The USA & Greece

The above, shows (if you can make out the words, i know it looks ridiculously small) that the US is not going to be the next major economic casualty, after Greece. It just isn’t going to happen.

My knowledge on economics is supremely limited. So please bare that in mind!

Even the UK, which is in a far worse position than the US, is not even slightly as bad as Greece. We here in the UK have had two quarters of positive growth. I accept that given the bail out, and fiscal stimulus package, the growth figures are ridiculously low, but we are in a period of economic recovery. It is going to take a while to see the benefit.

The Office of National Statistics report revised their original estimate for growth in the fourth quarter, to a much higher figure. We are actually in a much stronger economic position in the UK, than we first assumed. Government spending was needed to prop up the economy during recession. But, given that we are still only in recovery, I believe it’d be a massive mistake to withdraw that support as the new Conservative government plans to do shortly. In fact, i’m not entirely sure where the benefit of withdrawing support now, actually is? I accept in the future, we need to cut spending. I think though, forcing tax evading corporations to pay what they owe, should be the prime target. But cutting now, seems dangerous. Surely, when we are a growing economy, and the World itself is growing economically, that then would be a good time to cut. Not when people are struggling the most. I fear that it is just Tories being Tories. Cut spending, give people the option “Work where ever we say, or lose your home and starve to death…… and work twice as hard, for minimum wage…lower if we had our way!!! Whilst we give your boss a tax cut, so he can enjoy another game of golf a week“, and eventually the Nation’s money pot may improve, at the expense of social cohesion and morale.

Fox News today asked if it were possible, that the U.S could become Greece economically. They all answered “yes“. Scare tactics.
So I did some research, on the fundamental differences between the economy of Greece and the economy of the US.

To fill the hole in the budget, both Greece and the US need to find around 6% of GDP, according to a report by economists Auerbach and Gale. My limited understanding of economics tells me that just because that number is true for both Nations, the measures needed to fill the gap, are nothing like one another.

Greece’s budget deficit is 14% of it’s GDP. America’s is 9.3%. They are both pretty harsh figures, I accept.

National debt in the US is apparently likely to hit 140% of GDP in the next twenty years. That doesn’t take into account policy changes, technology advancements, or any other sort of externality. It does not take into account growth as a result of investment in infrastructure etc. That figure simply goes by what it would be, if twenty years from now, were the same in every way, as today.

Spending cuts, tax raises are obvious. But they do not need to be harsh as they do in Greece. Greece is in a far worse position. The US’s economy is growing, whilst Greece’s economy is shrinking. In order to protect itself from bankruptcy, by appealing to the IMF for a loan, Greece is being forced to reduce spending. Reducing spending during such a huge recession, is only likely to make that recession far worse. America is not in recession. It does not have to appeal to the IMF for a loan, it is not likely to fall back into recession any time soon. The growth will eventually provide the revenue to fill that 6% gap. When the US economy picks up, then spending cuts and higher taxation will further help the US bring down its cyclical deficit.

The US dollar is still strong. Despite growing deficit and debt levels, the US is in a prime position to deal with its problems, because the dollar will be the leading currency for many many years. America is the largest economy in the World. Greece, is the 27the largest economy in the World. And whilst China is growing, it is not in a position to catch up to, or overtake America for quite some time. Investors simply do not trust the Chinese all that much, whilst at the same time, investors flee Greece. Whilst reserve currency status is not guaranteed to last, it certainly provides protection for the US, which provides 60% of the World’s reserve currency.

Greece has to fill that gap within the next year. If they don’t, they risk pushing Greece into an even greater recession, which will inevitably lead to even greater structural deficits. Greece is in a mess. They ran up huge budget deficits during the good economic times. They inevitably ran up even larger budget deficits during the bad times. Greece’s structural deficit is horrendous. America’s, is not. The structural deficit in the USA is not perfect, true. And it is going to take some harsh measures over the next few years to help. But, the US can fill that 6% gap, over two entire decades. Greece has two years at the very most. It is also worth pointing out, that it was the Republican Party, the party of fiscal responsibility that spent away their budget surplus during the good times. And not in a positive way either. It was not Obama. America needs to simply slow down a little, not drastically cut.

America obviously has to change over the long term, whereas Greece has to change immediately. The problem America has, is its particular brand of Capitalism; irresponsible consumerism. Growth for the benefit of growth. Wall Street offering no real social good. They simply exist to fatten their pockets. Your money, placed in banks, being used in dodgy dealings, rather than productive investments. Responsible Capitalism, in which the success of a Nation is in measuring how low the inequality gap and how low the poverty rate is, rather than the accumulated riches of the very wealthy. That is the only way the entire World will escape another preventable Global recession.

Ignore reality, buy this car instead!!!

I have walked 7422 steps today. I don’t know if that’s good or not. Is it enough to qualify as a new age Lewis and Clark, rolled into one; if so, will a statue be made of me any time soon? Or, is it that 7422 steps is actually disastrously lazy? Either way, today I know that have walked exactly 7422 steps. Do you know how I know that? Because my mobile phone told me. Quite why I’d need a phone to tell me how lazy I am, is beyond me. I’m expecting the next generation of kettle to tell me how bald i’m looking these days. Just to really rub salt into the gaping wound. My next pillow case to say “get your dirty little face off of me” next time I lay down. My can of deodorant to whisper majestically “my my, someone has put on a bit of weight this week“, whilst the McDonalds advert on the TV encourages me to enrich my life with it’s own personal brand of heart disease.

It isn’t the most pointless gadget that our generation of out of control turbo consumers have, well, consumed. Half the planet (mainly the West) is overrun with useless shit, all designed to take our minds off of what actually matters. Why care that the death toll in the War in Darfur is up to 200,000 with millions more displaced, when you can have THIS BRAND NEW BENTLEY!! OOOOOO. That’s right! Stop caring! Be a consumer instead! Define yourself by what you own! The thieves in suits wondrous Corporations that run your lives depend on your total acquiescence to their utter, utter bullshit.

Speaking of Bentley’s, and pretentious arseholes, a man entered my place of work today, and proceeded to tell me a story about a wedding he’d attended recently. He placed his copy of Esquire (a magazine that may as well say “hey, you’re a business man right? Well here’s the thing, you’re amazing, go look at yourself in the mirror, you’re beautiful, look at those shoes!! You’re better than everyone else, go spit on a tramp, you beautiful beautiful powerful man you!“) to one side and started with his useless story. Try to spot the moment where I had to restrain myself from saying “can I stop you there……. I’m contemplating the notion, that you may have got me mixed up with someone who actually cares about your sheltered, miserable, pointless existence, you fucking oxygen thief“…..
“So, I was wondering what to wear, and I put on a cheap sui……no wait, that’s a lie, I don’t own any cheap suits, my suits are all designer, the cheapest I have cost just under £2000“.
Did you spot it? Did you? I’ll give you a hint, it was the entire macabre sentence. I couldn’t care less about his expensive suits. Even if I got out of bed an hour early, with the express intention of spending that hour… caring less, I still couldn’t care any less than I do right now.
If he’d have told me he is an struggling artist, or a confessional poet, or a popular Italian Tenor, or a composer, or a Photographer trying to make his name, I may have been impressed. But telling me your suits are expensive, when to me, all suits look the same, and everyone who wears suits, look like little unimpressive, masterfully useless braindead robots, is just asking to be ignored.

We’re the generation that relentlessly and rather pathetically relies on Corporations to get us through life. We have a deflated and vanishing sense of our own spirituality by the time we leave school, because our lives become a nightmare of consumerism and vanity. The two, and linked beautifully. We don’t have time to understand ourselves on a deeper level, because we’re convinced to keep to the superficial level, the surface. We constantly want more. More of everything. There isn’t a goal, there isn’t an end in sight, it’s just more, of more. And we inevitably, end up (despite how important we may feel in our new Bentley and expensive suits) indescribably weak minded, cut off from reality (I mean REAL reality, not the kind that Neo-Liberalism has carved up for us), and trying to impress the World with how much we have.

The bubble of course, burst in late 2007. Northern Rock plummeted, after offering over 100% mortgages. The Sub Prime nightmare, the very essence of turbo consumption, the pinnacle of greed and short term profit, the child of Reagan and Thatcher’s legacy of utter bullshit and deregulation of the financial sector, proved to be the last gasp of hot air to be pumped into the bubble before it inevitably exploded. Of course, those with free-market-failure-denial will always refuse to accept that their ideals, are wrong. They’ll blame government interference some how. But the rest of us, who don’t live on a different Planet, are left struggling worse than ever. But, quite amusingly, we’re still encouraged to consume. We define ourselves by what coffee house we drink at, or where we buy our clothes, or what our phone can do. We ignored gravity. The higher the bubble rose, the more we consumed. The bubble kept rising, our houses were worth more and more and it excited us. We no longer view a house as somewhere to live. Instead, it’s a commodity. We see it as a £ sign. Suddenly, we’re judging each other on what we own. We’re all addicted to consuming. Which is why we THINK we’re in some huge crises now. Because we had to stop spending, when credit dried up. We went from having far too much, to very little, in an incredibly short space of time. The bubble, with us assuming we were securely inside it, burst, and we fell to Earth with a smash. We REALLY need to sort out our priorities.

Whilst I blame the Wolves in suits, who seem to think they’re above the rest of Humanity, with the swagger of arrogance where ever they walk, with the sound of vanity in their miserable voices the moment they open their mouths to talk about, let’s face it, materialism; I also blame us. We consumed because it was easy. We consumed because we’re easily manipulated. We consumed because we’re horribly vain, and we’ve been taught that we’re competitive by nature (we’ve been taught it! We didn’t inherit competitiveness), so we try to out-do one another by what we can afford to consume. We don’t like that everyone else seems to own more. We don’t care if they KNOW more, we care what they own. We don’t care how beautifully creative someone else is, how they can use their mind to create stunning works of art or literature or music, we’re more interested in their wallet. And that desire to consume MORE than others, has lead to an industry meticulously destroying the planet (Carbon emissions hit an all time high in 2008), exploit as many people as possible without it actually being called what it is; slavery. But it’s okay, because it’s “freedom”….. fuck right off! I can’t afford to be free. Nor can 99% of the planet.

According to his book “All Consuming”, Neal Lawson states that in 1979, 32 million people used British airports for travel. In 2004, the figure was 216 million. That of those 216 million, 96% were from richer backgrounds, socio-economic groups A, B and C1. Whether it’s flying on business, or to New York for a shopping trip, it cannot be justified. But it wont stop. It does not matter how many economic bubbles burst, we’re now stuck, in this frenzy of turbo consumerism. It is now who we are. It is the 21st Century, and probably beyond. Does this sort of manic life of over consumption make us happy? Are we now happier than ever before? No. That’s the simple, and yet deepest answer possible. We hate it. We hate our jobs. We hate that we don’t have what our neighbour has. We hate that we can’t afford more. We’re much more miserable. So, that’s miserable, poor, and ignorant. So far so good!

We have somehow, come to the conclusion that it’s okay for Primark to exploit children (but we go absolutely crazy, when we hear Baby P style stories) and that it’s perfectly acceptable for Coca Cola to poison the water supply of local villages in India. As long as we don’t hear about it. It doesn’t surprise me. Consumerism has taught us to ignore. Ignore ourselves. Ignore the real World. Ignore injustice. Ignore ruthless cunts stripping away the individuality of a generation of telephone answering Admins and Tesco till girls. Ignore the shit that other ACTUAL HUMANS have to go through, so you and I can spend as little of our borrowed money as possible. Whilst it now costs more to consume ethical products (recession is a lovely way to act less ethically when we shop, and a big incentive for amoral corporate cunts bosses to exploit at will), perhaps instead of turning to less ethical but cheaper named brands to satisfy our next hit of the consumer drug, we should just buy less! According to Labourbehindthelabel.org….
“Workers at factories supplying these retailers told researchers of working weeks as high as 90 hours, overtime unpaid, wages so low that families are malnourished, and strong resistance to any attempts at worker organising. At the same time suppliers revealed how the supermarkets are cranking up the pressure to deliver faster and produce cheaper – a model that makes a mockery of the social commitments made by these companies. “
I’m not entirely sure how any human being, with a heart, can possibly justify this. The West demands that this kind of horrific treatment of actual human beings continues, because we demand cheaper goods, an abundance of cheap shit that ultimately we don’t need. Those people are being meticulously mistreated, for ultimately no reason whatsoever. It makes honestly no sense to my DIRTY SOCIALIST head.

These idiots exploit humanity, destroy the planet, rape resources, and profit from war…. and then THEY have the balls to complain that they’re being taxed too much to fund a safety net for those less fortunate? I’m not the fucking immoral disgrace of a human being out of us two!

And to top it off nicely, America apparently now does not want to let poor people have access to health care. It’s a funny ole selfish World we live in. And it’s getting worse. We’re all mindless drones, committed to the chase for more; a chase with no fulfilled finish line, just endless anguish that we don’t have enough.

Still, 7422 steps!!! Go team Jamie!

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 untouchable Conservatives?

I’ve been wondering lately why those people who intend on voting Conservative at the next general election, actually like President Obama. Surely he stands for everything they’re against? I couldn’t imagine Maggie Thatcher fans claiming the greatest President that ever lived was Franklin Roosevelt (even though, he was) who spent a fortune on the New Deal stimilus package in the 1930s. Similarly, I can’t understand why anyone supporting David Cameron, would claim to be a fan of Obama? It makes no sense, it’s an odd infliction. And so it’s leading me to the disappointing, and rather worrying belief that people wont be voting Conservative because they like the idea of a Conservative government; people will vote Conservative because they dislike Gordon Brown.

I think the younger generation, who appear to have lost touch with Politics, see a Nation on the brink of economic disaster, and naturally feel drawn to the opposite side. They don’t however, understand what the opposite side is offering. Of course we all accept that Brown’s claim to have abolished boom and bust, is quite frankly ridiculous. But that isn’t reason enough to empower a new Tory regime.

Latest Polls show that people seem to be happier for the Tories to take control of the economy, despite the misery they caused last time. Despite the fact that this time, they offer no help to those less fortunate during recession. They aren’t offering training programs, they aren’t offering infrastructure investment, they aren’t offering investment in future technology. They are just offering the same shit, cut public spending, cut tax. As if that solves anything at all. They do not seem to understand that the most hard hit families, rely on public spending which if cut, would harm those families but help those who are coping fine as it is. We are not Republican America, we are not a Country under the failed presumption that public spending means Socialism. It doesn’t. The Conservatives would be the very worst Political Party to have in Government. Neoliberalism has failed. We are in recession, because of Neoliberalism. The Conservatives, are offering more Neoliberalism. Do you see the problem?

The last time the Conservatives had their Right Wing grip on Britain, we had full scale riots, 60% of Liverpool’s workforce unemployed (which under Labour has decreased so far, that they are well above the national average for employment rates) to the point where people rioted (again, Tories are good at causing riots) and police were forced to use tear gas, section 28 of the local government act telling schools not to teach homosexuality as natural, so alienating children, and an attempt to completely underfund the NHS to the point of near collapse. Then of course, they began to sell off the council houses, meaning 20 years later, my generation has been betrayed by the greed of the Tory years, now unable to get anywhere near the housing ladder. Yeah thanks for that. And now, because of their disastrous “leave it to the market” neoliberalist Conservative agenda, taken at it’s word by New Labour, we have a knackered economy. We have utility companies charging extortionate rates that people can’t afford, and that some have actually died because they can’t afford it. The Tories left power in 1997 having left a child poverty rate that grew 34% since they took over Government in the late 1970s. Not forgetting that year long period of 15% interest rates. That was a wonderful year.
Since that wondrous Conservative 1988 Housing Act, landlords can freely set rent at whatever price they so choice, which usually means most of the tenant’s wages per month, which in turn meant those tenant’s cannot save enough to get a mortgage, even though mortgage payments are usually cheaper than the rent they’re currently paying. And so enter the sub prime market. We all know what happened with that one.
Under the Tories, more than 300,000 workers earned less than £1.50 an hour, with Job Centres advertising jobs for 80p an hour. GO TEAM TORY
We lost everything during Thatcher’s reign, but hey, the rich got richer. So that’s okay, right?
And what do the Tories suggest we do about the economic crises? Invest in infrastructure? Nope. Invest in training programs? Nope. Invest in much needed green technology to kickstart a failing economy? Nope. Typical Tories, offering nothing new. Leaving those less fortunate to sink further.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, repeatedly seems to enjoy attacking the Government on their “wasteful spending campaign” and their fiscal irresponsibility, and yet, appears to have forgotten that he’d been paid £30,000 for two after dinner speeches….at RBS. Not only that, but given that deregulation of the financial markets got us into the mess we’re in today, it’s a bit rich for the Shadow Foreign Secretary to be claiming that the Tories are the party to lead Britain through the economic crises, given that during his last campaign, Hague is quoted as saying;
“As prime minister I will make deregulation one of my top priorities. I will drive deregulation from the centre and I will promote ministers not on the basis of whether they regulate enough but on the basis of how much they deregulate”.
Nothing changes.
Suddenly people (the rich, who benefited under Thatcher) seem to think that it’s their God given right to own, two, three, four or more homes – using them once or twice a year on holiday – whilst others fail to be able to afford even one home because they’ve all been taken up. Rights only seem to apply to those with money.

And then of course, you have to move onto the Tories constant attacks on the immorality of Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith claims on her home in Worcester to the amount of close to £23,000 in 2007-2008; despite the fact that Conservative Shadow leader of the Commons Alan Duncan has claimed £143,392 since 2001 on a second home despite renting out a privately owned third property in Westminster, earning him a tidy profit at the expense of, well, us.
Or Tory MP James Clappison, who owns farm land, 22 rented houses in Yorkshire, and an entire Cricket Ground, and yet still thought it morally acceptable to claim £97,892 in 2nd home allowances.
Or the largest 2nd homes claim made by MPs, coming from Tory MP Douglas Hogg, who rented out three London Properties, whilst claiming £143,651 since 2001.
The Tories have not suddenly gained a social conscience. Nor is their rhetoric convincing to those of us who actually take an interest in Politics.

New Labour repealed that nasty little Section 28. New Labour have made it possible for me to go to University, whilst the Right Wing seem to think that only kids who have rich parents, should be allowed that luxury. New Labour set up EMA which meant I could leave my dead end boring job to go back to college. New Labour set up minimum wage (which David Cameron voted against), New Labour extended maternity leave and paternity leave to which the Tories voted against, and the best ever A-Level results, came under New Labour (Tories like to suggest that tests are easier, rather than educational standards improving… and given that I took my A-Levels in 2008, I can promise you, educational standards were much higher than I expected, and tests were pretty fucking hard). Before the current recession hit, unemployment because of New Labour had hit it’s lowest rate since 1975, compared with 3,000,000 unemployed throughout the first half of the Tory regime in the 1980s. New Labour created free nursery education for children 3 and 4 years old – something the Tories voted against. Of course New Labour have made mistakes, and things are far from perfect. But given the choice, i’d rather have a government that invests in social projects, invests in training, invests in green initiatives, invests in the future, rather than a government full of out of touch Etonian morons that choose to paint all less advantaged people as “lazy” and offer nothing but deadly cuts in public spending. In 1997 people living in France, Germany, Belgium and Japan were all wealthier than us. By 2002 we had overtaken them all.

I do not want to empower a Party that seems to think it’s fine that millions of children exist in poverty, whilst executives take home a pay cheque equal to 718 times that which the average employee takes home. When wealth is relocated to the poorer, dilapudated, violent areas of the Country, the Conservatives start complaining that Socialism is on it’s way back. When turds in designer suits Company execs
relocate ridiculously large amounts of wealth to themselves, it’s labelled “freedom” and “Capitalism” when in truth, it’s Stalinism for the rich under the mask of “free markets” and “trickle down economics“, which the Conservative Party still hold dear to their core system of beliefs today. I wont shame my principles by voting for such crap. I may not like Gordon Brown, but I dislike the idea of a Conservative Government much much more.

A new World

Here’s to Warren Buffet, the Richest man on the Planet, who once said, when asked about the inequalities of the tax system….
“It’s class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn’t be.“

The World has entered a new chapter, full of blank pages. What used to be market truth, has become greedy nonsense. The noise made by the laissez faire wealth jamboree embraced by the rich as “true freedom” is slowly dying down. There are still those who insist that tax hikes and Social transfers kill productivity (despite that fact that Sweden spends around 30% of it’s GDP on Social projects compared to 13% in the USA – and the growth rate of GDP per person in Sweden was as high through the mid-2000s as that of the USA – according to Jonas Pontusson) and insist on screaming about how big Government is part of the problem rather than the driving force behind emancipation, civil rights and other aspects of life that the market has literally no control over. Between 1948 and 1970 social spending shot through the roof – Medicaid, the war on poverty, added investment in schools etc. In fact, it rose from 16.5% to 27.5% and with that, GDP and Productivity grew more than any other time (even during Reagan’s years…. although he cut income tax and shifted the burden to payroll tax like an increase in Social Security and Medicare taxes), the next time huge advances in productivity appeared, was in 1996….. after the Clinton tax increases. Big government isn’t the problem at all. Selfishness is the problem. Lack of compassion is the problem.

Big government in the USA, extended 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 – none of that is the result of a wondrous market system. Government provides the framework for a market to run successfully; Government works to cope with the change in the mentality of the people and nothing Obama does, is going to kill the superiority of the American market system. Even Churchill, the most famous Tory in British History, supported a strong Welfare system, having remarked years before his eventually primacy “It seems clumsy to let people starve…” he then went on to support the Beveridge report on much needed Welfare action.

I appear to have digressed. Back to Sweden for a second. As suggested earlier, Sweden spends around 30% of it’s GDP on Social products. Significantly higher than the USA (Whose Conservatives seem to believe any public spending, is a big evil). Not only that, but Sweden is listed as sixth in the Human Development Index whereas the USA, is a measly fifteenth. For all the attacks on Europe I hear from Conservative Americans, when it comes to the Human Development Index, ten European countries rank above the USA. This of course, is without mentioning that Sweden ranks top of the Economist Democracy Index whilst the USA ranks at 17th, below thirteen European Nations. All this from a Nation that has been run by Social Democrats from 1994 to 2007. Much closer to Socialists than President Obama could ever be. Don’t seem to be doing too badly for themselves. Big Government is not the problem. Small government is not the problem. Inefficient government whether large or small, is the problem.

A study by Sven Steinmo met up with a Swedish Volvo Executive, who was asked…
“Why don’t you leave (Sweden)? Certainly, you would pay a lot lower taxes and probably also have a higher salary in the U.S.”
His response……..
“Yes, of course, I would have a lot more money in my pocket. But I would also almost never get home before 7 o’clock and I certainly would not have the vacations everyone has a right to here… and you know what else, I would have to spend a lot more money on insurance, college for my kids, and travel back home to my family. In the end, I’m not really sure I would be any better off.“

That way of thinking, is the way those of us who do not have a deep fetish for money, and who do not have a deep resentment for those less fortunate think. Unfortunately, the Thatcher years over here in England provided us with a new breed of young Conservatives who take the opposite view, coupled with the Republicans in America who profess to be strongly “Pro-life” unless that life needs urgent healthcare and can’t afford it; the Swedish state of mind was slowly losing ground since the Thatcher/Reagan days. Now however, it’s finding itself again.

For decades we’ve been told that the Government cannot afford the extra million pounds to give our public servants, like the Police force, the pay rise they were promised. Or that we could only afford to pay our fire fighters an extra 11% pay, to protect us from burning to death. Or that the coal mines needed closing because they weren’t profitable, meaning thousands of people lost their jobs and weren’t retrained; whilst the UK now imports more coal than we have in years. Cuts to the NHS, because it was “wasteful spending” and produced a “dependency culture” emerged. We were all told that smaller government is better. We were all told that we didn’t have the money to pay the firemen, the NHS, the police, to fund better public education and make sure the poverty rate fell rapidly. For years we’ve been told that buying your house is the best investment you’ll ever make. When did a house cease being a home and become a money making venture?

But then, all of a sudden, we have £400bn to bail out the rich. Not only do they take that £400bn of public money, the bosses take six figure pensions whilst their employees lose their jobs and face losing their houses, the same houses that Conservatives get touchy about saving with tax payers money. I cannot help but echo John Stewart’s sentiments to the Conservative brigade who have no problem funding an illegal war, who have no problem funding the plight of the rich, who have no problem with corporate tax loopholes but who have severe issues with helping those less fortunate – “fuck you“.

Here’s to Warren Buffett, the richest man on the planet, who once said when asked about inequality in society…….
“If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.“

Thatcher

Why is Thatcher all over our TV screens tonight? Documentaries, dramas, and interviews. The woman was the devil. As the Guardian said of her legacy; “Greed seemed to replace compassion as a core value.”

Me and my dad just had a huge debate.

During the 1980s we ran a small shop. We relied on factory workers coming in at lunch time, for food. Slowly, after Thatcher got in, the factories closed down and our expenditure exceeded our income (£500 rent under Callaghan……. £1500 under Thatcher). Lawson insisted that we should buy the property (my dad had met Lawson and chatted with him many times) and that we’d benefit. And then interest rates shot up and in came the poll tax. We were literally fucked. We couldn’t afford to live. The Tories fucked us over. It was just us either. It was pretty much the entire North of England. Parts of the North still haven’t fully recovered.

She destroyed British manufacturing. For every 200 jobs at McDonalds created, another 300 car manufacturing jobs were lost. And when your country doesn’t make anything to sell, there really isn’t long that gravy train of easy money can last. And so, twenty five years later, we’re all in deep puddle of rancid recession…. which can be traced right the way back to Thatcherism. Back to my story….

That small shop was our livelihood, in a horribly rough area of Leicester. My mum went downstairs in the middle of the night one night, to find my dad crying… i’ve never seen my dad cry…. saying just how fucked we were. We had to give up the business, and we were homeless for a while, until my dads friend very kindly rented us one of his houses, very cheap, which we’re still in now.
There were thousands like us. Miners, industry workers, small family business owners making just enough to get by. Our problem was, we didn’t wear suits and work in offices. And so Thatcher punished us. She offered no retraining. She offered no support. She tore a Nation apart and made it richer in the superficial short term. She is responsible for where we are now. Inequality doubled under her, homelessness shot up, and human suffering became a largely ignored concept.
To then hear her say “The poor only have themselves to blame”, makes me, to this day, want to piss on her grave the moment she dies.

She made it ok for John Major, as Prime Minister in 1993 to say that the “Recession is over”. How short sighted and despicable. The recession wasn’t over for the three million unemployed under Thatcher, or the miners and industry workers who aren’t being retrained. The recession isn’t over now, when we still get letters demanding payment for items that we couldn’t sell, twenty years ago.

Every time a Republican over in America speaks, they echo the same sentiments Thatcher was ramming down our throats twenty five years ago. It failed. It was a mess of an ideology. It was a disaster. Come up with something new.

Now, we all voted Labour in 2005. In their manifesto they said they would not introduce University top up fees. They then introduced University top up fees. They then said we’d have a referendum on the EU constitution. They then didn’t bother. I also don’t remember them telling us we’d live under constant CCTV watch, but we have. My dad despises what Labour have become, but he insists he’d vote Labour to keep the Tories out. If we lived in a marginal seat between Tory and Liberal, he’d vote Liberal to keep the Tories out. Even though he’s a Labour supporter overall.

My point, was that I wouldn’t tactical vote. I’m Liberal Democrat, and so even if I know voting Liberal will some how let the Tories in, i’m still voting Liberal, because it’s principle. If I vote Labour instead, knowing it’ll keep the Tories out, but Labour get in, I have no right to complain when Labour lie even more, i’m giving them the mandate to lie and cheat. My Dad claims tactical voting is principled. I think otherwise. A principle is not interchangable.

Now maybe it depends whether your principle is with a particular party, or whether your principle is against a particular party. But in my opinion, you cannot be a Labour man, and then vote Liberal. However, the flaw in my thinking is in a scenario my dad put to me.
If your vote will decide the election. The Tories need one more seat to win the election, otherwise Labour have won, and you’re in a constituency that is either going Liberal Democrat or Tory, but you support Labour, who do you vote for? If you vote Labour, knowing they can’t win the seat, then the Tories will get power. So is tactical voting suddenly principled?
But then is voting Labour not principled? Because you know you now wont have power?
But then is voting Liberal also not principled, because you don’t support them in the first place?
Is there even a principled vote in that scenario?

It’s a difficult question for my weak, tired mind to comprehend the philosophy behind. Either way, as long as another selfish, community spirit killing, social destroying, education obliterating, Health Service murdering Thatcher doesn’t come along too soon, i’m happy.

The Labour Leadership

When President Sarkozy of France indicated that the VAT cut over here in Britain, had not worked, Downing Street released the statement…

“It is important to remember the context in which he was making the comments, which as I understand it, was a domestic debate on television about the way forward for the French economy and French proposals for an economic stimulus.”

I think they missed the point. They always appear to miss the point. I’m not quite sure that the context matters at all. If Sarkozy had said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a domestic debate about the French economy, or if he’d have said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a sensual bath with Gordon Brown himself, it means the same thing. Not only that, but he’s right. The VAT cut didn’t work. It didn’t go far enough. Especially given that most retailers had cut prices distinctively more than ever before anyway.

The German Chancellor has accused Britain and America of failing to understand and control under-regulated areas of the economy, which in turn has lead to this whole disaster. Like Sarkosy, the German Chancellor is right. It doesn’t matter how many times Brown refuses to acknowledge his role in this crises, nor does it matter how many times he says “It’s a global problem“, the recent poll numbers, putting the Tories at a 20 point lead suggest that the public just doesn’t buy into what he says.

So why then, is it being suggested that Brown may step down as Prime Minister, to head up a Global Financial Regulator body? Although he’s denied his interest in such an appointment, it must be tempting for him. He has endured 10 years as Britain’s Chancellor before taking over from Blair as Prime Minister in 1997. But that begs the question, if Brown has been in charge of the Economy for the ten years leading up to the biggest economic disaster in generations, in which a lot of blame can be placed directly at the door of the new Prime Minister, why does anyone think, of the billions of people that live on our wonderful planet, that he, above all others, is the right man for the job? Surely along with people like Alan Greenspan and George Bush, he’d be kept well away from any kind of financial responsibility? We do not need failed Brownomics. We do not need failed Thatcherite economic policies. We need something new; something that preaches social morality within the confines of the free market model.

Labour After Brown.

I do not ever want to see a Conservative Government in this Country again. The roots of the economic crises today, can be traced in an almost perfect line back to the years in which Thatcher beat it into an entire generation, that the free market could solve everything. It didn’t work, clearly.

However, the Tories will win the next general election. That’s now a given. And they wont win by a small majority either, they will command a significant majority. So the worry is, who is to lead the Labour Party if Gordon Brown were to step down to take on a Global Regulatory role, or when Labour lose the next general election?

The talk of Journalist town appears to suggest that Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman is gearing up for a leadership bid. Does Labour really lack the talent? This is a woman who once said “Yep “ when asked if Labour should apologise for the false intelligence of the Iraq war, and then a few nights later claimed she’d never said that and demanded evidence.
The same Harriet Harman who once said that she would happily go out at night in her town of Peckham and not fear for her safety, but then went out in a stab proof vest.
The same Harriet Harman, who quite disgustingly, tried to nullify the high court ruling that all MPs receipts should be published, by trying to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information act.
I would rather not vote at all, than be given a choice between Harriet Harman and David Cameron.

She certainly appears to be stepping up her profile recently, agreeing to speak at a ‘Womens Conference’ at the exact same time as the G20 meetings take place. She also started pushing for bank bonus caps recently, having kept relatively quiet for months. Is she trying to win over the support of the Labour left? According to politicalbetting.com, Harman is doing what Labour leaders do prior to an election and sucking up to the Unions. Politicalbetting asks if Harman is becoming our version of Palin…. I can safely say, yes she is, because she’s ridiculous, and useless all at the same time.

Harman certainly seems to be positioning herself one step above the competition, which would include David Miliband (my favourite as successor to Brown) and Alan Johnson, who really aren’t making any effort or publicity. In 2008, Miliband wrote an article in the Guardian about his vision for the future of the Labour Party. He doesn’t mention Gordon Brown’s involvement in that future once. He also suggests here… “The odds are against us, no question. But I still believe we can win the next election.”… That Labour has issues and must over come those odds. That issue, at that time, was Gordon Brown. Miliband looked set to offer an alternative to Brown. He ended up backing down. Perhaps that’s a weakness that should not be brought to the Prime Minister’s chair. He does however, attack the Tories, and David Cameron in particular. That isn’t what a Foreign Secretary does. It is however, what a man with big ambitions does. So perhaps the subtle hint at an ambitious future, was enough to start the ball rolling in 2008. He seems however, to have stayed quiet so far this time around, allowing Harman to get the publicity over a possible leadership contest.

For the sake of the Labour Party, let’s inject new blood into the system. Harman is not leadership material. She’s a typical Politician who cannot answer questions straight, and repeatedly contradicts herself, whether it be on her comments over a much needed apology for flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, or preaching how wonderfully safe the streets of London are, whilst herself strolling around in a stab proof vest; just stands to show she is in fact a disaster of a Leader-in-waiting.

The public do not like Harman. She has made too many PR mistakes to claw back any ounce of respect. And whilst I’d push for The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband as next Labour leader simply because he reflects my own Blairite tendencies whilst looking young and fresh enough to pose an adequate threat to Cameron’s Tories; why should we leave it to the Party itself to decide? Why can’t we have a real democratically elected leader through perhaps a Primary system as in America?

Because if Harman is given the top job, she doesn’t stand a chance against the fresh looking, but lacking fresh ideas; Cameron’s Tories.

The Darling pre-budget

I’m not quite sure what to make of the Chancellors pre-budget report. It seemed an obvious route to take. But it wasn’t quite as helpful as perhaps Labour tried to suggest it would be, to those families who need it most. It stunk horribly of “election coming up, let’s give away money!”
2.5% VAT cut, from 17.5% to 15% for the next year. I’m not sure how this will affect anything in particular. Whenever I go into a shop, given the current crisis, they’ve got a huge sale on. So surely, this wont make much of a difference. It wont be passed on to consumers, an extra 2.5% off consumer goods, it’ll just be added onto the sale price. It’s a lovely soundbite for an election, but nothing much else. Of course, the chancellor got a little bit cheeky with the VAT cut. The one place this could actually help struggling working families, was on fuel…. which is to see it’s duty raised.

£3billion in capital spending, will be taken from 2010/11, and used sooner rather than later, for building projects such as the building of new social housing, updating schools, and energy efficiency.

Pension credit increased from £124 to £130 a week for single people, and from £189 to £198 for couples, along with state pensions increasing in line with inflation.

£100,000,000 will be used to help insulate 60,000 homes to help cope with rising energy and gas prices.

Corporate tax will fall from 30% to 28%.

That’s pretty much the giveaway. To pay for the small percentage of this massive giveaway, a giveaway estimated by the chancellor, to the shock of the British public, who now know just how much shit we truly are in, to be in the region of £118Bn in borrowing. A record high, the Chancellor has introduced a new tax band. 45% for those earning £150,000 or more. Rightfully so. However, we’re all being taxed higher, on National Insurance, which George Osbourne, quite rightfully called “Another income tax in all but name”. NI will increase 0.5%, which renders the VAT cut, virtually useless.
I welcome increase in state pensions, I welcome the increase in child benefit, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable of the Government to try to help those who need it the most, especially with the permanent extension of the personal tax allowance by £130, helping those affected horribly by the ridiculous idea of scraping the 10p tax band last year. But as previously stated, it doesn’t help enough. It almost hides behind the idea of helping, whilst taking away at the same time. No doubt some people will now be better placed, who may have suffered heavily otherwise. But what about in the future? What about when our national debt is close to £1trillion? What then?

It’s a huge gamble that i’m not sure will pay off. It’s the equivilant of maxing out two credit cards, and then taking out another credit card in the hope that in two or three years time, you’ll have a decent enough job to pay it all back. It’s that huge a gamble. But somehow, it seems necessary. People must come before money. Otherwise compassion dies.

If anything, this pre-budget has achieved a distinction between the two main parties. Two parties that have been fighting for centre ground for years. A distinction that may indeed pose problems for the economy, whichever side of the fence you sit, but may also help to increase voter participation at the next General Election. There is now quickly becoming a clear choice between the two.

Labour, now moving back to the left, taxing the rich to help the poor, spending, borrowing, investing in public services; a move the Labour party has been restrained from doing for years. The death of New Labour, and the rebirth of Old Labour maybe. Hundreds of thousands of people will be better placed to deal with the recession, than they would under the Tories, in the short term, but future tax hikes may hit them hard in the future.

The Tories, by comparison are moving back to the Right. Hiding behind the Thatcherite concept of “just leave it be”. The Tories are offering, basically, nothing. One top Tory even going so far as to say “Recessions aren’t always a bad thing for us”. Hundreds of thousands of people would be worse off in the short term than they would be under Labour, many more would lose their homes and their jobs, but would be perhaps better placed in the future.

Either way, both ideologies clearly have supreme flaws. Right Wing economic policy appears to create a greed culture, leading to problems like Sub Prime lending, which leads to recession. Labour then try to help get out of recession, by going deeper into debt, and gambling with the Countries finances. Both ideologies and their followers, seem to have no idea what they’re doing. Both policies, are ultimately, failures. We need a new middle ground, maybe building on Keynes. Otherwise, we’re just going to be going backward and forward and backward again, for years to come, regardless of the Government.

The Cameron and Osbourne Show

A lot can happen in Politics in a year. Back in August 2007, Blair had resigned, and Brown had taken over control of Labour and the Country. Labour were suddenly at their most popular since 2002, ten points ahead of David Cameron’s Conservatives.

Then, within about three months, Brown had made a mess of the PR surrounding the call of an election, he let it go on and on, and people became disillusioned. Cameron went green. Suddenly riding his bike anywhere that a Photographer happened to be, cleverly disguising the fact that his suit was being driven to Parliament by limo. The Tories shot up in the polls. Labour plummeted.
Then, Labour’s biggest mistake since Brown took office, the talk of abolishing the 10p tax band, meaning the poor would be massively hit with tax rises. The poor, being Labours key demographic, suddenly destroyed in one foul swoop. Of course the rise in commodity prices hasn’t helped Labour in the slightest. The knowledge that whilst Brown is pushing Opec countries to increase Oil supply to help lower prices, he’s also rather hypocritically charging the British Public a huge 63% tax rate on fuel. And so the downfall of Gordon Brown continued.
Jacqui Smith then suggested that we have no reason to fear going out late at night on her own, because she does the very same thing and feels perfectly safe……….the picture then emerged of her at a kebab shop, with two security guards. Another blow to confidence in Labour, albeit a smaller one.
There was talk of a leadership contest, that Labour backbenchers had had enough of Brown. David Miliband constantly being asked if he would stand for leadership, adding to not only the public disillusionment with Brown, but also exposing his leadership as a weakness.

The Tories didn’t need to say a thing, Labour were the best advert for a Conservative government.

And then the Credit Crunch happened. The Tories had the perfect opportunity. Blame Brown for the fact that he’s been Chancellor for ten years. He should have seen this coming. But instead, Brown seems to be the only one who can weather us through this financial storm. Labour are now, according to The Times, up 5 points since the Glenrothes by-election, on 36%, with the Tories down to 41%, a loss of 4%. Labour are closing the gap. Why? Why the sudden interest in Labour, and why the losing of faith in the Tories?

Well, I think it stems fully from the Tories economic policy. Labour are offering tax cuts whilst spending more. Cameron attacks this as dangerous. Claiming the national deficit this policy would leave, would mean huge tax rises in the future. Fair point. However, Labour have decreased the debt from 42% under the last Tory government to 36%, so we’re actually much better placed now.

With the Tories effectively doing nothing, offering no tax cuts, when hard pressed families really do need it, offering no extra spending in places like the winter fuel allowance, to pensioners who will struggle the most this winter, the Tories are proving that for all their talk of change, for all their rhetoric around moving from the right of the political spectrum to the centre-right, they will always retreat back to Thatcherite economics the moment the climate gets tough. But it wont do this time.
George Osbourne’s seemingly desperate attraction to the free market, to low spending, relying heavily on interest rates, is twenty years out of date. Everything is different now. The Tories cannot hang on to out dated ideologies if they want to win the next election. It isn’t the time for them to be moving further to the right. If anything, they need to be much more firmly in the centre, if they are to gain the trust of the majority of Brits feeling the effect of the credit crunch.

63% of people surveyed by The Times favoured tax cuts. 73% favoured increased public spending. Cameron cannot ignore that. Osbourne cannot ignore that. They cannot just ignore their way through a recession when the very people that the Tories need to be voting for them come the next election, will be the same people they ignored during the financial crisis. It seems the strong, tight relationship, that impressed the majority of us, even on the left of the political scale, between Cameron and Osbourne is slowly crumbling.