The Occupy Movement and Public Sector Unions united will never be defeated…

Various Left wing activists, anti-capitalists, communists, anarchists, Trade Unionists, Labour party supporters, former Liberal supporters; all united against common enemies - Western Capitalism, the Coalition and Jeremy Clarkson…

Clarkson at Number 10

Nightmare for many, actually a dream for some...

The BBC gave the results of a poll that indicated there was ‘strong support’ for the recent public sector strikes over pension reform and certainly the Occupy movement in the UK have stated their support for the action that occurred on November 30th.

Occupy out and about on 'N30'


Occupy and Trade Unionists claim ‘solidarity’ with one another, stated clearly by the Occupy London movement and Unions have at different times claimed to support the Occupy Movement. Although it hasn't been as clear and definite as in the US with Occupy Wall Street, but the situation is much different there.

The Occupy London movement announced their support early on and some Unions have been clear in showing their support - Unite gives ‘sanctuary’ to the Occupy Cardiff Action Group

Occupy Cardiff outside Unite

Does this even count?

As an 'Occupation', as a protest, as anything..?

Certainly many in the Left, supporters of the Unions, support Occupy and some see there being the possibility of something similar to an overall Leftist movement with the help of the Unions.

The criticism of the multitude of objectives and political perspectives within the Occupy movement has been answered at different times by saying that it doesn’t matter as long as groups work together to bring about change and in truth the underlying aim for the majority of activists and supporters is to make the banks and the rich, pay for the financial crisis. And that is all fair enough, there does need to be change and they are more likely to create momentum and affect reform together, rather than as disparate movements, whether or not their ultimate aims differ.

It still seems that some of these desires for a future society may actually differ wildly and for the majority of supporters, really it’s not ‘capitalism’ per se that is the problem, but more corporatism and the current structure of the system, but they still want change.

This is precisely why there is no ‘solidarity’ between the Unions representing the Public Sector and their action against pension reform and the Occupy movement and their desire for change.

Public Sector workers striking

'What do we want..?!'

Occupy want to change the ‘system’ and the Unions want to maintain it.

At least a significant part of it, Occupy want to change the world economic system and the system in the UK that developed over many years, but particularly under Thatcher’s Tories and most recently under New Labour. Whereas the Unions want to maintain a significant part of the system Labour created, particularly the levels of public spending. Spending that as I have previously highlighted was funded by the boom in the financial sector.

If Labour had managed to stay in power and maintained a higher level of spending and public sector employment, the UK Occupy movement may still have been motivated (particularly as the movement began in the US), but the Unions and their members would not have been as apparent in their support.

There were some dissenting voices from the Unions and action taken when the Labour government tried to reform pensions and redundancy conditions, but without a doubt there wasn’t the ‘anger’ against the injustice of the system, when the Labour government maintained relatively good public sector conditions while moulding and facilitating an economic system that would ultimately come crashing down.

Nice one Gordon

He knows the truth...

There were anti-capitalist protests long before the crash, but we didn’t get much from the Unions about the ‘system’ and globalisation in those days.

Times have changed

There are seven billion people now…

Trade Union leaders and activists might well want change more akin to the core of the Occupy movement; from taxing the rich and re-nationalisation to some Trade Unionists that would profess to communist leanings (they certainly have in the past, from Scargill to Gilchrist). However, there is more a pervading desire to just a return to the conditions developed in the post-war years to the 60s and 70s; pre-Thatcher/deregulation days, with nationalised industries and high-unionisation.

Andy Gilchrist - former leader of the FBU

Based out of his student house...

Since the privatisation of productive industries, the Trade Union movement has changed and represents a different spectrum of society (identified by Twitter contributors, amongst others, in the build up to the #N30 strikes), many more middle class workers. It’s no longer an ‘us and them’ class struggle; the average modern union member simply wants representation and protection. Not about fighting for the workers, just about protecting their lot.

The pensions they are fighting for are relics of an economy and economic conditions that no longer exist, final salary pensions and other such benefits became commonplace during the stability that followed the Second World War. Britain was still a major industrial power and retained the remains of an empire, the developing world had barely had a chance to develop, let alone compete.

These pensions are intrinsically tied to the old system and surely the Occupy movement are not advocating a return to the 60s or 70s?

But maybe they are..?

The 1970s

When they knew how to strike...

The public sector pensions issue is obviously contentious in both sectors, as provision in the private sector is far worse, especially for low paid workers. So if Occupy support ‘fair pensions for all’ then they must want at least movement to similar provision for the private sector as well? Perhaps not, but I’m presuming they do, otherwise they won’t really be getting very close to representing the ‘99%’.

Of course the rich pay and everyone retires at 60 on a final salary pension. Fair pensions for all, too right! We’d all like a decent defined benefits deal and have things wrapped up by 60, if not before, but is it in any way feasible?

And in the fair world we’re looking for (surely they can’t just be thinking the developing world should remain without such comfortable benefits?), we should then roll this out to the whole 99%, almost everyone in the world… The 1% can pick up the tab. Sound reasonable?

It certainly sounds like a great world to live in…

And if there is going to be radical change, I mean the kind of anti-capitalist change that many in Occupy advocate, radically different to the current system and with much greater equality, it will have to affect the whole world and everyone will have to go with it (or at least a considerable majority). Otherwise it won’t work. There will be an alternative and opposition, and you just have to look at all the examples of communism in the relatively recent past to see which way it goes.

Lithuania

Lenin had his day

Chechnya

The struggle never ends

The world has changed beyond recognition since final salary pensions became widespread. The global economy has transformed and competition has intensified, living standards have risen and people everywhere are living much longer.

If you look simplistically at a hypothetical average public sector career and retirement (civil servant or council workers):

Working from 21, assuming it’s a graduate (it’s a right not a privilege…), and retiring at 60, then with good health living beyond 80, as so many now do, possibly even to 100, and more and more people will do that.

So 99% of the population able to work only do so for half, or perhaps as little as two-fifths, of their lives? How could that be supported?

That wasn’t a consideration for the utopian world they believed they were creating after World War Two, for people in the West... Most people were dropping dead soon after drawing their pension.

Times have changed, there’s no need to detail it and everyone should accept it. Maybe in the future the robots will do all the work, but we’re not there just yet.

The future..?

More complicated than it looks

The support for each other from Occupy and the Public Sector Unions exists simply because both groups are anti-government. They are of use to each other in many ways, but what use would the collapse of the system be to public sector workers? Who could guarantee their pension then…?

In terms of British workers their deal is still good. Lord Hutton has even said now that the reform needs to go further, due to the poor economic outlook.

And people have to think about the long term situation, in a world where Britain will face tougher global competition and we can’t be certain how we will fair; higher public spending or not.

The Labour Party know there needs to be reform, but they’re just sitting on the fence at the moment. The strikers are their support, yet they can’t condone the strikes, they will have to do something similar in Government and they can’t alienate the centre ground and centre-right. Not very ‘Blue Labour’…

Ed knows every vote counts

‘What would Gordon do…?’

There are calls for solidarity from workers in the private sector, but it doesn’t appear reciprocal, the Left claim the Coalition is creating division between sectors, but we heard little from public sector and their unions as Labour created the division over 13 years and during the first two years of the downturn. I have looked at these issues in previous posts and the specific issues of pensions in a post following the strikes in June.

Public Sector Pickets call for Solidarity


The message to Egypt

It must mean a lot to them...

Many of the voices from the Left of Twitter do not give a sense of solidarity, though they scream about it…

Fingers are pointed at the private sector as the cause of the crisis, consistently questioning why public servants should pay for the mistakes of the private sector (not specifically the financial sector) and one Twitter contributor repeats bizarre sweeping statements about the private sector workers (all of them…) being at fault for their own poor pension provision and there are many more. The Left accuse the Right of generalising and divisive politics, but both sides are pretty good at it, that’s why they’re on different sides…

Many Leftists will say those in the private sector only have to join a union to have a voice, which is true but only to an extent. Most changes in the private sector are to the point of inevitable, due to economic pressures not felt in the public sector and this is particularly so in the current climate. And the current state of affairs in both sectors came after 13 years of the Government most on the Left yearn to return.

The Unions are exerting their power and influence, and they are getting a relatively good deal. Considering their members represent ‘only’ 20-25% of the workforce, their voice seems disproportionately loud and so aligned with the Occupy Movement, it can give a distorted picture for the extent of support.

However, if Labour were to return and back the public sector, the Occupy Movement might then find themselves out in the cold (for want of a better phrase…).

Protesting students have solidarity with both Occupy and the striking Public Sector. There’s a natural connection with Occupy but as I’ve mentioned before I’m not sure they’re thinking through the support for the pensions strikes. They will be working until they die to pay for them. Unless they’re all hoping to find jobs in the public sector…

This issue has got a long way to go, considering the nature of what’s involved, we’re talking generations.

But before that apparently Occupy are trying to crank their protests up a notch, at least for a day. Occupy Everywhere will be with us on December 15th.



Not sure what sort of ‘workplaces’ they’re talking about occupying? Maybe they’ll just hole up in some public sector offices, or outside. Or Union offices as in Cardiff. Solidarity.

But let me bring it back to the fundamental issue of this blog, and the reason we’re all here (in the UK) - New Labour’s Brave New World.

Amongst the news and views on the weekend about pensions and the continuing economic turmoil, Labour’s Yvette Cooper, wife of Ed Balls said that the Government’s pessimism on the economy could be “self-fulfilling prophecy” or words to that effect.

There is a point in terms of talking down markets and consumer spending, but under Labour all we had was optimism, spin and little else.

The facade fell and here we are…

The last 30 years in Number 10

'Thank you and goodnight...'

The revolution will not be for everyone

I want to move on from the puerile nature of my last post, but damn it, they make it hard. I see these Muppets all the time and all I hear is the same tired ****. I do try, but…


There they are...

The likes of the UK Uncut movement seem to think it’s reasonable to compare their protests against corporate tax avoidance and Government cuts in the UK to the current upheaval in the Arab world. In simply stating that, I have already entertained the notion more than enough and given them too much credence.


Jesus wept...

The few vague similarities aren’t even worth stating, but it’s easy enough to see why the confusion occurs and of course, why they would want to make the comparison.

The UK protesters want to be seen as a popular movement against ‘oppression’ and garner support, but in terms of what appears to be genuine delusion, I think some of these people look around and see others like them in their social circles (internet included) and so confuse this with a movement that permeates throughout society. Students, public sector workers and the city-based media-wise Liberal Left.

There were a lot of students complaining about the money they might have to ultimately pay for a second rate education, the public sector fear job losses and the erosion of very agreeable benefits and conditions. The students have the time and motivation, the public sector has in addition Union power and they all have the internet.

Well apparently we will very soon see the extent of the anger in this country and see how far it permeates. There is a march on Saturday 26th March in London to protest against the cuts and it will be interesting to see firstly, the overall numbers and secondly, the cross-section involved.

There may well be a quite a few there; many are already highly mobilised and along with the groups I have already mentioned (people with a lot of time on their hands), they can effectively use the uniting power of the internet and it is a movement that ultimately has been made to appear on the side of ‘the people’ and morally good. It’s completely misguided and in many ways basically a con, but it will potentially garner support from those not in the self-interested groups. The unemployed and those claiming benefits may well feel motivated to join in; it appears so from Twitter to some extent.

I do wonder about the cohesion between some of the groups that might be involved and therefore how representative the protests as a whole will be? Of course the whole thing will be spun as a show of unity, but just for one example there may well be people who want to protect the NHS from privatisation, but still see the need for wider public sector reform.

And let’s face it, have the students really thought about their long terms aims? They will be marching alongside public sector workers, but do they realise that if their combined efforts are successful (and they also manage to get a job) they will be working to pay for their public servant comrades’ pensions until the sweet release of death..?

I’m sure many of those that turn up will be mighty angry, but the groundswell of a revolution akin to the uprisings in the Middle East? Well, then large sections of society are still keeping it mighty quiet... We only need look at the examples of recent voting to question the underlying feeling in this country. In the Barnsley Central by-election for instance; yes the Liberal Democrats did poorly, but this was a Labour heartland likely to be severely affected by the cuts and Labour’s share of the vote was roughly the same as in 2005, around 60%. But importantly this was on a 37% turnout, so barely a quarter of the electorate voted for Labour.

Hardly an outpouring of anger at the Coalition government, or had the population forgotten about their democratic rights, maybe they were busy preparing their banners, waiting for the protest on the 26th March..? Perhaps they see that as a more effective way to get their voices heard? They’re more likely to get on the telly…

The real story of the by-election is not the anger of the electorate but the obvious and worsening apathy. If there was a ‘none of the above’ (or to appeal I’d suggest a ‘I don’t trust any of these grabbing c***s’) option would there be more interest? Would there be more with the Alternative Vote?

Looking at the recent LibDem vote, in the 2010 election their share was little more than in 2005, so is a drop really significant? And the right wing share amounted to over a quarter of the vote. In the light of all of this, can Labour seriously claim to be at the forefront of a popular and united movement against the coalition?

Well they’ll claim whatever they think gets them ahead.

A similar by-election result was seen in another Labour heartland, Oldham East
and Saddleworth, again the turnout is the most significant aspect. Larger numbers on that occasion, but combined with a smaller proportion voting for Labour.
(article including 2010 result for the swindling Labour man, Woolas)

This is not a revolution. There are lots of disgruntled people, but aren’t there always? There were when Labour chose to take us into an unjust war but no-one listened to them.

The fact is there has already been a 'revolution'; Labour had theirs in 1997 and look what happened. Now they want it all over again? It must be the same revolution, because I hear nothing new.

I won’t go into the many observations that have been made about revolutions throughout history and the subsequent political orders. You only need look at the most famous works of George Orwell to see some fundamental truths, behind every new rising.

If you were on the right side of New Labour you did very well; the party itself, the public sector and many individuals, were able to profit from their handling of government and the economy (the rich did very well). With the extension of benefits (whether or not you ultimately paid somewhere else), they even managed to bribe many more sections of society into believing that they were the party of 'the people'. If you missed out altogether, then tough s**t, couldn’t you see what a wonderful society they had created???

Those that benefited from the revolution, or believed that they did, were certainly approaching a majority of the active electorate. Now after the abject failure of Labour’s economic policy and their eventual removal from power, the polls are showing how many people want their return and one can only imagine; a return to the heady days that followed their revolution.

The people of the North Africa and Middle East are seeking freedom, in the case of Libya from a socialist 'revolutionary' leader, and who knows how the resultant regimes will develop, but the desire of a significant number of the people is for freedom from genuine oppression. The protesters in the UK just want the return of the previous regime and the benefits entailed!

This revolution is for a return to the former status quo.

Gadaffi hasn’t yet been deposed but he is fighting back, I think I can see some more appropriate parallels with the UK now…


The fightback is in safe hands...

I have moved away from the Muppet/Sesame Street name calling, not quite so puerile, but too often I find ridiculous and puerile commentary in the political arena, so it is impossible to avoid descending to that level (that’s the excuse anyway).

This is from the Left and the Right, but after the failure from 13 years of a Labour government, the sustained arrogance from the Left is too galling. Their view of the world and its inhabitants is simplistic and patronising, and it seems to ultimately come down to whether you’re on side or immoral.

My view of the Left as a whole has in turn become simplistic. I tend to focus on them as they are the source of my current dissatisfaction with British politics; the incompetence and failure of the Labour party, combined with the continued self-righteousness of the Liberal-Left and not to forget the incompetence and inefficiency of public authorities, further empowered by Labour.

It is not about supporting the Conservative party or the Coalition, simply trying to highlight Labour’s significant failings. Failings that are being overlooked in so many quarters and despite them, they may still be returned to power if the coalition collapses, without having had to learn the lessons from these substantial failures.

With the unpopular decisions being made by the current Government; the white noise from the combined output of all media and the Left’s significant presence on the internet have allowed the Labour party to avoid the full extent of criticism they deserve.

I should feel no shame in highlighting Labour’s inept Leadership, even if done so with Sesame Street comparisons, when there is so much banal to ridiculous nonsense constantly spouted from the Left (and Right) on every level of political discourse. From Gordon Brown to John Prescott, past the many Union mouthpieces, all the way down to these protesters on the streets.

And isn’t it all brilliantly represented on Twitter?

John Prescott has really taken to Twitter.


Man of the people?


'The People?'


What the f**k do they know?

I think Twitter is great for political engagement, it’s fantastic for those with a short attention span and it can throw up a lot of interesting and surprising political content and links. But pointing out that Miliband and Balls look and talk like a couple of Muppets seems positively high-brow when you compare it to such things as the argumentative and abusive comments contributed with little or no consideration and the unashamedly basic partisan standpoints of some the site’s most prolific users.

http://twitter.com/BevaniteEllie

Need I say more..? (The background says everything you need to know about that little propaganda tool…)

Following a recent tweet during a BBC Question Time hosted in Newport, on the state of the Welsh economy and Labour’s contribution to its development, an individual suggested that my severely truncated opinion was both untrue and ill-informed. I have many more examples but this one springs to mind as I have written about Newport, I’m from the town and I am acutely aware of the Labour party and governance in Wales. There was no indication at all that this individual had ever lived in Wales nor had anything close to an in-depth knowledge of Welsh society and politics. I merely pointed that Labour had not developed the Welsh economy while in power; they had simply given the country an ineffective and expensive assembly, an over-inflated public sector and maintained those on welfare. It’s a simplistic statement, I only had 140 characters and I admit I did not ask this individual to provide evidence to the contrary, but I can back up my opinion with explanation and details. The person does not seem unreasonable but the comment was simply defensive and meaningless.

And I will be writing more about Wales, as I see a lot of the problems that exist throughout the UK, amplified in South Wales. For instance in no small part; the failure of the Labour party in government and the immediate effective pardoning of their significant inadequacies.

Similarly to the by-elections mentioned above the recent referendum on powers for the Welsh Assembly highlighted voter apathy, with a turnout of 35%. But of course this wasn’t how it was simplified for propaganda purposes.

Another recent comment I made on Twitter about BBC Question Time suggesting (in 140 character joke form) that there might be some bias in the programme's production, brought an apparently angry response from someone who thought the suggestion was incredibly stupid. I did point out amongst other things that I had exaggerated for effect and questioned the individual’s familiarity with the Twitter format, but when I see the BBC making statements such as “Wales has said a resounding Yes in the referendum on direct law-making powers for the assembly” when barely a fifth of the electorate voted Yes and in Newport the figure was as low as 15%, I don’t think the implication of bias seems so ridiculous. I see ridiculously simplistic political journalism.

There are accusations from Left and Right about the BBC (though the majority do come from the Right) and it seemed the angry Twitter user was taking umbrage with the weekly flow of tweets. However, as far as I see it now, no matter how hard the corporation tries to be unbiased, it is a public institution and its employees are human beings and we all know what they say about opinions…

And everyone can easily state their opinion on Twitter; it’s great, it’s laughable at times, though sometimes concerning, if it is at all indicative.

There are too many to list and I can’t remember them all but some great recent one-eyed nonsense from the Left side of Twitter has including such sweeping generalisations as the suggestion that if you benefit from or do not mind the current Government you must be rich and privileged. That appears to be a commonly held belief. Forgetting the VAT increase as that effects everyone in proportion to spending, how many groups does this firm belief take into consideration? For instance, single private sector workers?

You need only look at the #condem hashtag to find examples. With the recent news about public sector pension reform, more simplistic generalised observations were stated as common facts. I particularly liked a comment about how 'private sector workers' had taken their money out of pensions and lost it in property, implying that private sector workers only had themselves to blame for the massive inequality in pension provision. How many people was this person referring to, or more importantly, what percentage of workers?

Within the public sector reform debate the same tired old arguments are resurrected every time; that public servants are low paid and they accept this in return for final salary pensions. Well there is plenty of debate about the first part of that argument and the second part suggests that it is then reasonable for them to retire early and the rest of us to pay handsomely for them until they die, whenever that might be… (and let’s not get bogged down in the old ‘nurses and teachers’ argument because we all know that’s only a fraction of the sector). I’d rather we pay them a bit more now and then they can sort themselves out, like the rest of us! What makes them so different?

I mean there are plenty of arguments being made that these pensions will in fact become more affordable in the coming years (the BBC also weighed in on this one, I'd have to say without any clear balance...), although that is following reform and I’m thinking they’re just saying ‘more affordable’, isn’t that just less unaffordable? Less expensive, but still expensive.

The Telegraph piece linked above does identify the unfairness of the situation and the fairness of it all is one of the key generalisations. On Twitter and in the media people comment about the low paid public sector workers and make the wild assumption that everyone (everyone!) in the private sector is paid more. This is fundamental to their simplistic defensive arguments and fundamentally wrong.

Recent statistics have shown the average wage in the public sector is now higher than that in the private sector. I believe this did include pension benefits, of course there will be problems with some data and always exceptions. However, one of the main arguments used in defending the public sector pay is that former low paid workers (such as cleaners) have been out-sourced to the private sector, so the new figures are ‘distorted’. Distorted?? Or the public sector figures are now clearer without the distortion of those low paid workers?

And the fact is the low paid workers are now in the private sector without the benefits and do these people actually think there were no low paid workers in the private sector before such privatisation??? And what of the distortion provided by incredibly high paid workers in the private sector? For instance, the bankers they so despise. They conveniently forget about them when discussing averages.

The fact is there is more homogeneity in public sector, the fact is they have final salary pensions, all contributions ultimately paid for by tax, and such schemes have virtually disappeared in the private sector. Because they have become unaffordable in a sector open to the harsh realities of the global economy.

These people seem to have no understanding of the private sector, appearing to only see bankers and estate agents. The private sector is massive and diverse and includes everyone from hospitality and catering workers to banker and lawyers and right back to factory workers and of course, cleaners. A dose of reality might bring greater appreciation and some objectivity from some people.

After a couple of initial successes with the minimum wage and holiday pay for temporary workers, Brown and his followers did nothing for the low paid in the private sector, while feathering the public sector bed. In the private sector low end wages stagnated and working conditions worsened, in the public sector wages continued to rise along with employment and conditions constantly improved.

As Labour said when they wanted to continue the revolution, 13 years after it started… They envisaged “a future fair for all”



But fairer for some than for others…


'That's right. Are you with me..?'

The revolution will not be for everyone.

It's a huge s*** sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite...

I was going to write about the issues of the week, from Laws to Campbell, but throughout the last week or so, on the internet and on the TV, this question continues to be posed almost relentlessly:

"Why should Civil Servants pay for the mistakes of bankers?"

And it will continue to be asked over the next few months/years as the cuts are planned and take effect.

So I just wanted to return to this issue, briefly...

I have seen comments on social media that say public sector workers get 'paid less' than private sector works and this is one of the common misconceptions that are generated from the public sector, unions and the left wing media.

I'm sure civil servants are sick of seeing all these contract cleaners, warehouse staff, factory workers, call centre workers, admin staff, bar/hotel staff, waiters, care workers, etc, etc, etc, driving around in Porsches or the like, mocking their impending plight..!

The misconceptions and propaganda seem to confuse the whole of the private sector with the financial services. As if all the workers listed above are on massive wages and bonuses. A common quote I've heard over the years from public sector representatives when confronted with the issue of their pensions and benefits, was that they wished they could have the 'bonuses of the private sector'. (Well apparently some government agencies do hand out bonuses, just to perfectly contradict this oft-repeated mantra. One fine post-crash example was the FSA)

It may be true that some industries, particularly the financial services, have a bonus culture, but it is far from all and certainly few at the lower levels.

It has been the low paid private sector that is currently being criminally over looked during the election and now as the issue of cuts takes centre stage. Unemployment has been an issue, but not the conditions in the private sector as belts have tightened for two years. Gordon Brown even tried to take credit for keeping unemployment low even though it is in the private sector that changing working conditions (e.g. going part time, reducing hours, etc) meant many clung onto their jobs.

Times have been very hard for nearly two years, but apparently it is civil servants paying for the downturn? That doesn't really ring true in many circumstances.

Those rejecting the need for cuts seem to use the word 'victims' quite regularly, again as if they alone are feeling the brunt of the crash, just two years after it happened. That's a painfully slow shockwave...

The simple fact is we should all have to deal with it. It is actually quite insulting to those who have suffered, the unemployed and the low paid.

It has also been harder in non-unionised industries, obviously recent examples of Network Rail and BA have shown that changes in conditions are not forced on to them without a fight. While my opinions of unions have altered over the years and I do believe in collective action in principle, these actions are unlikely to ultimately help. Workers in many any other industries have simply have to put up with changing conditions, or leave, if they so wish.

Public sector unions will mobilise over the cuts, of course attempting to defend the interests of their own members, but I think ultimately that is the problem of modern British employment. The solidarity throughout the working population, formerly found in industrial labour, no longer exists and the influence is much more limited. Unions will be looking after narrow interests that wouldn't necessarily benefit the larger population, those who have already suffered, no matter how well intended any action is.

There is huge scope for cuts in the public sector and while the private sector has largely been squeezed it within an inch of its life, little has changed for public servants and surely it is only right and fair that the situation changes.

It is now close to two years that this downturn has effected the world economy and as it transpired the two main culprits have come away largely scot-free.

It was the banking sector and Government, through action and inaction respectively, that caused the crisis. However, with the banks having been propped up by Government and the cuts in public spending having largely been postponed until now, in many ways these two sectors have not felt the full effects of the downturn, or at least no as perhaps they could have, should have...

Yes there have been job losses in the banking sector and the Labour Government was thrown out at the election (though only just, Brown was clinging onto the door of No. 10 with his fingertips...), but the banks were saved from extinction and they have in some ways returned to business as usual. Perhaps they are trying to balance the books a little better, so have tightened their belts (much to the dismay of some would be borrowers), but bonuses are back. While in terms of Government as I have stated clearly for nearly two years the public sector has been largely saved from cuts.

The debt has gone from the debt of banks to sovereign debt, the debt of the nation. So who will take the greatest relative proportion of that debt? Not the rich, the rich will not suffer in the downturn and that was clear and identified long before the crash actually happened. In the global economy the super rich will prosper over the long term as the Times rich list has already illustrated quite clearly this year.

And in terms of my two protagonists, the Labour party don't seem too disheartened by opposition, since they weren't completely annihilated. I mean Big Al Campbell is having a right laugh on Twitter, on Question Time and while getting publicity for his trashy book.

Alastair Campbell

A man utterly convinced of his own importance

The fact is the level of economic growth was unsustainable therefore the level of investment in the public sector was also unsustainable. Cuts have to be made.

The idea of sustainable growth reminds me of the huge of amount of rubbish stated about Brown's economic record. The absolute best was early on in the crisis when on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show John Prescott claimed that Brown had delivered 10 years of "sustainable" economic growth. It so completely nonsensical it doesn't require analysis.

I don't think Vine picked him up on it properly. It astounds me that the likes of Prescott and Campbell get away with such nonsense so easily, or are allowed to by professional presenters and journalists.

John Prescott

F***ing clueless

Stick to what you know best John

Spot on


Maybe in a few years' time the higher level of investment could return, if significant growth returns. But probably not if the Tories have anything to do with and greater efficiency does need to be brought to the sector. This is a main aspect in the disparity between the public and private sector and I do intend to look more closely at Labour's legacy in the public sector and employment in Britain.

The issue of debt reduction and cuts is complex, but many of those fundamentally opposed to spending cuts are suggesting that the debt should be paid by increasing taxes.

This blog article is along those lines

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/28/camerons-claim-on-8020-tory-cuts-doesnt-stack-up/

So effectively the private sector pays, even if some public sector workers suffer de facto pay cuts, the basis of the debt would be paid from wealth generated in the private sector.

Taxes will have to be increased of course, but the idea of just taxing the rich, or the banks, or whoever; will not work without the corresponding cuts. The rich should pay their fair share and banks need to be levied (something Labour was waivering on), but tax increases have to be combined with spending cuts.

To put it simply, the rich will avoid the taxes as best they can and the conditions at the wrong end of the private sector will continue to deteriorate as the burden of the tax is shifted. Even if the low paid are not directly taxed, companies will cut further in attempts to maintain profits.

I have to admit that this scenario adds some credence to the Tory and business leaders claims about the NIC rise, the 'tax on jobs'.

Job cuts, pay freezes, etc, etc. The low paid in the private sector shouldering an even greater level of the burden to maintain the conditions in the public created during an
unsustainable boom.

It's just the way the system is now. Labour and their supporters may not like it, but then they had 13 years to at least try to do something about it.


I don't know if I'm hammering the point home... I would hope the point is clear enough, there is more than just the disparity between the rich and the poor in this society Tory and Labour alike have mangled over the last 30 years.

A bit bogged down by debt and cuts. I will move on this weekend...