You say you want a revolution..?

Well, where to start..?

With the Occupy movements
http://occupywallst.org/
http://www.occupylondon.org.uk/

Occupy Wall street, New York


Occupy London Stock Exchange


Developing from the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Occupy London Stock Exchange action is attracting a lot of interest at the moment and the movement has spread far and wide. But it seems to me that confusion reigns within the movement and its supporters, and so in turn, its detractors.

We all want to change the world and if they just wanted greater reform to the Banking sector, economic reform and a ‘fair deal’ for the poor, then it would be more coherent, would garner wider support and gain greater momentum. The UKUncut movement and the anti-cuts (http://falseeconomy.org.uk/) movement are at least clear in their aims.

However, this Occupy movement encompasses all of the anti-coalition politics that has gone before and more. They did manage to gather round and come up with a statement detailing their objectives.

This was welded together from the meeting of a lot of very strongly opinionated groups and gives a picture of the wide variety of viewpoints and aims of the people involved. They want a lot; a lot of very different things.

What is it that you want to do..?

'We want to be free...'

The first clear contradiction is that they state the current system is unsustainable, but then go on to say they do not accept the need for cuts and support student and public sector strike action.

So they want to overturn the ‘current system’, but they want to maintain the systems that the Labour government funded on the tax receipts from the boom in the financial sector and the pension arrangements that have been developed by successive governments over post-war years. Pensions that could only be sustained through continually increased input from younger generations, not to mention good performances in the stock market. I’ve mentioned previously that the students and public actions don’t actually sit very well together, if the students actually thought about it.

None of it fits together… But I’m sure they’re working through ideas how to marry it all up; a new system that will maintain public sector jobs and services, create worthy jobs for millions, make education free for millions and pay for the pensions of millions of people to retire for some 20 to 40 years on a reasonable income.

Good luck chaps…


The stated aims would seem reasonable to many and as I say, they do blend a lot of what has been demanded by public protests over the last couple of years. However, the first aim about the unsustainable system, as well as the ‘structural change’ mentioned in point seven, represent the underlying theme of the movement which is anti-capitalism, even the idea of a genuine revolution and a desire for anarchism or communism. I think the political theory gets somewhat blurred there.

All over the world, a symbol of defiance from a Hollywood film










The mask company must be doing very well

Regardless of any stated aims, wanting an end to the capitalist system, revolution, a communist system or anarchy means so much more than wanting the bankers to pay their ‘fair share’ and economic reform.

Again if we’re talking anarchy, as in no government, then the desire to maintain government spending and public sector spending is incongruous.

Laurie Penny (PennyRed) and many more would very much like an end to global capitalism apparently.
http://www.swp.org.uk/
http://www.fifthinternational.org/

Rage against the machine



I'm intrigued... Let's give 'em a go..!

Anarchy in the UK? http://occupylsx.org/?p=268

It is with these anti-capitalist notions that everyone gets confused, supporters and critics alike. A good example of this occurred on ‘Have I got news for you’ on BBC One 21/10/2011

Within the scoffing of this Tory (Louise Mensch) there is a point and it’s completely overlooked, deliberately by Hislop, Merton and Baker; anti-establishment radicals that they are. She attempts to mock the anti-capitalists for participating in the capitalist society and enjoying its spoils; buying ‘coffee’ and tents, using smart phones, but she is rebuffed, of course. How could all of them get by without participating? A revolution cannot live on fresh air alone… Simple actions like buying coffee do not undermine your principles.

Well not in most cases. But this lot have been queuing up at Starbucks, the epitome of global capitalism! If she had just talked about the likes of Starbucks then she’d have made a point.

The fact is companies like Starbucks and Tesco do represent the system, its success as well as its failure, in pushing out smaller traders for instance.

Hislop et al (and hundreds more on Twitter) mock the Tory for saying the protesters are hypocritical for ‘buying coffee’, but the point should have been made clear about where it was bought. You can get coffee in all sorts of places, many independent. If you are making a very public protest against capitalism and you buy coffee from Starbucks, a massive global corporation, then it is contradictory.

I appreciate we’ve all got to eat, drink and clothe ourselves and the fact is where else would they get a tent and unfortunately for anti-capitalists, phones (very useful for revolutions it seems) are only produced by multi-national conglomerates. We all have to live within the current system, but Starbucks is something else (using them for the toilets or not. Or is just using the toilets sticking it to the capitalists..?).

One Twitterite questioned if she was suggesting that they should grow the beans themselves (aha hahahaha…). No, they could go to one of the many independent coffee shops, that I have no doubt there are in the city of London! You smug p****.

Too pricey? Is that because of the system? F*** ‘em anyway, they’ll just look like hypocritical t***s. To the right wing at least.

But maybe that’s it, they don’t care? They get cheap coffee (and/or use the toilet) and don’t see it as hypocritical, because when they finally get it together these corporations won’t exist..? Might as well get a reasonably priced coffee while you can and if you’re independent in London (charging more) you’re just as much a slimey capitalist… The employees will be liberated from both forms of slavery..!

Rejoice comrades, you will be free!

To do what instead..?

Maybe it’s ok because it’s fair trade (apparently, more Twitter…), but it took public criticism to get them to stop their policy of leaving the f***ing taps on non-stop! Not very environmentally conscious.

And that’s effective action right there, by the Sun newspaper no less

Would the Occupy protesters have crossed this picket line?



'You will be free, soon. But I just want an Americano right now...'

In Bristol there have been a number of protests about a Tesco store opening in an area known as Stokes Croft. Basically the protesters believe they’re defending their area from the effects of an evil corporation. If they boycotted the store, as well as smashing its windows, yet went round the corner and shopped in the more established Tesco superstore in a nearby area, wouldn’t that be hypocrisy?

Late night shoppers turn nasty

'We don't want your sort round here!!'

But in the cold light of day, a change of heart...

'It's just sooo convenient...'

It seems a lot of Lefties are willing to overlook hypocrisy, right wing bloggers are usualy quick to pick them up on it though - Guardian’s Tax Hypocrisy is Ridiculous

On the subject of the Guardian, their tax and Left wing hypocrisy, Twitter contributor @NewRedDawn ended that particular discussion with another user on this note:

"@fatcouncillor If I cheated on my wife, would I be a hypocrit (sic) for saying another man should not cheat on his? yes, but my advice invalid? no" (22/10/11)

“Don’t do as I do, do as I say” seems to be the order of the day for some Leftists.

NewRedDawn's tweets make for interesting reading and he does have some distinct views and ideas, also here on his blog, which I am yet to become completely familiar with…

As indicated by this gem of a tweet - "#occupylsx: communism to me, as a goal = super abundance of goods, elimination of want. Surely that is always a worthy goal?" (22/10/11). He advocates pure socialism/communism and he appears to think the 'do as I say' doctrine is perfectly reasonable. If he is right about the revolution, what in the Lord’s name does the future hold? Nothing different from the past…?

They seem to only worry about hypocrisy if it comes from rich Tories, because ultimately they’re in the right and they remain morally superior.

Hislop would normally love to pick up such contradictory behaviour, but this one is text book Daily Mail and the point was incredibly badly made by a Tory. Hislop, Merton and Baker couldn’t be seen to be on side with a rambling Tory and ridiculing a ‘popular’ Left wing movement, opposing the bankers and Coalition. But I’m sure one of them would have slipped in the Starbucks line had it panned out differently and everyone would have loved it…

Not sure what the Leftists on the internet would think though, they wouldn’t have been so quick to tweet their derision. They’re happy to gloss over their contradictions when they’re on the front foot against a bumbling Tory; very much like their current opposition to the coalition, happy to overlook their failings in government over 13 years that has lead us to this situation.

The confusion on the programme was clear, Louise Mensch saying being anti-capitalist you shouldn’t enjoy any of its benefits while campaigning against it and Hislop saying you can buy a coffee and still protest against banks, corporate greed, etc. But they want so much more than that, more fundamental than just wanting to stop cuts and make bankers cough up, and Mensch was just all over the place.

The global movement has gained some support and of course the anti-cuts protests already have massive support in this country, and more so the action against banking and corporate greed. But I doubt there’s much popular support for communism or anarchism, particularly in the US. People want a fairer system and representation but I don’t believe they want a true revolution. What exactly would that involve? (Historically speaking, armed conflict)

I don’t think people really understand what they want and that includes many involved in the movement. What kind of system do they actually see being created? One where everyone will have smart phones and there are still companies (or collectives?) producing them in abundance…?

We’d all love to see the plan…

If they wanted some clear effective action then shouldn’t they boycott Starbucks and other such companies? They might actually hurt the system that way. If a worker’s main power is (or was) to remove their Labour, then so to a consumer’s most significant power is their choice of consumption. At least it would be have greater symbolism, surely the Left place some significance on such action…

UKUncut are all about boycotting and picketing companies ‘guilty’ of the legal activity of tax avoidance. Topman, Vodafone, Boots and God knows many more, they’re all at it and all have them have been caused tremendous inconvenience by hordes of UKUncut and anti-cuts activists.

Outside


And in


It seems to have quietened down recently, maybe building up for further action, such as Occupy or combining with the strikes in November.

But maybe they realised they could no longer buy anything (and live without feeding the capitalist pigs..!) because all these c**ts are screwing over their tax, off-shoring their activities and where would one shop if one stuck religiously to your ideals…?

I imagine Starbucks must be alright with their tax (?), though judging by the Guardian example that can’t be certain, they like the coffee just as they like the media support…

They certainly couldn’t boycott Apple. Where would a revolution be without iPhones, iPads and all the other smart devices on the capitalist market? Along with the social media on the internet, they’ve revolutionised revolutionary movements and the organisation of protests. Although guns and/or military backing still seem to be the main difference with a successful revolution.

Throughout this (points 2 and 7) and previous action the participants and advocates have tried to claim solidarity with protests and revolutionary movements around the world, many of which have used social media, but many more that have guns as actual concern, whether it be using them or facing them.

The Occupy movement claim ‘We are the 99%’ and of course right wing commentators have mocked them for this and to be honest it’s quite fair. They are claiming to represent 99% of the population that suffer because 1% control the majority of the wealth and resources.

But they don’t represent all of the 99%, not even a fraction of it. They are just part of the 99%, but that’s not as snappy. There’s no point in even dissecting all of the groups they clearly do not represent in this nation alone, but with a core of anti-capitalism and revolutionary beliefs they are far from representing the majority of the world’s people, across a vast array of cultures and beliefs.

Even in America (where the slogan originated), with an underlying right wing or conservative sensibilities, does the Occupy Wall Street movement really represent 99% (or should the percentage be adjusted nationally for the number included in the 1% of the world’s population? It gets complicated…)?

This article suggests a majority of Americans supports Occupy Wall Street - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/21/MNFI1LKTTN.DTL

But what change would this huge and diverse number of people want?

The 99% are a lot of people wanting a lot of different things and most do not see the overthrow of the ‘system’ as a solution. Reform, yes and overthrow of particular governments, that’s a different subject.

When the student and anti-cuts happened there was a commonplace comparison with the uprising of the Arab spring, as mentioned above with Laurie Penny.

Gets me everytime…


But what does the occupy movement really have in common with the Arab people of North Africa and the Middle East? They have been trying to overthrow dictators and genuine oppression.

Do these people have similar ideas on freedom and do they want the same outcomes as the Occupy movements? The new rulers of Libya have recently declared that they will use the Sharia code as a basis for their law, not quite what the protesters have in mind…

As I have mentioned before a lot of the Arab political movements that ended in Dictatorships have had ‘Socialist’ principles, including Gaddafi, and Hugo Chavez, a hero of the world’s Left says Gaddafi was a martyr..! So where does the solidarity with the Libyans lie?

Do they really have much in common with the protests in Greece? There are a lot of Left wing revolutionaries there and there is action opposed to austerity, but the Greeks lived far beyond their means and too great a proportion of the population have problems with paying their taxes, so again where is the solidarity?

How about in Eastern Europe where they spent years trying to rid themselves of tyrannical Socialist governments? Now I know this lot will be professing inclusion and fairness, not the kind of centralist authoritarian governments that Eastern Europe endured but many of them do want socialism/communism. I’m not sure how that sits with those that lived in under these regimes and fought so hard against them.

Apparently Lech Walesa, the Polish solidarity hero, changed his mind about visiting Occupy Wall Street, due to the underlying influences from anti-capitalists and the hard Left.

So many of the current activists are too young to remember what happened, but don’t they research their history?

However much the current system is reformed, how will the new system work? In the globalised economy nothing works in isolation, either in a system of taxing the rich or pure communism, do they see it working in isolation? Like North Korea or Cuba (blockades and sanctions aside…)? Or like the USSR and its allies (obviously a much bigger scale)?

The Left often use the examples of much smaller countries that have successful higher tax economies (e.g. Scandinavia), but a vital difference is the population size, as well as cultural differences.

If the protesters had a proposition for some sort of global agreement on higher tax (or just equal tax levels) it might at least provide clarity. Getting agreement on it would be another thing, but a clear proposal would be a start (demanding an end to 'global tax injustice' is not the same thing).
Certainly the idea of eliminating tax havens was proposed from an early stage after the 2008 financial crisis and it did seem to have widespread support, at the G20 summit in the April 2009 for instance. However, I’m not sure how much effective action was taken, despite every UK Uncut have had to say on the matter, as this article suggests - G20 has failed to crack down on tax havens

A higher tax world economy would of course effectively be a socialist revolution. Some of the activists clearly want a world revolution of sorts, many will indeed claim to be Trotskyists and maybe some of them believe it could happen. But they must envisage stern opposition surely?

Really when you look at it closely all you’re left with is a lot of questions and if they were asked you’d more than likely get a lot of very different answers.

On a recent Newsnight programme ‘film maker’ and ‘writer’ Michael Moore compared the movement to the Suffragettes in terms of the attitude towards new movements and political concepts. But as Paxman pointed out the suffragettes had a clear and achievable goal, the Occupy movement has nothing of the sort.

People do want change and if there were some clear and considered ideas, then maybe there’d be more momentum. And it could enter the political arena and create change that way. I’m sure most of them would agree with the need for electoral reform (except maybe rabid ‘anarchists’), but following this years referendum on AV that has been set back years in some part because of the Labour party, the party that led us to the current state we’re in. The Left’s aims and objectives often differ greatly.

There needs to be economic change, though not necessarily of the nature the Occupy movement are suggesting, and maybe some change will stem from this action, it has a powerful voice when combined with its internet and media presence.
Protest movements often do cause change and pressure governments, though not quite the change that some would like. There have been comparisons with the political protests of the 1960s, particularly 1968 and how they caused political change.

The fact is in 1968 it was a different world, there were different circumstances and they had different goals.

1968


But then whatever change occurred we still ended up in the current situation. It always settles back to the old routine…

2003


You should learn from history (as the activists should about Eastern European socialism), but you need to understand circumstance and context, situations are rarely exactly the same. There are massive differences in the world today, already there is a huge amount of upheaval in the world economic system and the world’s powerbases and that should be the topic of my next post.

China and India are rising and while their poor populations still desire further change, the economic growth has already delivered for many. This has already affected and will further alter the West’s standard of living and it is not clear that these people want exactly the same things as the “99%” parked outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London.

The location of the camp might be adding further ambiguity to the message; they were unable to ‘occupy’ London Stock Exchange so they’re outside the nearby cathedral. So St. Paul’s closing their doors has become major news and there is no issue with the Church as an organisation, as far as anyone can tell.

But they’re always sending out mixed messages.

For example; Billy Bragg’s tweet on the 22nd October

"Now #occupyLSX have shown how easy it is, thousands of atheists will be buying tents today and camping outside their local CofE church" ???


'What the f**k are you on about Billy?!'

What can a poor boy do, except loot from a Poundland store?

Poverty caused this? It’s certainly desperate…

So the summer’s gone and apparently some people saw that the time had been right for fighting in the street.

Street Fighting Men?


I missed the chance to post anything about it at the time, due to having no internet connection because of BT and I’m sure BT would like to apologise for that…

The aftermath is just about remaining in the news, except for the economic mess. The issue will long remain relevant; the riots were symptomatic of the fine mess the Labour party have helped create.

Labour are not alone, the Tories had a good crack at it as well, but the current Government and the cuts can’t be blamed for the depths this went to. While previous Tory Governments should take their share, the New Labour Government should take the lion’s share of the blame for their failure to make fundamental changes when they had the chance. And for their incessant use of spin, propaganda and downright bulls**t to cover up their inaction, while attempting to make people believe they had changed society for the better.

Labour failed in all of the most important areas; the economy, education and crime. These affect the whole of society and in 1997 the country was crying out for fundamental reform. There was some superficial change but basically they did very little, their ideas were few and thin and the action was limited. Times were good, the economy was ‘booming’ and they can bang on about the NHS all they like; they threw money into that pit for sure. But other than maintaining some semblance of a functioning service, the NHS, no matter what some might say, does not affect the fabric of society like the three areas mentioned above.

As it’s been the main topic of discussion since last year’s general election, the economy has been the main area for my criticism of the Labour party, but I have been meaning to mention crime at some point, as well as education because it is linked. So now, in the aftermath, the time seems right to slate the clueless cretins that formed the last Labour government.

Both parties have been equally superficial and insufficient, when apportioning blame and pontificating about the reasons behind the troubles. Cameron blaming simple ‘criminality’ and ‘gangs’ while Blair popped up, again (obviously feels he can now Brown’s f***ed off) and blamed a ‘disaffected’ section of society, condemning Cameron while managing to give an equally cursory explanation for the riots. But it is easy to see why he is saying it and the error of his motives; it is fundamental to the nature of New Labour.

He would claim he is trying to differentiate the perpetrators of these riots from other law abiding members of the same communities and in doing so avoid demonising a whole section of society and of course he mentions not wanting to “trash our own reputation abroad”, as if the pictures aren’t enough alone.

Welcome to London...


An every day scene in the UK...

Not the fire, the p***head wandering about with a can of Special Brew

In offering his analysis he is both trying to offend as few people (voters) as possible and also reduce the amount of responsibility the Labour party should take for the situation, all classic New Labour spin. But all he does is simply attempt to ring fence and point a finger at a what he claims is a particular group (even in the light of examples of individuals involved who do not fit the standard rioting profile, as with the Poundland incident) and excuse so many other groups in society, and of course his government, for their failures. He offers a view that is actually even more simplistic than Cameron’s (the BBC article about his comments notes the similarity) and with his ‘specific’ solution, ignores the need for change in wider society. It is all characteristic of his politics and his government; all talk no substance and ultimately, no action.

As he clearly knows exactly what the problem is, it’s such a shame he only came up with his ‘specific solution’ as he was leaving government, he must have been pondering it for the 10 years he was at Number 10… “Intervention family by family”, that’s a lot of families and a lot of resources. I would have liked to have seen him try…

I mean he must have left the details in Number 10, next to his plans for Middle East peace. And Gordon probably threw them out. Such a pity…


'If only that man didn't keep getting in my way...'

Whichever way you look at it there is failure in Government. Either the problem developed or worsened under his stewardship or, as is the reality, it highlights both his inability to identify the problem and the lack of effective action for 10 years.


He was right you know

And what did we get?


Were they right all along..?

Cameron’s ‘criminality’ and pointing the finger at gangs is simplistic. It’s probably true that gang members were involved but to accuse them of being the root of the problem is possibly more to do with having an excuse to launch targeted action against them. But Blair’s analysis is beyond simple, it’s just more empty propaganda, in part aimed at protecting his own legacy and his beloved party. All very easy for him to say when he has no power or obligation. It’s just makes you glad that is the case.

The Left are keen to offer simple divisive generalisation about the rich and the poor, haves and have-nots, them and us, etc, but usually steer clear of labelling and finger pointing within the ‘lower’ social classes. They tend towards highlighting the complexity of social problems within poorer groups; things are rarely black and white. Blair says it’s a specific group completely detached from normal society. No wonder the Lefties ain’t so keen on the Old Warmonger anymore…


What's your point...?

Nothing grey in his assessment, it seems to be simple ‘right and wrong’ for him, whatever the causes. So where do the likes of the EDL fit into his very specific view of the situation?

They were out on the streets apparently acting as vigilantes and trouble flared with police. Normally they’d be viewed by the likes of Blair at least on the side of wrong and often in criminal terms. And here, though apparently organising to prevent rioting, I have no doubt Blair would be far from condoning their actions.

Where does such a group fit into his view of society? Are they not symptomatic of wider problems?

EDL Demonstration in Bradford


The fact that apparently random people from varying social groups got involved in what is clear and extreme criminality, isn’t that incongruous with Mr Blair’s view of the problem?

The majority had criminal records, but certainly not all.

As always the reasons behind the disorder are complicated and somewhere in-between, sometimes quite far, from the claims made by politicians. They’re always looking for the sound-bites and the simple solutions palatable to the public and media alike. It’s what Blair is all about, but here he might be showing a lack of understanding of how any society works? Maybe he doesn’t understand and that would make sense…

I didn’t start writing this intending to only criticise Blair, I wanted to slate the Labour party as a whole and also look at the wider reasons behind the trouble, largely speaking accentuated by their Government, but it’s enjoyable attacking Blair. He represents New Labour and therefore all that was wrong with that Government. Well, almost as much as Mandelson.

Smug p***ks..?


Of course there hasn’t been a complete moral collapse in this country; the problems are fortunately limited. Cameron plays into the Left’s hands with such sound-bites and the debate descends quickly, Blair then contradictorily chooses an equally simple analysis. However, both Right and Left identify widespread problems in their reasoning and with social problems there’s always a gradation through society. It isn’t like a school with one bad group or one kid leading a group, but that’s effectively what Blair is saying. It’s vastly more complex and he says if they miss the ‘specific solution’ we miss the chance to deal with the problem. I think if we were to follow his advice and focus only on very specific groups and actions, we’d miss the chance to improve society as a whole and it’d be like 13 years of Labour all over again.

The rioters showed the depths that society can go to, but do they have no contact with anyone else in society? Are they not related to other members of society? More than simply immediate family, some who may spurn their relatives for their actions, others that would try to defend them. Do they not have friends and contacts and a variety of relationships with wider communities? Were they not ‘educated’ in schools, however rudimentarily? Few are ‘isolated’ in British society, so a problem is not and cannot be isolated.

The small minority ruining it for the rest is true to an extent, but even following the school analogy, wider groups are still complicit in creating and allowing a situation. From providing the audience, or even goading inappropriate behaviour, to other pupils and teachers failing to intervene when necessary, there is always wider culpability.

A group of individuals or even a ‘gang’ may have been involved directly but they don’t know others who may not have been there at the time, but would have joined in? There were people who stood by and watched, hardly looking on with outrage, let alone fear.

What a picture..?


Nothing better to do?


Random spectator...

'I say, that's really not on...'

There were others that tried to incite trouble using the internet and those prosecuted are only going to represent the surface. The problems do permeate through large sections of society; the indications are many and clear.

Trouble flared in Gloucester of all places, hardly a major urban centre, known for severe economic deprivation and gang activity. Not to say there aren’t social and economic problems there, but so many of the examples do not fit easily in the simplistic analysis.

Bristol experienced riots earlier in the year which related to protesting about the opening of a Tesco Express in an inner city area and the resulting police tactics.


So just don't shop there..?

This happened on more than one occasion and in truth the groups that rioted were not necessarily the same people that rioted in Bristol in August. The motivations were more akin to anti-globalisation action, more so than the rampant materialism that was apparent in August. Probably more alike the trouble that has followed some of the recent student and anti-cuts protests. It seems there are currently a lot of groups disposed to public disorder.

Exciting times when you're young and clueless...



Yes, you were there...

Even the motivations to riot in August, and the extent to which it went from such triggers, have to be questioned and again indicate far worse problems. In one area of London, there was a specific incident of the police possibly using excessive force, but other areas of London and the other cities quickly descended into looting, because an apparent opportunity arose, it was hardly solidarity for a fallen comrade.

These weren’t even the same as the LA riots in the early 90s. Not even the same as the riots that occurred in Britain in the early 80s and early 90s, with racial tension and economic deprivation being much clearer causes during those periods.

Complete disorder is fortunately uncommon and riots occur in particular circumstances, for one thing it usually requires a certain critical mass of people. However, minor disorder is more common place, from football violence to the average city centre or even housing estate on a weekend; usually it is a police presence that stops things from going too far. Too often it seems the presence of other law abiding citizens isn’t enough to prevent problems. Thankfully the vast majority do have at least some understanding of the need for order and there is a tacit agreement with the state that order will be maintained (there shouldn’t be any need for ridiculous police pledges) I wasn’t really intending to go into the political and social theory of law and order, I happened across this BBC article - Viewpoint: Why doesn't rioting happen more often?

Blair makes out as if the people causing the trouble were isolated and relatively few, but there are other people who may not go to those particular depths yet are certainly not averse to committing very serious crimes; drunken, drug related or otherwise. Going into all the permutations would take a long time and be completely unnecessary; the point is the many thousands that were involved are just the depths of a particular problem, paradoxically the visible surface of very deep problems. The tip of this iceberg is the worst of it, to ignore this sign, as Blair effectively suggests, would be insanity.

What does Blair know about any of it? What do the Labour party know or any politicians???

Blair, Brown and other Labour politicians have long scoffed at the ‘fear’ of crime, being so out of proportion with their figures. Figures showing such a steep decline in overall crime, I swear there should no longer be any crime in this country! But anyone who has lived on or near an economically deprived area in any town or city in the UK, or in declining post industrial regions, would know that crime is still commonplace and anti-social behaviour prevalent. Not everything is recorded or included in the figures, police methods have changes, as well as public attitudes towards crime and certain behaviour, almost more acceptant of certain activities.

Crime is very much concentrated in certain areas and that should be a concern, but violent crime, while still concentrated, has also become more widespread and random. There are many examples of violence in apparently surprising circumstances, by seemingly unusual perpetrators and in random areas.

Just for a few examples:

The three young professionals who attacked a man on a train for asking them to be quiet
A wealthy businessman kicked to death by a gang of youths outside a part-time police station in Henley-on-Thames
Teenager beat a man to death with a fire extinguisher after innocent banter between youths and men turned nasty

And for a bit of Daily Mail sensationalism...:
Random attack by thugs every 30 seconds as 'stranger assaults' soar in binge Britain

There is rage, bad attitude, anti-social behaviour and ultimately a lack of discipline and respect, it pervades through modern society. You see it and feel it if you live and work in an average town or city; Tony Blair doesn’t, few politicians do. They only have their figures and reports to go by.

If you have been a victim of crime it is hard to know what to believe about the figures, as always there are contradictory reports:

Falling
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/violent_crime_falling_says_new.html
Rising
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256474/Violent-crime-risen-44-13-years-Labour.html

I’m not going to say things have definitely got worse, the figures obviously have substance, certainly things have been worse in the more distant past and as one gets older there is a tendency to view changing standards as declining standards. But I believe that considering the circumstances things have got little better, particularly in terms of the underlying problems.

Considering the opportunity, time and conditions Labour had from 1997 up until quite recently, there has not been anywhere near enough improvement and the riots have exemplified this.

Blair’s claim in 1997 was that they would be “Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”, one of many neat sound-bites that typified the New Labour movement, but from the way they handled the situation it is not certain that they understood the causes.

Economic factors have long been understood to be the most significant fundamental cause of crime, particularly in Left wing circles. Of course Labour had a good 10 years of economic growth, so there’s one ‘cause’ sorted.

Poor education is also seen as cause of crime and Labour ploughed money into education, as they did with many other things.

However, Blair admitted they were ‘lucky’ with the economy and all they did in terms of education was use the money generated in the economy to build schools and provide facilities and equipment, that’s not actually ‘education’. Nor do the targets that continued to drive the seemingly inexorable rise in grades, equate to an ever improving system of education.

We all know what happened with their economic record and for just one example to question their record on education; you simply have to look at the recent youth unemployment statistics, alongside the testimony of so many employers, as well as universities. This issue can easily link back to the problem of crime and the recent public disorder.

Kids these days…


Looting from Poundland shows ‘desperation’ and also an alarming level of stupidity...

And in terms of employment, there was a consistent level of unemployment through the boom years under Labour. Long term unemployment remained a significant problem and this is clear when you look at the significant issue of households where no-one has ever worked…

It’s not clear that Labour were at all “tough” on the causes, bit of luck and throwing some money around. They failed on the economy and their record on education is at best questionable.

What they did was lock up more people than ever, so perhaps they were ‘tough on crime’. Maybe the plan was to kill two birds with one stone, tough on the causes, well what is a cause of crime? Criminals… So they locked them up. And who can say it didn’t work? They’re not out causing crime. But it’s not very “progressive” and doesn’t really improve the situation in the long term.

There are other potential reasons for the apparent decrease in crime that occurred under the Labour government, generally they have little to do with their policies and most are seldom considered. Probably the most significant factor which does relate to the economic situation at the time was the availability of cheap goods, electrical or otherwise. It’s long been considered that burglary became less worthwhile as electrical goods, amongst many other things, became cheaper and subsequently lost their resale value. This also means that in the first instance if there are cheaper goods available there is less need to go out and steal them or raise money to buy them outside of normal income (let’s say; generous benefits…).

Improved technology has also provided a reason not to get involved in crime and this has been suggested recently (mentioned here amongst other reasons for a drop in crime in the US). Video games certainly keep people in doors, perhaps committing serious crime in a virtual world, much better for everyone… But also the internet is rarely mentioned as a reason for occupying people and there can be no doubt that it does.

Of course the internet has spawned its own crime and the details of this are never fully clarified, but surely the internet has drawn in certain people from other criminal occupations. Financial crime on the internet is significant but the full extent probably can’t be confirmed, in the past the police have asked that banks, etc, handle the cases themselves without reporting them.

In terms of solving and preventing crime the police have greater technology at their disposal; for instance, DNA in forensic evidence and CCTV for both prevention and detection. And you’d hope that as time goes by their understanding of crime and methods would improve, but you never know…

Labour had a strong economy and they did at least talk about moving towards inclusion and opportunity for all, as well as improving social services and intervention. With all these circumstances and all the good fortune that Labour had, there should have been no crime at all! But when you look at all of it, the reality is that all of these factors were superficial. They kept people in pocket and there were cheap goods and distractions, it was tantamount to keep a child distracted with TV and sweets.

Significant problems were not addressed and festered as Labour rode their luck. And now here we are; an economic mess with a fragile social structure.

When he was home secretary, Alan Johnson once admitted in an interview that although Britain had a record prison population, as a nation the number of convicted criminals that were actually sent to prison was only average. Well what does that say about the amount of crime?

Labour failed on crime as well.

Blair was in charge when they were locking up most of these people and perhaps he thought that way they could eradicate crime, he is delusional (between him and Brown the megalomania is pretty spectacular). If his assessment was correct and it is a very specific group then surely we could just lock them all up and job done?!

In the days and weeks following the riots and after so many rioters were caught, did crime drop to nothing? I doubt it.

Labour have already took us some of the way but we don’t want to follow the US model. Simply locking people up doesn’t work.

And what of the other countries, the ‘developed nations’ Blair mentions have the same problems? Again, being simplistic.

That is the nature of the man and the tone of his argument is as poor; “well it’s not just us, they’re as bad”. It’s an attempt to divert and gloss over.

He almost sighs and rolls his eyes, when questioned about Iraq, terrorism; “do we have to go through this again..?”…

He talks of depressing ourselves unnecessarily, while trashing our reputation abroad in a typically glib statement. Depress ourselves?? The scenes of violence and robbery are fine but the debate is just getting everyone down…

Let's not talk about what happened last night...


He talks as if the ‘nation’ has a sense of self-esteem and it is this exact kind of rubbish, based on image and spin (basically propaganda and indoctrination) that highlights the fallacy of the New Labour agenda. If you say something enough, people will believe it and then hopefully it will come true. Tell people there is no crime and the rest will follow…

And our reputation? People will make up their own minds, in this country and abroad.

Malaysian Student attacked during London Riots

And please, come again...

If we don’t appear to be assessing and dealing with the problems effectively then people will wonder what has happened to this country. It needs to be seen that the problems are taken seriously and not swept under the carpet, with a ‘very specific solution’… He’s probably concerned about tourism and rightly so, potential visitors would want to see swift action, but also long term change.

Do other developed nations all have the same problems? Certainly it’s true to some extent, but not exactly the same. France’s problems are well documented and have seen recent occurrences, and despite similarities with the recent trouble in the UK, the French unrest did have a more specific racial context. The problem of crime in the US is well known but it is such a different country in its social make up, no matter our cultural similarities. They view law and order differently as well as social problems and it is a much more diverse population, whereas here we are more densely populated. The differences are too many for Blair’s comparison. And you could go through the G20 and say the same things. And I’d like to see him point out these same groups in the likes of the Scandinavian countries and particularly Japan.

And if these nations do all have the same problems as he contends then surely they’d be more understanding of the situation here??? And our reputation wouldn’t suffer and we wouldn’t all get depressed, everyone milling about in the streets, not looking each other in the eye…

His rhetoric is empty, nothing’s changed there.

Even forgetting any of things he’s said about the Iraq War, this is the man who believes that Western military action since 9/11 has not incited further terrorism against the West, despite, well, everything that’s happened. We should ignore this man…

The summer has ended and we head into winter after a year of protesting and rioting. To what end? It isn’t 1968. The challenges faced are completely different and the West is not going to dominate as before. The protests in the 60s were about power and freedom and carried out in vastly different circumstances; the underlying theme of recent unrest has been money. How times have changed… And I’m not sure these people fully understand the situation.


Do they really understand, at any age...?

There are dark uncertain times ahead for all Western nations, monumental change is afoot and it is not clear how our economies and societies will come through these times. Maybe what we actually need is a smooth talker like Blair in power to ‘manage expectations’…


'This guy?! Seriously..?'

With men like this running the country, who knows what lays ahead...?

A Future Fair for the Public Sector..?

The News of the World is now making the news or were they always doing that, to some extent…? There is outrage and hopefully the clear criminal actions receive appropriate treatment, but so many other more fundamental problems are put on hold for news like this. Is it a surprise how low the gutter press will go? And I don’t know how much of it was the readership’s appetite fuelling such story chasing. Anyway, maybe people want their revenge, these papers have made a lot of enemies. I'll leave them to it...

As I’ve written this post about Public Sector pensions and work has taken up my time and Internet Explorer delayed the publishing; the Office for Budget Responsibility has come to my assistance and kept the issue in the news: Public sector pension liabilities top £1 trillion

But in truth it’s always relevant, this problem isn’t going anywhere for a while…

I was going to write about the Labour party and the affects of their time in Government (again); illustrated in Newport and Wales at large. And I will get around to it, but this post is looking at the (relatively) recent public sector strikes. The public sector is of course at the heart of what the Labour Government did during their years in power.

Strikers on 30th June


The issue of cutting services was not even on the agenda. I agree services should be protected as much as possible, but public sector pensions? The contracts shouldn’t have been agreed in the first place.

And their conditions? Well they never go into that too much…


'You scratch my back and I'll retire at 60'?

A lot of people would be probably be more accepting if it were simply the armed forces, police, nurses, etc, those in difficult frontline positions, who were retiring earlier for relatively decent pensions, but it isn’t. This is about the rest of the roughly six million employees that Labour maintained, in what was a greatly inflated public sector.

There has long been talk of public sector pension reform; even Labour mulled it over when in power. I’m not sure how far they would have gone and how they would have faced down the Unions, but they knew reform was necessary. Ed Miliband tried to distance Labour from the current action, whatever he said this might be in some part because he knows reform is necessary and Labour would have had to do something similar, but perhaps also because he’s worried about losing wider support.

Ed takes another moment

'Gordon give me strength...'

It almost seems that many in the public sector have not heard of the ‘pensions time-bomb’ (A.K.A the pensions crisis) and all the problems associated, certainly there seems to be little objective concern.

Years of market forces and global economic change have caused the erosion of company provision in the private sector, but the public sector is shielded from the direct effects by Government and legislation. And of course the Labour government did a very good job of protecting and actually vastly improving life in the public sector, while the market went to work on the conditions in the private sector and now here we are; with massive disparities between the sectors, as well as within the private sector.

While I appreciate complaints about reneging on contracts, the changes aren’t about losing anything that has already been contributed; the outcome just isn’t as attractive as when signing up. Things rarely are… Changes are constantly made to contracts and conditions in every part of the economy and surely Gordon Brown’s changes to pensions could be seen as the same.

Whatever they say the average eventual pension amount is, the terms and contributions are very agreeable, it is all funded by tax and has to change like everything else. And with regards to raising the retirement age, I think some people need to simply get a grip. This is not France...



Thankfully.

With the aging population and changing economic conditions pensions change is inevitable. The public sector has been protected by government from the change, while market forces have stripped the private sector, bit by bit. Because the change in the public sector is conducted differently, it is nationwide and appears sweeping; it can be construed as an attack and ideological at that. Raids have been going on in the private sector for years and I didn’t hear too much about solidarity from the likes of Laurie Penny (PennyRed), or is she just too young..? When the private sector was paying the way, everything seemed cosy and they didn’t have a clue what was going on elsewhere…


Oh Penny if only you'd got here a few years earlier...
With your red pen.

And where the f**k was this guy when the private sector was shedding jobs in the hundreds of thousands?

Oh yeah, school.

The talk of affordability and these pensions becoming 'more affordable', is verging on irrelevant, when it can also be said they will become 'less unaffordable'. The cost is in the news again as mentioned previously and the forecast fall in the proportion of GDP spent is stated once more, but it is a long projection and it's because of reform. We probably could always finance these pensions, we could probably finance another foreign war, but should we? Maybe public sector pensions will take up a relatively smaller proportion of GDP, but the rest are going to have to work longer, should everyone else be working to fund such liabilities? And who really knows what is going to happen over the next 50 years?!

As less people will be working for every pensioner as time moves on, the majority of the private sector will have to work longer to maintain the conditions in the public sector, is that fair?

And there it is; the Left’s notion of ‘fairness’. Labour’s tagline for a nauseating election campaign. ‘A future fair for all’?



Fair for "all"?? Not a chance. Not with Labour in power.

And what is fair anyway?

You think he knows?


This guy?


?!

Does he really know anything..?

Is the situation where there are significant disparities between the sectors fair?

The statistics are twisted back and forth in arguments from both sides, how much the pensions cost and how much the average person receives, ‘gold plated’ may not be a fair description throughout, but what is clear and pretty much undisputed, is that the provision is much better in the public sector. In fact most in the private sector have no pension at all.

The other statistics banded about and hotly disputed is the issue of the pay gap between the sectors and there are a lot of given reasons for this discrepancy. There are differences in the nature of the jobs; comparing roles is not a simple matter especially when considering fundamentally different working conditions and there may well be a greater percentage of people in the public sector with degrees. Although I’d be interested to see the statistics to warrant the claim in the linked article that there are more “highly skilled” workers in the public sector.

Of course there are nurses, doctors, police, etc, but as a percentage how many? And how many in administrative and managerial functions? And having a degree to enable you to take on the role of a community or diversity co-ordinator might be pushing the definition of ‘highly skilled’… Having a degree and being more ‘highly skilled’ are not one and the same. ‘Highly qualified’ and perhaps many ‘over-qualified’, as is the case in so many call centres. They’re not all Doctors and nurses and having so many qualifications in an unproductive sector is that good for economic balance..?

Everyone should have a co-ordinator

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2010/06/big-issue-sir.html

The issue of pay in terms of skills and like for like jobs is further complicated by distortion in the private sector from the high earners, this is rarely touched upon. Highly paid bankers and so on will increase the overall average, when so many more, graduated or otherwise, earn so much less.

Justifying the amount you’re paid is one thing, that is your worth in a defined role, but for an unspecified length of time (although even in the event of an early severance public sector workers also get quite favourable redundancy terms as a further benefit). Pension benefits are not the same and become a burden on an economy, whichever way you look at it.

A slightly bizarre attitude pervades from some in the public sector and the Unions, that they deserve such benefits (retiring early with guaranteed sums) and considering the poor provision in the private sector, they are therefore more deserving; ‘hard working public servants’, as if people don’t work hard in the private sector to produce the tax revenue that funds the public sector. Some are certainly seen as deserving by the wider population, as I’ve mentioned (forces, nurses, etc, teachers? Not so certain where public opinion lies…), but the rest getting off early (from decent pay and conditions) and paying them until they eventually die? Maybe paying them more now would be a fairer compromise…

In terms of the pay for comparable jobs, where many in the public sector claim they are paid less than equivalent roles in the private sector, nurses and teachers are perhaps easier to compare, but the example I often see is for I.T. workers. It is stated quite clearly they could earn more in the private sector and this is more than likely true. Well I.T. must be a relatively small percentage of employees, otherwise there’s something seriously wrong with the sector. And they are of course perfectly welcome to go and find a job in the private sector… Are they so arrogant to veil a threat to remove their ‘highly skilled’ services? Do they really think there won't be someone else to take their place?

The consistent claim is that employees have ‘accepted’ poor pay, but in the knowledge they have good pension provisions in place. Well how very gracious of them, to be so accepting. The attitude almost comes across, particularly from the likes of I.T. professionals, as if their own motives in taking the job have been altruistic. They have sacrificed ambition for the common good... So it wasn’t about choosing a reasonably well paid job with very good terms and conditions and of course, with no competition...? No, not at all...

Hardest game in the world...


Other roles that also comparable, and certainly in greater number and almost always over looked, are in basic administration. The pay fluctuates in the private sector, by industry and region, but starts at a reasonable level in the public sector and when you consider the conditions, pension provision and factor in such things as career progression; the overall picture is particularly favourable.

Public sector defences of pay and conditions often involve accusations of unfounded assumptions about the sector and then contradictorily turn to assumptions about the private sector. The bankers and their bonuses is an example readily given without an apparent thought to the percentage of people this actually involves. The average pay debate keeps cropping up and the figures now seem widely accepted on all sides, and usually there is little consideration of the massive variation in the private sector.

I have also seen comments about private sector employees being at fault in some way for the pension inequality. One accusation stated that private sector employees ‘invested in property’ during the boom times and it is therefore their own fault they have little or no pension provision. A gigantic sweeping generalisation from a seemingly knowledgeable Twitter contributor, when so many in the private sector cannot afford property of kind, let alone a decent pension. Even if many in the private sector did join a company scheme, they are barely comparable to public sector and Brown did nothing to help this.

Everyone makes assumptions, of course, but with the assumptions public sector employees make about the private sector it almost seems like during their induction it is drilled into them how they could do so much better in the private sector. Or sorry, they're told to say that if ever asked to comment…

Labour and the Unions claim Tories are trying to drive divide a wedge between the sectors, but then the Unions and employees ask why public servants should pay for the mistakes of the private sector. The divergence has already occurred…

The issue of pensions is not even about cuts to services, it’s something much more fundamental; a benefit the nation can ill-afford, unfairly afforded to a particular section of society. If everything was genuinely ‘fair for all’, then we’d all have decent pension schemes, however, that is not going to happen and most people realise and accept that.

I don't necessarily trust the Tories to get this right. Funnily enough I think the LibDems seemed to have the best understanding of the situation in the run up to the election and I have absolutely no trust in Labour as is.

The Eds united

A frightening prospect...

Many Leftists describe the situation as a ‘race to the bottom’ as if it is about dragging the public sector down to the private sector’s level, but it is tax from an increasingly pressured private sector that funds their conditions. Is that fair when funding is now a matter of either making cuts or increasing taxes?

And where do the unemployed fit into this way of thinking? A priority should be returning people to work, including many that remained unemployed in Labour’s boom years, but the Left’s idea is simply to tax to provide for all these groups. Well fortunately the mantra of ‘tax and growth’ doesn’t seem to have made it much further than the Left of Twitter…


That means all of you...

'Oy! Bragg!'

Billy is still down with the kids...

Maybe Labour could have done something about the situation when they came to power, improved private sector provision, put restraint on the public sector, or a combination of the two. Instead we find ourselves here.

Labour created the current situation; where in the public sector people were still joining expecting a job for life and favourable conditions, while the private sector went the other way. Labour allowed this, Brown created his ‘socialist’ ideal in the public sector without any apparent regard for what was happening elsewhere. How on earth did he think it was a good idea?! It beggars belief.

Labour and the Left bang on about fairness all the time but TUC General Secretary has admitted that the public sector is a "fairer" place to work than the private sector and that just about sums up the situation the Labour Government produced.

The public sector can be seen as a ‘progressive’ workplace in terms of the conditions; ensuring equal opportunities, providing stability and facilitating a work/life balance for its employee and enabling career progression. But this is maintained by Government and it is not open to competition and the global markets, the very forces that have altered and eroded conditions in the private sector.

Labour continued with this ‘progress’ in spite of significant economic change, but the pension provision that is disappearing from the private sector, is still based on ideals established in the post-war years. In the social-democratic years following the war, conditions radically improved and all things were promised to the workers, without an apparent thought given to how the world might change. This is all part of the problems with the Baby Boomer generation, but what Brown and Labour developed in the public sector was providing the best of both worlds; new and old.

The economic boom leading up to the crash was in part facilitated by the cheap labour in the developing world, but as the likes of the BRIC economies develop further and their middle classes increase, will they continue to prop up our economic systems? The UK economy is going to face many serious challenges; funding services and conditions for workers will have to be compromised, whether we like it or not. The whole country has to face these challenges and adapt to a changing world.

Laurie Penny can dream about her revolution and everyone can shout about fairness as much as they like, but there’s going to be change whatever happens. How Unions and so many Public Sector workers can expect everything to remain the same in the face of global economic upheaval is pretty much a mystery.



The world is changing, are they being ‘progressive’?


Is he still teaching..?


Should be able to manage at least one...

Throwing a sickie is now considered 'resistance'??!

Times have changed...