Re: How's the UK doing? : Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:59 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

I don't disagree, the enrichment of his class is the aim and he knows (if he paid attention in the economics lectures) that unemployment, underemployment and inequality are necessary to that task. and he must also know that the widening gap of inequality leads to a stagnant economy.
His party is not called Conservative for nothing, they regard the money in the economy as theirs by right and they are going to damn well conserve it.

The very fact that he (apparently deliberately) is not growing the economy tells us what?
IMHO it tells us that he is more concerned about "his" economy (i.e. the economy that benefits his own small section of society) than he is about the National economy and the well-being of the Nation as a whole.

Back in the days of supposed "full employment" of the 50's, 60's and 70's, people were more difficult to subdue and pay rises were difficult to control ... inflation became the biggest bugbear for successive governments.
Business was desperate to take control and wanted a government that would allow capital to rule, would allow unemployment to rise and would make unemployment even harder to endure, thereby making the working population just glad to have a job.
In 1979, they got that government and we now see the continuation of that neolib drive.
To this government, people are merely machines to use and discard and never mind the human cost.

Yet still the myth of the classless society persists.

We are pretty much back in the 20's and 30's and heading rapidly for the 1800's.

Completely agree. Although on the 'where we're headed', I do sometimes wonder if it isn't something more akin to 1933.

Re: How's the UK doing? : Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:29 am  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

We're all in it together was the phrase a few years ago from Osborne ( IIRC ) but it's a big, fat lie.

He managed to slip it in to his speech yesterday

Re: How's the UK doing? : Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:44 am  

cod'ead wrote:

He managed to slip it in to his speech yesterday

Well, we all have a £4m trust fund like his don't we?

Re: How's the UK doing? : Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:12 pm  

DaveO wrote:

The minimum wage graph is wrong and also misleading anyway.

At today's exchange rates $10.00 = £6.53.

Minimum wage is £6.31 and that is for 21 years and older.

18-20 is £5.03 and under 18 is £3.72.

So at best we are "light blue" but considering the graphs relate to children's chances it's rather disingenuous to base it on the over 21 adult wage.

Makes you wonder what else slipped through...

If you re-read it you'll see that it's talking about daily unemployment benefits not hourly minimum wage. Its also in PPP dollars not US dollars so the exchange rate is irrelevant.

Re: How's the UK doing? : Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:06 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I don't disagree, the enrichment of his class is the aim and he knows (if he paid attention in the economics lectures) that unemployment, underemployment and inequality are necessary to that task. and he must also know that the widening gap of inequality leads to a stagnant economy.
His party is not called Conservative for nothing, they regard the money in the economy as theirs by right and they are going to damn well conserve it.

The very fact that he (apparently deliberately) is not growing the economy tells us what?

IMHO it tells us that he is more concerned about "his" economy (i.e. the economy that benefits his own small section of society) than he is about the National economy and the well-being of the Nation as a whole.

No. It tells us he does not control our economy. Or at least not in the same way the Disraeli government controlled the economy a century or so ago.

Britain is a client state. Not like Nigeria or Jamaica but our relationship to the United States bears a striking resemblance to the one which existed between the Greek territories and the Roman Empire.

Yes, we have a certain degree of freedom to allocate funding. But we DO NOT have the freedom to deviate in any substantial way from the neo-liberal economic framework, nationalise or subsidize industries, plough huge sums into public spending, raise trade tarriffs etc. without attracting the ire of Washington.

The last European nation which attempted to exercise such freedom was Yugoslavia. This government, like every government within the EU (and beyond), is only too aware of this fact. Which is why, in countries like Greece and Cyprus, they have steadfastly refused to bow to public pressure (to the point where they have rendered themselves unelectable for a century) and kick out the IMF. Crippling debt is one thing. Being crippled by the mob boss and his squadron of B2 stealth bombers is something else entirely.

I should clarify the above by saying whilst the US currently sets the global economic agenda (and punishes transgressors) - it increasingly does so in the service of big business. Which means all but the top 1% of Americans are being squeezed much in the same way we are. Of course, Obama isn't in the same position as Cameron. But he takes his orders nontheless - and the power of his office diminishes as each new incumbent arrives.

The truth is we are now in the penultimate stages of a radical overhaul of the global economy (created in response to the threat of democratic reform at the end of the sixties) which will render the traditional concepts of nation state, sovereign rights etc., redundant in all but name. Whilst the Guardianistas and such congratulated themselves on their perspicacity big business pulled off a strategic blitzkrieg - effectively neutering the entire democratic process - on a global scale. From now on public policy will increasingly be a function of trans-national capital. If, by chance, we do stir ourselves to protest - what actions can our elected representatives take when exceeding their margin for free action attracts greater retribution? And should we "protest" in those very ways which clawed from the cold dead hand of business an end to slavery, child labour, the creation of state benefits etc. - "our" government will be only too quick to make use of the millions we are currently investing in "counter-terror", "urban pacification" - not to mention the very same forms of electronic surveillance we are constantly assured are in our best interests.

The "End of History" indeed.

Re: How's the UK doing? : Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:10 am  

Rollerball was not that far fetched then it would appear!

Re: How's the UK doing? : Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:40 pm  

Leaguefan wrote:

Rollerball was not that far fetched then it would appear!

Or 1984, written as a warning but looking more like a prediction.

Re: How's the UK doing? : Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:51 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Or 1984, written as a warning but looking more like a prediction.

Since Blair, politicians in power seem to view it as an instruction manual

Re: How's the UK doing? : Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:15 pm  

Last weekend I helped Emma clear her late grandmother's house. During the clearance, I managed to acquire a framed print of George Cruikshank's "Tremendous Sacrifice". Good to see that buggerall has changed since 1846.

Re: How's the UK doing? : Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:48 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I don't disagree, the enrichment of his class is the aim and he knows (if he paid attention in the economics lectures) that unemployment, underemployment and inequality are necessary to that task. and he must also know that the widening gap of inequality leads to a stagnant economy.
His party is not called Conservative for nothing, they regard the money in the economy as theirs by right and they are going to damn well conserve it.

The very fact that he (apparently deliberately) is not growing the economy tells us what?
IMHO it tells us that he is more concerned about "his" economy (i.e. the economy that benefits his own small section of society) than he is about the National economy and the well-being of the Nation as a whole.

Back in the days of supposed "full employment" of the 50's, 60's and 70's, people were more difficult to subdue and pay rises were difficult to control ... inflation became the biggest bugbear for successive governments.
Business was desperate to take control and wanted a government that would allow capital to rule, would allow unemployment to rise and would make unemployment even harder to endure, thereby making the working population just glad to have a job.
In 1979, they got that government and we now see the continuation of that neolib drive.
To this government, people are merely machines to use and discard and never mind the human cost.

Yet still the myth of the classless society persists.

We are pretty much back in the 20's and 30's and heading rapidly for the 1800's.

What a huge over reaction - when we see 10 year olds working in factories we will back in the 1800's. One of the big issues in the 50-70s was the huge size of the public sector and the power of the trade unions in those industries. Thankfully both of these factors are nowhere near as disruptive as they were.

This government is the poorest we have had in my lifetime but to compare employment conditions or job retention to the likes of the 20/30s and the general strike is simply not credible.

Times are very hard and Capitalism is at a cross roads - not sure the levels of debt that almost everyone has is sustainable long term. Unfortunately it is the only game in town, everything else has spectacularly failed to deliver anything close to what Capitalsim offers.