Thursday, 14 November 2013

12 Things you should know about David Cameron's austerity to infinity speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet


On 11 November 2013 David Cameron gave another ludicrous speech which demonstrated  how desperately out of touch with reality he is.

There was plenty of the same tired Tory rhetoric we've heard so many times before. Especially incitement of the public with scare stories of how scroungers, immigrants and the Labour party are to blame for the state of the economy, so that they are distracted from blaming the wealthy establishment minority, who are clearly the real culprits. I haven't got time to analyse all of the guff he came out with, so I'll just stick to a few of the most egregious bits of nonsense.

The golden lectern

The most glaringly obvious demonstration that Cameron's brain has been addled by the bubble of wealth and privilege he inhabits is the fact that he decided to announce that he plans for the UK public to suffer permanent austerity, whilst reading his speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet from a gold encrusted lectern.

The evidence is absolutely clear: Tory austerity is for the poor and ordinary, whilst the rich have used this economic crisis to make themselves richer than ever. Corporations and the super-rich get tax cuts, ludicrous pay hikes and state subsidies, whilst the rest of us suffer wage repression, cuts and loss of services.

That Cameron appealed for this economic apartheid to continue forever, whilst reading from a golden lectern and surrounded by many other golden objects was an appalling error of judgement (one wonders whether he consulted Lynton Crosby about the tone and setting of this speech beforehand) but the contents of his speech were just as dire.

The budget deficit

Cameron used his speech to outline his vision that once the budget deficit is eliminated, austerity should be made permanent. The big problem here is that there are absolutely no signs that adherence to George Osborne's extremist ideological austerity experiment will ever actually get rid of the budget deficit.

Surely Cameron hasn't forgotten that the Tories came to power on the back of their plans to eliminate the budget deficit in a single parliament. They claimed they would eliminate the budget deficit by May 2015, but there isn't a hope in hell that they can achieve that now. Even the ludicrously over-optimistic economic forecasts of the Office for Budget Responsibility Recklessness now put the balanced budget date at around 2020. The best that David Cameron can offer is the tired old line "we have cut the deficit by a third". This doesn't mean they've reduced the debt (as Cameron has dishonestly implied before), but that they have slightly reduced the rate at which money is being borrowed.

The fact is that the deficit was slightly reduced in the first couple of years of Tory rule* but since then it hasn't budged, in fact, the OBR now admit that the deficit is actually growing again (not that David Cameron or George Osborne would ever admit as much).


More NHS lies

David Cameron has a proven track record of lying about the NHS. Who could forget "We'll cut the budget deficit, not the NHS", "no more top down reorganisations of the NHS" or "the NHS is safe in our hands"? All three of these pre-election statements have been shown up as lies. NHS funding has been cut by £20 billion; within months of gaining power the Tories launched the biggest top-down reorganisation in the entire history of the NHS; and the NHS has been carved wide open for privatisation.

Cameron used this speech to continue his campaign of NHS lies with an absolute corker. He claimed that the NHS now has "shorter waiting times". In August 2013 it was announced that the number of people on NHS waiting lists has grown to the highest level in five years; in September 2013 it was announced that Accident and Emergency waiting times had reached their highest level since 2003-04, in and in the week before David Cameron's speech it was revealed that some NHS facilities stand accused of putting the lives of cancer patients at risk by falsifying waiting time data.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the NHS knows that things have got a lot worse under the Tories programme of privatisations, top down reforms and cuts. When the Tories came to power in 2010 public satisfaction with the NHS was at an all-time high, but within just two years of Tory rule, public satisfaction plummeted to an all time low.

Justice

At one point Cameron Brags about the strengths that are "absolutely key" to the success of the UK economy. Aside from the traditional neoliberal fare (our "property rights" and our "access to markets") one of the other things he cites is "equality before the law" - something the Tories have been deliberately undermining since they returned to power in 2010. From their sustained attacks on legal aid to their decision that poor defendants will no longer be allowed to chose their own legal representatives; from the introduction of secret courts that have been condemned by human rights groups across the world to Iain Duncan Smith's decision to retroactively rewrite the law to avoid compensating the victims of his unlawful labour party approved Workfare schemes, it is absolutely obvious that the Tories have utter contempt for the concept of equality before the law.

Skills

David Cameron lamented the fact that "at the moment, the UK has the lowest ratio in Europe for women in STEM subjects and in engineering, less than 1 in 6 graduates are women" however a look at Tory higher education policy reveals that the Tories have tripled tuition fees for young women wanting to study such subjects, meaning that they will have to accrue the largest debts anywhere in the world to study these subjects at public universities, and face a lifetime "aspiration tax" of 9% of their income to pay for it.

What makes these enormous fees even worse is that scientists and engineers are paid significantly more in other countries where tuition fees are significantly lower. Take engineering as an example. The average engineer in Germany or France takes home significantly higher wages than their UK counterparts, yet they have to pay much lower fees to obtain the necessary qualifications.

Given the huge cost of tuition fees in the UK, it would be in the rational self-interest of any British youngster with an interest in engineering to devote some of their time to improving their French or German with a view to studying abroad (where it is cheaper) and working abroad (where the pay is better). This incentive to leave the UK doesn't just apply in engineering, it applies across all kinds of fields.

What the Tories have actually done is to provide a massive financial incentive for the smartest youngsters to quit the UK altogether in search of lower tuition fees and better employment opportunities abroad. Only the ones dumb enough to pay £9,000 a year for something they could get for a tiny fraction of the price elsewhere in Europe are likely to remain.


Rebuilding the economy

One of the most pitiful sections of Cameron's speech addressed the economic recovery:
"We can’t simply try and rebuild the same type of economy that we had before the crash. We can’t just go back to how things used to be. We need to build something better. A vision of a new kind of economy where the benefits of growth are shared by all"
There is so much wrong with this I could fill a whole article with criticism.

1. "
We can’t simply try and rebuild the same type of economy that we had before the crash" - but this is precisely what the Tories have been doing: banks that should have been left to die have been kept alive with bailouts and quantitative easing; financial sector reform has been booted into the long grass; adherents of the neoclassical pseudo-economic gibberish that created the crisis still dominate the financial sector, the regulatory authorities, government, the media and academia; bankers bonuses have risen way above pre-crisis levels, tax-dodging is still rife; and not least, George Osborne is busy inflating another housing Ponzi bubble with his ridiculous "Help to Buy" schemes. It is absolutely clear that the establishment minority have learned absolutely nothing from the economic crisis and they're determined to return to business as usual for them, whilst extracting the cost of their failures from the rest of us via ideological austerity.

2. "
We can’t just go back to how things used to be" - We certainly shouldn't have gone back to the way things used to be, but that is precisely what has been happening, with the only difference being that the establishment minority are determined to use the crisis in order to ensure that they get a bigger slice of the cake than before, whilst the rest of us must subsist on crumbs.

3. "
We need to build something better" -  but they're building something even worse!

4. "
A vision of a new kind of economy where the benefits of growth are shared by all" -  A vision which is completely at odds with the true Conservative agenda, which is a massive widening of the poverty gap and a sustained assault on the concept of social mobility. It is impossible to see how this "vision" is even remotely compatible with the fact that it is Tory party policy to impose harsh below-inflation pay raises on the entire public sector, apart from MPs, who look set to bag an inflation busting 11% pay raise for themselves. How about the fact that this Tory government has overseen the longest prolonged period of wage repression since the 19th Century, whilst giving vast tax cuts to corporations and the super-wealthy minority, allowing the corporate executive class to enrich themselves with unprecedented wage rises.

The fact is, that like so much of what comes out of David Cameron's gob, this vision of a fairer economy is an utterly dishonest representation of what he actually believes. Lying about his "vision" for Britain is contemptible stuff, I'd have more respect for him if he showed a bit of honesty and actually admitted that the real Tory agenda is to enrich the wealthy minority at the expense of the majority - but expecting an honest statement of intentions for a Tory would take similar levels of gullibility as naively accepting David Cameron's word that he wants a fairer Britain "where the benefits of growth are shared by all" when his actions demonstrate that he believes in precisely the opposite.

  Welfare

As we have come to expect from any Tory speech, Cameron engaged in a bout of welfare bashing; the tired tactic of trying to divert blame away from the financial sector and towards the poorest people in society.

One of the most ludicrous assertions he made was that "through universal credit, we’re ensuring that for every extra hour you work and every extra job you do – you should always be better off". Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that Universal Credit will have precisely the opposite effect for many people - that under Iain Duncan Smith's botched flagship welfare reform, many people will be made poorer for every extra hour of work that they do. Some of the examples of how universal credit will penalise hard work can be seen here.

Taxation
"At a time when family budgets are tight, it is really worth remembering that [social] spending comes out of the pockets of the same taxpayers whose living standards we want to see improve."
On the face of it this seems like ludicrous nonsense because the savings that are being made through cuts to social spending are not being used to cut the taxes of ordinary families, but on closer inspection it does make some sense. Cameron doesn't specifically state who these taxpayers whose living standards we want to see improve" actually are, he's just hoping that people assume that it refers to the families mentioned at the beginning of the sentence. The demographic that the Tory party is determined to improve living standards for is clearly not hard working families (you don't improve living standards for them through a campaign of wage repression, VAT hikes and cuts to in-work benefits), it is the wealthy minority Cameron is referring to. If you read it in the right way, this statement can be seen as an admission that Cameron and the Tories are determined to cut social spending in order to further improve the living standards of the rich.

It is also worth noting that Cameron made absolutely no mention of tax-dodging in his speech. If Corporations and the super-rich were made to pay their fair share of tax, then most of these drastic cuts in social spending could easily be avoided. The problem for Cameron of course is that many of the biggest financial donors to the Tory party are serial tax-dodgers. It serves Cameron's political self-interest to allow this plague of economically destructive tax-dodging to continue unchecked, as long as the beneficiaries fling a small portion of their ill-gotten gains into the coffers of the Tory party.


Immigration

In one breath David Cameron blamed immigrants for the state of the economy and the changes in society (in an transparent attempt to appeal to UKIP voters), and in the the next he was bragging about the Tory plan to make it easier for people from Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to get into the UK!

The new income requirements for British families with non-EU members introduced by the Tory party openly discriminate against British people and their families, meaning that countless low-mid income British people have been left with the appalling prospect of either breaking up their families, or living in exile. Meanwhile the government is powerless to discriminate against non-EU migrants that are married to citizens of other EU states in the same way, because their freedom of movement is protected under EU law. Thus a Brazilian or Indonesian that is married to a British person, speaks perfect English, has a high skill occupation and has British children can be barred from entering the UK, but if they are married to a Hungarian or Portuguese, speak no English at all, have no skills and no connections to the UK at all, they are absolutely free to come and go as they please!

Confidence

Cameron concluded his speech with what he wanted to be a rousing appeal to "confidence". The problem of course is that David Cameron and his cronies in the Tory party have done everything they can to destroy confidence in the UK economy. Cameron himself is guilty of repeatedly describing the UK as "bankrupted" which is hardly confidence inspiring language.

Then there's the consequences of their rotten policies; the fact that the public know that their incomes are being cut in real terms every single month is hardly confidence inspiring stuff; the fact that the UK lost its AAA Credit ratings under George Osborne's watch is hardly inspiring confidence in his extremist economic austerity experiment; the fact that the UK is lagging far behind high-tech economies like Germany and Japan hardly inspires confidence in our manufacturing sector; the fact that the Tory government have steadfastly refused to reform the financial sector hardly inspires confidence that there isn't another enormous economic crisis just around the corner; and the fact that the UK is plummeting down the league tables for academic achievement hardly inspires confidence in our future either.

Essentially what David Cameron is saying is that it is important that we all maintain a false sense of confidence, and just ignore the painful bouts of cognitive dissonance every time we hear him, or another Tory, describing the UK economy as "bankrupted" in order to score cheap political points against the Labour party.


Bucaneers
"We need to support, reward and celebrate enterprise. That requires a fundamental culture change in our country. A culture that’s on the side of those who work hard, that values that typically British, entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit"
Again, there's so much wrong with this I could fill an entire article with criticisms of these two sentences.

1.
"We need to support, reward and celebrate enterprise." - Cameron doesn't bother to define what he means by "enterprise". For all we know he could be talking about the kinds of financial sector innovations (like Collateralised Debt Obligations, Credit Default Swaps and all kinds of other complex financial derivatives) that nearly collapsed the entire global economy in 2007-08. To support this interpretation we could point to the conclusion of the speech where he praises the City of London as "the great innovator that has led the way in finance for centuries". It is not difficult to interpret Cameron's words as a call for more support, reward and celebration of the financial sector (that provides more than half of all donations to the Tory party).
 

2. "That requires a fundamental culture change in our country. A culture that’s on the side of those who work hard" - Cameron is clearly implying that British culture is against those that work hard and in a way he is right: British culture rewards those that were born into wealth and privilege, whilst millions of people that have worked hard all their lives are having their pensions and savings raided by Quantitative Easing and many others are being treated like criminal scum by the DWP. Tens of thousands of people that have worked hard all their lives are being forced onto mandatory unpaid labour schemes or being subjected to the psychological torture that is the Atos administered Work Capacity Assessment.

The silver spoon brigade abuse their inherited privilege by engaging in rent seeking behavior and outright corruption to ensure that they stay wealthy for the least possible effort, whilst hard working people across the country are being made to feel like criminals because the blatant economic mismanagement of the privileged classes has created an unemployment crisis in which they have become trapped, or they are being told that their meagre disability benefits are being stopped because their heart attack, stroke, blood clot in the brain, degenerative condition or terminal cancer are too trivial to prevent them from seeking work.

3. "
that values that typically British, entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit" - The Oxford English Dictionary defines a buccaneer as "a person who acts in a recklessly adventurous and often unscrupulous way, especially in business". Thus David Cameron is explicitly telling us that we must support, reward, celebrate and value the most reckless and unscrupulous in society! Instead of criticising the reckless and unscrupulous financial sector workers that crashed the global economy with their over-leveraged gambling and outright fraud, Cameron reckons we should be celebrating their achievements and rewarding them with ever higher bonuses!
 
Schools
 
At one point in the speech David Cameron brags that there are "over 3,000 more free schools and academies" - but this doesn't mean that 3,000 schools have been set up, it means that some 3,000 schools have been given away for free, property deeds and all, and in many cases to high profile Tory party and Liberal Democrat donors. Billions worth of land and infrastructure that was paid for at the public expense has been given away for free to unaccountable private sector interests. Only a Tory could possibly believe that this is something to brag about.

The fact that Cameron saw fit to brag about the fact his government has given so many £billions worth of public infrastructure away for free wasn't even the most alarming reference to education policy within his speech. The worst part was his claim that a pro-capitalism propaganda will be taught in schools. Cameron and his party wish to see future generations of our children indoctrinated into hero worshiping the unscrupulous "buccaneers" that David Cameron is full of praise for.

"We want to make sure [enterprise] is boosted everywhere. Promoted in schools. Taught in colleges. Celebrated in communities. Recognised properly in the honours system."
I always had my suspicions that the reason The Tories have been so keen to transfer our schools to unaccountable private sector interests** was so that kids could be more easily indoctrinated with pro-Tory propaganda. To hear David Cameron spell out his plan for our schools to be used as pro-capitalism indoctrination centres is confirmation of what I always suspected.

Conclusion


Cameron's speech was appalling for many, many reasons: The blatant lies; the distortions and misrepresentations; the outright denials of reality; the grotesque misuse of language; the logical contradictions; the feeble attempts at scapegoating immigrants and the least fortunate in society; and the announcement of plans to indoctrinate our children with pro-capitalist propaganda - but perhaps the most visible sign that Cameron has no grip at all on reality is the fact that he delivered his "austerity-to-infinity" speech from a golden lectern whilst surrounded by the trappings of wealth and privilege.


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

* A fall in borrowing was to be expected, the previous government had been spending money like crazy to keep the City of London from collapsing into insolvency in the wake of the biggest financial crisis in nearly eight decades.

**
So keen to get shot of it that they would just give all these £billions worth of property and land away for free and provide lucrative annual subsidies to the unaccountable private interests they handed it over to.




MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
           
What is ... Wage Repression?
                        
David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and opennness
                     
The Tory "war on justice"
                      

Asset stripping "bankrupt" Britain
                          
George Osborne's economic extremism
                

Sunday, 10 November 2013

The desecration of the poppy

As time drags us ever further away from the horrors of the Great War that inspired the adoption of the red poppy as a symbol of remembrance, the meaning of the red poppy is steadily being eroded away. You don't have to take my word for it, here's a quote from the Second World War RAF pilot Harry Leslie Smith:

"Over the last 10 years the sepia tone of November has become blood-soaked with paper poppies festooning the lapels of our politicians, newsreaders and business leaders. The most fortunate in our society have turned the solemnity of remembrance for fallen soldiers in ancient wars into a justification for our most recent armed conflicts. The American civil war's General Sherman once said that "war is hell", but unfortunately today's politicians in Britain use past wars to bolster our flagging belief in national austerity or to compel us to surrender our rights as citizens, in the name of the public good.
Still, this year I shall wear the poppy as I have done for many years. I wear it because I am from that last generation who remember a war that encompassed the entire world. I wear the poppy because I can recall when Britain was actually threatened with a real invasion and how its citizens stood at the ready to defend her shores. But most importantly, I wear the poppy to commemorate those of my childhood friends and comrades who did not survive the second world war and those who came home physically and emotionally wounded from horrific battles that no poet or journalist could describe.
However, I am afraid it will be the last time that I will bear witness to those soldiers, airmen and sailors who are no more, at my local cenotaph. From now on, I will lament their passing in private because my despair is for those who live in this present world. I will no longer allow my obligation as a veteran to remember those who died in the great wars to be co-opted by current or former politicians to justify our folly in Iraq, our morally dubious war on terror and our elimination of one's right to privacy." [source]
In the same week that this was written, the three "spy chiefs" (Andrew Parker the head of M15, John Sawers the head of M16 and Iain Lobban GCHQ director) donned their red poppies and headed off to parliament to defend their elimination of our right to privacy via their mass data stealing operations. What greater insult to the those that died in the fight against fascism is it possible to imagine than people defending the fascist surveillance state they have built without the democratic approval of parliament, whilst wearing poppies of remembrance?

Actually, there are more grotesquely insulting uses of the poppy. In 2012 David Cameron wore a red poppy on his lapel as he toured the middle east hawking armaments to numerous despots. This insult to the war dead was one of the central themes of the remembrance article I wrote last year. After a full year, the disgust at this display of absolute contempt for the very meaning of the remembrance poppy still remains. 

This year I came across another sickening image, in which little kids have been dressed up in "future soldier" T-shirts and told to smile inanely whilst holding gigantic red poppies. This image is an absolutely clear demonstration that the original meaning of the red poppy is being eroded away. Instead of being used as a symbol of solemn remembrance for the war dead, the poppy is now being used for the cheerful glorification and celebration of present and future conflicts.


I don't blame the kids for this image, they are perhaps too young to know any better. The ones that are guilty of this insult to the victims of war that the red poppy is supposed to symbolise are the adults that printed up these "future soldier" T-shirts and told the kids to pose in this way.

For many the red poppy still symbolises solemn remembrance for the casualties of war, however this original meaning is being eroded away both by people that want to use it as a jingoistic symbol of nationalism, and by people that are too pig-ignorant to realise that it would be more fitting to remove your poppy for a moment if you are going to defend the fascist surveillance state you have built without democratic approval or, if you are going to spend your time hawking weapons to despots running brutal Islamist theocracies. 

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.
 

           
The Tory "War on Justice"
        
     
Why dissent is positive
                                         

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Russell Brand: An idle revolutionary?

In the grand scheme of things I know there are more important issues to write about than Russell Brand, but to use some Internet terminology, the man is 'clickbait' so I'll certainly attract more traffic to my site by presenting discussion of important issues in the context of Russell Brand's revolutionary musings, than presenting it plainly and simply on its own. I feel justified in doing this because if Russell is now dabbling in my special field of interest (politics), then I feel entitled to dabble in Russel's special field of interest (Russell Brand).

I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of Russell's celebrity dandy act, although it is impossible to claim that he hasn't managed to capture the zeitgeist with his revolutionary musings. If he's managed to attract more than 3 million Youtube views of his interview with Jeremy Paxman and even had my Dad talking about him in a non-critical manner for a moment as a consequence of what he said to Paxman, he really has struck a chord with a large and unlikely cross-section of society. The sickening behavior of the political establishment (expenses scamming, inflation busting pay raises for MPs, countless broken manifesto pledges, corporate greed, lobbying, vested interests and dodgy political donations, all against a backdrop of harsh self-defeating austerity and wage repression for the masses) and our archaic and unrepresentative voting system have created a huge mass of angry and marginalised people. 


The problem with Russel's naive political musings is that he presents nothing as a viable alternative to the cesspool of corruption and inequality that the United Kingdom is becoming. The two main threads to his stance (as outlined in his interview with Jeremy Paxman) were voter apathy and a loosely defined call for some kind of revolution.

Even if there is an element of sincerity behind his words, it seems to me that by calling for some kind of undefined revolution and telling people not to vote, Russell is making a move to establish himself a leading player in the largely untapped and potentially lucrative "pissed off and politically marginalised" market.

The ludicrous open letter riposte to his "revolutionary" comments from the ever irritating Robert Webb* provoked Russell into further defining his call for revolution in order to defend himself against Webb's idle conjecture that all revolutions result in totalitarianism ("we know that it ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder"). Here's Brand's retort:
"Why didn't he just write me a normal letter? He don't know where I live, I suppose. And no, no death camps. Just for the record, in case anyone else from Peep Show is worried, I'm definitely against death camps ... Definitely no killing. I'm against that; I'm a vegetarian, I think we're all equal. I'm not saying smash people's stuff up, and definitely no killing."
If this is all he is capable of offering in defence of his calls for revolution, a harsher critic than myself would probably say that he should keep his lazy political cogitations to himself and leave politics to the grown-ups. I'm not as inclined to be so dismissive for one simple reason, his childlike dabbling in important issues like apathy and revolution have resulted in countless thousands of people thinking and talking about these important subjects.

The worst thing about the quote I've selected is the absurd non sequiter that being a vegetarian somehow makes him a kind hearted egalitarian that opposes killing, which is about as far from a debate winning argument as it is possible to make. A vastly superior strategy would have been to point out some of the countless revolutions that led to positive social outcomes (the labour rights movement, universal suffrage, the US civil rights campaign, the anti-apartheid movement, gay rights, countless successful boycotts ...) in order to undermine Webb's lazy conjecture that any kind of revolution would necessarily end in some kind of brutal totalitarian dystopia.

The fact that Russell couldn't tear Robert Webb's smug liberal defence of our rotten political system to pieces illustrates that d
espite his impressive verbosity, and his ability to articulate the anger that millions of us are feeling, Russell isn't actually a very deep thinker. In my view it is absolutely crucial to carefully define what you are calling for before you go chucking important words like "revolution" about, because to use such words in an idle manner is to belittle them, and to abstract them from their true meaning. Another crucial thing is to remember that if someone comes at you with a glib liberal critique of your appeal for social justice, you need to ruthlessly tear their fatuous argument to shreds, rather than lazily invoking the fact that you're a vegetarian, as if that makes you some kind of inherently good person.

Aside from his lackadaisical attempts to actually define what it is that he wants (other than a revolution in which nobody is killed, people are treated as equals and nobody's stuff is smashed up) another problem with Russell's political ruminations is his appeal to apathy.

In my view there is already far too much apathy, so calling for even more will only make the situation worse. If non-votes were actually counted in the last two general elections then "nobody" would have won back to back landslide victories. In 2010 David Cameron became Prime Minister despite fewer than one in four eligible voters (23.5%) casting their ballots for Tory candidates, whilst 35% of people refused to vote at all. In the grand scheme of things David Cameron and the Tory party (and Tony Blair and his Iraq invasion supporting Neo-Labour party before them) were comprehensively trounced by political apathy.

It is quite clear from these figures that the disenfranchised would have more than enough clout to change the political landscape under a remotely fair voting system should they vote en masse, but under the archaic and grotesquely unrepresentative shambles we're lumbered with, a turnout of 5 million for one of the alternative parties probably wouldn't even return a single MP! Brand isn't calling for a fairer and more representative political system, he's calling for even greater numbers of people to refuse to vote in the futile hope that the establishment elite will see this lack of democratic mandate as some kind of impediment to their selfish objectives.

If the facts that 35% of people couldn't be bothered to vote at the last election, and that the Tories gained nothing like enough votes to form a majority government weren't enough to stop them carving up the NHS for their corporate mates, vandalising the justice system, flogging off Royal Mail for a fraction of its real value, imposing ideological lunacy on the education system, selling off what remains of the national silver and coddling corporations and the super-rich minority with generous tax cuts, whilst simultaneously imposing harsh austerity and relentless wage repression on the majority, then why on earth would an increased apathy rate of 45% or even 55% stop them?

The massive flaw in the political apathy stance is that if you refuse to vote out of disgust at the system, you're giving more political power to those that actually buy into it. You're actually empowering those that are too ill-informed to understand that all three of the establishment Westminster parties are wedded to the hopelessly discredited right-wing pseudo-economic ideology of neoliberalism, and even worse, you're giving more power to those that understand exactly how bad the neoliberal orthodoxy is for the well being of the majority and for the health of the economy, but support it because it serves their own selfish self-interest. By refusing to play the game, you allow those that do play it to monopolise and subvert it in order to serve their own selfish instincts.


In 2014 we will have the European elections, which are conducted on a proportional basis, meaning that there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Given that just 34% of the electorate bothered to vote in the last European election in 2009, even a relatively small turnout for minor parties such as the Green Party or Left Unity would return several MEPs that would be actively opposed to the neoliberal orthodoxy. Marginally over 2% of the eligible vote was enough to return 2 candidates each for the Green Party and the fascist BNP in 2009, whilst the Liberal Democrats collected 11 seats with just 4.7% of the eligible vote. If just one in ten people voted for an alternative party next year, then they could conceivably fight Labour and the Tories for second place behind UKIP (a party that dresses itself up as an alternative to the establishment status quo, but which embraces the rotten neoliberal orthodoxy even more passionately than the three establishment parties do).

To not vote in a General Election when you live in an absolutely safe constituency, where the candidate for one particular party is guaranteed victory, is reasonably understandable, but to refuse to vote in an election where you actually have the chance to make your vote count is hopelessly apathetic. When you have a chance to make a difference, no matter how slight, you've got to take it, otherwise your criticisms of the system amount to little more than the petulant foot-stamping of a frustrated child.

 
My advice for those that are thoroughly pissed off with the self-serving political orthodoxy is that apathy is definitely not the solution. You've either got to get involved with one of the many alternative political parties and movements (Greens, Left Unity, UK Uncut, The National Health Action Party, the Socialist Party, the People's Assembly, Positive Money, The Pirate Party, 38 Degrees ...) or, if you really must attempt the seemingly futile, you could join the Labour party in order to try to influence the party leadership away from their adherence to right-wing neoliberal orthodoxy and back towards the left.

To do nothing at all is to let the bastards win without a fight, and to embrace your own subservience to a system that you despise. Even if you believe the system is hopelessly rigged against you, you've got to try to make a positive difference, if not for the greater good, then do it for your own state of mental wellbeing


If society is going to change for the better than good people need to fight for that change because the ruthlessly self-serving political establishment won't give us anything unless we force their hand, or remove them from the equation entirely. Even if you believe that the political establishment is so powerful and entrenched that the chances of positive change are vanishingly small, you should still try to make a difference because it's just not healthy for people to meekly accept that they are subservient to a system that they are powerless to change. Is it not better to fight in vain for what we believe, than to meekly admit to ourselves that we are nothing more than inert collateral in a financial game that is being played for the benefit of a despised establishment minority?

I hope that, in some small way, the fact that I have come from nowhere** to establish myself as one of the most visited political blogs in the country, is a demonstration that it is entirely possible for committed individuals to make a bit of a difference. Yes, in the grand scheme of things mine is only a small difference. However the fact that hundreds of thousands of people a week see my political views via the AAV Facebook page, tens of thousands a week read my blog posts and many hundreds of people have written to me to express their support for what I'm doing and to thank me for helping them to see through the mainstream media bullshit, shows me that I am capable of making a positive difference in people's lives, and that I am playing some small role in the information war that is currently being utterly dominated by the misinformation campaigns bankrolled by adherents of the neoliberal orthodoxy.

As a darling of the media, Russell Brand has a much larger platform than I could ever dream of, and although his heart seems to be in the right place, I believe he's wasting the huge opportunity that he has to make a significant difference.

A powerful illustration of how  enormous Russell Brand's media power has become is the way in which the massive global November 5th 2013 (Guy Fawkes Night) protest was barely covered in the mainstream media, other than to note that Russell Brand was in attendance. To those of us that are familiar with media blackouts on coverage of large demonstrations, the fact that such a demonstration was discussed at all in the mainstream corporate press was a pleasant surprise, despite the fact that it was presented in the context of Russell Brand's attendance, rather than as a serious analysis of what the protest was actually about.

If Russell took the time to do some research and carefully define what it is that he actually wants to achieve, he has enough media power to significantly change things. Unlike Robert Webb I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to tell him which "fucking books" he should go and read, but there are a wealth of alternatives to neoliberal crony capitalism out there and if Brand actually set his mind to carefully defining some kind of viable alternative, I'm absolutely certain the public would vote for him in droves (especially the disenfranchised younger generations). I mean if Boris Johnson can get himself elected as Tory mayor of London on the strength of his "harmless buffoon" act, then it hardly seems like a stretch to imagine that, given some actual political ideas, Brand could re-invent himself as a serious political contender should he actually want to.

For those that think it sounds like an absurd proposition that an actor-comedian like Russell could make it in politics, I'd suggest that you take a look at the MoViemento Cinque Stella (Five Star Movement) in Italy, which was founded in 2009 by the actor-comedian Beppe Grillo and has already become the second most popular party in Italian politics, with 25.5% of the vote in the 2013 General Election. If you're not convinced by that, then perhaps you should consider the fact that throughout most of the 1980s the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth was a retired actor called Ronald Reagan***.

I suppose it will become clear over the next few years whether Russell Brand has undergone some kind of profound political awakening that inspires him to put his mind to effecting real political change, or whether his political musings are nothing more than idle post-adolescent chatter, soon to be forgotten when he finds another more conventional (and more lucrative) bandwagon to board. I hope it is the former, because his undeniable magnetism and eloquence would be powerful assets in the fight for social justice should he chose to actively support one of the many political alternatives out there, or even to develop his own ideas and form his own political movement.

Here are some of the many alternatives to the neoliberal crony capitalist orthodoxy, that Russell (or anyone else that is serious about effecting real political change) might want to have a look at:



 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, it would be massively appreciated.


Flattr this

* Webb concludes his open letter with the ludicrous suggestion that Brand "read some fucking Orwell" which illustrates nothing more than the fact that Webb should probably read Orwell again more carefully, if all he managed to take from Orwell's work is that he must have been some kind of liberal, establishment supporting anti-revolutionary.

** I've never once appeared in the mainstream corporate media and nobody but my close friends and family (and the people that have access to my secret service files) even know what I look like.

*** The American public wanted a heroic John Wayne figure, but all the Republicans had to offer was a 3rd rate former B Movie actor called Ronald Reagan to lead their neoliberal revolution.

 

           
The Tory "War on Justice"
        
     
Why dissent is positive
                                          
What do Tory donors get for their cash?
                                            

Monday, 4 November 2013

The energy expenses scandal


In November 2013 the Sunday Mirror revealed that 340 MPs (more than half of them) have been claiming their energy bills on parliamentary expenses. I've already written extensively on energy policy so I'll stick to a few quick points.
 

It is hardly surprising that energy price inflation is soaring out of control in the UK. Not only are the establishment class already insulated from the adverse effects of energy price inflation by virtue of their wealth, more than half of MPs have their energy needs met at the taxpayers' expense. The problem of fuel poverty, and the fact that it will claim countless lives this winter is quite clearly an alien subject to those that can keep their heating on full bore, 24 hours a day at the taxpayers' expense throughout the winter.
 

MPs from either side of the house have been caught up in this taxpayer subsidised energy scandal, however the bulk of the criticism must surely be aimed at the coalition government politicians, who without a hint of irony railed against Ed Miliband's proposed government intervention in the energy market in order to protect the poorest and most vulnerable people in society from energy price inflation, in order to side with the energy companies that threatened to impose energy blackouts on the nation should curbs on their profiteering ever be imposed.

The most egregious claim of £5,822 was submitted by the Millionaire Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi for energy use on his vast 31 acre estate. This is a bloke who has bragged about his achievements on the energy bill committee in improving energy efficiency in homes and businesses. One wonders what incentive he has to improve the energy efficiency of his own country mansion, given that his enormous energy bills are paid for at taxpayers' expense no matter how well insulated his walls, windows and roof spaces are.


Another egregious claim was submitted by another Tory millionaire, the MP for East Devon Hugo Swire, who billed the taxpayer £3,192 to cover his energy bills. Just a few weeks previously he told his local newspaper that "The reason we are not introducing a price freeze is it simply won’t work. If we want the lights to stay on, consumers and taxpayers are, by some means or other, going to have to pay for it". It is absolutely clear that he believes the taxpayer are "going to have to" pay for his energy usage, but us common plebs ("consumers") "are going to have to" pay for our own, whether we can afford to subsidise outrageous corporate profiteering or not.

Another high profile Tory MP to put in a ludicrous claim for his energy bills was Alan Duncan, who billed the taxpayer £3,998 for energy use at his second home. A few weeks before the Mirror revealed the ludicrous personal energy subsidy he benefits from, he had a rant to his local paper about Ed Miliband's energy freeze policy. In his rant he constructed a catastrophically poor argument that energy price inflation is as inevitable as the tides, based on little more than feeble appeals to authority (I worked as an oil trader for 20 years don't you know? I've been an MP for over 20 years don't you know?), ludicrous fantasies (in Duncan's worldview the UK energy market is a highly competitive "free market" rather than a price rigging cartel riddled with foreign state owned eneteprises such as EdF and E-On) and topped off with some childish tribalist political mudslinging. No wonder he is opposed to caps on energy prices, the cost of his utilities bills don't matter a jot to him because the taxpayer pays it for him, whatever the price.


I've already written an article exposing the ludicrously hypocritical energy policy of the Tories, which consists of calling Ed Miliband a "market rigger" and a "price fixer" for daring to propose that energy price inflation is brought under control for 20 months, then just a couple of weeks later signing off on a ludicrous price fixing deal with EdF to pay almost double the market rate for electricity for 35 years. You can read that article here: 12 Things you should know about the Tory nuclear price fixing subsidies.

I've also written an article on MPs pay and expenses, in which I propose that all of their perks are removed and that their salary is pegged to the median income, meaning that if the public get poorer in real terms, they get poorer too, but if the public get richer then the MPs benefit from increased prosperity too. This would give them a financial incentive to make sure that conditions improve for the majority, and it would also allow us to actually believe them when they made claims like "we're all in this together". You can read that article here: The Case For ... Proportional Pay for MPs.
 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.
 

        
     
Tory energy policy hypocrisy
                                          
What do Tory donors get for their cash?
                                            

Sunday, 3 November 2013

An open letter to David Cameron




This is an open letter to David Cameron from a coalition of 70 of the leading human rights organisations in the world. I don't often appropriate other people's words, but in this case I'll make an exception and quote the letter and the signatories in full before adding my own comment at the end.
                

Dear Prime Minister,

We have joined together as an international coalition of free speech, media freedom and human rights organisations because we believe that the United Kingdom government's response to the revelations of mass surveillance of digital communications is eroding fundamental human rights in the country. The government's response has been to condemn, rather than celebrate, investigative journalism, which plays a crucial role in a healthy democratic society.

We are alarmed at the way in which the UK government has reacted, using national security legislation against those who have helped bring this public interest information to global attention. We are concerned about:
  • The use of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain the Brazilian media worker, David Miranda on 18 August 2013 at London Heathrow Airport. Miranda was carrying journalistic material on behalf of the UK's Guardian newspaper and is the partner of the journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of mass surveillance of digital communications by the UK and USA
  • The sustained pressure against the UK's Guardian newspaper for reporting the disclosures of whistleblower, Edward Snowden, including sending officials to force the Guardian to destroy hard drives allegedly containing information from Snowden
  • Your call on 16 October 2013 for a House of Commons Select Committee to review whether the Guardian has damaged national security by publishing material provided by Edward Snowden, and a subsequent announcement that the review will be conducted by the Home Affairs Select Committee as part of their inquiry into anti-terrorism.
We believe these actions clearly violate the right to freedom of expression, which is protected under British, European and international law. Under such laws, the right to freedom of expression includes the protection of both journalists, and those that assist them in the course of their vital work.

The right to freedom of expression and media freedom enable the free flow of information in order for the public to hold their governments to account. While the protection of national security can be a legitimate ground for restricting the right under international law, such restrictions are narrowly defined. Governments must show that a restriction is necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose and must be proportionate to the aim pursued. The presumption in favour of freedom of expression requires governments to demonstrate that the expression will actually harm national security; it is not sufficient to simply say that it will.

National security should never be used to justify preventing disclosures of illegalities or wrongdoing, no matter how embarrassing such disclosures may be to the UK or other governments. In the case of Snowden and the Guardian, the disclosures have facilitated a much-needed public debate about mass surveillance in a democracy, and exposed the possible violation of the fundamental human rights of millions of people worldwide. As such, no liability should be incurred as the benefit to the public outweighs the demonstrable harm to national security.

We also believe that this use of national security will have dangerous consequences for the right to freedom of expression and media freedom in the UK and beyond, creating a hostile and intimidating environment and discouraging those who could reveal uncomfortable truths and hold those in power to account. We are concerned that this will further create negative consequences for the reputation of the UK as an advocate for the protection and realisation of the right to freedom of expression and media freedom worldwide. States with little regard for the human rights of their people will seek to use the UK's example to legitimise their own repressive practices.


The UK has a strong history of democracy, and while targeted surveillance may play an important role in protecting national security, in doing so it should not erode the very values it seeks to protect. We call on you to honour the UK's international obligations to defend and protect the right to freedom of expression and media freedom, and to end the UK government's pressure on the Guardian and those who assist them.

Yours Sincerely,
Gergana Jouleva, Access to Information Programme, Bulgaria
Mircea Toma, ActiveWatch, Romania
Ahmad Quraishi, Afghanistan Journalists Center
Remzi Lani, Albanian Media Institute
Thomas Hughes, ARTICLE 19, international
Zuliana Lainez, Asociacion Nacional de Periodistas del Peru (ANP)
Khaled Amami, Association of Citizenship and Digital Culture (ACCUN), Tunisia
Jasna Milanovic, Association of Independent Electronic Media, Serbia
Hans de Zwart, Bits for Freedom, Netherlands
Guilherme Alpendre, Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism
Yuri Dzhibladze, Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Russia
Ramana Sorn, Cambodian Center for Human Rights
Laura Tribe, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Olexandra Matviichuk, Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine
Ioana Avadani, Center for Independent Journalism, Romania
Masjaliza Hamzah, Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia
Paul Dawnson Formaran, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippines
Dr Leila Alieva, Center for National and International Studies, Azerbaijan
Edison Lanza, Centro de Archivos y Acceso a la Información Pública (CAinfo), Uruguay
Cristian Horchert, Chaos Computer Club, Germany
Kate Watters, Crude Accountability, USA
Jillian York, Electronic Frontier Foundation, international
Jo Glanville, English PEN
Shiva Gaunle, Federation of Nepali Journalists
Karim Lahidji, FIDH / International Federation for Human Rights
Andres D'Alessandro, Foro de Periodismo Argentino, Argentina
Chiranuch Jiew, Foundation for Community Educational Media (Prachatai), Thailand
Trevor Timm, Freedom of the Press Foundation, USA
Ayushjav Tumurbaatar, Globe International Center, Mongolia
Eka Popkhadze, GYLA, Georgia
Artus Sakunts, Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Armenia
Avetik Ishkhanyan, Helsinki Committee of Armenia
Danuta Przywara, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland
Eldar Zeynalov, Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan
Rasul Jafarov, Human Rights Club, Azerbaijan
Robert Ssempala, Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda
Sanar Yurdatapan, Initiative for Freedom of Expression, Turkey
Emin Huseynov, Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety (IRFS), Azerbaijan
Mayumi Ortecho, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Latin America
Elizabeth Ballantine, Inter American Press Association
Ann-Sofie Nyman, International Partnership for Human Rights, Belgium
Alison Bethel McKenzie, International Press Institute
Yevgeniy Zhovtis, Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law
Mariya Yasenovska, Kharkiv Regional Foundation 'Public Alternative', Ukraine
Alban Muriqi, Kosova Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims
Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty, UK
Prof. Amal Jamal, Media Center for Arab Palestinians, Israel
Meri Bekeshova, Media Workers' Trade Union of Kyrgyz Republic
Nani Jansen, Media Legal Defence Initiative, UK
Soe Myint, Mizzima, Myanmar
Ludmilla Alexeeva, Moscow Helsinki Group
Omar Faruk Osman, National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)
Andre Loconte, Net Users' Rights Protection Association (NURPA), Belgium
Gunnar M. Ekelove-Slydal, Norwegian Helsinki Committee
Alberto Cerda, ONG Derechos Digitales, Chile
Makereta Komai, Pacific Islands News Association
Owais Aslam Ali, Pakistan Press Foundation
Mousa Rimawi, Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms
Larry Siems, PEN American Center
Tasleem Thawar, PEN Canada
Laura McVeigh and Anders Heger, PEN International
Gus Hosein, Privacy International
Natalia Taubina, Public Verdict, Russia
Christophe Deloire, Reporters Without Borders, international
Oleksandra Sverdlova, No Borders Project, Social Action Center, Ukraine
Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Southeast Asian Press Alliance
Nalini Elumalai, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Alison Meston, WAN-IFRA, international
Maria Pia Matta Cerna, World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
Arthur Gwagwa, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum
This letter makes a number of hugely important points, including the fact that investigative journalism is a vital part of democracy and that it is not sufficient for a government to simply claim that national security has been harmed, it is necessary for them to actually demonstrate it with empirical evidence (something that Cameron and his bully boys have abjectly failed to do). These are very important points, but for me the most important point of all is the assertion that "states with little regard for the human rights of their people will seek to use the UK's example to legitimise their own repressive practices". It is utterly appalling that human rights advocacy groups representing citizens suffering under horrific repressive regimes (such as Tunisia, Nepal, Palestine, Myanmar, Zimbabwe) are now pleading for David Cameron to stop his repressive practices because by doing so he's furnishing human rights abusers across the globe with the excuse that "if the UK can do it, then so can we".

I made a number of similar points in reaction to Cameron's efforts to punish the Guardian for daring to reveal the true scale of the NSA / GCHQ mass surveillance operation. You can read those here: David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and openness.

It is also worth noting that this is not the first time a huge international coalition has damned David Cameron's government. In February 2013 an international coalition of civil liberties groups wrote a letter of protest against the introduction of Secret Courts in which they stated that "If the UK Parliament passes this proposal into law it will be a huge setback for those of us fighting to secure truth and fairness from our own governments and within our own justice systems across the world". Not only were the international community appalled by the introduction of secret courts, the UK legal profession was too. More than 700 legal professionals signed this letter which damned Secret Courts as a dangerous attack on fair and open justice.

David Cameron and his revolting allies in the Illiberal Democrats ignored all of these concerns and legislated secret courts into existence regardless. Perhaps the most appalling thing of all is that just a few months after voting secret courts into existence, Nick Clegg and the Illiberal Democrats have decided that they are now going to campaign against the totalitarian measures they themselves voted into existence.

One positive development is that there are a few members of the Tory party that seem to be waking up to the fact that David Cameron is a totalitarian with no regard for justice or human rights. Hopefully when Cameron is ejected as Tory leader, he will be replaced by someone from the (tiny) libertarian faction of the party such as David Davis, Dominic Raab or even Boris Johnson. They may still be Tories, but at least they have more respect for human rights, freedom of the press and individual liberties than the current leader of their party.

I fully endorse the contents of the letter to David Cameron. If you support it too, feel free to add your name in the comments section below and forward a link to this article to your local MP to request that they explain their stance on the issues of mass surveillance and secret courts. Your local MP has a statutory obligation to reply to you as long as you include your full name and address in the correspondence.

Use this link to Find Your MP


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.




MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
           
Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
                        
David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and opennness
                     
The Tory "war on justice"
                      

The warped Tory definition of rights
                          
George Osborne's economic extremism