Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:26 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Why austerity is forever
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Why austerity is forever
Posted on June 26, 2013 by Rev. Stuart Campbell

I’m going to do something I only do rarely and write this post in the personal pronoun, because it’s very much a personal view rather than an attempt to speak for a wider section of the independence movement. But although it’s been forming for a while, it was finally triggered by an Ian Bell comment piece in the Herald today.

You should read it all, but the key paragraph is this one:

    “You have to pause, then, and ask yourself why policies that have failed for three long years cause barely a whisper of argument in Westminster. The only sensible inference, surely, is that what looks like failure to some is a very satisfactory state of affairs to others.”

That simple, understated last sentence cuts to the very heart of why Scots will stand at the edge of a terrible abyss in September 2014, with a herd of buffalo stampeding towards them, and seriously consider NOT grasping at the rope ladder dangling from the last helicopter offering to carry them safely away from the cliff edge.

It’s one of the great ironies of humanity that we so eagerly subvert and undermine our own beliefs. World War 1 was supposed to be “the war to end all wars”, but just 20 years after the appalling carnage of trench warfare we forgot the supposed lesson and plunged back into another pan-global conflict, this one even wider-ranging and four times as catastrophic.

And did we learn any better the second time? We pretend that we did, making serious, brilliant documentaries like “The Nazis – A Warning From History”, examining in the greatest detail how the war came about so that we can recognise the symptoms in future and prevent it from happening again. But what do we do then? We invent Godwin’s Law, a means by which anyone who actually points out those symptoms can be derided and dismissed.

(Or to be more accurate, a misinterpretation of Godwin’s Law. The law itself only states that at some point any debate will eventually mention Hitler, but has been twisted by the witless herdmind into the assertion that the person who does so has automatically lost the argument. As wilfully stupid blindness goes, it’s hard to beat.)

Something similar is happening right now in British politics. The evidence that austerity is a totally counter-productive “solution” to economic crisis is so overwhelming in both quantity and quality that it’s hardly worth linking to any specific studies, because it requires no great or specialised intellect to see that impoverishing the people who actually spend most of the money in an economy cannot possibly lead to growth – it’s staggeringly obvious common sense that a child, or the IMF, could understand.

Why, then, does our political system comprise just two electable parties, both offering the same disastrous policies, stretching years into the future? Partly, of course, that’s a function of an electoral system which invariably creates two-party states where the “opponents” are in fact barely distinguishable.

But there’s also another, far more chilling possibility – one hinted at by Ian Bell, and explored in stark detail in a cultural document which suffers from its own brand of the “Godwin’s Law” curse.

In this writer’s view, George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is the most important book ever written, certainly about politics and certainly in the UK. It’s a short book, and the crucial part is shorter still, amounting to barely 100 pages.

(Most of the text preceding – SPOILER ALERT! – Winston’s arrest is just scene-setting and human interest, apart from the extracts from Goldstein’s book which appear towards the end of the second act. Those, his conversations with O’Brien and the appendix on the principles of Newspeak are the book’s real content.)

In much the same way as Godwin’s Law, “Nineteen Eighty-Four” has been debased almost beyond the point of credibility by deliberate misrepresentation, clumsy misinterpretation and hysterical misuse. As with **** Germany, because the dystopia it depicts is so extreme and terrifying, people instinctively look for ways to reject it as somehow inhuman and unthinkable, and to tame its iconography by trivialising it, because facing the reality brings it far too close to home for comfort.

But I’m digressing. Ian Bell’s point, extensively elaborated on in the book, is that austerity suits both Labour and the Tories just fine. We’ll pick out just a single extract of Orwell’s work by way of illustration:

    “By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy – his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter – set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call ‘the proles’.

The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.”

For “Inner Party” read “political elite”, for “Outer Party” read “home-owning middle classes”, for “proles” read everyone else, and for “war” read “recession” (combined, of course, with the “war on terror”). And if that’s all a bit abstract, let’s ask it in a simpler way – what would it benefit either of the UK’s two political parties if the country suddenly recovered and started to record healthy economic growth?

The Tories wouldn’t be particularly happy, because by common consensus the crisis has given them the cover they need to do something they always ideologically want to do anyway – slash government spending, shrink the size of the state and cut taxes in order to enrich the wealthy, who in turn fund them.

But if austerity worked, would Ed Miliband be any more pleased? If the cuts saved the economy, everyone would gratefully vote Tory again. Labour needs poverty, because without poverty its ostensible reason for existing is gone. The party, in fact, thrives on inequality – if that inequality vanished, so would its core vote.

The fundamental change wrought by New Labour was that without admitting it, the party politically abandoned the poor and vulnerable (safe in the knowledge that they had nowhere else to go) and instead aligned itself with the “aspirational” middle classes – exactly the same people targeted by the Tories. And the middle class, more or less by definition, identifies itself not in absolute terms, but relative ones.

The British middle class – as we’ve seen by the remarkably muted response to austerity, compared to the riots in other countries – can tolerate its circumstances worsening considerably, as long as it can still see the gap between itself and the wretched poor. Having to work longer hours or cut back on holidays and new cars is bearable as long as you can say “Hey, at least I’m not being forced to work in Poundland for nothing, or socially cleansed out of this nice area where I live”.

The poor have been effectively disenfranchised since 1997, but only now are Labour fully grasping the opportunity that presents them with. They’d already realised that it was electorally safe to abandon socialism, but now they can see that it’s also no longer necessary even to exercise economic competence (the party’s traditional Achilles heel) in order to attain their only true goal – power.

As long as they’re prepared to concede the ideological ground to the Tories, Labour can safely focus on competing for the tiny handful of voters who actually decide who runs the country, now sympathetically called the “squeezed middle”. Spending on the desperate poor – who will either vote Labour anyway for lack of an alternative, waste their vote on a protest which even if successful will achieve nothing, or simply stay at home – can be sacrificed in order to bribe the middle with what little can be spared.

(Another little-examined key factor in the disintegration of British democracy is that the parties have no reason to care in the slightest about low turnouts. Indeed, the lower turnout is the better, because it means less money has to be spent on campaigning to win votes. The “perfect” election for any of the mainstream parties is one where only a single voter turns out, and votes for them. The notion of a democratic mandate is a red herring to which only lip service is ever paid – David Cameron secured the votes of just 23% of the electorate in 2010, yet effectively exercises absolute power without anyone ever raising much of a fuss about it.)

Labour can’t win any new votes by moving to the left, only to the right. And the Tories can only fight off the threat of UKIP (who can’t win power, but CAN deny it to the Tories by splitting their vote) by doing the same, pulling Labour with them as they go.

As Ian Bell notes, George Osborne will today paint a picture of a future where austerity persists to 2020 and beyond, and Ed Balls has already effectively signed up to Osborne’s budget plans, leaving the electorate no meaningful choice in 2015. But it’s much worse than that.

There is no magical windfall waiting just over the horizon, no second North Sea oil boom to rescue the UK the way the first one rescued the Tories in the 1980s. Even Labour’s token attempts at addressing poverty between 1997 and 2010 – when there were endless oceans of imaginary cash propping up the Treasury’s coffers – are now history, because there’s no money left.

The new policy consensus between all three UK parties – and more particularly the only two of those who matter – is forever, because there’s no need or reason for it ever to change. Austerity is the new prosperity. If you’re not already rich, be very afraid.


http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-austerity-is-forever/

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9163
The problem is that a lot of people today have only lived through the good times, they are not old enough to remember just how poor people were prior to the 1970s, how any given individual perceives the current state of austerity can only be based on how little they have seen of it in the past, those that were brought up in the more recent good times see the current state of affairs as being horrendous, yet those of us who have lived through the harder times of the 50s and 60s see today's so called austere times as still being much more agreeable to how things used to be.

And the Older you are the more you appreciate just how well off we are these days, Yes. things could be better but equally they could be a whole lot worse.

Young People have higher expectations these days, they demand more but want to pay less for it, so any small step backwards now seems to be a disaster to them.

Luckily I'm of an age where I can remember money being much tighter, so to me things are still a whole lot better than they were for the early part of my life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
bloodnock wrote:
The problem is that a lot of people today have only lived through the good times, they are not old enough to remember just how poor people were prior to the 1970s, how any given individual perceives the current state of austerity can only be based on how little they have seen of it in the past, those that were brought up in the more recent good times see the current state of affairs as being horrendous, yet those of us who have lived through the harder times of the 50s and 60s see today's so called austere times as still being much more agreeable to how things used to be.

And the Older you are the more you appreciate just how well off we are these days, Yes. things could be better but equally they could be a whole lot worse.

Young People have higher expectations these days, they demand more but want to pay less for it, so any small step backwards now seems to be a disaster to them.

Luckily I'm of an age where I can remember money being much tighter, so to me things are still a whole lot better than they were for the early part of my life.


While I don't disagree, my grandmother's generation always told us that we didn't know what poverty was because we didn't live through The Great Depression. No doubt the kids of today will tell their grandchildren the same about The Great Austerity or whatever this ends up being called.
Strange thing is both were caused by the greed of the wealthy and it's everyone else who's paying the price, yet again.

Wouldn't you like to see the greedy feckers who bankrupted the country paying for a change?

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
BTW, here's a quote from those harder times of the 50's and 60's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 728225.stm

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Tony Benn - 10 min History Lesson for Neoliberals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX-P4mx1FLU

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:20 am
Posts: 2948
Location: Over here!
Quote:
The problem is that a lot of people today have only lived through the good times,


I have a bad feeling that I am older than you :sad: ..............so when exactly were the GOOD TIMES? - because I do not believe that we have ever had TRUE good times!

We have had times when men and women have worked hard and have earned reasonable/good money! As for good times, I do not believe we have ever had them. From my point of view, I have nearly always earned good/reasonable money due to hard work and long hours! Having said that if hard work was the criteria to becoming a millionaire...........then I would have been a millionaire many times over - but the truth is...........Hard work is not necessarily the yardstick :shock:

There were most certainly better times, although I have to say they were not necessarily good times. I would say that due to financial suppression going as far back as Prime Minister H. Wilson......expectations are far lower today than any time that I have ever known.

The bottom line being is that we have never shared in the wealth of the country.

I was watching an interview with an American trying to justify "Fracking" in this country! His take was that residents in the U.S received $100.000 for the local community, plus 1% of profits made to be ploughed back into the local Town/area to better the area, plus well paid jobs! Also anyone ( In the USA) who had a bit of land that had a "Fracking" vein running through it, could financially benefit as an individual - could you see that happening in this country?

I own my own home, but I remember many years ago having to sign away any mineral rights that might ever be found under my property, basically we have been financially screwed in this country for many, many, years, and that is why we are in the mess we are in today. It isn't going to get any better........this is the way that we live :sad:

If anyone swallows the "Fracking" B.S,......then check out "North Sea Gas" - Nothing will change.....same old B.S.......miles of pipelines to invest in, infrastructure, machinery, training, workforce...blah blah blah blah + pensions and the traditional golden good bye payoffs.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 19115
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
I have a bad feeling that I am older than you ..............so when exactly were the GOOD TIMES? - because I do not believe that we have ever had TRUE good times!

No such thing unless you are one of the priveledged groups who prospered during tory rule (bankers and stockgamblers) or worked for the civil service during labour rule and received very generous automatic payrises and final salary pensions otherwise I think when Industry was booming wages were low and now they are comparatively high unemployment is high and manufacturing has moved to wherever pay and conditions are poor

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:13 am
Posts: 29
very true cabby john


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group