Well this is an interesting one. It would appear that society is becoming hardened to hardship. There appears to be a growing deep suspicion about those who are relying on publicly funded support such as the disabled and mentally ill. I guess this makes sense in a recession. Hardship is always going to breed greater unease I guess with those that appear to be not feeling it, those that are perceived to be getting handouts no matter what. I guess we could argue that in a civilised and advanced society there should be funding for those that can’t provide for themselves. Of course ‘can’t’ is a big value judgement as it appears that more and more people are using the word ‘won’t’. In last year’s National Centre for Social Research’s British Social Attitudes survey, over 25% said they felt poverty was the result of “laziness” or “lack of willpower”. In the mid 90s, it was 15%. It seems the poor are getting a bad rap. It may have something to do with the creeping demonization of the poor, the constant tails in the Express and the Mail of benefit cheats, single mums and the underclass. Maybe it’s about the riots last year and Boris Johnson’s dismissal of the notion that the behaviour of the masses could be anything to do with social or economic circumstances.

It was interesting in the first days of Occupy the amount of people that came down to St. Pauls to give the protesters a hard time. I remember one woman in her 40s asking me if any of the protesters claimed benefit or the usual, “Why haven’t they got a job?” It was very reminiscent of the Daily Mail and Express etc. I found myself wondering at the cost of the protesters’ benefits, for those that were on them, and the cost of the financial meltdown on society. And I wondered if she really knew what had just happened and the degree to which her life had been affected by the banking crisis. I guess she was one of the ones interviewed when they carried out the survey.

We certainly seem to be at a crossroads. Political divergence is a good indicator of that as there is increasing tension between who has the right answer to massive economic failure. To the Right we have the monetarists and to the Left we have the social democrats. But we are also at a crossroads with regards to social attitudes and the degree to which we progress or regress. The hardening of attitudes to the poor would suggest to me a regression to more Victorian values and that doesn’t surprise me considering we have a number of Victorian’s currently in political positions of power, Huff, Puff and Guff. They’re very good at demonizing the poor, creating social tensions and dividing society. Their main ploy has been up to this point all about getting everyone to hate and blame each other after all. I hope they understand their part in the evolution of society. I would prefer progress but then 25% of those reading this will disagree with me entirely.

Oh and just coming back to that, the government response? “The government is taking the tough, long-term decisions…” etc. etc. and “we are building a society that rewards people who work hard and do the right thing, while protecting the vulnerable.” Hmmm, and maybe that says something. Really it’s not about people doing the right thing but really them doing the ‘Right’ thing.

The Guardian, May 2012, “Cuts to public services are creating ‘forgotten Britain’, says charity boss.”

Well it’s the Times again but the headlines says it all, French election may leave nuclear no longer an option. In a way they don’t realise what they are saying. Of course they are going to have a go at the new socialist leader of the France, after all it is likely that his policy will force the likes of EDF, the French energy giant, to focus it’s attention, and investment, on France. The argument goes that Hollande would prefer that EDF spend money on domestic power generation from renewables and energy efficiency schemes, and importantly, not continue with its UK nuclear programme. And it all sort of misses the point really and that is that the energy needs of a country is in the hands of one company. If EDF does indeed decide to scale back his or her nuclear programme the UK will be facing a future energy shortage or be scrambling around to get someone else to do it. Precarious doesn’t even do it justice.

We have been here before but last time it was when the regulator stood up for the consumer for pricing. There was some suitably glowing coverage of the new appointee at the time, tough talking on behalf of the man on the street. On page 5 on that day, towards the end of a fairly lengthy piece looking at the energy market there was a short paragraph including a warning from energy companies that curtailment of their activities and price controls would make it ‘very difficult’ for them to continue with the nuclear programme investment.

And there it was, a few companies that were once given the key to the goldmine through privatisation, were quietly able to hold the company to ransom. We charge what we like, you the government back off, you the consumer pay….or you get cold, your choice, that’s the deal. Prudential did some similar sabre rattling quietly the other day about threatening to leave if regulations got in the way of their profiteering. People will call this anti-business rhetoric. Is it? Or is it that there is an inherent threat to society built into markets where their players can threaten society, either by withholding investment or taking away jobs.

And so it is that we now find ourselves at the hands of an energy company who’s fortune and strategy may have changed because of the will of a people and political change. We shall see but either way, it is just one further example of the corporatization of our lives, it’s subjugation to corporate needs and principles. The new empires are there for all to see.

The Times would rather blame the socialist, of course it would. But perhaps we should be thinking of the greater arguments that will be there beyond the election of a new leader this year or next, a conflict that may rage for years to come and where we are just seeing the first skirmishes. It should not be a surprise that Argentina took over an energy company. That is just the start of the backlash as the dial turns from 60/40 in favour of business and the minority to 40/60 in favour of the people and the majority.

The Times, “French election may leave nuclear no longer an option.” 8 May 2012

Well we should not be surprised, it is after all Jeremy Warner commenting in the Telegraph, but it’s still shocking that not long into his article we get into the underlying praise for the banks and the disgust at the general public for their over indebtedness. Once again the finger of blame points outwards rather than towards the cause of the global financial meltdown. And so we read that ‘progress has been made on household deleveraging’ where indebtedness as a proportion of income has fallen from 166% to 148%. Oh well done everyone! And apparently the banks are having to deleverage as well, having to sell off assets because of the absence of ‘cheap funding.’ Oh the irony. You mean the absence of other banks wishing to lend to them. That sounds familiar. So very 2007…

And then of course we hear the usual speak of the lobbyists and their puppets, that ‘much more onerous capital and liquidity requirements’ are making life even harder for the poor bankers. That’s right, let’s just leave things exactly as they were, so you can do it all again. There is a reason why history repeats itself and generally it’s down to people like Jeremy, the ones that turn a blind eye. I trust he feels he is one of the ones likely to weather the next storm rather well. He’ll probably be working for a PR company by then. Many of the PR hating journos I once knew are all PRs now.

He goes on. Something about comparing us to the US and that they are ‘typically about six months ahead of us in their economic cycle.’ More hope than fact given that they seem to be doing rather well post financial collapse. He then contradicts that assumption saying that it might be a bounce in the US because the cuts haven’t bitten over there. They haven’t bitten here Jeremy!

Might be of course that they’re not going to bite in the US in the way there are going to bite here because their economic policy is not being directed by a public school prefect who knows nothing about economics. I don’t actually know what Osborne has done since but seriously, think 18 yr old school prefect being given the keys to a formula 1 car. Now imagine the consequences.

He then goes on to talk about there being somewhere ‘pent up’ demand from business and then from invisible consumers. Never mind that this completely misunderstands the nature of the pressure on household income, the drivers of inflation, the new economic paradox. As he concludes, sometimes ‘it’s best just to stop worrying about the future and get on with it.’ Yeah, best follow your own advice Jeremy and please shut up!

The new economic paradox? Progress, wealth, expansion, success, proliferation, the very things that are signs of a successful economic growth and civilization are the exact things that, where there are limited or finite rescources, will make it fail. Success = failure. Therefore time for change.

The Telegraph, “Why the economy is starting to look up.” April 2012

I guess we are just starting to see the more public slating of the Bank of England by the Tory press. There will be more. You can always give the governor of the Bank of England a kicking for the way the economy is going. I am sure we are going to hear louder and louder whispers about the Guvnor’s mistakes over the economy coming from no. 11 as a way of deviating the argument away from Osborne’s utter incompetence.

I note on 18 April 2012 MPs were supposedly telling the Bank of England that it must explain to people what Quantitative Easing is and why low interest rates are good for Britain. There is a very good reason for this and that is because the MPs don’t have a fucking clue themselves. So best to ‘demand’ that the BofE explains it to the people …..so the MPs don’t have to. After all [implied] it’s all the Bank of England’s fault and, if it isn’t now, it certainly will be when the shit comes down. This most certainly will be the findings of the Treasury Select Committee that decided the current monetary policy should be termed ‘loose.’ Do they even know what ‘loose’ monetary policy is? What would ‘tight’ be I wonder? Or maybe they’re lining that up the term ‘loose’ for the future so it can be termed ‘liberal’…. We shall see.

Select Committees are interesting apart from the fact that committees in general are a forum for huff, puff and guff. I wonder, do MPs feel they have been selected for a team when they are asked? They probably never got that at school! Oooh the excitement. No doubt they are extremely pleased and feel they should live up to the duffery required as long as it concludes that someone else is to blame, was to blame and certainly will be.

Case in point, Andrew Tyrie, the Treasury Committee’s chairman (he must have been wetting himself when he got that! Oh the importance!!) said “Given the potential impact on millions of people of the Financial Policy Committee’s new power of direction, this will be an issue of intense public and thus parliamentary interest.” Wow! [implied] “I am so there for the people, but we’ve given the Bank ‘new’ powers so we’ve really passed the buck this time, thank god, we didn’t want to look after the complicated stuff so we’ve ‘passed on’ those powers to them, because I’m so there for the people. It will be of interest to the people so it absolutely will be of interest to parliament.

Oh did I not say? I’m really really important, so important that I talk about parliament in the third person because I am in parliament and you are not. That’s where we do not shirk our responsibility to the people and make the tough decisions….oh yes, and I am sooooo important I’m weeing my pants!!”

He apparently commented that he also had ‘serious reservations’ (and ever so important ones) about retrospective tax policy to claim back taxes, for say £400m owed by, say, Barclays. Dreadful behaviour, no let’s go after the man in the street instead… because you are so there for the people… just like David and Boris and George, otherwise known as Huff, Puff and Guff.

The Times, MPs call on Bank to tell savers why low interest rates are good for Britain, 18 April 2012

I read today comments from Evgeny Lebedev, the proprietor of The Independent and the London Evening Standard who says that media owners ‘enfeeble’ democracy when they start to influence policy. Really? You think?! Nice of him to say so at least. The irony of it coming from a Russian. I have found that Russians and many that come from former Eastern bloc regimes understand the dark arts of propaganda and the control of information more than a naïve westerner. He talks about the political interference suffered by many papers in Russia but adds that there are times in the British press where the relationship between pressmen and politicians becomes unhealthy. I would argue that in certain ways the cozy relationship that can exist between the two is more dangerous and subversive. In Russia at least the people might know that the press is controlled and cajoled. In the UK the danger is that the public do not realize the degree to which it is manipulated, the degree to which politicians bend to their whims for positive coverage.

Of course Lebedev is saying in the run up to the appearance of the Murdoch’s at the Leveson enquiry. It is now day 3 of the Murdoch charade with Murdoch Jnr having appeared there on Tuesday and Senior yesterday and today. I can’t wait to catch up with it in the papers later this morning. It is difficult to find words to describe Rupert Murdoch and to understand his motives or in fact the degree to which he understands the damage he inflicts on society. It is fair to say he will be remorseless and unrepentant.

It is interesting to note Lebedev feels that “Politicians generally over-estimate the influence of newspapers.” I wish I could believe him but I was watching the press in the run up to the last election, the constant belittling and harassment of the opposition in the Sun and News of the World, the consistent bigging up of Cameron in The Times. It was incessant and to think it didn’t make a difference. The stuff you really have to look out for is not the reporting of the facts it’s the inferences and implied messages. It’s the spin, the agreement between hack and PR as to how it should be played and what the pay off is to the journo, a front page scoop, an exclusive interview or photo, permission to buy the remainder of BSkyB. Well we will see how the Murdoch does today but expect no surprises. It is interesting and disturbing to think that a Russian owner of a UK paper talks about politicians interfering in papers when we live in a state where it is proprietors interfering with politicians. Oh the irony Murdochski.

(The word “interfering” conjures up a whole different type of image but it is as least distasteful. It does help one see the relationship more clearly when one sees it as a form of molesting, conditioning, fiddling, those grubby old hands, that self-satisfied smile, yes, that fits more closely.)

The Independent, “Enfeebled politicians are a danger to democracy, warns proprietor.” 24 April 2012

“If thought corrupts language,” said Orwell, “language can also corrupt thought.” So quotes Jeff Randall in the Telegraph. Now Jeff Randall is a respected journalist and commentator on the economy. He even shows up on TV doing his Mr. Everyman interpretation of the facts. So I’ll just say this, “Give over Jeff!” When people quote Orwell for their own gain you’ve got to worry. His argument relates to the creation or the adoption of new language to describe current economic policy, words like “cruel,” “callous’ in relation to the cuts, “savage” and that “fairness” is an overused and politically motivated word. Life’s not fair eh Jeff! The reason for the re-categorisation of these words as part of the new newspeak is the observation that these ‘new’ definitions are associated with the new economics of laziness and government over spending.

They come at the end of a long diatribe associated with the increase in government spending. He does at least mention the fact that spending has increased over the last 25 years so not totally party political. Anyway, the British State costs £700bn vs £450bn 10 years ago. He also points out that spending on health means people live longer. Perish the thought in this supposedly developed and civilized society. Let them die! How’s your heart Jeff? Anyway, it goes on, we get to the magic figure of £26,000 which has taken on a new iconic status in the common culture, it being the figure generally bounced around when talking about the craziness of the benefits system i.e. a family on benefits receiving more than the average wage. And it’s all this kind of thing that means we are now looking at an expected national debt of £1.4bn by the time of the next election. It’s like the Daily Mail!

NO Jeff! What I find amazing about any business commentator is there utter refusal to acknowledge what happened in 2008 and the banking crisis, when national debt roughly doubled. Now forgive me Jeff but what happens to interest on that debt when it doubles. Not only did we rocket the national debt with the bank bailouts but we doubled our interest payments. And yes Jeff you’re right, national income will probably not grow as quickly as the debt… for that reason. We’re in a poverty trap it would seem, a debt pit, an austerity cage.

Anyway, according to JeffdiJeff, well I think this is what he is saying, we should cut harder, cut public spending harder, really up the short sharp shock. Oh dear, it is amazing that supposedly informed commentators actually think that by really constricting consumer demand we will somehow drive growth. If it’s about generating wealth through exports, then where was the mention of that? There is only one way forward and that is for cuts to public services, increase in interest rates and other economic tuning mechanisms, to be linked to growth and the economy’s capacity to absorb them. Growth first, then rebalance. You just can’t rush it. Crash diets rarely work. The sooner the government and its lobbyists, journalists and commentators alike, understand it the better for all of us. Oh and you might have to think about the real source of inflation Jeff, but that’s another question.

However, so it is again that a sycophantic press spend their time lobbying the public on behalf of the banks and the government, revising the impact of the banks and supporting the policies that are likely to make things worse. Never mind, I am sure they will wash your hands of it in the future. Another day, another story. That’s why I’m writing this, so we remember.

The Telegraph, “Only by tackling spending will we ever tame the debt monster.” 26 March 2012

I read with interest, some dismay but no surprise a piece by Fraser Nelson at the Telegraph today regarding the Government’s proposals to toughen up on national security policy, the monitoring of everyone’s emails, secret trials etc. As he’s prattling on about party politics I despair at the lack of insight into the actual consequences of making such changes and what it means for all of us. Let’s think first about secret trials. We have a Judiciary in this country and have had for, well, a while. Now it may not be perfect and often it proves its limitations but the main principle here is that the Judiciary is independent from the State. In the case of secret trials, the decision as to whether a trial can be conducted in secret is down to a judge, not a minister. There is no argument for putting such decisions in the hands of, and let’s be clear, an MP with very little experience of the subject matter and the arguments. The Judiciary may have its flaws but it is what we have and the separation of powers is there for a good reason. That way we don’t get somebody’s life being put in somebody else’s hands that are puppeted by political agenda and the next bi-elections, or a recent soldiers death, or budget dementia or the revelations of corruption in government. You know what happens sometimes when things get tough for politicians, they look for big-ticket items to cover the front pages. Terrorism and war tend to work. God, let me think, last time that happened with a Tory PM we went to war with Argentina! What are the chances? I note that HMS Dauntless is steaming down there as we speak, but surely not. Daunting indeed.

Context. You have to see things in context. And that is difficult if you are seeing things in cross section sideways on much like Mr. Nelson’s article. For example, I remember going into a Cambridge lab many years ago. A friend of mine was studying voice recognition and was showing me something called the Internet. It was ’92 I reckon. I watched in awe, well not so much awe, but interest at images on a screen that were being accessed from a server at MIT or somewhere similar of a human body sliced up into very thin wafers. Remember I’m in a Cambridge science lab. It was fascinating but difficult to get an image of the person perhaps, and their life, their former existence etc. It needed more information, some context, and a face perhaps.

And that brings us on to the next point, mass monitoring. I’ll just get it out the way but the point you missed Fraser is that it can be done without a warrant. I refer to my points above about Judiciary and State. It’s about checks and balances. Actually, it strikes me that these days it appears so often to be about ‘cheques’ and balances but that’s another story. Or is it? Just for a second let’s think, phone hacking, money, Murdoch, the police, ministers. Hmmm. Anyway, back to big brother. So the idea is that essentially the government can monitor everything about anyone whenever they feel like it without legal reason or argument. They can check out anything about you, me, everybody! Now where do we start? Well firstly there’s the government’s record on looking after personal information, you know, personal data falling out of the back of lorries. Then there’s the cost, which will be borne by us to pay for information to be stored about us that will be used at some point potentially against us.

And to put things into context Fraser, it’s another layer of control over society. It’s more walls in the maze that is society’s so called freedom. It’s a devolutionary step in society’s development. The more you control or seek to control or are seen to control society, the more you take away a feeling of ownership, participation, responsibility, self-determination. It takes away accountability, social cohesion, community spirit. And this government talks about ‘Big Society’. If anything, you increase the distance between government and the people. Not only do people believe more and more that what they say makes no difference but now they don’t even have to say anything! They can just text someone or email someone. Big Brother will be watching anyway. Privacy? Gone.

What do you think that does for the people? No you CAN’T be trusted! You must stay on the lead. But then again this government is not about the people, for the people etc. We are not all in this together.

During the Blair years we saw an ever-increasing weight of laws to curtail personal freedoms. You do that and sooner or later you’re going to see flare-ups that are reactions to being totally ignored. A “fuck you!” to the man. Yeah, and that links Blair directly to last year’s riots. I’ll just let you ponder that for a while Fraser.

I’m presuming that Kenneth Clarke was under pressure to come up with something. He’s been a bit quiet since being hung out to dry on prison reform. And there it is, a case in point, you’re email can be hacked, trials conducted in secret, your phone records studied, your text messages read, and all because a politician’s career needs a helping hand or a Party needs a short-term bump in the polls. I don’t think so.

The Telegraph, 6th April 2012, ‘The snooping Bill is out to catch crooks, not ensnare terrorists’

He lives in a dream world that man. I think you probably know who I am talking about. He must be a gambler at heart, let me think, poker perhaps or the races now and then. So apparently the theory is that lowering the top rate of tax will lead to an increase in VAT receipts. Hmmm, yes George. And the other one was that lowering the top rate will mean that more high earners will pay the tax that is due rather than less. The interesting thing is, and I’ll say it now, after the first year of the 45% tax rate he will be parading around saying that tax receipts from high earners have gone up! That he was right! And of course people may have forgotten by that time that in the first year of the 50% tax regime receipts were unnaturally down because of steps being taken to bring forward income to before the new rate took effect. The same thing is about to happen this year with people now deferring income into the 45% tax year. So yes, you shall go to the ball after all George!

Oh and of course by that time we will have seen a new definition of tax policy benefit called “dynamic scoring.” What a load of crap.

And then there’s the taxing of the old which I read was completely against what he said he was going to do in the Budget Red Book of 2011. Interesting that he says the pensioners will benefit from an increase in state pension. What you mean because it normally doesn’t increase then? Is that some kind of bonus?! A gift?

Oh and let’s not forget that we will all have to wait longer to claim our pension. It has to be said that it is a particularly sickening feeling to think that I will have to wait an extra 5 years to claim my pension because of one stuck up git and the crimes of a load of his banker mates.

Apparently, he’s hoping that the UK will export itself out of the recession, exporting what exactly we’re not sure. Sweet dreams everone…

The Times, “New 45p tax rate may be cut by ‘dynamic’ Osborne