Apparently, the global economy is in danger still, with "red warning lights flashing".
This has so incensed me that I need to write a new blog post about it. And yes, we all know the global economy is still unstable - Cameron's response to this is "we must do more of the same", because that seems to have worked so well.
The reason the global economy is still in crisis (and it is still, rather than again, because it has never actually pulled out of crisis) is not that people in welfare are taking up an extra bedroom. It is not that people on disability are just sitting around all day, enjoying their free money.
The reason is that the roots of the global economy has not changed. The banks are still allowed to gamble with our money. The wealthy are given more and more tax breaks encouraging them to hoard their wealth, while the poor are attacked more and more. The biggest corporations are permitted to pay very little tax, while those who cannot afford to pay are demonised.
So Cameron, if you want to avert another global financial crisis, the time has come to even the wealth in the country. The time has come to tax the wealthiest, use that money to provide the resources and facilities that we need. The time has come to support people, not punish them. The time has come to build a country based on fairness, not pandering to your wealthy friends. If we were less dependent on keeping a few very wealthy people happy, we could make this country a much better place to live. We could encourage immigrants, because we would have a stable economy to support them, and that they would support.
By supporting and engaging in Europe, we can help to create a more stable Europe-wide market, that will help our stability, our long-term future.
Of course you won't. This is not about the global economy being in danger, of course. It is about trying to win the next election. It is about scaring voters off a change of policy. It is about fright tactics, because you have to scare people, rather than telling the truth. The truth is, you have contributed to any global economic downturn, because you refuse to do the really difficult things that need to be done in our country.
So I will say it - David Cameron, you are a coward.
Showing posts with label Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cameron. Show all posts
Monday, 17 November 2014
Wednesday, 16 July 2014
The real problem with politics today
I am a big fan of Umberto Eco's work, and have recently finished reading Turning Back the Clock: Hot Wars and Media Populism. This is a collection of talks and essays, covering a range of topics including some interesting discussions on politics, with a focus, naturally, on Italian politics (which, in all honesty, is probably the most interesting area of European politics over the last decade or two).
One of the points that he makes is the importance of controlling the media. Berlusconi manipulated the media - dropped bombshells as appropriate times (good days to bury bad news), but also, Eco explains, manipulated events to ensure that bad news was buried, because other events were taking the headlines.
It is interesting in this country that Cameron manages to put all of the blame for problems on the LibDems. He also manages to be consistent for a day or so, which (as Eco explains) is all that is needed, because very few people actually expect consistency. Very few actually follow the news seriously. I am not unusual, I don't think, in getting my news in 2 minute sections on the radio, along with the BBC news site. My news input is actually very little, and very easy to manipulate because stories that are not "right" can always get left off.
The interesting thing is that media manipulation is not just about ensuring that your party views are always shown positively. It is about controlling the criticism as well. Two of the critical critiques of the political arena today are "Have I got News for You" and "Mock the Week" (there are others, but these are probably the main ones). These are significant making a criticism, but they are clearly defined as comedy shows, and so a lot of people don;t take the critique seriously. People like Boris Johnson make themselves objects of ridicule, so that nobody takes their policy declarations - which are important - seriously either. that is master manipulation, and is very dangerous.
Another aspect that is, I believe, significant is the reality TV phenomena. The problem that these shows cause is that they diminish the significance of voting. Most of the time, the public treat "voting" as choosing a favorite from a TV show - and the x-factor and Strictly experience is that voting for the idiots is funny. The hype around it makes it seem like the voting is Very Important - there is a hype pretty much as significant as the hype around proper elections. I believe that many people get confused, generally subconsciously.
This is, I believe, one reason that UKIP did quite well in the EP elections. They were the funny party to vote for, for those who really had no idea who they wanted to represent them. And (whatever he says) Cameron is delighted that they did well, because it enables him to position himself as less draconian as UKIP, while moving further to the right because he can argue that this is what the electorate clearly want. They have served him very well. this is one form of his manipulation of the media and the political system.
Finally, the lack of Green Party coverage means that the socialist end of the political spectrum are criticising the BBC. This enables him to privatise it more and more, arguing that it is clearly not fulfilling its needs to be independent, while enjoying the fact that its lack if independence is helping him. Of course, as it is privatised, this will make it less independent not more - but, as Eco explains, this is simply manipulation. This is also shown in the presentation of the NHS, where they are clearly blamed for problems that might be related to privatised companies. The results of this will be that to resolve the perceived problems, the solution is to privatise more, rather than less and enabling it to work. This is manipulation of the highest order - and it is happening daily.
In the end, the problem with politics today is that the politicians are very manipulative, and they have learnt that by manipulating the media, that is all they need to do. By manipulating the media, we are all manipulated, we are all forced into positions that we may not want to agree with.
I hate being manipulated.
One of the points that he makes is the importance of controlling the media. Berlusconi manipulated the media - dropped bombshells as appropriate times (good days to bury bad news), but also, Eco explains, manipulated events to ensure that bad news was buried, because other events were taking the headlines.
It is interesting in this country that Cameron manages to put all of the blame for problems on the LibDems. He also manages to be consistent for a day or so, which (as Eco explains) is all that is needed, because very few people actually expect consistency. Very few actually follow the news seriously. I am not unusual, I don't think, in getting my news in 2 minute sections on the radio, along with the BBC news site. My news input is actually very little, and very easy to manipulate because stories that are not "right" can always get left off.
The interesting thing is that media manipulation is not just about ensuring that your party views are always shown positively. It is about controlling the criticism as well. Two of the critical critiques of the political arena today are "Have I got News for You" and "Mock the Week" (there are others, but these are probably the main ones). These are significant making a criticism, but they are clearly defined as comedy shows, and so a lot of people don;t take the critique seriously. People like Boris Johnson make themselves objects of ridicule, so that nobody takes their policy declarations - which are important - seriously either. that is master manipulation, and is very dangerous.
Another aspect that is, I believe, significant is the reality TV phenomena. The problem that these shows cause is that they diminish the significance of voting. Most of the time, the public treat "voting" as choosing a favorite from a TV show - and the x-factor and Strictly experience is that voting for the idiots is funny. The hype around it makes it seem like the voting is Very Important - there is a hype pretty much as significant as the hype around proper elections. I believe that many people get confused, generally subconsciously.
This is, I believe, one reason that UKIP did quite well in the EP elections. They were the funny party to vote for, for those who really had no idea who they wanted to represent them. And (whatever he says) Cameron is delighted that they did well, because it enables him to position himself as less draconian as UKIP, while moving further to the right because he can argue that this is what the electorate clearly want. They have served him very well. this is one form of his manipulation of the media and the political system.
Finally, the lack of Green Party coverage means that the socialist end of the political spectrum are criticising the BBC. This enables him to privatise it more and more, arguing that it is clearly not fulfilling its needs to be independent, while enjoying the fact that its lack if independence is helping him. Of course, as it is privatised, this will make it less independent not more - but, as Eco explains, this is simply manipulation. This is also shown in the presentation of the NHS, where they are clearly blamed for problems that might be related to privatised companies. The results of this will be that to resolve the perceived problems, the solution is to privatise more, rather than less and enabling it to work. This is manipulation of the highest order - and it is happening daily.
In the end, the problem with politics today is that the politicians are very manipulative, and they have learnt that by manipulating the media, that is all they need to do. By manipulating the media, we are all manipulated, we are all forced into positions that we may not want to agree with.
I hate being manipulated.
Saturday, 5 January 2013
Austerity is a lie
The new year is here, and more above-inflation rail fare rises are here, along with more cuts to the benefits system. The cost of living in the UK for the poorest has increased significantly, although the cost for the wealthier has not so much.
The explanation from the government is, of course, that these are austerity measures, because of the global recession, meaning that there is less government money to fund the railways, the benefits system, and local facilities.
The problem is that this is a lie.
This is a lie, because the government could fill the budget gap is a range of other ways. One example here indicates the level of benefit fraud - something the government has emphasised as being a major problem - is not as high as has been suggested. In fact this link (and others are available with similar levels, even if different figures) suggests that fraud levels are around 2.2% of total benefits, some £3.4bn.
It also shows that the there may be some £16bn a year in unclaimed benefit, meaning that if the entire system was cleaned up, and everyone claimed no more or less than they should, the benefits bill would increase by over £10bn.
Of course the government is now starting to attack even legitimate benefit claimants. The most prominent are the increasing demands on the unemployed, as well as the recent suggestions to insist that the retired should contribute to society.
The problem is that most jobseekers are actually looking for work. Not all, I would accept, but most, and so if they do not take a job on offer, there is probably a good reason for it. Forcing them into accepting jobs that are unsuitable is liable to mean they will have to claim more benefits for childcare coverage, or that they will have to give up the job. It is wrong to assume that even unskilled jobs are suitable for just anyone - and it is dehumanising to assume that they are. People are not just units of production, and should not be treated as such, in any situation. Ignoring this is not only wrong morally, but it is liable to throw up more problems in time, not least medical ones, putting more pressure on the NHS.
Pensioners have already made significant contributions to society, and should be able to retire without any further requirements. In many cases, they will make contributions to society.
The other significant information on that link above is the other side of the equation - tax fraud and evasion. This would indicate that this costs over £100bn a year - something like 60% of the total benefit bill for a year (depending on which figures you take, it might be up to nearly 100% of the bill). What is more, this figure is 20 times the benefit fraud figures, so achieving even 10% success in addressing this would make more of a difference, and allow the benefits cuts to be stopped.
This, of course, shows up the real reasons for the "austerity" measures, because there have been plenty of well publicised examples of companies who are not paying their full tax responsibilities, so it is not a problem of finding the money. The real problem is that these companies are the financiers and supporters of the Tory party.
The real reason for most of the government policies - in particular, the financial ones, implemented under the guise of "austerity" - are just extreme versions of standard Tory politics, reducing the tax burden on the rich, and increasing it on the poorer. This is why the government will not raise revenue from the richer, the city and business, despite the fact that the banks are substantially responsible for the economic crisis.
Just for clarification, I don't doubt that some people on benefits are cheating, or that there are some savings to be made in the NHS. I don't deny that we are globally in an economic recession. I have no question whatsoever that we are in tough economic times. But the reason that I say that austerity is a lie is that this is not the reason for the economic changes. The real reason for these is that David Cameron wants to help his friends in this difficult time: the city, the business community (including the train companies) and the wealthy.
Personally, I would call it cronyism instead. "All in this together" it certainly isn't.
This is not a political rant from a lefty against the right wing. It is not about political positions, as, in all honesty, I don't see any of the main political leaders as being any different in essence. The problem for me is that this is abuse, abuse of those who are not rich, abuse of those who are not influential. This is abuse by those in power of those without power. Forget austerity, this is power games instead.
The explanation from the government is, of course, that these are austerity measures, because of the global recession, meaning that there is less government money to fund the railways, the benefits system, and local facilities.
The problem is that this is a lie.
This is a lie, because the government could fill the budget gap is a range of other ways. One example here indicates the level of benefit fraud - something the government has emphasised as being a major problem - is not as high as has been suggested. In fact this link (and others are available with similar levels, even if different figures) suggests that fraud levels are around 2.2% of total benefits, some £3.4bn.
It also shows that the there may be some £16bn a year in unclaimed benefit, meaning that if the entire system was cleaned up, and everyone claimed no more or less than they should, the benefits bill would increase by over £10bn.
Of course the government is now starting to attack even legitimate benefit claimants. The most prominent are the increasing demands on the unemployed, as well as the recent suggestions to insist that the retired should contribute to society.
The problem is that most jobseekers are actually looking for work. Not all, I would accept, but most, and so if they do not take a job on offer, there is probably a good reason for it. Forcing them into accepting jobs that are unsuitable is liable to mean they will have to claim more benefits for childcare coverage, or that they will have to give up the job. It is wrong to assume that even unskilled jobs are suitable for just anyone - and it is dehumanising to assume that they are. People are not just units of production, and should not be treated as such, in any situation. Ignoring this is not only wrong morally, but it is liable to throw up more problems in time, not least medical ones, putting more pressure on the NHS.
Pensioners have already made significant contributions to society, and should be able to retire without any further requirements. In many cases, they will make contributions to society.
The other significant information on that link above is the other side of the equation - tax fraud and evasion. This would indicate that this costs over £100bn a year - something like 60% of the total benefit bill for a year (depending on which figures you take, it might be up to nearly 100% of the bill). What is more, this figure is 20 times the benefit fraud figures, so achieving even 10% success in addressing this would make more of a difference, and allow the benefits cuts to be stopped.
This, of course, shows up the real reasons for the "austerity" measures, because there have been plenty of well publicised examples of companies who are not paying their full tax responsibilities, so it is not a problem of finding the money. The real problem is that these companies are the financiers and supporters of the Tory party.
The real reason for most of the government policies - in particular, the financial ones, implemented under the guise of "austerity" - are just extreme versions of standard Tory politics, reducing the tax burden on the rich, and increasing it on the poorer. This is why the government will not raise revenue from the richer, the city and business, despite the fact that the banks are substantially responsible for the economic crisis.
Just for clarification, I don't doubt that some people on benefits are cheating, or that there are some savings to be made in the NHS. I don't deny that we are globally in an economic recession. I have no question whatsoever that we are in tough economic times. But the reason that I say that austerity is a lie is that this is not the reason for the economic changes. The real reason for these is that David Cameron wants to help his friends in this difficult time: the city, the business community (including the train companies) and the wealthy.
Personally, I would call it cronyism instead. "All in this together" it certainly isn't.
This is not a political rant from a lefty against the right wing. It is not about political positions, as, in all honesty, I don't see any of the main political leaders as being any different in essence. The problem for me is that this is abuse, abuse of those who are not rich, abuse of those who are not influential. This is abuse by those in power of those without power. Forget austerity, this is power games instead.
Monday, 25 June 2012
"Morally Repugnant"
Apparently, David Cameron thinks that Jimmy Carrs perfectly legal avoidance of tax is "morally repugnant". Carr has apologised, and admitted that he made a mistake. Maybe he did, maybe not - lets be clear, there was nothing illegal in what he did, but it was a means of avoiding paying tax on a lot of money.
It has since been revealed that David Camerons dad made his money - and a lot of it - from providing tax havens. Exactly what he seems to consider "morally repugnant". Cameron himself inherited some 300K of this money. I presume that if Cameron really finds it "morally repugnant", he will give this money to a worthy cause.
Actually, what he has done is announce plans to remove housing benefit from under 25YOs. Taking money from young and vulnerable people because of the economic situation we are in. A situation that he is at least as responsible for as the previous government. Punishing the poor - that is morally repugnant.
Cameron said at the start of his term that "we are all in this together". What he meant, of course, is that while we are all in this together, some peoples role is to benefit, whereas other people suffer. Mainly the rich benefit and the poor suffer. That is morally repugnant.
At the same time that he is claiming that Carrs perfectly legal tax avoidance is morally repugnant, Vodafone have been let off several billions of tax - substantially more than Carr avoided. Apparently that is acceptable - evading tax (illegally) is better than avoiding it (legally). That is morally repugnant - if he is serious about Carr being wrong then surely he should ensure Vodafone pay up.
And, of course, if he is serious about tax loopholes being repugnant, why doesn't he close them? He has the power, so he should do it. Of course he won't do that, because that would hit those who support him - the rich who fund him. If he was serious about us all being in it together, he would crack down on all tax avoidance, he would make sure that the wealthiest pay the tax they owe. That he doesn't, and rather chooses to make the poor pay for the failings of the rich, is the real moral repugnance here.
Note that I am not suggesting any punitive tax rates or a rich tax or anything like that. All I am suggesting is that everyone should pay the tax they should on their income. As a minimum, everyone earning over 20K should be paying 25% on their income earned in this country. Is that too much to ask?
Morally repugnant? Yes you are David.
It has since been revealed that David Camerons dad made his money - and a lot of it - from providing tax havens. Exactly what he seems to consider "morally repugnant". Cameron himself inherited some 300K of this money. I presume that if Cameron really finds it "morally repugnant", he will give this money to a worthy cause.
Actually, what he has done is announce plans to remove housing benefit from under 25YOs. Taking money from young and vulnerable people because of the economic situation we are in. A situation that he is at least as responsible for as the previous government. Punishing the poor - that is morally repugnant.
Cameron said at the start of his term that "we are all in this together". What he meant, of course, is that while we are all in this together, some peoples role is to benefit, whereas other people suffer. Mainly the rich benefit and the poor suffer. That is morally repugnant.
At the same time that he is claiming that Carrs perfectly legal tax avoidance is morally repugnant, Vodafone have been let off several billions of tax - substantially more than Carr avoided. Apparently that is acceptable - evading tax (illegally) is better than avoiding it (legally). That is morally repugnant - if he is serious about Carr being wrong then surely he should ensure Vodafone pay up.
And, of course, if he is serious about tax loopholes being repugnant, why doesn't he close them? He has the power, so he should do it. Of course he won't do that, because that would hit those who support him - the rich who fund him. If he was serious about us all being in it together, he would crack down on all tax avoidance, he would make sure that the wealthiest pay the tax they owe. That he doesn't, and rather chooses to make the poor pay for the failings of the rich, is the real moral repugnance here.
Note that I am not suggesting any punitive tax rates or a rich tax or anything like that. All I am suggesting is that everyone should pay the tax they should on their income. As a minimum, everyone earning over 20K should be paying 25% on their income earned in this country. Is that too much to ask?
Morally repugnant? Yes you are David.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)