Neoliberalism: The tyranny of Big Business, under the mask of “Freedom“.

I have always wondered how the very fortunate manage to convince the very unfortunate that perpetuating that system is to everyone’s benefit. Thatcher managed to convince a mass of people that the Unions were evil, and were strangling the Country. She killed off the Unions, and bosses began the biggest exploitation effort since the 19th Century. Jobs shipped abroad daily, wages kept lower than ever before, and homes repossessed with the homeless rate doubling. How were people convinced that that was a good thing for the Country? Northern England still hasn’t recovered from what she did. It would seem that if you add the words “freedom” and “giving power to the people” to the end of a speech that is essentially going to destroy those people, you will have convinced them.

One has to wonder, if this was a people power thing, why not mention it during the run up to the election. Such a social and class engineering project doesn’t come into being over night, it takes years of planning. They knew this would be the case. So why not mention it, if it’s so great? I’d suggest because if a political party was to suggest privatisation of the NHS and the public services, before an election, they would be so massively unelectable, they would have no MPs left. So, the answer is to manipulate a population into voting for you, and then systematically destroy their life.

The fact remains, no one has given the Tories a mandate to do this. They did not win the election. More people voted for a slower reduction of the deficit, and less cuts. More people voted centre and centre-left political parties, than who voted for the Tories. Economically, if not socially, the Tories have no democratic right to be doing what they are proposing to do.

Any time mass privatisation is suggested, the phrases “more power to the people” and “freedom” are banded about. I am always very suspicious of this, because it never quite turns out that way. It was “freedom” that drove Thatcher to privatise British Gas and the railways. British Gas is now run by one CEO who rises prices in line with an increase in oil prices, but then when the oil price lowers, he keeps British Gas prices high, raking in massive profits. For charging customers obscene amounts of money for no legitimate reason, boss of Centrica (which runs British Gas) was Knighted for “services to business“. The Chief Exec, Sam Laidlaw (who went to Eton, unsurprisingly) increased the cost of gas for consumers by 35% in 2006, for no reason whatsoever, and made record profits, when asked about it, he answered “Well, I am not about to apologise for making a healthy profit“. FOR THE PEOPLE!!

One wonders how long they can keep blaming Labour, given that unemployment and the deficit were shrinking in May 2010. They’re now both on the rise.

David Cameron does not have the mandate to be privatising the entire public sector. And yet, in the Telegraph today, he shamefully used his dead son as justification for the most worrying of plans I’ve yet to hear him say:

And though I was always so grateful for the tremendous care my eldest son received, I never understood why local authorities had more control over the budget for his care than Samantha and I did.

I never understand why my boss, where ever I choose to work, has the right to be as rude and obnoxious and speak down to us as he so wishes. But apparently that’s “freedom“. What a wretched freedom it is. Allowing business the freedom to dictate terms and conditions for its workers, with absolutely no balance, is not freedom. Replacing democratic oversight with a dictatorial boss whose only objective is to make more money, is not freedom.

I would never use a dead relative to promote a political agenda. He should say it like it is; Cameron and Osborne are Libertarians. It is why there is a mass of tax cuts for the very wealthy whilst the public sector is being gutted. It is why the banks are not being hit. It is why he is demolishing the NHS and the public sector as a whole. It is something beyond scary.

“Instead of having to justify why it makes sense to introduce competition in individual public services – as we are now doing with schools and in the NHS – the state will have to justify why it should ever operate a monopoly.”

What the hell? Damn right you should have to justify privatisation, logically because you are changing the system. You have to justify why you are changing the system. But mainly, because it has never fucking worked as promised in the past. The Tories privatised the railways, and now no one can afford to go anywhere. The Tories sold off the Council Houses, effectively entirely privatising the housing system, and now no one can afford homes. The Tories privatised electricity, and now old people die because they cannot afford to heat their homes in winter. So damn right you have to justify why you are handing even power to big business. FOR THE PEOPLE!!

One of the most worrying aspects of these proposals, is that the White Paper will lay out plans to make the proposals irreversible. Cameron said the Government would:

“make it impossible for Government to return to the bad old days of the standard state monopoly”

It is an ideological attack. It is Social engineering on a grand scale. Because those of us on the Left would argue that the bad days, especially where British Gas and the railways are concerned, and looking at the private health service in America; revolves around the private sector. It has to be resisted. By making this right wing plan irreversible, he is ironically presiding over the biggest Government in decades, because he is forcing Right Winged tyranny on those of us who oppose it completely. He is effectively banning the Left Wing. What if the Labour government had given more power to the Unions, and made it irreversible? Surely we’d be hearing how Orwellian that actually is?

What if recession hits again. Which it will. It means that the only legal response, would be to do nothing. Keynesian economics would be entirely banned. What basis do they have to ban it?

The difference is, the power. The Unions represent hundreds of thousands if not millions of ordinary people. Their power is legitimate, if we are talking about giving power to ordinary people. Syndicalism, is not a bad idea. Giving power to a very narrow set of businessmen is not, and could never be considered the height of human freedom.

It amazes me that we have got to a position where we are being convinced en masse, that privatisation is “handing power back to the people“. It is such a falsity that it is almost funny. When we elect a politician, we know their face, we know their name, and if we don’t like them, we vote them out. By privatising the public sector, they are practically selling democracy to the man with the most money and calling it “power to the people“. We are getting to the stage where local representatives cannot do a thing, because their power is being handed to faceless businessmen, who we do not see, ever, never mind elect. Corporations act as little Stalinist States, where money is forced upwards, from the bottom. Those at the very top are always going to want more. Those at the bottom are always going to be squeezed for as much productivity and as little money as possible. We are therefore ruled by a Stock Market system, that relies on very very dodgy deals that have no social benefit whatsoever. Has it enriched our lives thus far? Longer working hours, ever more slimy bosses with a deluded sense of superiority? Stagnating wages with no real chance of an increase? Unions unable to exercise any power? An out of control financial sector? No housing? Gas and electricity more expensive than ever before? Less job security and more worry than ever before? I have argued previously that Democracy and Capitalism are entirely incompatible. This proves it. We are not a Democracy. We are wholly run and controlled by the power of big business. FOR THE PEOPLE!!

Orwell’s worry about an overbearing Government should not come to symbolise just the abstract concept of a State. Corporations are just as dangerous.

There is a reason why the Public and Private sectors are separate. They have different values. Profit seeking should never place itself in the public sector.

It took a Labour backbencher, Labour MP Chuka Umunna, to force Barclays to admit that it had only paid 1% Corporation Tax in 2009, even though it made profits of £11.9bn. That is absolutely obscene and completely unjustifiable. Unless you’re a Tory, obviously. Bob Diamond, the CEO of Barclays told the Treasury Select Committee that Barclays paid £2bn in taxes in 2009. It turns out he was very misleading, because those taxes are payroll taxes and its employees National Insurance. It paid just 1% Corporation Tax. It is paying bonuses worth £3bn. FOR THE PEOPLE!!

If that wasn’t enough, Barclays (remember, the tax it saves, is obviously for our benefit, for the people!) helps to fund Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe. It lent £750mn to Zimbabwean officials who had siezed land from White farmers, in 2007 alone, in order to “boost farm production“. Didymus Mutasa, the National Security Minister of Zimbabwe got a large chunk of Barclays money, even though he masterminded the ousting of white farmers….. who were left homeless. Mugabe has three farms, that he was able to take over, thanks to the funds from Barclays. FOR THE PEOPLE!!

If you’re disabled, tough. If you’re a child in a low socio-economic area, tough. If you want a borrow a book from a library, tough, it’s closed, fuck off. If you’re the CEO of a tax avoiding, corrupt regime propping up Bank…. great, have a bonus! FOR THE PEOPLE!!

So that begs the question, why is David Cameron focusing purely on the public sector? The public sector did not fail to the extent that he is suggesting. The public sector didn’t cause the biggest financial crises we’ve ever seen. The private sector has failed miserably, far far worse than the public sector could ever imagine. The private sector created a culture of short term gain at the expense of long term stability. It gave everyone credit cards to artificially inflate demand, to keep wages at the very top getting higher and higher whilst (unsurprisingly) wages for the rest of us stagnated. It is the reason that my boss can keep us on minimum wage, and squeeze extra work out of us, without ever offering a pay rise, and talking to us as if we are socially inferior. It is a class system. The neoliberal system. And it doesn’t work. It is a hopeless, dire, miserable little system.

David Cameron is focusing purely on the public sector, because like all Tories, he is unable to recognise the absolute failure of the Private Sector, and instead focuses all his energy on attacking the public sector. He constantly mentions benefit fraud, as do most Tory supporters. People cheating benefits is their big gripe. Yet it costs just £900mn a year. Corporate Tax avoidance (like Barclays) cost us £25bn. Get your fucking priorities in order.

I am unsure how the Liberal Democrats can continue to let this happen. They have no shame. If they keep referring to themselves as Progressives, it is going to be the main source of ridicule politically for years. Freedom, for a left of centre party, should never mean the freedom for big business and a class of business elites, to control every inch of our lives.

I hope to God that one day humanity opens its collective eyes to the absolute abuses of this horrendous right winged economic system we are force fed. It is not here to work for you and I. It is here to work for a very narrow wealthy elite.

I smell Class War.

The Unions, the Student movement, UK Uncut, and anyone who relies on public services, and anyone who hasn’t got an essential part of their soul missing, should fight back. The last thing this Country needs, is Cameronism. I give it a month before England has its name changed to McEngland, or Nike Air England.

Thatcherism and its supporters like to boast that they beat the dragon of Socialism. The Country and the World will never be truly free until it has immunised itself from the disease of Neoliberalism.

Neoliberal Democracy: Of the rich, for the rich, by the rich.

5 Responses to Cameronism

  1. Charles says:

    The tory party makes out that everything that is evil is left-wing…

    “I have some history with this issue and I simply cannot understand why any conservative would even be remotely associated with the BNP; it is a protectionist, bigoted party that has its roots firmly planted on the far left of the political spectrum. ”

    The Left-wing BNP could cost Labour seats at the general election

    Look at the first comment.. and I quote.

    “I agree with Eusebius. Much of our current dilemma is caused by the moral degeneracy of what used to be called the ‘working’ class. With high illegitimacy rates, girls with babies by several fathers, no consistent parenting, poor nutritional standards, welfare dependency – what on earth are we to do with our inner cities ? I fear that much of this may be due to the social laissez faire attitudes of the Thatcher period and later. We need strong national values, civic pride, a work ethic, a moral backbone.
    We have no backbone for the country, politicians are weak, corrupt, selfish and small minded. We need people with a national vision who will deal both with the banking and corporate carpet baggers and those who will not work. It may be a start to see that our teachers are not only highly educated but have the values and standards which do so well for the armed forces. ”

    Note:- The porblems where mainly claused by “moral degeneracy of what used to be called the ‘working’ class.” Sounds very tory party to me but what happens if we look at the “welfare dependency”, and morally of this working class, will we get a different picture?

    Billions in benefits go unclaimed
    “Up to £10.5bn in income-related benefits went unclaimed in Britain in 2007-8, government figures reveal.”

    “Unclaimed funds from the five benefits was between £6.3bn and £10.5bn, or 15% to 23% of all entitlement money.”

    “It believes that people do not claim because they are not aware of the benefit, they do not believe they are entitled to it, they are confused by the complexity of the system, or they don’t want to take “handouts”.”

    The benefit dependency is starting to look thin on the ground.

    IDS finally admits over-stating benefit fraud

    “while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure.” Yes thats less than a “sodding measly barely perceptible little per cent.” Benefit fraud the problem that never existened.

    Minister apologises over benefit fraud claims

    “the government recognises that the vast majority of benefit recipients are genuinely entitled to the financial support they receive”

    It does, however, fit a pattern of DWP ministers making inaccurate claims to support their arguments, such as when Iain Duncan Smith claimed that statistics about housing benefit came from the Office of National Statistics, when in fact they came from a property website owned by the Daily Mail.

    “There are also “serious deficiencies” in the way that the DWP uses statistics.

    Lord Freud states he has “asked his officials to take corrective action”. Has anyone heard public announcements correcting and explaining the figures? Have governmental websites been modified?”

    This seems like a campain of hate or is it?

    MPs attack ‘cruel’ and ‘crude’ DLA plans

    “MPs have attacked the government’s “crude, cruel” plans to remove a key disability benefit from most disabled people in residential homes.” Remember these people are work shy and should not be on benefits. What effect has this had on the disabled?

    Recorded hate crime nearly doubles in one year

    “Recorded levels of disability hate crime have almost doubled in one year, according to new police figures.”

    The working class seem very moral but there does seems to be a campain of hate against the poorer members of society and the disabled based on twisting the facts.

    Lets look at the richer members of or bankers/politicians.

    The rich call it tax planning – but I call it a big fat fraud

    “A league table which ranks countries according to the honesty of their politicians and public ­officials places the UK way down at 20, below Qatar.

    Our reputation has steadily plummeted over the past few years, the result of the MPs’ expenses scandal and the halting of several corruption investigations. New laws to stamp out bribery payments to individuals and businesses abroad still haven’t come into force.”

    Lacking in honesty.

    “In 2008, Tax Research estimated that wealthy individuals and companies based in the UK were avoiding paying £25 billion tax a year by using legal loopholes such as moving accounts overseas to countries where tax is paid at a lower rate.”


    Won’t pay their fare share of tax.

    Only one in six of UK’s richest men is paying any income tax

    “Freedom of Information requests revealed that, of the more than 400 UK-based individuals who earn or are capable of earning more than £10million a year, only 65 filled in a tax return in 2004-05. ”

    Or just won’t pay income tax at all.

    The rich are more likely to endorse self-interested business decisions (profit maximization), even at the expense of others. They are selfish.

    “Exposure to luxury goods may activate a social norm that it is appropriate to pursue interests beyond a basic comfort level, even at the expense of others. It may be this activated social norm that affects people’s judgment and decision-making.

    Alternatively, exposure to luxury may directly increase people’s personal desire, causing them to focus on their own benefits such as prioritizing profits over social responsibilities.”

    The Devil Wears Prada? Effects of Exposure to Luxury Goods on Cognition and Decision Making

    “The moral depravity of finance”

    Fraud is the problem.

    Joseph Stiglitz – “Market Fundamentalism Is Dead”

    Free market ideology does not work.

    Joseph Stiglitz: Smith’s “Invisible Hand” a Myth?

    Markets are not better.

    Much of our current dilemma is caused by the moral degeneracy of the rich and the ideology used by parties like the tory party. If markets are not better why attack the public sevtor, who needs it the most? The simple answer is the poor need it, with big society tax money can be used for your own area.

    “If taken to their logical conclusion, these policies mean that affluent neighbourhoods can have all the amenities they want, the best living environment, the best services, without having to share their council tax payments with the poorer people down the road. Less fortunate areas will fester for lack of cash. Then, when they do, this can be portrayed as their own choice and their own failure. “So you couldn’t pay for it?” the voices will say: “Then why didn’t you just volunteer like we suggested?””

    So this is an attack on the poor as well. The reason behind this can be simplely covered by this song.

  2. LYNDA DAY says:

    Labour were the biggest theives that walked this planet.
    Go and read back papers so you understand exactly what the Labour did to destroy this country. E.G sold all the gold reserves off – enough to get the country out of recession now. How Prescott’s sons had all the building work that should have been put out to tender. (now millionaires) Open borders so the immigration bill was billions not millions. Mortgages that were paid on mansions in Scotland etc. The list is endless !!!!

  3. Open borders are essential to a Capitalist Nation. Immigration is caused by Global inequality. If we are letting goods and capital flow over our borders unhindered, then to block of the supply of labour, just to please a few bigoted idiots, is going to do nothing but perpetuate the situation.
    The Tories, let’s not forget, sold off everything in the 1980s. British Gas. How did that turn out? British Rail. A ticket from Leicester to Wolves (about an hour and a half) costs £30. Rip off. The council houses. No one can afford a home now. They then, and in fact now, are involved in the biggest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top, ever. They did this by recognising that there was still money left at the bottom, and so deregulated the financial industry, which then gave everyone credit cards and easy credit. How wonderful.
    Tories aren’t thieves. Labour aren’t thieves. Neoliberalism is the thief.

  4. Charles says:

    Revealed: how the City bankrolls Tory party

    “Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, an authority on political party funding from the University of Liverpool, said: “The findings raise issues about how influenced and impartial the Conservatives are as they set about reforming and regulating the banking industry.

    “It is admittedly difficult to prove that because parties access money from specific sources there is a feed-through into the policies they adopt.

    “Yet, given that we have just experienced a blow-out in the financial system, and are witnessing an ongoing struggle over its regulation, the scale of Conservative Party funding from the City must be an issue – not least for a party committed to ‘taking big money out of politics’. This is a very important piece of work.””

    Tories auction off City internships to raise funds

    “The Conservative Party banned the press from its Black and White Party (it used to be a “ball”), but that hasn’t stopped the news leaking that it raised funds there by auctioning work experience opportunities with banks and hedge funds.

    The Mail on Sunday reports that lots at the £400-a-head party included five internships at City firms, which raised £14,000 in all. The Labour MP Tom Watson told the Mail: “This is a crass example of rich Tories buying privilege. Most young people could only dream of this opportunity. The Conservatives flog them like baubles and fill their coffers with the profits. It is obscene.””

    Tories seem very close to the problem… but new Labour is just as bad.

    “In ‘On Fairness’, we see Osbourne as transparently neoliberal. Osbourne cites the father of neoliberalism, Hayek, and repeats the classic neoliberal argument regarding the information processing capacity of markets to distribute goods fairly, a sophisticated technological version of the invisible hand argument.”

    See Joseph Stiglitz: Smith’s “Invisible Hand” a Myth above.

    “”The Shadow Chancellor states a paraphrased version of Hayek’s ‘problem of knowledge’ argument in favour of markets, talking of the ‘asymmetry of information between the market and the state’ which explains why state planning is prima facie flawed.””

    Information asymmetry in markets

    “Before the advent of models of imperfect and asymmetric information, the traditional neoclassical economics literature had assumed that markets are efficient except for some limited and well defined market failures. More recent work by Stiglitz and others reversed that presumption, to assert that it is only under exceptional circumstances that markets are efficient. Stiglitz has shown (together with Bruce Greenwald) that “whenever markets are incomplete and/or information is imperfect (which are true in virtually all economies), even competitive market allocation is not constrained Pareto efficient”. In other words, they addressed “the problem of determining when tax interventions are Pareto-improving. The approach indicates that such tax interventions almost always exist and that equilibria in situations of imperfect information are rarely constrained Pareto optima.”:229, abstract Although these conclusions and the pervasiveness of market failures do not necessarily warrant the state intervening broadly in the economy, it makes clear that the “optimal” range of government recommendable interventions is definitely much larger than the traditional “market failure” school recognizes. For Stiglitz there is no such thing as an “invisible hand”. According to Stiglitz:

    Whenever there are “externalities”—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always.

    The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government. Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance will differ from time to time and place to place.

    In the opening remarks for his prize acceptance “Aula Magna”, Stiglitz said:

    I hope to show that Information Economics represents a fundamental change in the prevailing paradigm within economics. Problems of information are central to understanding not only market economics but also political economy, and in the last section of this lecture, I explore some of the implications of information imperfections for political processes.

    In an interview in 2007, Stiglitz explained further:

    The theories that I (and others) helped develop explained why unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even produce efficient outcomes. Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: individuals and firms, in the pursuit of their self-interest, are not necessarily, or in general, led as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency.”

    “Of course, the Tories project is neoliberal through and through.” Big society..

    Red Tory: The Ghosts of Neoliberalism

    And the government we have at the moment..

    “For this reason, it is a genuine fear that an alliance will result not in a tempering of the neoliberal strands of the Conservative party, but rather an amplification of the worse neoliberal elements in both parties.

    Those elements which the Liberals and Tories agree on, even if restricted only to a ‘confidence arrangement’, will result only in savage cuts and a further extension of the unjust, unequal neoliberal nightmare.”

    A Con-Lib alliance would push us further into neo-liberalism

    Neo-liberalism is the problem, the tory party seeem follow it blindly but like any good disease, it infects everything. No party is free from it grip.

    Why Neo-liberalism wants us to cut and not tax?

    “Taxes are always bad, and the effect of them is pushed to an absurd level, exaggerated out of all proportion.”

    The whole tory party argument for cuts is prue crap based on a unacceptable bias against taxes, the state and the delusion that unfettered markets produce efficient outcomes.

  5. As long the middle class needs an underclass to finger point down and spit on, to reaffirm the own fragile up climbing worth, the worse abusive elites they hope to collect some crumbles from, will survived easy!

    No holocaust, no dictature would be possible without their zealot pleasing system control obsession.

    And they will be the last to understand that the merry go round of the 3 parties, same lobby puppets …is NOT democracy!
    Base participative democracy is a horror to this wannabe s.They hate citizen maturity replacing their go between false importance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: