesn’t treat his staff all that well. Most of the staff who are expected to work over time, are designated as “managers” at “Family Dollar“. This means that the company can get around the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, by designating the “managers” (who weren’t paid any more) as “exempt“, which meant they do not have to pay them over time. As employees struggle to cope with the horribly low pay and extremely long hours, “Family Dollar” managed to pay out $58 million in dividends in 2010. When workers have to take such awful jobs, working for horrendous bosses, simply to make ends meet, the scales are tipped firmly in the balance of the employer. The deal therefore, is not equal to start with. The Capitalist is driven by the desire to increase profits and buy a lovely new car, by using someone elses labour, to attach to his capital, and them claim some universal right over the product of that labour. The worker on the other hand is driven by survival, despite the fact that he is far more productive than the capitalist. If the business goes bust, it is more than likely that the Capitalist will have money saved, he will certainly have the experience needed to get a job in which he wont have to go long without a regular income. His workers on the other hand, having provided their old boss with the money he saved and now lives on, through their labour rather than his, will now have to either spend whatever little savings they’re likely to have on getting through a period of unemployment without starving, which could be twice as difficult if he lives in the USA and doesn’t have health insurance, and finds himself with a terrible illness.
One of the fathers of Capitalism, Turgot summed up it here:

“In all types of labour, it necessarily follows that the salary of the worker is limited to what is necessary for survival.”

In other words, when more people exist then wages are higher because the pool of labour is smaller, when less labour is needed, wages will slowly fall not because a worker is working less hard, but because a Capitalist can use the threat of starvation to insist on paying his staff less money. Capitalism posits that people are commodities.

To conclude and answer my original question; I am a Marxist because I do not believe the initial investment of capital into a business venture, provides a God-given right to claim the highest wage or the power of the business. The fact that we see this profit making right, as God-given, leads to dangerous games played by a very small amount of people who have accumulated great wealth, an it affects us all. When I sit back and really think about the current Euro zone crises, and the panic in the US over the raising of the debt ceiling, I wonder how humanity is so close to crumbling. We invented money. We invented the concepts of wealth and sovereign debt and price and wage and individual debt and stocks and we seem to think of it all as divine; untouchable; something beyond our grasp, when in actuality, it is all just one big illusion, an abstract concept, a web that we spun and eventually got stuck in. Productive people are still as numerous as they were in the 1990s, there is still the same amount of land, but there is an abundance of debt-backed money rather than savings. The difference is, productive people and land actually exist in reality, debt-backed money and capital on its own doesn’t.

That is why I am a Marxist.

The Tory banking Legacy

‎”Last Friday I visited Rawlins community college in my constituency and spoke to a very bright group of economics students. We discussed the fact that Governments cannot spend money they do not have. The students understood that; why does my right hon. Friend think the Opposition do not”

- screamed Nicky Morgan, Conservative MP for Loughborough in the House of Commons today asking the Prime Minister a deep and probing question (as you can see) about the financial situation. Another wonderfully planted question that was met with the usual hysterical “yeeaaah” jeers from the Tory back benches, the same joyful jeers they gave when George Osborne announced 500,000 extra jobs losses last year.

I cannot stand planted, pointless, useless, deceptive and simplistic questions on PMQs, they undermine the entire political landscape, they make it weak and simply theatre with half truths and just plain bullshit. It should be treated with the contempt that it treats the public with.

I emailed Morgan to ask her about that. I said:

Hi Nicky,
Today in Parliament you stood up and asked quite clearly a planted question along the lines of “Why does no one understand that Right Winged economics is the only way to run a Country” (clearly ignoring the horrific legacy the IMF imposes whenever it feels the need) and how all the economics students you spoke to at Rawlins agreed.

She opened her reply with:

Thank you for your e-mail which I have read and you have got your many points across. And thank you for insulting my intelligence – I am quite able to prepare my own questions. Do you assume I am not able to do so because I am a woman or a Conservative or both?

There is so much wrong with that opening, I struggle to know where to begin. It is not me who is insulting her intelligence. Firstly, she is insulting the intelligence of the entire electorate who have to put up with the pantomime that she perpetuates with such childish questions, every week. And if I were her, I would rather people believed the question was planted because the question: “The students understood that; why does my right hon. Friend think the Opposition do not” is not suitable for the very short time the PM gets to answer questions during what is supposed to be an adult debate over a subject that is going to cause people misery for years to come, to ask such pointless questions. It is insulting to all of us. It isn’t a fucking game. To the people who will struggle to put food on their families tables, standing out in the dole queue week after week, who can’t afford Christmas next year, disabled people who will lose their support and have no idea how they will cope now; it isn’t a fucking game. It is people’s lives. Real lives. Nicky Morgan is treating peoples lives like a game. She should be ashamed.

To suggest it was “insulting her intelligence” that I didn’t believe she devised the simple question herself is also illogical. I think she is far more intelligent than that, and was given that question. If she truly believes it took an intelligent mind to practically say “Does the Prime Minister agree that he’s a God?“, and believe that is a suitable question to ask, then she is definitely an idiot and her intelligence should certainly be called into question at the next election.

Secondly, suggesting sexism? Really? Is that even worth commenting on? How did such a pathetic person get elected? When you have to invoke sexism or racism or anything of that calibre in a debate that has absolutely none of the characteristics of a sexist or racist argument, you are drastically clutching at straws. If I’d have said “Thank you for your time, oh by the way I have some ironing that needs doing“, I could understand.

What a woefully simplistic idiot she (and Tories in general) really is. This is a woman who came to our University and told us all that businessmen make the best MPs, so it is unsurprising that her view is so intensely, well, wrong.

Firstly, I hope Nicky Morgan practices what she preaches, and doesn’t have a mortgage, an overdraft, or any other outstanding debt. Because to spend money she doesn’t have, would be a little bit hypocritical of her.

Secondly, One wonders what Nicky Morgan thinks was likely to happen when her Party deregulated the banking industry in the 1980s, and when William Hague in 2001 told reporters he would promote people to his Shadow Cabinet on the basis of their commitment to banking deregulation. Did she think that would encourage responsible banking? If she did, she is massively naive, if she didn’t then she is just massively hypocritical.

Firstly, it is essential to note that the value of money doesn’t exist. It is an illusion. It is not backed by gold or silver or anything. It is just an idea; the collective idea of a population. Other than it being an idea, it is just paper and metal. You could use anything as money that is not backed by gold or silver. If we all believed each hair on our heads was worth the same as a pound coin, then we’d use the hair on our heads. There is no reason why not. We invented this concept of money, assigning mystical value backed by nothing important, and now that money controls our lives. Money is simply a medium of exchange now, like any other. Fish was used as money on the East coast of Colonial America once. The idea of money is good, because it is flexible in size and it is always in demand. The idea of money is bad, because for it be portable, its value must be high for a small amount. For that, you need a source that is in scarce supply with a high price (gold). Paper money attached to nothing, is worthless. In fact, gold has all the qualities one would require for a medium of exchange. It is durable, it is scarce, it is portable, it is divisible, far more so than any other commodity.

Banks in the UK can back the money with worthless IOUs. This is known as fractional-reserve banking. What it means is a bank only has to hold a relatively small amount of money in its reserves, the rest it can lend out.
So for example:
Person A deposits £1000.
The bank keeps 10% as reserves.
So the bank keeps £100.
The bank lends out £900.
The bank can lend that £900 as an IOU promissory note to more than one borrower (for the purpose of this example, we’ll say it can lend to three different borrowers).
Over time, each of those borrowers pays back the £900.
So the bank gets the £900 back, and an extra £1800, in new money.
The bank can then take that £2700 it now has, and keep 10%, and lend the rest out.
So the bank has made a fortune, yet only actually has £900 in reserves.
Banks issue many IOUs based on the single deposit.
So if we all marched to Lloyds TSB and demanded our money from our accounts at the same time, the bank would not have it.
In essence, the bank is lending money it doesn’t have, on a grand scale.

The free market advocate of the 19th Century, Condy Raguet noted that credit expansion in the Financial sector will always result in depression. He advocated strong regulations on the banking sector, which he had deemed to be a bit of a beast in need of taming.

Morgan, in her email, said:

I’m afraid I totally disagree with your remarks. In particular you refer to the deregulation of the financial sector and easy credit – which happened during the 13 years Blair and Brown were in power.

- No it didn’t. It was perpetuated under Blair and Brown, but it definitely didn’t begin under Blair and Brown. Another vast manipulation of the truth; something Conservatives are becoming quite the professionals at. The 1986 Building Societies act and the Financial Services Act for example, were definitely key de-regulatory acts, brought into being, under Thatcher. The influx of credit card users and the housing market boom that followed, in the early 1990s through to 2007 (and looks set to continue) was both Tory and Labour’s fault. The entire economy, since at least the 1980s has been based on debt and debt alone. Debt, by definition, is money we do not have.

Nicky Morgan should be fighting tirelessly to stop the fraudulent nature of the banking industry, opposing the deregulation that her own party introduced, and insisting that tuition fees be abolished (debt, money we don’t have), mortgages be abolished (debt, money we don’t have) and in fact every other form of debt, if she truly cares about not spending money we don’t have.

On this day…

I am 25 today.
It’s rather old.
A quarter of a century.
I dropped Ash off at Gatwick this morning and have just got home.
She has now gone home.
I have to wait five and a half months to have her back.
I don’t like that at all.
Up until about an hour ago my day was particularly dull.
I bought a lovely Redbull at Watford Gap.
That was a little bit of an up point.
Can you imagine the up point of your day being a can of Redbull?
It’s been a pretty average January 21st.
Not the worse ever.
I think King Louis XVI off of France had the worst January 21st given that he had his head cut off.
George Orwell’s January 21st wasn’t too much fun either back in 1950, given that he died.
Emma Bunton, Baby Spice has to live with the fact that she was in the Spice Girls, her entire life.
It’s a cross I wouldn’t like to bear.
She was born on January 21st too.
I have managed to reach 25, in Leicester, without yet having at least three kids by three different women, and without having stabbed anyone or contracted a nasty drug habit.
I am impressed by my record.
But still, the day was starting off very boring indeed.

So imagine my joy when my entirely dull day turned to brightness when I turned on my TV screen to see that Tory Director of Communications and ex-News of the World editor/King of illegal Phone Hacking Andy Coulson has “resigned”. It’s certainly not a surprise. What is a surprise is that he still insists he knew nothing of phone hacking whilst he was editor of the News of the World. Which means one of two things…. 1) He’s lying (I suspect this is the case) or 2) He was an incredibly bad and out of touch editor. He resigned from the N.O.T.W because he claimed he knew nothing about any wrongdoing and insisted he’d done nothing wrong, and now he’s resigned from the Government….. because he claims he knew nothing about any wrongdoing and insisted he’d done no wrong. How odd. He also claimed he was not a despicable bully. He insisted it. And yet, in 2008 he was taken to an Employment Tribunal and the claim of bullying, against him, was upheld. The defendant was awarded £800,000 as a result. Which begs the question, if Coulson was involved in bullying, and was editor of a Paper in the middle of a phone hacking scandal, why would the Prime Minister employ him? Why is tax money (££140,000 a year as of May 2010) going to pay his wages whilst local council care budgets are being slashed?

Coulson’s resignation comes a day after Labour’s massively incompetent and useless leader Ed Miliband announced that Alan Johnson, the shadow Chancellor was to resign for family reasons. It was a little bit of a media blunder for Johnson to have resigned on January 20th, because the papers and the TV news were bound to run with it, rather than the story that was grabbing headlines on January 19th, suggesting that David Cameron’s latest target is set on severely disabled children. The media repainting the Tories as the Nasty Party is exactly the wake up call people need. The harsh and unnecessary cuts to services like those that support the families of severely disabled children, whilst Vodafone have a tax bill written off by the Treasury, of close to £6bn. It could have lingered in the media and put pressure on the Government.

The mainstream media reported that David Cameron, pre-election, promised to protect the rules for Councils providing care for disabled children. He made that promise to the parents of Holly Vincent, whom suffers from quadriplegia, has severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy, and is blind.

They applied for respite care to Gloucestershire County Council. They were denied. This is because the wondrous Big-Society, We’re all in this together brigade of selfish rich economic thugs have not ringfenced spending for respite care. They have provided £800mn over four years to the County Council but it isn’t ringfenced. They have lifted the rules. Councils now are not obliged, legally, to spend funds protecting the most vulnerable. Cameron, pre-election told the parents of Holly Vincent that he “would never do anything that would hurt disabled children”.

As a result of the lack of funds spent on Holly Vincent, her parents have signalled their intention to put her into a care home, because they simply cannot afford to look after her any more. They currently only get five to six hours respite a week.

Riven Vincent, Holly’s mum said:

“…..there’s nothing to stop cash-strapped local authorities from using the money elsewhere. I have no wish to put my daughter into a home. We want to look after her, all I am asking for is a little more support.
Without this, we simply cannot cope and nor can families up and down the country just like ours. We are crumbling

I don’t want her in a residential care home – it would destroy me. But without extra help, I find it hard to see how we can meet her needs at home.”

If a politician had promised to help my struggling family, if we had a child who was so severely disabled and getting worse as she gets older, and then he cut the funding to the local authority and didn’t ring fence the remaining funds…… I’d get all the publicity possible to make that politician out to be the absolute scum bag liar hellbent on destroying hard pressed families up and down the Country for the sake of tax cuts for the wealthiest. The Prime Minister is a disgrace. The Tory Party and all of their heartless supporters, are a disagrace.

Alan Johnson should have let this story linger for a while, so it has a chance to sink into the minds of the British Public that we have elected Thatcher-on-speed. Absolutely every promise they made, they appear to be backing down on. No one voted for backdoor privatisation of the NHS. No one voted for such a massive Tuition fee rise. No one voted for the releasing of rules surrounding respite care ringfencing. I can’t imagine many people would have voted for such a shit Party, had they expressed their desire to be the bringers of Neoliberal hell to Britain.

Although, the Tories were kind enough to give me the birthday present of Coulson’s resignation. Perhaps next year they will try and top it by sacking Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.
That would be amazing.

The leftie in me

This video is by Social Theorist David Harvey; he explains here, the left wing perception of the economic crises we have just endured as a Planet. This video explains far better than I ever could, why it is only logical to be on the Left when it comes to economics now; why the Private financial market (and not the public sector) messed up, and the ridiculousness of Parties like the Conservatives who insist we must all suffer. It is what I have been trying to write about for the past year, and his sentiments match mine exactly. Harvey is just far more eloquent and articulate in his examination and explanation of the financial crises.

Watch, and learn.

The National Insurance Row.

The big news this week politically, is that a group of business leaders have signed a document throwing their support behind the Conservatives, over Labour’s plan to increase National Insurance. The group of businessmen signed a document calling for the 1% planned rise, to be scrapped. The news media are treating it like a huge coup for the Tories. The news that business leaders support the Tories, is being treated, like huge surprising news. Surely this is less interesting and surprising news, than Ricky Martin telling the World he is gay, about fifteen years after we all figured it out any way. In other news, Jim Davidson is still shit, the BNP are still racist scum, apparently a bear shat in the woods today, Hitler was a bit of a git, and the sun might rise sometime tomorrow morning according to latest reports.

One of the business leaders who signed the document, is Paul Walsh. Walsh earns £3.6million a year as Chief Exec. of Diageo PLC, a huge wine and beer company based in London. It’s net income last year was £1,725,000,000. Now obviously, earning close to two billion pounds is not enough. A 1% N.I increase would apparently cripple them. Lucky for Diageo then, that they have a dedicated management team who do not really like to pay taxes. According to a Guardian report, Diageo over the past decade has paid a little over £43,000,000 in tax. That’s around £4,300,000 a year. In reality, they should have paid £144,000,000 a year. That equates to £1,397,000,000 tax loss. If you were to scrounge an extra few pound a week benefit payout, you’d be threatened with prison. Scrounge an extra £1,397,000,000 and you’re well on your way to being knighted for your services to “CREATING JOBS AND BEING ALL WONDERFUL!” That gap in the treasuries takings, according to the Guardian would take 20,000 households paying income tax to fill. So wondrous are Diageo, and so committed to the wellbeing of their workforce, that after posting profits of almost £2bn, they closed a Jonnie Walker blending plant which had been a community of Kilmarnock local historical institution, and made 700 people redundant. Around the same time, Mr Walsh’s salary increased.

Another businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party, is Justin King, chief executive of J Sainsbury. The President of J Sainsbury, is John Sainsbury, Baron of Preston Candover, with a net worth of £1.3bn, he is a Conservative Party donor, and member of the Conservative Party.

A third businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party is Simon Wolfson, chief executive of Next. Wolfson is a member of the Conservative Party and donated to David Cameron’s 2005 campaign, and named by the Telegraph as the “37th-most important British conservative.”

A fourth businessman to sign the statement in support of the Conservative Party is Philip Harris, chairman and chief executive of Carpetright. Harris is a Conservative member of the House of Lords, and is worth £285,000,000. He is considered a close personal friend of David Cameron, and has donated money to the Conservative Party.

Do you see a pattern forming?

The Treasury expects unemployment to fall by a quarter of a million, next year, despite the 1% increase. And whilst Tory donating Businessmen have come out against the increase, most economists appear to be suggesting that the businessmen are wrong. The Times says:

“Martin Weale, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, pointed to the last time NI rose, in 2003. Rather than cut jobs, employers responded by paring back the growth in wages.”

The Tories claim that they will stop the rise, and instead cut £12bn of public sector waste. Apparently, that isn’t classed as attacking jobs. Even though, according to Professor Colin Talbot at Manchester University, Britain’s foremost academic expert on public sector efficiency, even £6bn would cause 120,000 job losses in both the public and private sector, because the Tories planned “savings” include hitting small private I.T firms. The business leaders don’t seem too bothered by that. Because, afterall, it doesn’t affect their huge salaries.

Of course business leaders have backed the Tories. We’re all fully aware that a 1% rise in National Insurance is not going to destroy Britain in the way these big bosses say. It is the same rhetoric they used to attack minimum wage introduction legislation; businesses everywhere will go bust; riots on the street because poor people love big businessmen and don’t wish to be paid a minimum standard of wage in order to stay alive, if it means those poor businessmen can’t afford a new yacht; England (which will be renamed Ingsoc) will set on fire; Dorset will be completely submerged beneath a sea made by evil socialists; and gay people will rule the World, all because of minimum wage. In other words, fear tactics built on empty rhetoric. Because twelve years later, minimum wage is one of Labour’s greatest achievements.

The letter says:

“In the last few years, the private sector has improved its productivity by around 20%, while productivity in the public sector has fallen by 3%.”

Not surprisingly, they didn’t offer any evidence to back that claim up.
Firstly, if that is true, that’s quite an impressive statement from a conservative section of society toward a Labour government. (Although, i’m not sure how you actually measure public sector productivity, given that it isn’t a product based sector, nor is it profitable) Surely, that is indirect backing for Labour? Secondly, whilst the private sector may have improved productivity by 20%, but whilst wages have been kept low, bosses salaries, according to Incomes Data Services firm investigation, have risen 18.3% to now 150 times greater than the average employee. Sir Peter Bonfield CBE, FREng, C.U.N.T of BT saw BT share price go from £14, to £5, under his control. He then left BT with over £6,000,000 whilst thousands of workers lost their jobs. This was in 2002, before the recession struck.

So wondrous has the private sector been over the past few years, it has brought the entire financial system to it’s knees, demanded bailouts from all of us, and those responsible are now living in luxury whilst their employees are struggling to find work and keep their homes heated.

The letter goes on to say:

“Cutting government waste won’t endanger the recovery – but putting up national insurance will.”

When you’re in a position to be able to resist all government “waste” because you earn over £1,000,000 a year, you can say things like that, and continue on your deeply ignorant path in life. Many people rely on social services, that would be put under major threat under another Tory government. Of course, the huge salaries of the big bosses wouldn’t be under threat, and so the bosses don’t appear to care. It is obvious that under a Tory government, the way to cut the deficit will be to hit those who cannot afford to feed themselves the hardest, whilst the wealth of the very wealthy will be protected. That is the legacy of the Thatcher government. The business leaders’ priority is not the public good, nor is it maintaining the wellbeing of the Country that allowed them such obscene profitability at the behest of others (No matter how much they say a 1% N.I rise is a huge “tax on jobs”); their priority is handing a healthy amount of money over to the shareholders who actually don’t do any of the work that brings the wealth in themselves (Corporate Socialism, I call it).

The idea is to create a business haven in the UK. And that’s fine. If it is supported by a top class public service and a decent infrastructure. You can go to a third World country and do business uninterrupted and deregulated to the extreme. You can be a real businessman. Use children. No National Insurance. No equal rights. Don’t pay too much out in wages. No work hour limits. Real Capitalism.

The CBI, the guys who actively protested against the introduction of minimum wage, the guys who want students to pay far more for their education whilst they themselves went to University when it was free, the guys who suggested cutting any educational courses that they deemed to be “micky mouse”, said:

“We applaud the decision by a number of Britain’s most senior business leaders to take a public stand against the planned rise in national insurance – which is a clear and unequivocal tax on jobs.”

I would like to take this opportunity, to say just how much I despise the CBI. Thatcher killed off the Unions because they had too much power of the Government. Well, she opened the door for the CBI, arguably the most powerful union of them all, and they keep flexing their puss filled muscles every chance they get. Why are we listening to people who campaigned for banking deregulation, and a free-for-all attitude to banking? They should disgust us. They have damaged us far more than the Unions ever could. The very same people who are telling us how best to deal with the recovery, were the people who contributed to the mess we’re all in, in the first place. We were deceived by these people, playing with fake money, for years, and now they are running the show again? Has nothing changed?

Growth is an interesting concept. Growth when it comes to the business World is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. Growth and “giving jobs” as is often the defence of big business. But what does this apparent wondrous philanthropy actually mean? Well, it means that the cunt businessman at the top wants to protect his millions, the shareholders who do nothing for the good of the company or humanity in general get a healthy pay cheque every so often, the workers are paid as little as physically possible, and the producer is paid even worse. We’re then encouraged through the constant raping of our minds to buy pointless shit we don’t need, purely to prop up businesses that shouldn’t actually exist, and buy another lovely house in a sea side resort for the business man who only uses it once a year and so contributes to the destruction of the once healthy and happy sea side town (See Beadnell in Northumberland for confirmation). I’m all for growth, when it extends the public good, feeds the hungry, and creates affordable drugs. Growth to me, does not equate to greed. I am not for a manipulated and diseased form of growth by big business, who then claim they are “creating jobs“. Growth, within the system that we live, equates to nothing more than a lovely big return on investment, regardless of the public good.

These businessmen are not worried about their businesses. Their businesses are doing just fine. They are not worried about the little people, as proven with Lloyds group and over 10,000 unemployed recently whilst their boss makes more money than every before, they are also not worried about the deficit and the Country. They are worried about their own wallets. They want more. If they are seen to back the Tories, and the Tories win, you can bet a mountain of deregulation and further destruction of the public sector will follow. Another generation of people from poorer backgrounds who are taught they are worthless, and should resign themselves to a job at McDonalds.

The problem is, the system failed. The private system. These top businessmen sucked it dry for all it is worth for years. They used their new found immense profits to pay workers as low as possible, keep the money away from producers, create offshore accounts to avoid tax, fund the Tory party, but on the plus side, buy a lovely new Mercedes. And now, once that gravy train failed, they have washed their hands of it, and will blame everyone else. Socialism, or lazy people, or Governments, or Unions. Business will never blame business. The Tories will never blame business. Business afterall, “give us jobs!!”. The workers, to these people, are dispensable and just cogs in machinery. Their lives are not important. I hope the entire stinking system fails miserably. I secretly hope for a workers revolt, in which expensive business suits are thrown onto bonfires and a form of Anarcho-syndicalism is proclaimed.

Far Right (il)logic

As you walk through Leicester, toward the train station, there is a wall that has been the victim of a plethora of useless graffiti, the type that 15 year olds “tag” for some fatuously odd reason. This one in particular, that I walked past, simply read “Cunt off”. You may be forgiven for thinking this is the most ridiculously written piece of nonsensical literature I would come across today. Apparently, the BNP went one better, by trying to tell me that there is some sort of evil anti-White Holocaust taking place in the Nation’s Capital.

This time, the BNP have taken up utterly useless journalism mixed with propaganda that Adolf Hitler himself would have said “yeah this is even too farfetched for me”. The headline of the news story on the BNP website (just underneath the photo of the bogged eyed fat Nazi twat in charge of the far Right party of thugs) for the 13th August, states quite comically “It’s Official: White British People Have Been Ethnically Cleansed from Inner London“.
You may be forgiven for thinking that the sweet old Arab lady on the picture, has just came out of John Lewis, minding her own business, waiting for a bus. You’d be wrong. She’s (this can’t be proven, but we’re talking about the BNP, so facts and logic aren’t all that important) an evil muslim probably a terrorist, who advocates the whipping of your wife, and the TOTAL abolition of Christmas leading to laws in which YOUR children will have their faces cut off if they say the word “Santa” ever again. True(ish) story.

Ethnically cleansed from inner London? Has Boris Johnson been gassing millions of White Londoners? Surely not? Have over 1 million people been killed, echoing the Ethnic Cleansing of Armenia after World War I, where hundreds of thousands were marched for hundreds of Miles into the deserts of modern day Syria in which many of the Armenians (regardless of age) were raped and murdered by the Ottomans? Or perhaps the BNP are comparing modern London (which, I’ve lived in, and loved) with Apartheid in South Africa? Or, are the BNP, as I suspect, simply using absolutely ludicrous language as a manipulation tool to spread it’s message of fear?

What the BNP have decided qualifies as “ethnic cleansing” is this…
“Of the approximately 310,907 children in London schools, 159,340 do not have English as their mother tongue, as opposed to 151,567 who do.“
Not content to just attack anyone with a slightly darker skin complexion, they’ve taken it upon themselves to write an entire article, that creates suspicion and anger around………children. Now, I’m normal, and I’d suggest I have a slight grasp of human decency, enough to say that I REALLY don’t care what someone’s native language is, as long as they’re polite and respectful. Isn’t that just common sense? Can I expect the BNP to tell me that there’s more green eyed people in Leicester than blue eyed, and so therefore Leicester has been ethnically cleansed of blue eyed folk? Politics of fear and hatred backed up by ill-conceived, puerile, desperately narrow minded, destructive language is just not necessary nor justifiable. Simply put, regardless of how much they deny it, they are Nazis. Their supporters, are Nazis.

The comments on the article, are almost as ridiculous as the article itself, it shows just what type of fools the BNP supporters actually are.

“Mercia” writes….
“Didn’t we fight the last war to keep Britain British? What a betrayal!“
- No. My grandad will quite happily tell you, that he fought to keep you Nazi idiots from getting anywhere near power ever again. And surely “keeping Britain British” depends on your subjective view on the term “British”? My view of what makes Britain great, is it’s ability to change and update with the times. Britain is an Island, therefore has always been a mix of people from different backgrounds. Roman, Celts, Saxon, it doesn’t matter.

“Enochrules” writes…
“I can almost understand Labour’s insistence on propaganda about multiculturalism, but why do companies like HSBC jump on board? HSBC has adverts at Heathrow showing pictures of a Chinese fellow in traditional dress with the capital ‘Bejing’, a white Russian in a fur cap with the Word ‘Moscow’, an Indian in traditional robes with the word ‘Delhi’ , and London? Why a black man in a suit of course…….I suppose the pearly King and Queen with their Union Jack sequin suits was considered too racist!“
- Firstly, propaganda about multiculturalism? Damn those New Labour folks for forcing me to be friends with people from different cultures and respecting each other equally. I must take to the street with a Union Jack posting home made “GO HOME FOREIGNER!!” leaflets through the doors of my friends. Secondly, is he seriously suggesting that all adverts should only show White Brits? Probably with tattooed arms, bald heads, England football shirts, shouting “Bloody pakis” in a pub, just before a fight. I just love that he’s suggesting that anyone who isn’t a Nazi is “jumping on board” a ship of multicultural propaganda. What’s the alternative? The BNP showing a constant stream of the Islamic protests at the Soldiers return in Luton…….. all 16 of those protesters, that huge number of protesters. Will the BNP also show footage of BNP London Assembly candidate Nicholas Eriksen saying that Women should in fact enjoy being raped? Or ex BNP Group Development Officer Tony Lecomber who was imprisoned for attacking a Jewish School teacher for no other reason than the teacher peeling a BNP sticker off of the wall of a Tube Station? I doubt it. They’ll most probably use extrodinarily ironic language, by suggesting that we shouldn’t paint all BNP members, with the same brush. Anyway……

“Mat” writes…
“in my daughters nursery class of about 25 children their is only 3 white and in my neighbours daughters secondary school just started her first year theirs 5 white kids out of a class of 38……..its getting much worse”
It’s ironic, that a man who feels the need to “defend” our Country, can’t actually speak the fucking language. Grammar would be nice Mat. Perhaps you should join your daughters class, be the fourth White person, learn the difference between “there” and “their” and then come back with your desperately racist bullshit. Also, don’t have any more children, we don’t need another generation of Nazi. How anyone can justify suggesting that having a School room with more black children than White children signifies a situation that is “getting worse“, is beyond me. Why is that “getting worse“? Are those black kids stealing from the white kids? Forcing them to listen to 50 Cent? Snorting cocaine on the school tables? Talking “street”? To equate a skin colour (rather than ability, talent, or intelligence) with a failing situation, is just so pathetically ridiculous and ignorant, I’d rather “Mat” fuck off out the country than those he wishes to see the back of.

“Tornado” writes…
“York now has a large HALAL supermarket.“
- NOOOO Surely not!!! However will I cope from day to day knowing that York now has a large Halal Supermarket. A foreign shop? Unbelievable, next we’ll be selling foreign cars, that run on oil from foreign lands whilst we’re FORCED to watch TV on Japanese TV sets, and beaten into listening to music by American bands. I have a bit of a confession to make…… I shopped in Asda the other day, which is owned by Walmart. I’m such a traitor to England. Oh the shame…

“Rebellious Sheep” writes…
“A complete tradgedy brought about by marxist policies imposed on our country without consent since 1945, they must all leave to the country of thier origin or thier parents origin or thier grandparents origin.Other wise this nation will be swamped and these invited invaders and uninvited invaders will kill us all one by one, it’s already happening and the courts are on thier side not the native british.Get them out.“
- Great idea! Then we’ll be left with a few illiterate twats such as yourself, teaching our kids the benefits of spelling simple words like “tragedy” incorrectly. Because illiteracy, is the BRITISH WAY!! Secondly, Marxist policies imposed on our Country without consent since 1945? Erm….okay. The most illogical paragraph in an entire article of illogical paragraphs, is quite an achievement. Congratulations. The rectum does not include a brain, it is simply a body part, that spews shit. That’s all it does. Beyond spewing shit, it’s pointless. It is incapable of intelligent thought, of rationale, of anything other than spewing shit. “Rebellious Sheep” is quite simply, an oversized rectum.

I’m pretty sure a few foreign school kids, who are there to learn, who will be paying the taxes that help keep the older generation of bigots alive in the following decades, who share classrooms with British born kids, and so both have a positive influence on each other, culturally and in regards to tolerance; cannot be used in the same article as “ethnic cleansing“, anyone who actually falls for it, gets angry by it, and feels the need to vote BNP because of it, should seriously consider the possibility that they are, in fact, a little bit brainless.

The News of the World went undercover at some sort of Nazi rally put on by the BNP, which apparently (they will blame the liberal media conspiracy against them, but i’m pretty sure pictures don’t lie) shows men burning golly wog dolls and giving the Nazi salute. I cannot think of a better time to use the graffiti phrase “cunt off” than right now.

I’ll leave you with this piece, by Charlie Brooker. Writing in the Guardian in May 2009, Brooker produced this rather beautifully written article, which echoes my sentiments exactly:

“Our headmaster had fought for his country, and for tolerance, all at once. That’s what I understood it meant to be truly “British”: to be polite, and civil and fair of mind. (And to occasionally wallop schoolkids with slippers, admittedly, but we’ll overlook that, OK? We’ve moved on.)

But according to the BNP, I’m wrong. Being British is actually about feeling aggressed, mistrustful, overlooked, isolated, powerless, and petrified of “losing my identity”. Britishness incorporates a propensity to look around me with jealous eyes, fuming over imaginary sums of money being doled out to child-molesting asylum-seekers by corrupt PC politicians who’ve lost touch with the common man – a common man who, coincidentally, happens to be white.

They’re wrong, obviously. None of these qualities has anything whatsoever to do with being British, but everything to do with ugly nationalist politics. And ugly nationalist politics are popular all over the world. Just like Pringles. Every country has its own tiny enclave of frightened, disenfranchised, misguided souls clinging to their national flag, claiming they’re the REAL patriots, saying everyone’s out to get them. It’s an international weakness. For the BNP to claim to be more British than the other British parties is as nonsensical as your dad suddenly claiming to have invented the beard.“

Justice Sotomayor

Regardless of whom the President nominated for Supreme Court, there was going to be sections of the Republican Party (For those of you who have no idea who the Republicans are, they’re an insignificant regressive party from the old days) that complained. Short of the President nominating a fat, grey haired, slightly racist, anti-gay white man famed for singing the National Anthem before bed, Republicans were always going to complain.

As it happens, the President positively confused Republican opinion, provoking even more right winged nonsense that we’re all becoming used to from people like Cheney and Limbaugh; by nominating Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court, to replace the retiring Justice David Souter.
Of course the conservative wing of America isn’t happy. Former Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s statement of opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination, is just more bitter ramblings of a dying Party. Romney states “The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling.” He goes on to say “Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary.” He is in fact referring to the harmless remarks Sotomayor made in 2005, in which she stated that that the Court’s, are “where policy is made“. And so Romney, like other Republicans, is attempting to portray Sotomayor as a radical, as wanting to expand the limits of the Judiciary. As wanting to destroy the foundations of the Republic! Julius Caesar Sotomayor! Probably socialist and gay too.

It’s funny that Republicans should get all worked up about this, for two reasons. Firstly, because Sotomayor was right. Whilst the House and the Senate may make the rules, the Courts have to fill in the fine detail, when the rules are simply too ambiguous. The rulings of the Court, influence policy to a high degree. Hofstra University’s Professor of Law, Eric Freedman says “She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.“
And of course, precedent is set by the Judiciary, it is a product of it’s time, and by that account, is policy making.
Secondly, it’s funny Romney should bring this apparent talk of expansion of the Judiciary into the spotlight now, given that he didn’t seem to have a problem when the Supreme Court dubiously gave the 2000 Presidential Election to George W Bush, despite the fact that Gore had over 500,000 more popular votes. Which of course, led to George Bush quite ironically “spreading Democracy” across the World. Isn’t that the greatest influence on policy the Supreme Court has ever applied to America? Apparently Romney had no issue with the Supreme Court handing elections to those who don’t actually win the vote. Romney also doesn’t appear to be at all bothered that Justice Scalia, the conservative crusader, appears to have a deeply conservative agenda of his own going on, an activist in all but name. But Sotomayor making a comment four years ago, he has a problem with.

Fat idiot Rush Limbaugh also had something to say on this, but his comments, as always, are even more irrelevant but equally as pathetic, as Romney’s, so I wont get into it.

Meanwhile, in the World of the sane, Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed without problem. Whilst Democrats do not hold a filibuster-free majority, 59 Senators is more than enough to secure confirmation. It is unlikely that Congressional Republicans will attempt to block her nomination, because from a Party that is about as popular as cancer right now, attempting to block an Hispanic female candidate for Supreme Court. Research shows that the Republicans gained 31% of the Hispanic vote in the 2008 Presidential election. Traditionally, the Hispanic vote has been overwhelmingly in favour of the Democrat candidate. In 2000 Bush managed took 35% of the Hispanic Vote. In 2004, he managed to attract a 10 point rise to 45%, of the Hispanic vote. In both 2000, and 2004, the Hispanic vote was crucial for the Presidential race. Judging by 2008 standards, the Republicans cannot afford to lose the confidence of the Hispanic voters any more than they already have. And so attempting to block the confirmation of the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court Judge Nominee, would be a disaster. Paradoxically for Republicans, if they do not try to block the nomination, the fact that Democrats have even nominated a Hispanic, will be a huge boost to their mid-term campaigns, and 2012 Presidential race.

The fact remains that the President could have nominated Moses for Supreme Court, and Republicans would have said he held deeply racist views over Egyptians and that his nomination is “worrying“. What Romney meant to say, was “Sotomayor isn’t white, or male, or middle aged, and she might even believe that gays aren’t the spawn of satan, which is worrying.“

To sum up, great choice for Supreme Court.

The Middle man exposed

The Daily Telegraph yesterday, revealed the mediator between a commons leak and the Telegraph, as EX-SAS Officer, John Wick. Wick reveals his reasons for exposing the shroud of secrecy and lies that the Telegraph has published over the past two weeks, that has shook Parliament to it’s core:
“We’ve all had concerns about the expenses and how they’ve managed it, purely because of how they’ve handled our requests for information.
We’ve reached a stage in society where they want to know everything about us – I think we’re entitled to know about them.“
Can’t argue with that.

Whilst the Speaker and the Government itself worked tirelessly to amend the Freedom of Information Act in order to suppress the availability of the documents detailing MPs expenses, conniving their way out of the absolute fraud they’ve been inflicting on the public of the United Kingdom for over twenty years, the Commons leak, John Wick and the Telegraph had the guts to stand up and feed us all the information we deserve to know. From Hazel Blears claiming for three different homes in less than a year, to Tory MP Douglas Hogg (also known as Viscount Lord Baron King Knight Sir Hailsham esquire III, within Tory circles) claiming for his moat to be cleaned, whilst the majority of the British Public struggle through life; the Telegraph revelations have shocked the Nation. I have heard from Tory supporters comments such as “The media are overhyping the situation“…..clearly still not understanding why certain sections of the public are so outraged by this scandal, and “if you were in their situation, you’d milk the system too“…. No I fucking wouldn’t. I promise you that.

Mr Wick said “Parliament will be a better place, society will be a better place, Sometimes a marker has to be put down. The public’s put a marker down. It’s good.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Top bloke. Despite the fact that Wick is a strong Tory supporter, he put aside Party Politics, knowing it would supremely damage his side of the aisle, for the good of politics on the whole. And given a bunch of the scrounging MPs (and bankers) seem to have titles like Sir, and Lord, and Viscount, why not give one to the Commons leak and to John Wick for outstanding service to the British public? They deserves it far more than those disgraced few caught up in this mess.

Let’s not forget however, that not all MPs had their noses buried deep in the troth. Labour backbencher, and certainly nowhere near a millionaire, having worked as a lorry driver, a coordinator helping the unemployed, and a scaffolder, Martin Salter, claimed nothing in second home allowances between 2005 and 2009. He hasn’t spent a fortune making a mansion look better.

It’s a different mentality. The average person mentality. It isn’t the materialistic mentality that drives society nowadays, that tells you if you stop the chase for more more more, you’re scum. It requires a different level of thinking.
Salter has said: “Simply forcing the early resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons and belatedly tightening up the rules is not enough. Afterall the Speaker did not force MPs to submit claims ridiculous and outlandish claims for taxpayer funded luxuries.”
Exactly! More Martin Salters in the Labour Party, and I’m voting Labour again.

Meanwhile, in out-of-touch land, soon to be ex-Speaker of the House Michael Martin has met leaders of the major Parties to discuss new outlines for Parliamentary expenses, designed to quell public anger at the current scandal, and bring an ounce of dignity back to a disgraced Parliament. The proposals are as follows:

a £1,250-a-month cap on mortgage interest payments.
- Great. £15,000 a year. So whilst the public struggle more so than ever to pay their mortgage interest, MPs, who are in fact paid twice the national average, can use the money of those who are struggling, claim over £15000 a year’s worth?

Bills and rent claims allowed. Including Council Tax
- People are losing their homes, falling behind on payments, fuel poverty is rampant, and yet the most grand of MPs are still allowed to claim for bills, on their million-pound estates? We’re paying MPs Council tax, as well as our own? Wonderful! Tough new rules I see! Can’t upset the millionaires! They really are all children of Thatcherism.

Speaking of which, I can’t end this blog without mentioning the wondrous millionaire Tory MP Anthony Steen, who claimed £87,729 in expenses, to protect his shrubs, to overhaul his private sewage system, and for tree surgery. He went on to blame the public for interfering in his private life, and the “wretched” government for introducing the freedom of information act, that exposed him for the scum that he is. Why not watch his most spectacular defence here……..

For the first thirty seconds of that video, he appears to be trying to sell me his house. It’s spacious, it’s got room to park within the trees, it’s 19th Century, ideal for spending tax payers money doing up!
I love that the fact he’s quit, was a decision “taken by me and me alone“….. sure it was. And then, as if he hadn’t spent an entire minute sucking up all the available “cuntiness” on the Planet, he blames the Freedom of Information Act, and then, quite amusingly……… his Constituents!!!! He then talks about Coronation Street, for some odd reason. Sheen, is like a comedy character… but real…. and responsible for a part of the Country. It’s a scary thought.
Poor Sheen. He has a vewy vewy large house you know! Like Balmo-wal!!! It needs protecting!!!! You’re all just jealous!!! You wish you could be a conniving scheming fraudulent out of touch Tory arse who can’t pronounce his R’s!!! I feel for the poor fella……. yeah, that’s a lie.
If these are the type of people David Cameron is bringing into Government next year, and if the type of person who supports the Tories will say things like “it’s over hyped“, then God help David Cameron.

The reform of Expenses doesn’t go far enough. It isn’t just expenses that is in desperate need of reform, it’s the entire system. From the moment a vote is cast to the moment the Prime Minister calls an election.

But what do I know, i’m just an evil leftie liberal non-greedy hippy.

We all need somebody

It is relatively easy to see someone struggling, and to say “we all have problems, deal with it“, to dismiss them as lazy. And yet, we all need somebody. Whether we find it difficult to express ourselves with words, or whether we just need a hug and to be told everything will be all right, or whether we need someone to turn to for emotional support, or whether we carry a knife on the street because we’re afraid of the night, or whether we have built up anger, or whether we just don’t have the detailed and incessant aspirations that those destined for success and great wealth seem to have. We appear to ignore those less fortunate, and to spew Western economic theory at them, as if it were binding to all mankind, when it isn’t. We are all different.

It is easy to view humanity as a great money making machine, spirituality is replaced by materialism, the passion of want, striking down the abundance of Community, to pursue our own individualistic goals regardless of the negative affect it may have on somebody somewhere. We work in jobs we hate, we judge people on the expense of their living , we look down at those who are trapped in a meticulous cycle of nothingness. And yet, in reality even those who deal drugs, are the same as all of us. Stuck in grip of Materialism, we are all looking to satisfy our own “wants” regardless of who it hurts. For the majority of us though, we are not directly involved in the exploitation of others, or the degrading of others, we simply wear the Primark clothes, we are not involved in the process, and so we just turn our heads and pretend it’s all happening in the distance, far from us.

It is assumed that the fetish for profit, is simply a force of human nature. But i’m inclined to believe otherwise. I think avarice and self importance and the proponents of this damaging way of thinking, are simply stuck in four walls of the society they we’re born into. We are taught to believe that we’re in life specifically for ourselves, that we’re self promoting monstrous beings, motivated by self interest, whose mind is geared toward the accumulation of as much material wealth as we can possibly get our hands on. If someone appears to be fighting against the flawed notion of individualism, they are merely attacked as being hippy, out of touch, socialist, they want to enslave you, they want to take away your property and give it to the lazy. It’s right winged hysteria at it’s worst. Hedonism is intrinsically woven together with the pursuit of individual wealth rather than the pursuit of the greater good for all. The Right have crafted a society which suits them, in which people must either conform or be labelled Communist, bleeding heart, or hippy. If we start to question why we are plainly dissatisfied with life, society tells us it’s because we don’t have enough materially. Perhaps a new bed will help, perhaps a new TV, perhaps a new car. And yet, when the happiness derived from “more” finally subsides, we’re back to feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned, shouldn’t we be questioning whether society’s notions of extreme wealth linked to happiness and righteousness, are perhaps misplaced?

Shouldn’t the very essence of “want” come after the entire species has the essential elements of “need” fulfilled? Why is liberty considered the right to extreme profit, whilst those who literally die of hunger are collateral; considered a necessary evil for the advancement of “want“? Why isn’t the fulfillment of essential “need” the building blocks of Liberty, the first post that cannot be past until all are equal. The cultivation of an individual’s “wants” should never infringe on the basics “needs” of anyone. The advancement of the culture of “want” is based primarily on playing games with the human characteristics of insecurity and inadequacy. Peace and compassion are not compatible with the World view that human nature is based solely and inherently on self importance and greed. When the World isn’t at war, it cannot be called Peace, whilst millions of people are left to die because the rest of us have an extreme abundance of “need” that we aren’t prepared to share, because sharing would lead to Communist sympathies?

I am inclined to believe that Humanity is not the personification of certain principles, based on greed. The prevailing message through history, whilst each culture has tried to prevent itself from imploding by insisting it is the height of human nature, is compassion.

Scientist Stephan Gould once said:
“History is made by warfare, lust for power, hatred, and xenophobia (with some other, more admirable motives thrown in here and there). We therefore assume that these obviously human traits define our essential nature. How often have we been told that ‘man’ is, by nature, aggressive and selfishly acquisitive?“
And he is correct. This is what we’re told. And yet, it just doesn’t add up. Would society be a detrimental mess, if we were to insist the contrary, that human nature is compassionate and cooperative? It would of course threaten great wealth, but why is that a problem? It is a problem only for those who have acquired great wealth, and who have succumb to the notion that we’re all ruthless monsters. If society truly were about the individual rather than the community, if a helping hand once in a while, a shoulder to lean on, a push in the right direction, were indeed detrimental, then the pillars of society would crumble. Whilst Humanity has the natural tendency to be horribly greedy and uncaring, it also has the overwhelmingly magnificent ability to be compassionate and genial. So why are we focusing on merely one aspect, the killer aspect? We have been conditioned to believe that cooperation, is simply illogical. We perpetuate the myth that human nature is greedy and that any attempt to block that greed, to promote cooperation, is a shot through the heart of our individual Liberties. And yet, we humans have the unique ability to sympathise, to support, and to empathise. We are all genetically connected, and so we are all part of one big family. We are not at odds with each other, adversaries in the great race for profit. We’re family.

I would argue that whilst greed and intense self reliance certainly pushes some to a position of unrivalled power (and thus gives them the power to push their way of thinking onto us all), you cannot force an entire populace to think the same way. When you try to ingrain into the minds of the compassionate, a sense of “me me me” you are the part of the problem, rather than the solution. You are the reason that it is cheaper to make a pill that works to give a middle aged white businessman an erection, than it is to make a pill to treat an African child with AIDs. We are not all greedy, the levels of difference between the extreme of pure selfishness to the extreme of pure altruism is so great from person to person, it is unfair to suggest that humanity on the whole is inherently greedy, whilst punishing and demonising those who do not possess the greedy gene. Charity merely exists in the World of the greedy; why can’t greed exist in the World of the Charity?
Greed is not human nature. Greed is merely a weapon in the search for power and acknowledgement. What if material greed were replaced, and power and acknowledgement were earned through the help given to those who cannot adequately help themselves? Is that some evil Communist notion? If it is, I’d be proud to wear the Communist label.

Human nature is not a choice. You cannot chose to have a specific nature, it just is. And so, if for example, a lady chooses to dedicate her live to helping others; resenting greed, rejecting the notion of incessant “want“; she is not rejecting human nature as such, she is merely acting on a personal trait of compassion and coexistence that is not based on “me me me“. We’d all say that lady is incredibly admirable. Yet, if tomorrow, we were all told by her, that society would now be based around that very same ideal of cooperation and compassion, we’d call her a Socialist. Evil. Trampling on our Rights. Rights that by the way, we invented, to act within the society…. that we created. Those economic rights are not universal and binding, enacted by nature. They are rights enacted by the wealthy few to protect themselves. I’m willing to believe there is more good in the World, more cooperation and compassion, than there is greed and selfishness. Greed is a choice, as is selflessness and cooperation. Neither, is human nature. Satisfying unnecessary “wants” becomes deleterious to satisfying the very necessary “needs” of those less fortunate.

Herman Kumara, head of the National Fisheries Solidarity Movement in a fishing town hit by the tsunami in Sri Lanka wrote “The funds received for the benefit of the victims are directed to the benefit of the privileged few, not to the real victims……… We see this as a plan of action amidst the tsunami crisis to hand over the sea and the coast to foreign corporations and tourism, with military assistance from the US Marines“. To the majority of us, capitalisation on a disaster area seems so horribly immoral, to even suggest it is a trait of human nature, is an insult. It is therefore comforting to know that thousands of charities like Paddle4relief and Unitingtheworld are doing the real work, getting the help to the people who need it, and not thinking about profit to be made in the future.

Greed led to the economic crises we face today. Banks did not care about the obscene debts they were encouraging us all to live on. Greed led to the U.S supporting General Pinochet when it suited them, regardless of his disrespect for human life. Greed has lead to street gangs at war over turf and wealth. Greed has led to illegal wars. Greed has led to the biggest scandal in my estimation the World has ever known – extreme yet unnecessary poverty. Greed led to the MPs expense scandal currently gripping the UK. Greed is so incredibly puerile and useless, it has not had the effect promised to us by successive Governments over the past twenty five years. It has merely created a generation who know no different, and so presume that it’s the only way through life. I reject wholeheartedly that particular notion.

We lose our spiritual connection to those around us, we lose our compassion for each other, we become a line on a map, or a skin colour, or a race, rather than an entire species who certainly need each other regardless of how much money we may have. We lose our philosophical ideas, our freedom to think above and beyond the realm of profit, because our only philosophy now is based solely on greed, and if you disagree, you’re an out of date Socialist with mental issues. We are led to believe that those who are not successful home owners are just lazy, and so don’t deserve our help. We are led to believe that the World is one big resource to be exploited by those who can afford it, regardless of the out come.

In the land of the “free”, The United States would not be the powerhouse it is today if it had relied solely on rugged individualism from it’s conception. The Preemption Act of 1841 and the Homestead Act of 1862 gave away much of the land brought by the California, Texas, Louisianna and Alaska purchases, which is the cornerstone of American success. Community was established when the Government took over lands that were filled with duelling and crime. Historian John Mack Farragher described the American frontiers as “a community experience…“. Big government in the USA then went on, extending social security to ten million more workers during President Eisenhower’s term. It spread to farmers, teachers and dentists among others. Under Eisenhower, the government financed the National highways system. Before that, under Truman, the government passed the G.I Bill of Rights, to provide aid to War veterans for homes and college. It benefited 8 million returning Soldiers, who now went to college and had their mortgages guaranteed; and America benefited economically over the next sixty five years. Anti-polio vaccines, National Institutes of Health and it’s Research and Development, National Defence Education Act, the Internet with it’s origins in the Defence Department, Medicare, integrated school system, Civil rights, and food Administration.
The point being that the strength of a Nation is not solely based on individualism, but on collective responsibility, cooperation, and sympathy. Where the markets fail to provide security and a sense of love and respect, the collectively elected Government, should step in. If it means they raise the highest rate on tax, by a little over 3%, to cope with the unbelievably disastrous equality gap, then all I have to say to the rich few is, tough.

How things change.

We consider those who become homeless to be lazy and primitive, rather than real people with real flaws that need an incredible amount of help to put right. Our hearts become stone and we see everyone else as mechanical money making stepping stones, to reach a goal of “more“. And yet, through it all, regardless of how ruthless we are, how greedy we are, the myth of individualism is so much so that we could not make it through life alone; and so in that sense, we are all that homeless man, we all need somebody.

The Lie Machine

When I started researching this story, I had a short blog planned. But the more I researched, the deeper the story goes, it’s a story of huge proportions, with back stories, and secrecy, lies and propaganda that drives the veins, right to the heart of the war in Iraq, acting more like the plot of a Ludlum novel, than the core of realty. It’s a ridiculously deep story. Usually I do not give conspiracy theories much of a second thought, but when it is brought to my attention by a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist with a Columbia University Masters, my curiosity is demanding to be fed.

In December 2003, six months after the Invasion of Iraq, and with the World coming to terms with the notion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and had no ties to Al Qaeda; a document was released, dated July 2001, apparently showing a connection between the head of Saddam’s Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush and one of the terrorists behind 9/11 (Mohammed Atta). The document was supposedly found by the coalition Government in Iraq, and verified as authentic by interim Iraqi President (and long time CIA asset) Ayad Allawi shortly after the invasion. It suggests that Atta was trained as a terrorist by Abu Nidal, known at that time as the most dangerous terrorist on the planet, and who was based in Iraq. Despite the fact that Nidal was a long time critic of Saddam and was supposedly killed by the Hussain regime, after the Iraqi’s became convinced Nidal was spying for Egyptian and Kuwaiti intelligence, with the knowledge of the Americans. Nidal then, was not able to defend himself from these claims suggested in the uncovered documents.

The document, Addressed to: “To the President of the Ba’ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you.”
reads:
“Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer [the real name behind this Arabic alias remains a mystery] and we hosted him in Abu Nidal’s house at al-Dora under our direct supervision.
We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him…He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.”

Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist and Author Ron Suskind, has suggested that the Bush White House along with the CIA had forged the document to suggest a pre-war link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to back up their authority for war. He suggests that the biggest threat facing the America, and the World is a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists, and so with America losing it’s moral leadership in the World, the rise of Anti-Americanism becomes an ever increasing threat, which America fights with it’s own brand of semi truths, secrecy, and terrorism.

Suskind suggests that Habbush was an informer for the Bush Administration on Iraq. He started sending reports to both the White House and Downing Street in 2003, and confirmed that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The reports were kept secret, and during the invasion, Habbush was paid $5,000,000 in hush money and relocated to Jordan, by American intelligence. Later that year, the White House ordered the CIA to forge a document back dated to 2001, from Habbush, to Saddam, stating that Mohammed Atta had trained in Iraq, and so weaving a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, simply because the WMD claim had failed miserably. The document was thus released to the media whom took it at face value, unquestioning, severely lacking in the journalistic qualities that earned Suskind the Pulitzer. Ayad Allawi, the interim President of Iraqi in 2003, and long time CIA associate, was of course quick to verify that the document was indeed genuine, refusing to answer the question of why Nidal would be colluding with Hussain, given weapons, a training camp, and a band of terrorists given that Nidal and Saddam were not exactly the best of friends, and that Nidal was more of a hired gun, than a trusted friend of Iraq.

Suskind goes on to suggest that CIA officers Robert Richer and John Maguire supervised to creation of the document, the order coming through from the Office of Dick Cheney. Richer and Maguire have categorically denied the claims, and so it is of course possible that the CIA did not produce the document. The CIA are under 1991 guidelines that prevent them from feeding false information in the U.S. Not that they can’t get round that. They do however know that their testament, could lead to the President being impeached. It’s quite the pressure. But, if Suskind is wrong about the source of the document, then who’s the likely culprit? Who would Cheney turn to? He was afterall, manic about finding a link, regardless of how the link was found and how credible the information was, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, despite intelligence suggesting absolutely no link between the two.

My guess, and of course this is just speculation, is the Pentagon’s top policy official at the time, Douglas Feith. Feith was the head of the Officeof Strategic Influence, which until it became public was a secretive arm of the defence in the United States. It existed for a very short period and was uncovered in 2002. The Office was set up to produce false documents and propaganda to mislead the enemy. The media started to ask questions about the Office, and it’s secretive operations. Defence Secretary Rumsfeld shut it down in February 2002. However, all he did in essence, was change it’s name. Rumsfeld stated in 2002, in regard to the closing of the Office ” You can have the name, but I’m going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done.” Whether or not Rumsfeld would have closed it down, had it not been uncovered, is something one must think about when assessing this case. In any event, the newly created Information Operations Task Force (IOTF) took up much of the work where the Office of Strategic Influence left off. The IOTF has dealings with John Rendon of the Rendon Group. A PR group dedicated to supporting U.S military interventions all over the Globe, through propaganda aimed at the population of the victim nation. The field of work is known as “perception management,“, they have been accused of feeding foreign media fabricated articles in order to bring the citizens round to their clients way of thinking. Rendon’s work includes anti-Saddam covert PR campaigns in 1991, aimed at attempting to over throw the Hussain regime. Rendon has been involved in covert pro-American propaganda in Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Zimbabwe amongst others. Rendon is even supposedly the father of the Iraqi National Congress, a group of anti-Saddam Militants and Oil tycoons put together to oppose the Saddam regime and gain support for his eventual removal. Lead by Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi, and funded by the Americans, the INC was responsible for passing on false information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Bush Administration. The evidence they provided was flimsy at best, but lead to the invasion of Iraq. Chalabi had his eyes set on power after the toppling of Saddam. Any official claim that his information was flimsy, would not have been taken lightly, and was a threat to Chalabi, Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rendon itself. The apparent suicide of David Kelly, comes to mind.

Rendon had been awarded a $6,400,000 contract to create pro-war, and pro-American propaganda and target Iraqi civilians with it.
This information, and much like it (search Google for Rendon Group, it’s all there) leads me to conclude that if Cheney was indeed adamant that he needed a link, regardless of it’s credibility, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, then the most likely source of the forged Habbush document, was not the CIA, it would have been the Office dedicated to creating this type of propaganda, and given the nature of the document, and it’s obvious importance to the Administration, it must have been the responsibility of the most senior members of the IOTF and the Rendon Group. I’d put all of this at the door of Cheney, and the Rendon Group.

Like I said, this story goes so very deep. It proves much more efficiently than any other story that I’ve come across connected to the Iraq war, that the indelibly secretive Bush Administration worked tirelessly to prove a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, in order to justify a War that seems more and more likely to have been based on profit from defence and oil contracts, and that didn’t stand up to scrutiny the moment the Weapons of Mass Destruction Argument failed. All the time, hammering the American public into a sense of false Patriotism, you’re either pro-war, or you’re against us. It’s why they forged the Habbush document. It’s why they tortured. It had very little to do with Cheney’s dire need to protect America, and much much more to do with Cheney’s need to cover up the fact that his war, the death toll, the families lives destroyed, was based on such an ugly lie.
Why did we invade Iraq?

I wonder what Doctor David Kelly knew.

We do not torture (except when we torture)

The despicably teleological former U.S President George Bush once told the American people, “We do not torture“. Now, we know that America under Bush, did torture. Whether you mask the word “torture” behind “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” or not, torture is torture. It is a step too far. For example, according to an official memo a man named “Abu Kenami“, died whilst in an American detention facility in Iraq.
The memo states:

“on the day he died, Kenami had been punished with ups and downs several times . . . and had his hands flex cuffed behind his back (1285). He was also hooded, with a sandbag placed over [his] head. (1284).Ups and downs are apparently a correctional technique of having a detainee stand up and then sit-down rapidly, always keeping them in constant motion(1284). He was found dead in the morning after having been placed in his bed cuffed and hooded.”

If that had been the description of how an American soldier had died in the hands of a nation such as Iran, wouldn’t the American public be outraged, rather than a useless GOP keeping quiet and playing politics by choosing to shift the spot light onto Pelosi?

Torture does not combat terrorism, in fact, it pretty much does the opposite. It encourages negative feeling toward America to sweep the Planet. In the same way that destroying a Middle Eastern Country, displacing millions of people, creating thousands of orphans and killing thousands more, whilst shouting “Mission Complete” does not endear an entire destroyed culture to your cause. Combating Terrorism, by using Terrorism, will never work. Bypassing international laws and human rights laws, will never keep a country safe.
It does not matter how many times Dick Cheney insists that torture has helped to keep America safe, because as it turns out, the worst terror attack in American history took place on his watch, along with the deaths of thousands of troops. His tactics didn’t save American lives, it ended American lives. Dick Cheney is not Jack Bauer.

It’s quite obvious that these techniques amount to torture. For those who suggest that it isn’t torture, then hopefully I can count on your support when I try to suggest it be used in schools to deal with uncontrollable children? What if these techniques were used against American soldiers? I’m guessing the American Right would be insisting how terrible it is. But these people are Arabs, and so whether or not they’re terrorist, is usually beyond the point, they’re Arab, and so they’re not Christian! Or American! (See: BritishRepublican)

Philip Zelikow, advisor to Condoleeza Rice, sent a memo to his boss setting out his objections to the legal backing for torture “Enhanced interrogation techniques” way back in 2002. The use of these techniques is quite clearly cruel and unusual, which exists as a bullet in the brain of the Eigth Amendment of the U.S Constitution (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted). Zelikow tried to point this out to the Secretary of State, having himself studied Constitutional Law. The memos he claims, were rounded up and destroyed by the Bush administration who were at the time trying to inflate the importance of strict interrogation techniques against high valued prisoners such as Abu Zubaydah, who happens to have been waterboarded 83 times without any further information being extracted from him. They did not want Zelikow’s memo gaining too much support or influencing the minds of too many people.

Retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell Lawrence Wilkerson, who was in charge of reviewing the information and evidence for War, in preparation of Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N in 2003, was not told the evidence was obtained via interrogation. Wilkerson has since stated that the use of torture for intelligence “was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda“. Suddenly, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it, seems irrelevant.

U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, investigators in 2006, that interrogators at Guantanamo were under pressure to produce a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Burney is quoted as saying “While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.” And yet the GOP want to focus on what Pelosi might have been told?

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could very well be lying (as could the CIA) to some extent, as to how informed she was over the Bush Administration’s use of torture. Last month she claimed that in a 2002 briefing with intelligence experts, whilst she was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that she had not been informed of waterboarding, stating “In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used”. However this month, a report from the Director of National Intelligence’s office, appears to suggest otherwise. The same 2002 meeting was described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.” Clearly contradicting Pelosi.
The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, DemocratBob Graham was among many other leading Democrats to be briefed on Waterboarding and various other techniques, according to ABC. President Obama was right to release the memos, and he was right to refer to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as torture. Regardless of the political problems it may cause the Democrats, they only have themselves to blame. Obama was right.

And so whilst it seems obvious that the Democrats in Congress who appear to be taking he moral high ground, are actually nothing more than pawns in the Bush Administrations ruthless oil game, it should detract from the fact that the three who actually plotted and authorised such criminal and anti-Constitutional acts of barbarism and terrorism, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are just being left to live a happy quiet life, whilst their crimes and the cover ups taking place behind close door, go largely unpunished. The suggestion appears to be that the Bush Administration effectively legalised torture, to gain “confessions” and “evidence” linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11, in preparation for war. And so if it becomes clear that war was waged, lives were lost, countries destroyed, and billions of dollars wasted, on the basis of dodgy evidence obtained via torture, then Republicans should really back off Pelosi (The Democrats answer to Sarah Palin?), because she’s going to be the least of their worries if all out investigation is to take place. It’s a little odd that the GOP appears to be attacking the morality of Pelosi for what she knew….. about what they were doing. They appear to be more concerned about whether a Democrat was briefed on torture, rather than who actually ordered torture, effectively pissing on the Geneva Convention.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (whose tan is just wonderful!), stated that Pelosi should either provide evidence that the CIA had lied to her over use of waterboarding, or apologise to the CIA for accusing them of lying. Firstly, as if we’re all under an illusion that the CIA has never lied to the World. Of course they have. Secondly, If that’s what Boehner wants, then I want Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Rove to publicly apologise for a war based on lies, four thousands U.S deaths, thousands of Iraqi deaths, and a destroyed economy.
Boehner also claimed stated this weekend that “Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime“. Clearly lying to the American people, leading to thousands of deaths, isn’t. Otherwise the claims made by George Bush, that “We do not torture” and the claim that “The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” or the claim to the UN in 2002 that “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” would have been punished, long ago.

Nothing short of a full, de-ontological investigation into the actions of the Bush Administration over the past eight years, the decisions and intelligence gained leading up to the war, who ordered the use of torture, who knew and did not object to the use of torture, and whether or not the Geneva Convention and/or Constitutional Law was broken, will do.

Cambridge Universitism

I fear the general public is in danger today of ignoring an incredibly vital issue that was set to be debated in the Commons this afternoon (but has in effect, been defeated and thrown out). The Employment Opportunities Bill, introduced to the House by Tory MP for Christchurch Christopher Chope. It raises the issue of Minimum wage, and suggests that, with the consent of the employee, employers should be able to opt out of paying minimum wage. It is, in essence, an abolition of the minimum wage bill.

Now, ignoring the fact that whilst Mr Chope doesn’t much care for those of us who could not afford to live on less than minimum wage, let alone hope to one day get a foot on the housing ladder, he didn’t appear to have a problem claiming £136,992 last year in expenses. Perhaps that money could go to helping those who would so severely be hit economically by his disastrous bill, buy food? We already can’t afford gas and electric since his party privatised it all during the ’80s.
Are the Tories really that naive as to think any employee is going to agree to opt out of minimum wage, without the employer saying “Sign this agreement to opt out, or fuck off”? It would encourage businesses that are not struggling, to pay beneath minimum wage. Prices would deflate hugely as a result. And all companies would start to opt out on a grand scale, because minimum wage does not work unless it’s universally applied. It would, in truth, be a disaster.

Chope said “Our government make it illegal for an employer and an employee freely to negotiate the level of remuneration if it is less than £5.73 an hour for an adult, unless, of course, the work involved is unpaid voluntary work.” That damn Government, trying to help those who were quite routinely exploited during the Tory reign of terror, live a better life. How dare they. I particularly dislike his use of the term “negotiate”. If an employer says “you either accept a pay decrease to £1 an hour, or i’ll employ someone who will”, that isn’t a negotiation, that’s exploitation. It is not a bill to help people surf the tide of recession by having access to more jobs albeit with slightly lower pay, it’s a bill to increase productivity of workers whilst paying as little as possible, it’s a bill to help employ at the lowest costs possible, whilst be able to pay just enough to keep employees alive to actually do the work. For example, one of the Tory MPs who backs this bill, is Peter Bone, famous for once paying a 17 year old trainee 87p for work in his Travel Company. The old face of exploitative Toryism just refuses to die.

It is no surprise that it is Mr Chope promoting this bill. He is responsible for selling off Council Houses in the 1980s, which lead to Mrs Thatcher’s re-election, gaining support from those who would typically vote Labour given that they could now afford to own their own home. In the process, it completely screwed over my generation, who will find it almost impossible, short of becoming a Lawyer (or an MP), of owning my own home. The Government of the 1980s made it easier for those wanting to buy multiple homes to do so, which in turn pushed the average house price up by 225% between 1983 and 1990, which meant sea side home were bought up and used once or twice a year, which meant villages like Beadnell in Northumberland are forced to close schools and businesses local to the area, because 256 out of the 500 homes, are holiday homes! Thanks Chope! You’re a genius! Chope went on to say that being FORCED to work for minimum wage, was against our “human rights”. Note, that this is from a party opposed to the Human Rights Act.

The idiots Geniuses over at Cambridge University Conservative Association (as if you’d expect them to understand the point of the minimum wage in the first place) say “ the minimum wage causes unemployment (a surplus of labour)“. No it doesn’t. It’s regressive, especially during a recession, to suggest that employers should be able to pay those who are already struggling to pay their bills, a lot less. It’s inexcusably immoral at best. They’ve decided upon the conclusion that minimum wage causes unemployment, due to their dedication to Thatcherite Neoliberalism. Not to concrete evidence. Surely if every firm is paying minimum wage, then equilibrium is achieved? Market forces cannot work against a universal principle. It creates a level playing field for all firms, whilst protecting the most vulnerable, from what i’m now going to refer to as “Cambridge Universitism“. The only conceivable way that markets will fail, is by introducing an Opt Out system, where by some firms stick in principle to minimum wage, whilst their competitors see an opportunity to capitalise on paying their employees, 35p an hour. In which case, those employees will want to go elsewhere, to companies that pay minimum wage, and the exploiting Company based on “Cambrigde Universitism” fails anyway?

The minimum wage was introduced in the UK in 1999, the pay was set at £3.30. Since then it has rose to £5.73 an hour, and comes with strict penalties for firms caught not abiding by their responsibilities. It benefits huge numbers of the lowest paid workers in the Country, which in turn, provides a higher rate of disposable income (some were paid as little as 80p an hour during the Thatcher years), and so benefits the economy on the whole. There is little argument that minimum wage is one of New Labour’s greatest achievements, and has helped improve the living conditions of millions since it’s introduction in 1999. Except, if you’re an expenses cheating Tory MP, or you’re in your own haven from the rich at Cambridge, obviously.

Cambridge go on to say “Indeed, now that we are in a recession, it is surely responsible for even more unemployment.” Followed by “Unemployment will never be minimised as long as minimum wage legislation remains in force.“…… Again, no evidence, merely sticking to Neoliberalist principles that says minimum wages prices people out of jobs. Unemployment (which spiked during the Thatcher era, despite the lack of minimum wage) was falling steadily year on year when minimum wage was introduced. Two years later, unemployment was at it’s lowest in decades. This is true for both full time and part time workers. In fact, by 2000, unemployment was at it’s lowest in 25 years. You’d surely expect, a year after minimum wage has been introduced, by Cambridge Univertism 19th Century Factory exploitation logic, and Peter Bone MP, who said in 1998 that a “A minimum wage would condemn hundreds of thousands to the dole queue.” that unemployment would have rose dramatically, almost inconceivably so, by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, but no, it fell, and continued to fall, pretty much until recession hit.

Recession of cause, had absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage, and everything to do with the greed of banking Neoliberalists, which in turn lead to suspicion in the banking sector and reluctance to lend. Minimum wage was not the cause, and minimum wage did not make the situation worse. In fact, having a minimum wage can help, given that mortgage lenders lend on the strength of income. If you’re being paid 80p an hour, you aren’t in a better position to be claiming a mortgage. Regardless of what these toffs say, Minimum Wage has provided security for millions of workers, who in turn have lead a healthier , more secure and happier life. It doesn’t cause mass unemployment, no more so than before minimum wage legislation was introduced. It prevents the greed of certain employers driving down wages as much as possible.

It is worrying that such a senior Conservative, advocates such regressive nonsense, at a time when Conservatives are almost inevitably set to become the next Government of the United Kingdom. Chope seems to be attacking Labour on the introduction of the minimum wage, appearing to be concerned with rising unemployment and yet didn’t have a problem when 3,000,000 people were left unemployed, and untrained, the homeless rate shot up, and the poll tax that he helped usher in creating mass unemployment, the deaths of thousands of businesses (including ours), and unprecedented rioting, due to the policies he endorsed in the eighties. The only difference now is, we at least have some protection for our lowest paid…. which he doesn’t seem to like. He appears to be in denial that deregulation of the labour market, would be a disaster during recession.

The same Tories were telling us all, a few months back, that you had to pay bankers high to provide incentive for them to work hard. Now they’re telling me that same logic doesn’t apply to those who are paid least? Why is Chope not proposing legislation to cut down on tax loopholes for the super rich? Why is he proposing to hit the lowest paid workers the hardest? Simple answer, he’s a Tory, and he’s supported by Cambridge Universitism.

Chope, who opposed the introduction of the minimum wage ten years ago, and seemingly still carries a grudge, speaking on behalf of Conservatives who oppose Minimum Wage, said, quite comically: “We are talking about the marketplace and people should be free to compete in the marketplace without restriction“. Well in that case, I cannot wait to see Chope introduce a bill to abolish or “opt out” of the Factory Acts and all anti-discrimination laws, so that people are “free without restriction” to hire whomever they wish, for as long as they wish, for as much as they wish. Let’s have no restrictions on employment. Let’s be fully regressive!

The Tories are starting to show themselves for what they really are. Stuck in the 1980s.

The Tories turn

Rather embarrassingly for the Conservatives, today saw the Telegraph release details concerning the expenses claimed by Conservative MPs. Embarrassing for two reasons. Firstly, the Conservative Policy Website promises a cut in Welfare spending for those out of work, despite the fact that the Country is in the midst of a deadly recession; all this whilst the Tory MPs seem to be using an inter-Parliamentary Welfare State of their own, to excessive proportions. The Department for Work and Pensions can help us all with that though, the Report a Benefit Thief submission form finally has a legitimate use. Secondly, the Tory leader David Cameron has spent the past year degrading the Prime Minister for the wasteful spending of tax payers money. It’s so very poetic, I just might cry.

Today it was revealed that Alan Duncan (Conservative MP for Rutland, and multi-millionaire due to oil trading), the Tory MP responsible for Shadow Expenses oversight – seriously, so poetic, Keats would be in awe – claimed £3000 expenses on a bill from his Gardener. Parliamentary Authorities within the Department of Finance and Administration however, turned down Duncan’s request, sending him a letter which included the line “An amount of £3,194.50 for gardening/landscaping has initially been withheld”. However, a couple of days before this letter was made public, Alan Duncan suggested that he himself withdrew the claim because: “It was I who raised the issue with the Fees Office and although it was a legitimate claim, we agreed that it might be seen as too large a single item and therefore I did not claim it.”
Both cannot be true. And given that Mr Duncan seems to think that claiming in excess of £3,000 for a gardening bill is a “legitimate claim“, i’m going to choose to suggest that Mr Duncan appears to be trying to creep his way out of the situation. Afterall, his new found moral compass didn’t appear to reach as far as his need to claim £143,392 for his second home, whilst simultaneously owning the two adjoining homes, and renting one out.

The revelations will damage the Conservative Party, who have enjoyed a 23 point lead over Labour recently. They seemed for months, like the saviour party, the change that England has been begging for. And yet, it turns out, they appear to want to cut any help to those struggling during times of recession – on Conservative economic principle, yet at the same time claiming thousands themselves on gardening expenses. If they’re trying to convince people like me, who already cannot stand the Conservative Party – they aren’t doing a very good job.

Although, I must give credit to Conservative Leader David Cameron, who took the step of saying “It’s not good enough to say we obeyed the rules.” And he’s right. Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Alan Duncan and Geoff Hoon have all released statements letting us know that their ridiculous expense claims were within the rules. Stretching the rules to breaking point, is not the point of the rules. Cameron appears to be the only politician thus far to acknowledge that.

Gordon Brown meanwhile, has apologised on behalf of the entire House, for the excessively expensive lifestyles of MPs funded by the tax payer. Brown said “I want to apologise on behalf of politicians on behalf of all parties for what has happened in the events of the last few days” .
A bit of a disaster of an apology if you ask me. The events of the last few days, are that the expenses have been made public. Gordon and Parliament have been found out. He’s almost apologising for being caught. If the Telegraph had not released these documents, and if the High Court had ruled in favour of the Government by granting an amendment to the Freedom of information act, effectively banning the release of Parliament’s expense claims, and if the king of corrupt, Jack Straw had had his after pressuring the The Committe on Standards in Public Life conducting their enquiry into MPs expenses, then these excessive claims would never have come to light, MPs would continue abusing the system, and no apology would have exited the mouth of our wondrous Prime Minister. They aren’t sorry for the outrageous expenses claims, they’re sorry for getting caught.

In 2008, the Conservatives tried to reinvent their Party, attempting to appeal to the typical Labour supporterby claiming to be the, “Party of the poor“. Oliver Letwin, Chairman of the Tory Party Policy Review Team, and previous advisor to Margaret Thatcher (The architect behind the damning policy of the then PM – Thatcher – to introduce Poll Tax which resulted in mass rioting and the fall of the Government. Whom suggested in the run up to the 2001 General Election, as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Tories would cut public spending by £20bn, which shocked the public and forced Letwin into hiding for the remainder of the campaign, and whose snobby Etonian-like face I feel sick just looking at), claimed the party would act to reduce inequality effectively when they become the next Government of the United Kingdom. I’d suggest he can start, by paying back the £2000 he claimed for replacing a leaking pipe underneath his tennis court. Same old Tories.

One thing is for certain, this scandal is the perfect opportunity for the younger generation to make a break into Politics, by pointing the finger of corruption at the old club, and promising a better future for the Commons, based on trust and transparency. Secondly, it presents the perfect opportunity for the Liberal Democrats, who appear to have come out of this scandal relatively unhurt, to further edge their way into the game. I look forward to the outcome of the June Council elections and the European Elections (i’m guessing one or two people will still vote, maybe, if they have time, after wiping their arses with the ballot paper). If Labour slip to third or fourth, I predict a leadership challenge!

Corporate Narnia

The Cayman Islands, off the West coast of Cuba, are home to a plethora of beautiful sun kissed beaches, glistening white sand, clear blue sea, and small buildings that magically home tens of thousands of U.S Companies. It’s a beautiful warm magical corporate Narnia.

Whilst the hypocritical Teabaggers sit at home complaining endlessly about the work the Obama administration is currently undertaking in order to clean up the failed Neoliberalist mess left by eight years of Republican destruction; the Administration itself is set to crack down on off shore tax havens, and rightly so. We spend far too long reading stories about benefit cheats, who, in 2008 were responsible for scrounging altogether £800m condemning them all to hell, and yet we appear to have no problem with the fact that £13bn was lost to Corporate tax evasion in the UK in 2008. We let that slip. For what reason? For all the complaining about the public finances David Cameron does, and how he’s so worried about our kid’s futures, he doesn’t seem too fussed about the tax haven scams.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Ways and Means Commitee on Tuesday: “We fully support the legislation … on offshore tax centres, and we look forward to working with you as part of the broader effort to address international tax evasion and close the tax gap”.
To most of us, the fact that $13tn remains locked away in untaxed havens of the super rich across the planet, is despicable, and so intensely wrong it demands urgent action. The Chancellor over here in the UK announced in his 2009 Budget, that HM Customs and Revenues would name and shame those companies underpaying what they in fact owe in tax, with those individuals responsible for tax avoidance, for the first time ever, being held personally liable for the lost tax revenue. Fantastic steps. Obama appears to be doing the same over in the States. And rightfully so.

President Obama announced that along with much more transparency in American held bank accounts in tax havens; that regulation of offshore Tax Havens would save $210bn over ten years, and would be used “to reduce the deficit, cut taxes for American businesses that are playing by the rules, and provide meaningful relief for hard-working families.”
The plans would also stop companies deferring taxes on profits made overseas, and so should act as an incentive to stop shutting up shop and shipping jobs overseas. Overall, it seems like a great idea. The Future of Capitalism must be a responsible future. It must not reward those who ship overseas, or move their profits to tax havens, to avoid paying their fair share in the United States. The Republican culture of pandering to big business seems like it is being cleaned up.
In January 2009, The Government Accountability Office found that of the 100 biggest U.S Corporations, 83 have subsidiaries in offshore tax havens.
Where are the teabaggers now? Where were they when it was announced in July 2008 that 18850 companies are registered to a small apartment block in the Cayman Islands? Pandering to big business and defending their ability to cheat the system, whilst complaining that the poor folk of America can no longer afford to keep their homes due to disastrous Bush Administration policy, is hypocritically pathetic at best.

The Republicans have two courses of action, both wont help their cause. Firstly, they could come out against these plans, and just appear to be the same old Republican Party, sucking up to big business, the party of the rich, and claiming that anything other than letting Corporate tax avoidance happen is Socialism; or they could keep quiet and say nothing. Which, makes them look weak, no doubt the extreme Right (Fox, and Limbaugh) will then make a point to attack the GOP for being too Liberal, and further kill off their cause. Either way, i’m fine with.

The U.S Chamber of Commerce chief economist Marty Regalia said of the plans: “A huge tax hike on U.S. employers is not the way to stimulate our economy. Congress should reject this approach.” I never realised making companies pay the taxes they owe, is a tax hike? But what do I know, i’m not a chief economist.
Ryan Ellis, tax policy director of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform echoed Regalia’s sentiments by saying: “This will force companies to leave the country, and they’ll take their jobs and capital with them,”. If Ellis had chosen a different career path, and instead became a counsellor for domestic abuse victims, I fear his message would be something like: “HEY! Let your boyfriend rape you, otherwise he’ll leave and find someone new to rape”. I say if the cancer of Capitalism wants to leave the Country because their infectious nature has been broken down and eliminated, let them. Fuck them. Competitiveness will not be killed off, it will merely create a fairer market within the United States for the companies that don’t piss all over the rule book.

I wait anxiously to see the Republican response to this in the United States, and what, if anything The Conservatives and David Cameron have to offer over here in the UK.

The iconic red box

It doesn’t take a political genius to look a year a head and see a Britain painted Tory blue. It’s almost inevitable. The Government’s loss on the Commons Vote for the Gurkha’s was a big dent in the authority of the Prime Minister, but it could of course get worse very quickly.

The Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, in early 2009 announced plans to sell 30% of Royal Mail, opening the PLC to private investment, but ultimately leaving the Postal Service in Public hands. In 2006, the Postal market was opened up and Royal Mail quickly lost it’s monopoly, which meant that it’s losses increased from £10m in 2006, to £279m in 2007 whilst at the same time paying out obscene bonuses whilst thousands of post offices across the Country were closed down. It doesn’t help matters that billions of pounds of profit that Royal Mail has produced over the past twenty years, has been handed over to the Treasury, and so not reinvested in modernising the postal service. Short of any private investment, in order to keep up with the market, Royal Mail is doomed; it must modernise, the Government should not give in to backbench Labour MPs on this, unless those MPs offer a better option. Because perhaps selling such a huge stake in the business is the wrong move.

Compass, the left wing think tank put forward a report outlining proposals to run Royal Mail in the same way that Network Rail is currently run, as a non-profit company, which benefits from public and private investment, much like the BBC. Network Rail is responsible for the railway lines, signals, lights and rail station safety. It is there purely for the public well being, not for profit. Any profit made, is reinvested in key infrastructure improvements and new technology, not huge pay packets and bonuses. Railtrack failed because it needed huge investment over a long period, which was detrimental to the private interests of shareholders searching for quick short term profit. And so Railtrack, the private company failed and became Network Rail, which happens to be stronger, and more reliable than it’s Private predecessor.

These plans have appeared to quell dissent among back bench Labour MPs, but this morning, Number 10 rejected Compass’ suggestions, and chose instead to stick to their original plans to part privatise the Royal Mail. And whilst the majority of the British Public certainly do not want to see Royal Mail in Private hands, I think we’d all agree that something needs to be done to modernise and bring the standard of the service Royal Mail offers, into the 21st Century. Royal Mail charges some of the lowest rates in Europe. It’s large losses come primarily down to it’s huge pensions deficit, which unless sorted, will keep the entire organisation in dire financial mess. And whilst the pensions issue may be sorted out via Privatisation, I cannot imagine the low prices would continue in Private hands. We’d all suffer.

The Government is likely to win a vote in commons, but only with backing from the Tories, who always welcome Privatisation of any form. It means further embarrassment for Gordon Brown; undermining his authority much deeper than already achieved, given that he cannot rely on the backbenchers in his own party to vote in line with the Government’s proposals, and that he, in essence, will be saved by the Tories. But this in itself creates problems for the wider Labour Party, and Royal Mail. The Communication Workers Union (The Post Office Union), can either now show support for Government plans to sell 30% of Royal Mail to private investment, despite the fact that they quite clearly do not like the idea, or they could oppose the Government through Labour Backbenchers, further undermining the Government, leading to a Tory victory in a General Election, and then deal with the fact that under a Conservative Government, there isn’t likely to be a publicly owned Postal Service come the end of the term in power, along with much less influence from the Union itself. The Union, if it wishes to keep Royal Mail in public hands (which I support), must offer a way forward other than just opposition for the sake of opposition to privatisation. It an iconic British service, based on people, not profit.

The Compass Report: Modernisation by Consent, quite rightly echoes my sentiments on Royal Mail Privatisation, by stating:
“The experience of the banking sector shows where this can lead.We don’t want to be back in a few years’ time with a campaign to halt the bonus culture of the new bosses of a privatised mail service. We don’t want to have to campaign against price increases and branch closures or against job losses and worsening terms and conditions for the postal workers onwhoma great service depends.We don’twant to have to demand awindfall tax on the excess profits of the newowners, only to be told that they are registered abroad and don’t have to pay any tax at all.”
Price increases, excessive bonus culture, profiteering at the expense of the general public, and branch closures are not the way of the Royal Mail we all love. There is much need for A model in which the future of the management and the Union is not focused purely on pay disputes and working conditions, but on working together to ensure investment in infrastructure and technology is guided correctly in line with the direction of the service, rather than lining the golden pockets of shareholders. I fear this argument is merely academic given the future of the service when placed in Conservative hands. However, if it is to remain a public service, if we are to put up an argument for future Conservative privatisation, the service must put an end to it’s pensions deficit, it must offer new investment opportunities, and it must prove that the Royal Mail is not a dying Socialist entity.

Sort the Pensions Deficit, and you’ve sorted the bulk of the financing problems of Royal Mail. One of the plans Mandelson has included in these privatisation proposals, is for the responsibility of the pension fund to move to taxpayers. Which is around £6bn. I cannot understand why the Government expects the public to support privatisation, to support the idea that a wealthy individual can profit, whilst the taxpayer loses. How have we been able to pay the huge deficits racked up by irresponsible PRIVATE banks, yet we cannot afford to pay the much needed £6bn into the pension pots of public service workers? By doing this, by paying off the massive pension deficit, the first step to reinventing the Royal Mail, preparing it for modernisation and much needed investment begins…without the need for any privatisation.

And although part Privatisation appears to be a quick and easy answer, it will only create more problems then it solves, leading, I fear, to full privatisation come the Tories grip on power, ending in a poor service for the majority and a great service for the wealthy few, owned by a faceless overly rich businessman. I cannot think of anything I like the sound of less.
We’d all miss the iconic red box.