Tuesday, 20 November 2012

David Cameron's "economic war"

On 19th November 2012 the Prime Minister David Cameron gave a nauseating speech at the CBI annual conference.

For those that don't know, the CBI are a powerful right-wing business lobby group that claim to represent "British business" and boast about having 240,000 members. In essence they are a kind of trade union for business owners, corporate executives and the like.


Cameron started off his speech to the CBI with some ingratiating audience acknowledgements, singling out particular business folk in the crowd for attention and adding some tripe about what a great job he has been doing hawking military hardware to despotic regimes in the middle-east during Remembrance week.

Cameron began by talking up his business credentials and connections as if he were a cross between the compare at Live at the Apollo and a talentless graduate at a job interview shamelessly name-dropping people he's met because he's got nothing by the way of skills or experience to offer. After this he moved smoothy into inaccurate Tory bragging mode.

He claimed the the government have been "Reforming welfare so that it pays to work", which is a brazenly absurd claim, given that one of the Tory flagship policies is the Workfare mandatory unpaid labour scheme that ensures that it actually doesn't pay to work.

Even if the Tories hadn't pushed 100,000s of people into economically illiterate mandatory unpaid labour schemes, the idea that work can be made to pay through attacks on welfare entitlements alone is still transparently wrong. Surely the best way to ensure that it pays to work is to make sure that companies pay their staff a living wage, which would have the double benefit of increasing consumer demand and reducing the amount of tax that needs to be redistributed (via schemes like housing benefit and tax credits) to employees as a kind of taxpayer funded state subsidy to companies that refuse to pay reasonable wages to their employees. Cameron is hardly likely to tell assorted business people that they need to pull their weight and remove the burden on the taxpayer they are inflicting by paying poverty wages though is he?

The next claim that I've singled out for attention is nothing short of an egregious lie. Cameron claimed that the government have "protected the science budget". It doesn't matter how much Cameron lies about this one, the evidence is there that the Tory led government have been ruthlessly slashing investment in science. Even the extremely right-wing Daily Telegraph have noted that cuts to the science budget will have disastrous effects on the economy. Not only have the government overseen a huge cut to the science budget resulting in the abandonment of numerous cutting edge science programmes and provoking strong criticism from high profile science commentators such as Brian Cox (who said that the bankers' bailout was worth more money than the UK had spent on Science since Jesus), they have also been slashing funding to science charities and to university science departments across the country. That the Prime Minister is able to lie like this is a shocking indictement of accountability in British politics.

Next he wheeled out the timeworn "our fiscal polices are working because interest rates are at record lows" fallacy, which is an obvious conflation of fiscal policy with monetary outcomes. By which I mean, he is trying to claim that low interest rates and low bond yields have nothing to do with the Bank of England holding the base rate at an all time historic low since 2009 and "magicking up" £375 billion to manipulate the government bond market and everything to do with George Osborne's ideologically driven fiscal austerity agenda.

I've already torpedoed this lame fallacy in this article about Tory economic illiteracy. If this fallacy isn't considered a full on lie, it must at least be considered as either a demonstration of Cameron's economic illiteracy, or a demonstration of his assumption that everyone else, including his audience of successful business people, are so economically illiterate they wont even notice this conflation of fiscal policy and monetary outcomes.

Cameron's next boast was about exports being "up dramatically". Again, this is a stunning bit of revisionism that people at the CBI really should be capable of spotting. The trade deficit reached an all time record high in June 2012 of £4.4 billion and peaked again in August 2012 at £4.2 billion. Perhaps exports may have risen slightly, but they are still being monstrously dwarfed by imports. Even if the claim that exports are up were true, it would be yet another example of a Tory politician brazenly cherry-picking data, however the actual evidence is that exports are down. Here's a report (again from the right-wing Daily Telegraph) detailing "a worrying drop in export demand from Asia and the Eurozone" and providing evidence that manufacturing output fell for the sixth consecutive month in October 2012. Again Cameron is either outright lying about this rise in exports, or he's found some speck of data that he can cherry-pick and present in isolation to create the misleading narrative that British industry is thriving. The business leaders who have actually experienced these worrying declines in productivity should surely have reacted angrily to this attempt to mislead.

His next step was to begin bragging about Michael Gove's great school give-away, where taxpayer built and maintained schools are handed over for free to be run by private interests at the taxpayers' expense. The give-away of so many £billions worth of taxpayer funded property is concerning enough, but the abject lack of oversight and accountability is even worse. Cameron bragged that his party have forced 200 primary schools to privatise themselves this year and intends to force the same process upon 400 more next year. One could see how the privatisation of the education system might appeal to some business leaders, perhaps hopeful of getting in on the taxpayer funded schools free-for-all themselves, however one lesson that they must overlook entirely to approve of the education privatisation agenda is another Tory mandated school privatisation catastrophe. Cameron actually indirectly referred to this privatisation disaster in his speech by making reference to the oft heard business claim that school leavers are just not up to scratch.

This catastrophic privatisation can be traced back to the introduction of the national curriculum by the Tory education minister Norman Baker in 1988 which saw private companies "compete" to provide curricula and exam packages to schools. Obviously the only real element of competition was in which exam boards provided the easiest curricula. Schools have an obvious incentive to pick the curricula that give their kids the best chance of passing, thus the exam boards have an incentive to produce simpler curricula and easier exams, causing a race-to-the-bottom which resulted in 29 consecutive years of improved exam results at the national level. Yet each year's improved exam results met with a chorus of business leader complaining that school leavers are severely lacking in basic numeracy and literacy, devoid of critical thinking skills and unable to think for themselves. The Tories hasty efforts to further privatise the education system will certainly create yet more disastrous consequences, especially if they allow lunatic creationist groups to teach their anti-scientific mumbo-jumbo to generations of British school kids.

Next Cameron began to present his policy of "cutting red tape" to "speed up" the processes of implementing reforms and building infrastructure. In this section he made an absolutely shameless claim that it should be left to "smart people in Whitehall" to consider "equalities issues" and economic consequences whilst making policy. This is frankly absurd from a government of over-promoted millionaires that have shown absolute disregard for the adverse impact of their economic polices on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. It is also a ridiculous claim because of the catastrophic failure of their ideological austerity agenda.

Remember that George Osborne and his pet project at the OBR predicted 2.5% growth for 2012, well the actual rate of growth has been minus 0.117% over the course of the last year. The "smart people" in Whitehall have overseen a vast transference of wealth from poor and ordinary people to the super rich elite and tanked the UK economy in the process. What is needed is not less regulation and oversight to "hinder them" but more regulation and oversight to prevent them from implementing catastrophic ideologically driven nonsense. What British politics needs is more evidence based analysis, not less.

As supporting "evidence" for this agenda Cameron cited a pathetic anecdote and a rubbish analogy. The first being the facile claim that "if Cristopher Columbus had an advisory committee, he would probably still be in the dock" and then the even more feeble-minded analogy about roadbuilding. He said:
"In the 1950s it took 8 years to design and build the first 50 miles of the M1. Today it can take that long just to widen a stretch of motorway"
This statement tells us absolutely nothing about the burden of "red tape" and everything about Cameron's breathtaking ignorance of road engineering. It is obviously much easier to build a stretch of brand new motorway through the countryside than it is to upgrade a stretch of motorway that is in constant use by 100,000s of vehicles every day. The constant traffic flow presents a massive problem to engineers and construction workers, but so too does the pre-existing infrastructure. Anyone that travelled on the A1 during the lengthy upgrade process would have noticed the sheer number of bridges that needed to be widened, service stations that needed to be demolished and relocated, slip roads than needed to be completely redesigned, all without breaking the (economically vital) flow of 100,000s of vehicles a day. That the Prime Minister is prepared to make such an ignorat comparison is truly breathtaking demonstration that the man really doesn't have a clue about infrastructure development.

Cameron then invoked the "war spirit" by stating that:
"When Britain was at war in the 1940s Whitehall underwent a revolution, Normal rules were circumvented and convention was thrown out. Well this country is in the economic equivalent of war today - and we need the same spirit"
It is noticeable that Cameron didn't even bother to explain who the UK is supposed to be at "economic war" with. I'd like to make a suggestion that the UK economy is currently under economic attack from tax-dodging multinational corporations, that siphon £billions out of the UK economy without paying their fair share of tax, leaving ordinary people and small and medium sized British businesses (SMEs) to carry some of the extra burden whilst the government brutally slashes investment and services and engages in deficit spending to make up the rest of the shortfall.

The problem is of course, that Cameron and Osborne are blatantly serving the interests of these tax-dodging corporate parasites, have nothing but empty rhetoric about tax-dodging and hypocritical statements to offer and have even deliberately opened up more tax-loopholes to help multinational corporations avoid even more tax.

If Britain is at "economic war", Cameron and Osborne are traitors working for the other side.

In order to counter these economic attacks, Cameron proposes slashing consultations, rights to appeal and judicial reviews, while the real "red tape" that is actually inflicting severe damage on the UK economy is the convoluted 12,000 page UK tax code that allows large companies and rich individuals to dodge paying their fair share of tax. A simplification of the tax code to explicitly prevent tax avoidance schemes and a change of Whitehall policy to only allow companies that pay their fair share of tax to obtain government funds (subsidies, grants, loans, PFI deals, outsourcing contracts, supply contracts...) would be a great place to start on cutting harmful "red tape". However Cameron and the Tories have absolutely no intention of removing the kind of "red tape" that directly benefits giant multinational corporations at the expense of the wider UK economy. He is only interested in removing the kind of "red tape" that protects the wider UK economy from the interests of the multinationals.

Cameron's proposals are not a war on "red tape", they are a war on accountability. What he is actually proposing is that stakeholders in the UK economy (including small and medium enterprises) should be shut out from policy making by cutting back on consultations; that processes should be sped up by cutting impact assessments and evidence based analysis, which obviously increases the probability of making disastrous mistakes; and that accountability should be eliminated by stamping out appeals and stymieing judicial reviews.

Cameron's agenda is to increase the ability for the government to implement ideological policy, kneejerk reforms and to steamroller through developments that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of the local economy.

What is most astonishing about Cameron's agenda is that it runs counter to the principle of small-government the Tories claim they stand for. In essence Cameron is saying that government knows best, and that he plans to make it much easier for them to hammer through their favoured ideological policies regardless of the actual socio-economic impact and to reduce the ability for local people to appeal against barmy decisions or to seek redress when the whole thing turns out to be a poorly conceived catastrophic mistake.

This breakdown of Cameron's speech demonstrates that he is prepared to lie and mislead in order to make his case; he is all pally with the business leaders he addresses, but he assumes that they are idiots that can be taken in by his lies and misrepresentations; he relies on anecdotes and absurdly ill informed comparisons to build his case; he knows nothing about the practicalities of infrastructure development; he has absolute contempt for the concepts of evidence based policy and accountability; and that he is only interested in furthering the government's ability to inflict poorly devised ideologically driven policy on the UK economy.

The CBI represent thousands of small and medium businesses across the nation and they should have at least questioned Cameron's bizarrely misleading claims about the health of the economy and his brazen lie about protecting the science budget. After two and a half years of Tory ideologically driven policy driving the UK economy into recession and crushing the manufacturing and construction sectors, they should also have raised the question of why on earth would anyone want to see the Tories award themselves the ability to inflict even more poorly conceived, ideologically driven, top-down nonsense and to remove any vestiges of accountability? Another key question they failed to ask is what Cameron intends to do about the sheer scale of tax-dodging, that is leading to terrible tax asymmetry between Small and Medium enterprises and the global tax-dodging corporate kleptocracy.

The response of the CBI obviously contained no critical analysis at all. The Director General of the CBI, John Cridland stated that "Difficult times demand difficult approaches - we welcome government’s renewed push to get things done" as part of his glowing review of the speech. Given that the CBI boasts that it represents the interests of many of the FTSE100 companies (98% of which are tax dodgers) it is hardly surprising that the CBI didn't mention tax asymmetry between SMEs and the corporate tax-dodging giants. In fact, given Cridland's glowing review of the speech, you could say that, just like Cameron and Osborne, he too is playing the role of traitor in the economic war being fought between the multi-national tax-dodging corporate brigade and the real economy of the UK that are left carrying the burden of increased taxation, slashed services and investment, counter-productive attacks on the education system and a soaring national debt.

 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 
           
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
                

Friday, 16 November 2012

The Tory PCC election farce

The Tory plan to introduce United States style elected police commissioners was always going to be a disaster. The British public are a fairly apathetic bunch anyway and a huge proportion of those that do feel strongly about voting are vehemently opposed to the politicisation of the police. The turnout at the November 15th 2012 PCC elections was even lower than anyone expected, with a large percentage of voters only showing up to spoil their ballot papers with phrases like "no elected police" or "keep party politics out of the police".

Weeks before the actual election the excuses for low turnout were being practiced by the mainstream media and the political classes, mainly reliant upon the theories that elections in November have slightly lower turnouts than those in May and that stand-alone ballots always have lower turnouts than when multiple ballots are combined (e.g. local elections + European Parliament elections) . This leaves us with a couple of obvious questions. Why were these elections held in November, if political pollsters knew that higher turnouts can be achieved in May? And why were these elections run as an extremely expensive expensive single-ballot, rather than in conjunction with another ballot, lets say the next European elections or the next set of local elections?

The turnout was absolutely pathetic by any measure. The first elected police commissioner to be announced was Angus MacPherson in Wiltshire, where only 15.8% of the electorate bothered to vote. MacPherson collected 35,319 votes out of a constituency of 520,000 giving him an electoral mandate from just 6.79% of eligible voters in Wiltshire.

The indicators from the other 40 police areas are just as bad. On the day of the election Twitter was abuzz with descriptions of empty polling stations, astonishingly low turnouts and spoiled ballot papers and early turnout statistics point to sub 20% turnouts all across the country.
[More analysis to follow here when the full results are made public]

It is quite amazing to think that the Tory led government have spent £100 million on these elections, a sum sufficient to pay the salaries of 3,000 front line police for a full year. Given that these 41 elected police commissioners are going to be pulling in salaries of £80,000 - £100,000 each, that's an annual cost of £3.2 - £4.1 million in salaries, lets say £3.5 million, over the course of five years that's an additional £20.5 million. Over the course of a 5 year electoral cycle, these unwanted PCCs are going to cost around £120.5 million. Enough to pay the salaries of around 723 full time, front line police officers for the full five year period.

If the ballot had the option of voting for 723 front line police, instead of 41 politicians, I'm pretty sure that option would have won a massive landslide victory.

At a time when the Tory government are slashing the number of front line police all over the country (6,800 according to the Guardian) under the guise of "austerity", this ridiculous and expensive shambles is absolutely unforgivable. Instead of creating a tier of political interference in the police, the government could have used these vast sums to keep hundreds of police patrolling the streets. Given this spectacular waste of money at a time when police jobs are being lost all over the country, it is absolutely no surprise that the police have been protesting against this lunacy alongside the people they normally kettle and beat up on demonstrations.

Given the astonishingly low turnout, it is difficult to see how any of these commissioners will be able to claim a public mandate for what they do, especially given the words of the Tory MP Priti Patel in July 2012 when talking about the threat of strike action. She said:
"Any ballot in which fewer than half of those eligible to vote do so should be ruled invalid".
Well these police commissioner ballots resulted in fewer than a quarter of eligible voters casting their votes, can we expect to see these results "ruled invalid"? Of course we can't, because the Tory way is to impose one set of extremely stringent standards on the trade unions, the plebs, the proles, the oiks, etc. Yet maintain a much lower set of standards for themselves, their party donors and their establishment mates. Thus, in Tory minds the Trade Unions must motivate more than 50% of their members to vote in order to legitimise strike action, yet party political Police Commissioners get a mandate to interfere in the police no matter how low the turnout.

Take the Parliamentary expenses scandal as another example of this brazen double-standard. Had you or I embezzled tens, or hundreds of thousands of pounds from our employers, we'd expect to be sacked and then go to jail for it. Dozens and dozens of MPs embezzled vast sums from their employers (us, the taxpayer) with fraudulent expenses claims, yet they just apologised (my carefully calculated expenses fraud was "a mistake"), paid back a proportion of their ill gotten gains and even got to keep their jobs. There are several of them sitting in the most high profile positions in government and the commons (The speaker John Bercow was a house flipper, so was Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, in government itself there are Michael Gove, Ken Clarke, Nick Clegg, Caroline Spelman and several other expenses scammers). Incredibly dozens of MPs didn't learn a thing from the expenses scandal and continue to milk the taxpayer for tens of thousands of pounds by renting out their London homes, in order to claim rent on properties elsewhere in London on their expenses, often on properties they are renting from their fellow MPs! Yet another example of this obvious one rule for us and another for them double-standard is the pleb-gate row.

The odious expenses scamming of so many politicians, the fact that they can get away with brazenly lying to the public without censure, the fact that all three political parties are riddled with vested corporate interests and the fact that all three establishment parties have told glaring manifesto lies, have led to the situation where politicians are even more despised than other hated professions such as bankers, estate agents and the police.

I heard one Tory apologist describe this farcical shambles as "an attempt to democratise the police". An attempt to party-politicise the police, more like it. British "democracy" is an absolute farce, an unelected upper house, an unelected head of state, regional assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but none for England, a totally unproportional and unrepresentative voting system that creates voter apathy in hundreds of constituencies,  three establishment parties that are almost identical in economic terms. The idea that allowing elements of this self-serving, money-grabbing, expenses-scamming, pseudo-democracy to leak into the police is a good thing, is simply delusional. From here on in, we can expect these party politicians (with the most pathetic mandates in electoral history) to begin using the police forces to score party political points and to benefit the corporate backers of their particular political parties, rather than to address criminal behaviour or to enforce the rule of law.



See also



Thursday, 15 November 2012

Damian Green: A very public liar

I watched the BBC politics show Question Time on the 8th of November 2012 and was staggered by the pathetic standard of debate and absolutely appalled by the blatant lies told by the Tory party Minister for police and criminal justice, Damian Green.

The show, which featured five orthodox neoliberal guests (two members of the neoliberal coalition government, a member of the neoliberal opposition party, a neoliberal banker-economist and a Murdoch cipher from the neoliberal rag called The S*n), started off terribly with universal condemnation from the panel for Philip Schofield of all people. He was criticised by all for daring to ask the Prime Minister the question that was on the nation's lips: "what are you going to do about the paedophilia scandal Dave?"

The next segment was even worse and the focus of this article. It occurred after a question about Quantitative Easing in which none of the panel pointed out that the Bank of England's own research demonstrates that QE and low interest rates are severely impacting savers and people with pension schemes in order to enrich the wealthy minority (a full analysis of that shocking story can be found here).

The economist David Blanchflower sung the praises of Quantitative Easing (hardly surprising since he sat on the Bank of England monetary policy committee that introduced the policy in the first place). Then followed up with a major criticism of Tory debt fearmongering (saying that fearmongering destroys the "animal spirits"/confidence of the market) and a massively understated criticism of George Osborne's utterly catastrophic fiscal austerity policies with an observation that the UK economy has actually shrunk over the course of the last year.

The Tory Damian Green reacted in an incredible way, he openly accused Blanchflower of being wrong and told the obvious lie that:
"Over the last year the economy has been growing"
Blanchflower's incredulous response to this accusation that he was wrong (or downright lying) about the economic evidence, was this:
"Just add the quarters together, it's minus 0.1"
Anyone with basic maths skills could tell you what was the absolutely astonishing thing about this response: It is an example of basic mathematical illiteracy from a guy that sat in one of the most powerful positions in the UK economy (member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee). The glaring error is that you never add percentage changes together, you multiply them.

Here's a simple example +20%, -20%, +20%, -20%. You might instinctively believe that the answer is what you started with (100%) but you'd be wrong. You don't add and subtract, you multiply.
100% +20% =  100 x 1.2 = 120%
120% -20% =  120 x 0.8 = 96%
96% +20% =  96 x 1.2 = 115.2%
115.2% -20% =  115.2 x 0.8 = 92.16%
Quite a difference eh? Obviously when the changes are smaller the effect is smaller too, but it is still a recognisable deviation from the number achieved through addition and subtraction. Here's how the UK growth figures measure up between Q4 2011 and Q3 2012.
2011 Q4 - 100% - 0.4% =  100 x 0.996 = 99.6%
2012 Q1 - 99.6% - 0.3% = 99.6 x 0.997 = 99.3%
2012 Q2 - 99.3% - 0.4% = 99.3 x 0.996 = 98.9%
2012 Q3 - 98.9% + 1.0% = 98.9 x 1.01 = 99.893%
So Blanchflower was right about the UK economy shrinking but he had actually slightly underestimated the rate of shrinkage (which was actually minus 0.107) due to his basic mathematical illiteracy!

Damian Green's response to this counter-statistic was even more incredible, he said that "it's just not true". Not only was Green lying, he actually accused the guy that was (almost) correct of being the one that was lying.

Green's second lie was even more egregious, he claimed that when the Tories came to power, the UK had the largest debt of all the major developed economies. Here's his outright lie, word for word:

"The reason that the 'animal spirit' of the economy was destroyed was that we had the worst debt of any G20 country, because the previous government spent money like water and left us bankrupt"

Anyone that knows anything about the history of Quantitative Easing (the subject of the question) or the economy of Japan would have recognised this as the obvious fearmongering lie that it was. After all the UK public debt is still significantly less than half of Japan's is, even now. In fact, checking the 2009 figures reveals that five of the G20 nations had significantly higher debts that the UK as a proportion of GDP (see graph) In real terms, the UK national debt ($2.183 trillion) was also significantly smaller than the United States ($14.256 trillion), Japan ($5.068 trillion), China (4.909 trillion), Germany (3.352 trillion) and France (2.675 trillion).

Whichever way you look at it, Green's assertion was an outright lie. What is more, an outright lie that gives a lot of credence to Blanchflower's point about 'animal spirits' being too low. Of course market confidence has been lower than it should be, if government ministers regularly engage in spectacularly misleading debt fearmongering such as describing the UK economy as "bankrupt" in front of a live audience and a TV audience of millions.

I don't want to dwell too much on the tribalistic dig at Labour for "spending money like water", other than to say that that also is a pretty spectacular misrepresentation. Until the global economic crisis hit, the national debt under Labour had never exceeded the 41.9% GDP debt they inherited from their Tory predecessors. Even after the spectacular financial sector meltdown in 2007-08, the debt under Labour rose to 52.1% which is significantly lower than the average debt in either the 19th or the 20th Centuries (the average debt throughout the 20th Century was 89.5% of GDP).

This kind of lying and misleading can be seen as a classic example of Tory propaganda. Outrageous lies that become universally accepted through nothing more than constant repetition. This debt fearmongering strategy is part of the tactic I defined as the Great Neoliberal Lie.

After two egregious lies in the space of a minute Green then went on to draw a stunningly one sided picture of a flourishing UK economy with a ridiculous display of cherry-picked evidence. Here's what he said.
"The two big economic measures by which governments are judged are inflation and unemployment. Inflation is half the level it was a year ago and unemployment has been falling... So actually, on the big economic measures things are getting better."
There are so many problems with this statement it is difficult to know where to start. Firstly I'll question the assumption that the two most important measures of government success are inflation and unemployment. Up until the 1970s the size of the trade deficit/surplus was considered the best indicator of economic health, but ever since the British industrial sector decline began under the Thatcher administration, the Trade deficit has fallen out of fashion, simply because the figures have been so unrelentingly awful for the last three decades. In June 2012 the UK trade deficit reached an all time high of £4.4 billion and in August 2012 the second highest ever trade deficit of £4.2 billion was recorded, with a £9.8 billion deficit if only imports and exports of physical goods are included. These appalling trade figures show exactly what a desperate state the UK economy is actually in, as compared to other G20 nations such as the United States, China, Japan and Germany. These woeful figures demonstrate that the UK export market is struggling badly, leaving the economy more reliant upon imports than ever before. Other key economic indicators that Green conveniently discards as trivial include GDP growth (which has been negative for a whole year) and deficit spending (which has been intensified by the stagnant economic conditions caused by austerity).

We only have Green's assertion that we should only be judging the economy by the two measures he gives us, the ones that conveniently show the economy in a flattering light. But then, if we consider the indicators he cherry-picked in more detail we find that these are heavily distorted ways of presenting the data. I'll deal with these one at a time:

Firstly, Inflation. Green is correct that inflation has fallen from the absurd peaks of 2011, but inflation rates considered in isolation are pretty much meaningless. The best way to consider the effects of inflation is to compare the figures with other economic factors such as interest rates or wage rises. If the rates of inflation are compared with the Bank of England base rate we find that inflation has been massively outstripping interest rates. In 2011 inflation/interest ratio peaked above 1,000% on both inflationary measures (see graph).

What this means is that inflation is massively outstripping the interest earned on savings and pension schemes. Even though the headline inflation rate is much lower than the extremely high interest rates of the Thatcher years, the economic impact is much, much worse, because interest rates are not keeping pace with inflation.

Inflation peaked twice under the Thatcher administration, in May 1980 RPI inflation reached 21.9%, but the BoE base rate was 17% making a inflation/interest ratio of 128% and in October 1990 RPI inflation peaked at 10.9%, but the BoE base rate was even higher at 13.875% making an inflation/interest ratio of 79%, both significantly higher than the average throughout the Labour administration, but tiny in comparison to the incredible October 2011 inflation/ RPI interest peak of 1,080%.

Sources:
RPI & CPI inflation data
Bank of England base rates, historical data

Another way in which it can be seen that inflation is actually very high is the fact that inflation has been consistently higher than wage inflation ever since the Tories came to power. Average weekly pay rises in October (change in weekly pay over 12 months) account for only 56% of the value of RPI inflation and 67% of CPI inflation, meaning that wages are shrinking in real terms. When the purchasing power of wages declines in real terms, this creates a fall in aggregate demand. If people find that their wages are not stretching as far as they were last year, they have two choices, they can either cut back spending (reducing economic demand) or borrow more money to maintain their standard of living (not good in economic terms, and not easy given the difficulty of obtaining credit these days).

Even if we ignore comparative assessment of the headline inflation figure and work with the basic numbers there are more problems. Both measures of inflation are conservative, especially the CPI (which excludes housing costs, council tax, transport costs and fuel) but the RPI is also heavily distorted by the fact that it excludes millions of low income pensioners from the calculations and the ONS are even bidding to change the way that RPI is calculated to artificially bring the rate of inflation down.

Just think about inflation it in real terms. How much has your supermarket shopping bill been rising, even though you may have been making cutbacks? How much are the costs of public transport rising? How much has the cost of petrol/diesel gone up this year? How much have your electricity and gas bills risen by? How about your water rates? Green's misleading assertions about the government's low-inflation achievements fly in the face of the everyday experience of millions of people.

Secondly, I'll deal with Green's upbeat assessment of the unemployment situation: The headline unemployment figure may have been falling for several months, but the lack of economic growth leaves us with a paradox. How can employment be rising, yet economic activity be shrinking? You have to be careful with this (perfectly reasonable) question, the Tory employment minister Iain Duncan Smith accused the BBC economics correspondent Stephanie Flanders of "pissing all over British industry" for asking exactly that question and working through some potential answers.

Here are some potential answers:
  • Unemployment is falling but the proportion of workers in part-time work is near an all time high (8.1 million), with over one in four workers doing part time hours.  Hence there is less money in the economy due to falling take-home salaries.
  • Lots of reasonably well paid jobs (civil service, manufacturing, construction) have been lost, whilst a high proportion of new jobs are low-paid and minimum wage work, meaning that even though more people may be in work, a significantly greater proportion are earning poverty wages. 
  • Many millions of workers have been on pay freezes for years, which has driven down their spending power.
  • Another potential answer is that the calculation methods have been rigged for political reasons on so many occasions that the headline figure of 7.8% is virtually meaningless, given that the real level of general unemployment is closer to 20%.
  • Another indicator of unemployment is the number of people claiming unemployment benefits, which rose by 10,100. Quite a remarkable rise, given the increased difficulty of making benefits claims under the the coalition government.
  • Yet another indicator that the unemployment situation isn't as fabulously rosy as Green would have us believe is the fact that long-term unemployment is also on the rise, with the number of people out of work for over a year rising by 12,000 to 894,000.
Whatever the case, people in Britain are acutely aware that the unemployment situation is nowhere near as rosy as Green would have us believe. With the industrial and construction sectors in terrible decline and massive job losses (such as the Transit van closure) coming on a regular basis, you'd have to be a fool to accept the Tory narrative that everything is getting better.

Even though Green cherry-picked the two economic indicators that he could actually work with to weave an absurdly misleading narrative about how everything is getting better, closer examination reveals that both inflation and unemployment are significantly worse than the impression created if the headline figures are considered in isolation. General unemployment is closer to 20% than 7.8% and inflation, when considered in relation to interest rates or wages is far higher than anything experienced during the previous Labour administration, and in fact far worse even than the inflationary spikes during the Thatcher years.

If we consider other key economic indicators, the picture is just as bad: Economic growth (minus 0.113% over the course of an entire year), deficit spending (debt increases as a percentage of GDP comparable to the scale of borrowing needed to fund the Great War and the World War), the trade deficit (2 all time highs in recent months), trade deficit in goods (£9.8billion in August), Exports (minus 1.2% in August) manufacturing output (minus 1.1% in August), construction (shockingly bad figures with an 11% overall decline between Q3 2011 and Q3 2012), Consumer Confidence (an October decline in consumer confidence, a continuation of the appallingly bad long-term low confidence trend under the Tory led government). Wherever you look there is plentiful evidence that the UK is in chaos, with just a tiny pocket of extremely wealthy people insulated from the devastating effects of Tory economic mismanagement and the Bank of England's stagflationary monetary policies.

Conclusion

I realise that this is a bloody long article to make the point that a particular politician is a liar and a manipulator. I mean the growing levels of cynicism about British politics mean that the majority of people seem to accept the idiom that the best way to tell if a politician is lying is by looking to see if his lips are moving. Damian Green however, is a particularly loathsome and  transparent liar, even by modern political standards.When he got caught in his first lie, he simply accused his opponent of lying about the facts. He used his second lie to counter accusations that Tory economic fearmongering had damaged market confidence, a lie that was a particularly egregious display of completely inaccurate Tory debt fearmongering, which completely reinforced the point that his opponent had made about market confidence being damaged by fearmongering. Chuck in a bit of inaccurate tribalistic political point scoring and he managed three stunningly obvious lies in the space of a minute.

He then followed up this blunderbuss of lies with an audaciously rosy assessment of the state of the UK economy, which relied upon cherry picked statistics and lame anecdotes. Anyone with half a brain in the audience could tell that things are not nearly as great as Green would have us believe.

The fact is, that this man feels completely at ease telling obvious lies to huge audiences, and that barely a word that comes out of his mouth is not some kind of lie or distortion. As long as flagrant liars like Damian Green are given the oxygen of publicity, public trust in the political classes will never come close to recovery.

In a government of liars and manipulators, Damian Green is such a bold and bad liar he stands out as particularly dishonest. I have attempted to show (using evidence and analysis) exactly how much of a transparent liar the man is. Hopefully, next time you see the man speak, you'll take whatever he says with a wheelbarrow full of salt.


Tuesday, 13 November 2012

UK nuclear weapons privatisation



  
  Number 1:  The UK "independent" nuclear deterrent


The first ever successful British nuclear test in 1953.
The UK nuclear weapons development programme was launched in 1940. After the United States joined the Second World War in 1941 the nuclear programmes of the Britain, Canada and the United States were amalgamated into the Manhattan Project which eventually led to the creation of the first nuclear weapons and atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the conclusion of the Second World War, the United Kingdom requested information on the Manhattan project, to which their scientists had contributed, however to their shock and amazement, the United States government refused to grant access to the information to which the British scientists had contributed. This refusal led to the re-establishment of the British nuclear programme, which became known as the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment in 1950. The first successful British nuclear test in 1952 involved the detonation of a nuclear device inside the hull of HMS Plym, a river-class frigate near Trimouille Island, in the Montobello Islands off the coast of Western Australia. In 1957 the AWRE successfully tested their first batch of Hydrogen (fusion) bombs in the Pacific islands between 1957 and 1959.

In the following decades the AWRE developed several nuclear deterrents and undertook 45 nuclear tests in the Pacific Islands and later at the US test facilities in Nevada. The last British nuclear test took place in 1991.

In 1987 the Conservative government renamed the AWRE as the Atomic Weapons Establishment AWE and in 1989 they announced plans to privatise the operation of Britain's nuclear weapons arsenal under a Government Owned - Contractor Operated (Go-Co) arrangement.

In 1993 the contract to run the UK nuclear deterrent was awarded to a consortium called Hunting-BRAEA, which was composed of the now defunct British company Hunting Engineering, a subsidiary of the American corporate behemoth Halliburton called Brown and Root and the privatised Atomic Energy Authority.

By 1998 all independently developed British nuclear weapons had been phased out, leaving only the Vanguard Submarine based Trident nuclear missiles (built by the American company Lockheed Martin). The British government made a big song and dance about the fact that the missiles may be American, but that the warheads were still British having been designed by AWE.

After several safety breeches including an incident where workers ended up inhaling plutonium, Hunting-BRAEA lost the contract to maintain Britain's nuclear weapons arsenal in 1999, which was transferred to a new consortium called AWE Management Ltd (AWE ML) in the form of a 25 year non-revokable contract. AWE is another tripartite consortium which originally consisted of the UK government owned publicly listed company BNFL, the American weapons giant Lockheed Martin and the UK based outsourcing giant Serco.

AWE ML assumed control of all of Britain's nuclear weapons establishments on April 1st 2000, however the government defended the process pointing out that the sites still belonged to the Ministry of Defence and that the MoD held a "golden share" in the operation (a golden share is a single share which can outvote all other shares in specific pre-determined circumstances).

A problem with the golden share "control" system arose in 2003 when the European Union declared the UK government's golden share in the privatised British Airports Authority illegal because it was deemed contradictory to the principle of free circulation of capital within the EU. The EU has since ruled many other golden share options illegal including Spanish government's golden shares in Telefonica, Repsol, Endesa and Tabacalera and the Portuguese government's golden share in Energias de Portugal. However the fact that golden shares seem to be illegal under EU competition law hasn't stopped the UK government and the MoD repeatedly "talking up" the importance of their golden share in AWE.

As part of the shutdown of BNFL the BNFL stake in AWE was sold to the American firm Jacobs Engineering Group in 2008, meaning that American companies controlled 67% of the operations of the UK nuclear deterrent and research facilities, including complete control of the Trident missiles themselves, guidance systems, components, warheads, research and development and testing.

It has been estimated that the MoD pays over £600 million a year to AWE, and that if the government do decide to renew Trident, these private companies will soak up the vast majority of the estimated £76 billion development cost. In 2011 the MoD agreed to plough another £750 million into AWE for them to renew the Project Pegasus uranium enrichment plant, that is on top of £500 million on Project Mensa warhead assembly plant at AWE Burghfield and another £120 million completely wasted on development of the cancelled Project Hydrus hydrodynamics research facility at AWE Aldermaston. In 2012 the MoD announced another £700 million in spending on the development of the "successor submarines" to replace Trident.

That the British so-called independent nuclear deterrent now relies upon American missiles (built by Lockheed Martin) and is administered by a private consortium which is two thirds controlled by American companies (Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering) to the cost of over £600 million a year to the British taxpayer, (plus vast cash injections for nuclear infrastructure and design programmes) is nothing short of a scandal. How on Earth can it be considered an independent nuclear deterrent when the delivery system is an entirely American off-the-shelf missile system and the private company that is responsible for every aspect of the British nuclear programme, including the design of the warheads themselves is two thirds American?

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.






MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
12 reasons the Greens should be included in the pre-election debates
           
What is the point of the Labour Party?
                     
The remarkable rise of Podemos in Spain
       

The pre-election contract the Tories want you to forget all about
                             
The "Making Work Pay" fallacy
                                         
The Tory vandalism of the English education system
                          
12 Tory-UKIP defectors
                
Why do so many people trust Osborne with the UK economy?

If the Greens have the best policies, how come hardly anyone votes for them?
                                
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
  




Saturday, 10 November 2012

The White Poppy

The poem that inspired the red poppy symbol
In early November the red poppy of remembrance becomes an almost ubiquitous sight on British lapels. These paper and plastic symbols are sold by the Royal British Legion and the Haig Fund. It is estimated that the Poppy appeal sells around 35 million red poppy symbols a year and raises £75 million for people who have carried out armed service and for their dependants.

In Britain, all politicians, all TV presenters and all professional sports players are expected to wear the poppy or endure a tide of criticism from bitter reactionaries. In 2009 the Guardian journalist Marina Hyde pointed out that an impressive 15 of the 20 Premier League football clubs had had the red poppy symbol especially emblazoned on their shirts during Remembrance Week, yet the Daily Mail worked themselves up into a frothing fit of rage over the five that hadn't.

The Channel 4 news presenter John Snow described this tide of criticism aimed at any remotely public figure or organisation that doesn't display the red poppy symbol during the week preceding Remembrance Sunday as "poppy fascism". A striking term, given that so many of the fallen that we are supposed to be remembering died fighting the fascists of Europe during World War Two to secure the right for British people to express themselves freely.

The idea that the absence of a plastic and paper poppy on your lapel represents some kind of insult to the country's war dead is actually a disgusting cheapening of the whole occasion. The idea of Remembrance Sunday is to remember the war dead and to consider the tragic consequences of war, not to bicker over symbolism and deride those that decline overt displays of symbolism as disrespectful or unpatriotic. In fact, those that would cheapen the occasion by whining and complaining that another person isn't wearing a poppy are showing infinitely more disrespect to the idea of remembrance than those that they criticise.

This WWI war bonds poster is an example of the 
 red poppy symbol being used as war propaganda .
One of the ironic things about the right-wing reactionary types that tends to engage in 'poppy fascism' is that they don't even seem to realise that what they are doing, is in effect, is enforcing their own brand of political correctness. They are essentially saying that it is politically incorrect to not wear a poppy, however when it comes to other forms of political correctness (lets say gay rights or criticism of overtly racist language) these very same people are more than likely to start chuntering on about how "political correctness has gone mad".

An even more provocative gesture than the not-wearing-of-a-poppy, is the wearing of a white poppy. The white poppy is a pacifist symbol to remind us that not only military personnel suffer and die in conflicts. The colour white was chosen both because white is the traditional colour of peace and because during the First World War, conscientious objectors were presented with white feathers of 'cowardice' by women. Many conscientious objectors such as Quakers and members of the other Peace Churches were imprisoned and abused at Richmond castle in North Yorkshire during the First World War. These included 'the Richmond 16' who were taken to France from the castle, charged under Field Regulations and then sentenced to death for their refusal to fight. The death sentences were later commuted to ten years hard labour. The act of conscientiously refusing to fight even under the threat of death, must be considered an outstanding act of bravery. The white poppy appeal is tiny in comparison to the red poppy appeal, only selling around 50,000 a year (0.14% of poppies sold during remembrance week).

The organisers of the Red Poppy Appeal, the Royal British Legion have stated that "it is a matter of choice, the Legion doesn't have a problem whether you wear a red one or a white one, both or none at all". However the right-wing reactionary types ignore this message of respectful remembrance and freedom of choice. Margaret Thatcher was a vociferous opponent of the white poppy symbol, a fact that massively popularised the white poppy appeal in the 1980s. The right-wing tabloid press sided with Thatcher and ran witch-hunt articles against the organisers of the white poppy appeal, many of whom were elderly pacifist ladies. Politicising Remembrance Sunday by turning it into a demonisation campaign against elderly pacifists was not just distasteful, it was an affront to the whole idea of remembrance. The same can be said of the modern day reactionary 'poppy fascist' brigade.

In 2006 the white poppy did find an unexpected supporter, a man called Jonathan Bartley, the head of the religious think-tank, Ekklesia, and former advisor to John Major (Margaret Thatcher's successor as Tory Prime Minister) who suggested that it may actually be more Christian to wear the pacifist white poppy rather than the red one, an understandable stance given Christ's message of peace and love. Bartley also claimed that the red poppy had become a symbol of political correctness with public figures forced to wear one as an "article of faith". This is the idea that the red poppy has become more of a badge of political correctness and conformity, rather than a symbol of remembrance. Many people find themselves wearing the poppy simply because it is expected of them, not because they have any intention of remembrance. The enforced ubiquitousness of the red poppy has diminished it's meaning.

In November 2012 The UK Prime Minister David Cameron took the wearing of the red poppy whilst completely disregarding it's meaning to a whole new level. He undertook a tour of the middle east with a group of leading British arms manufacturers, with the express purpose of selling weaponry to despotic regimes, all the time with a red poppy of remembrance on his lapel. Even worse than that, he even proposed that Britain attempt to bypass the EU arms embargo on Syria in order that British firms could escalate the bloody civil war by flooding the country with weapons, again with the red poppy on his chest.

David Cameron wearing the red poppy symbol whilst on a mission
to hawk military hardware to middle eastern despots.
To wear the red poppy whilst brazenly hawking weapons to despots and speaking of busting arms embargoes to provide British weapons to one side of a bloody civil war, surely diminishes the red poppy symbol to utter meaninglessness. The same kind of meaninglessness achieved by the Nobel committee when they awarded  the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize to the warmonger and chief architect of the Operation Menu war crimes in Cambodia and Laos, Henry Kissinger.

Although I am a pacifist, I am very sympathetic to the suffering of military personnel, after all several of my paternal relatives fought and died in the Second World War. My maternal grandfather on the other hand was a Quaker conscientious objector, who didn't fight in the war, but did serve in the merchant navy during the conflict. A war contribution every bit as dangerous and deadly as active service. I'm sympathetic towards both poppy appeals, although I have a preference for the white poppy because it doesn't have the baggage of having been used as overt war propaganda like the red one has.

Look at the image above, the one of Cameron and the middle eastern despots he is trying to sell British weapons too. The presence of the poppy symbol is a double insult to the concept of remembrance. Not only is Cameron there to sell weapons, whilst wearing a symbol of remembrance, the people he is attempting to sell them to are a bunch of despotic dictators. All of those brave men that fought and died during the Second World War that Cameron is supposedly 'remembering' (my relatives included), did so on the pretext of fighting against dictatorship and oppression for the causes of freedom and democracy. The people that red poppy wearing Cameron is pictured with are dictators and opprossors who would use their British weapons to continue their fight against the very concepts of freedom and democracy.

I was already inclined to wear the white poppy in remembrance of the many thousands of merchant seamen that were killed during the course of the Second World War. However now I'm certain of one thing, now that David Cameron has utterly besmirched the red poppy symbol by wearing it whilst demanding that British arms companies should be allowed to profit by providing weapons to Islamist militants in Syria (the same militias that just the week before were committing grotesque war crimes in Saraqeb), I won't be wearing a red poppy, I'll buy one of the 0.14% of poppies that are white, if I can find one.