Archive for August, 2014

Socialism lives in Britain, but only for the rich: the rules of capitalism are for the rest of us. The ideology of the modern establishment, of course, abhors the state. The state is framed as an obstacle to innovation, a destroyer of initiative, a block that needs to be chipped away to allow free enterprise to flourish. “I think that smaller-scale governments, more freedom for business to exist and to operate – that is the right kind of direction for me,” says Simon Walker, the head of the Institute of Directors. For him, the state should be stripped to a “residual government functioning of maintaining law and order, enforcing contracts”. Mainstream politicians don’t generally talk in such stark terms, but when the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg demands “a liberal alternative to the discredited politics of big government”, the echo is evident.
And yet, when the financial system went into meltdown in 2008, it was not expected to stand on its own two feet, or to pull itself up by its bootstraps. Instead, it was saved by the state, becoming Britain’s most lavished benefit claimant. More than £1tn of public money was poured into the banks following the financial collapse. The emergency package came with few government-imposed conditions and with little calling to account. “The urge to punish all bankers has gone far enough,” declared a piece in the Financial Times just six months after the crisis began. But if there was ever such an “urge” on the part of government, it was never acted on. In 2012, 2,714 British bankers were paid more than €1m – 12 times as many as any other EU country. When the EU unveiled proposals in 2012 to limit bonuses to either one or two years’ salary with the say-so of shareholders, there was fury in the City. Luckily, their friends in high office were there to rescue their bonuses: at the British taxpayers’ expense, the Treasury took to the European Court to challenge the proposals. The entire British government demonstrated, not for the first time, that it was one giant lobbying operation for the City of London. Between 2011 and 2013, bank lending fell in more than 80% of Britain’s 120 postcode areas, helping to stifle economic recovery. Banks may have been enjoyed state aid on an unprecedented scale, but their bad behaviour just got worse – and yet they suffered no retribution.
Contrast this with the fate of the unemployed, including those thrown out of work as a result of the actions of bailed-out bankers. In the austerity programme that followed the financial crisis, state support for those at the bottom of society has been eroded. The support that remains is given withstringent conditions attached. “Benefit sanctions” are temporary suspensions of benefits, often for the most spurious or arbitrary reasons. According to the government’s figures, 860,000 benefit claimants were sanctioned between June 2012 and June 2013, a jump of 360,000 from a year earlier. According to the Trussell Trust, the biggest single provider of food banks, more than half of recipients were dependent on handouts owing to cuts or sanctions to their benefits.
Glyn, a former gas fitter from Manchester, was sanctioned three weeks before Christmas 2013, and received no money. He had missed a signing-on day because he was completing a job search at Seetec, one of the government’s corporate welfare-to-work clients. Then there’s Sandra, a disabled Glaswegian who lives with her daughter. She was sent a form asking to declare whether she lived with someone; assuming it meant a partner, she said no, and was called in to a “compliance interview”. Because her daughter was not in full-time education, Sandra was stripped of her entitlement to her £50 per week severe-disability allowance. While the financial elite could depend on the state to swoop to their rescue, those who suffered because of their greed felt the chill winds of laissez-faire. Socialism for the rich: sink-or-swim capitalism – and food banks – for the poor.
Socialism for the rich manifests itself in a variety of ways. In 2004, corporations were posting record profits, and yet their workers’ wages had begun to stagnate or – in the case of those in the bottom third of the income scale – had started to decline. To ensure that these underpaid workers have an adequate standard of living, they receive tax credits “topping up” their take-home pay – subsidised, of course, by the taxpayer. In 2009–10, for example, the government spent £27.3bn on such tax credits. Between 2003–4 and 2010–11, a whopping £176.64bn was spent on them. Now, millions of working people who would otherwise be languishing in abject poverty depend on these tax credits. But that does not detract from the fact that tax credits are, in effect, a subsidy to bosses for low pay. Employers hire workers without paying them a sum of money that allows them to live adequately, leaving the state to provide for their underpaid workforce.
The same principle applies to the £24bn spent on housing benefit. In 2002, 100,000 private renters in London were forced to claim housing benefit in order to pay the rent; by the end of the New Labour era, rising rents had increased the number to 250,000. On the one hand, this was the symptom of the failure of successive governments to provide affordable council housing. With tenants instead driven into the more expensive private rented sector, housing benefit acts as a subsidy for the higher rents of private landlords. But housing benefit is another subsidy for low wages, too. According to a study by the Building and Social Housing Foundation in 2012, more than nine in every 10 new housing-benefit claims in the first two years of the coalition government went not to the unemployed but to working households. Many of these claimants are workers whose pay is so low that they simply cannot afford the often extortionate rents being charged by private landlords. As well as individual private landlords, companies providing private housing were being subsidised by housing benefit, in some cases receiving more than a million pounds of taxpayers’ money each year, such as Grainger Residential Management and Caridon Property.
One such private landlord is Conservative MP Richard Benyon, one of Britain’s wealthiest parliamentarians whose family is worth around £110m. Despite having condemned spending on social security for “rising inexorably and unaffordably”, and having applauded the government for “reforming Labour’s ‘something for nothing’ welfare culture”, Benyon benefits from £120,000 a year through housing benefit collected from his tenants. Another vigorous supporter of cuts to the welfare state was Tory MP Richard Drax, whose estate received a substantial £13,830 housing benefit in 2013. They are both wealthy benefit claimants who advocate slashing state support for the poor.
Much of Britain’s public sector has now become a funding stream for profiteering companies. According to the National Audit Office (NAO), around half of the £187bn spent by the public sector on goods and services now goes on private contractors. One such company was Atos, first hired in 2005 by the then Labour government to carry out work-capability assessments. Its contract was renewed by the coalition in November 2010, now with far greater responsibilities as the government launched a sweeping programme of so-called “welfare reform”. This five-year contract was worth £500m, or £100m of public money every year. In 2012 the NAO condemned the government contract with Atos for failing to offer value for money. Atos had not “routinely met all the service standards specified in the contract”, the report declared; its record on meeting targets was “poor”; the government had failed to seek “adequate financial redress for underperformance”; and the “management of the contract lacked sufficient rigour”.
Disabled people who needed support were having their support stripped away by Atos. In one three-month period in 2012, 42% of appeals against Atos judgments were successful; but it is a process that is expensive for the taxpayer and often traumatic for the claimant. In the harsh benefit-bashing climate of austerity Britain, disability charities reported that “scrounger” rhetoric had provoked a surge in abuse towards disabled people on the streets. But the behaviour of state-funded private contractors such as Atos must surely raise the question of who the real scroungers are. It was not until April 2014 that Atos was forced to abandon the contract because of the growing backlash, but not until they had pocketed large sums of public money.
This hiving off of core state functions – in this case, assessing support for some of the most vulnerable people in society – to private companies who exchange public money for a poor service is a striking feature of the modern establishment. Another such business is A4e, a welfare-to-work company dogged by controversy over poor performance. As one former A4e contractor suggested to me, A4e was running a “farming exercise”, cherry-picking easy cases and leaving the rest in the “field”. Its former chairman Emma Harrison paid herself £8.6m in dividends, all courtesy of the taxpayer. In February, four former A4e employees admitted committing acts of fraud and forgery after charging the state for working for clients that did not even exist.
In 2012, £4bn of taxpayers’ money was shovelled into the accounts of the biggest private contractors: Serco, G4S, Atos and Capita. It led to a damning assessment from the NAO, which Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, summed up: this outsourcing, she concluded, had created “quasi-monopolies”, the “inhibiting of whistleblowers”, the trapping of taxpayers into lengthy contracts, and a “number of contracts that are not subject to proper competition”. G4S had been contracted to provide security personnel for the 2012 Olympics; when it failed to provide them, the state – predictably – had to step in, mobilising 3,500 soldiers and leading even the then minister of defence, Philip Hammond, publicly to question his previously unwavering commitment to private sector provision of state functions. At the end of 2013, the Serious Fraud Office launched an investigation into Serco and G4S, after they allegedly overcharged the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds for the electronic tagging of clients, charging for clients who had left the country or were even dead. Many of these private contractors, such as Atos and G4S, pay little or no corporation tax, even as they benefit from state munificence.
Rail Owen Jones ‘Privatisation of rail was a form of socialism for the rich.’ Photograph: Velar Grant/Demotix/Corbis
Privatisation of rail was a form of socialism for the rich that became particularly notorious. According to a report by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, state spending on the privatised railways was six times higher than it was in the dying days of British Rail. And yet under the privatised system, rolling stock was replaced less frequently, there was not enough carriage space to accommodate rising numbers of rail passengers, and ticket prices were the highest in Europe. As the report put it, technological innovation and improvement were powered or underwritten by the state. The taxpayer shouldered the risk, while profit was privatised: or “heads they win and tails we lose”.
Big business is dependent on the state in a multitude of other ways. An expensive law-and-order system defends its property. The privatisation of Royal Mail ensured that the state kept the pension liabilities – nationalising the debt, privatising the profit. The business elite benefits from around £10bn spent on research and development by the British state each year: and innovations from the internet to the technology behind the iPhone originate from public sector research, as Mariana Mazzucato uncovered in The Entrepreneurial State. Big business relies on extensive spending on infrastructure: in 2012, the Confederation of British Industry suggested savings from cuts to benefits – raids on the pockets of the working and non-working poor – could be used to invest in the road network. And the state educates the workforce of big business at vast expense.
Royal Mail Owen Jones ‘The privatisation of Royal Mail ensured that the state kept the pension liabilities.’ Photograph: Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images
With big business benefiting from so much state largesse, you might expect gratitude in the form of the glad payment of taxes. After all, this socialism for the rich is not cheap. A common figure bandied around by defenders of Britain’s wealthy elite is that the top 1% of earners pay a third of all income tax, conveniently ignoring the fact that only a quarter of government revenue comes from income tax, with much of the rest coming from national insurance and indirect taxes paid by the population as a whole. But tax avoidance is rampant among much of the corporate and wealthy elite that benefits so much from state handouts. While the law cracks down on the misdemeanours of the poor, it allows, even facilitates, the far more destructive behaviour of the rich. Compare the billions lost through tax avoidance to the £1.2bn lost through benefit fraud, an issue that remains the news fodder of choice for the rightwing press.
The manner in which this happens shows who the state exists to serve. The Big Four accountancy firms – EY, Deloitte, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) – have been slammed for their role in tax avoidance. But their response is instructive. “We don’t ever condone tax avoidance or support tax avoidance,” pledges EY’s Steve Varley. “Fundamentally, parliament has to legislate what parliament wants to happen … And people like us can follow the legislation and provide advice to our clients.”
But what Varley conveniently fails to mention is that firms such as EY help design the law in the first place, and then go off and help advise their clients on how to get around it. “We have seen what look like cases of poacher, turned gamekeeper, turned poacher again,” declared the Public Accounts Committee in April 2013, “whereby individuals who advise government go back to their firms and advise their clients on how they can use those laws to reduce the amount of tax they pay.” This is an astonishing finding. Senior MPs have concluded that accountants were not simply offering governments their expertise: they were advising governments on tax law, and then telling their clients how to get around the laws they had themselves helped to draw up.
When it comes to rhetoric, the modern establishment passionately rejects statism. The advocates of state interventionism are dismissed as dinosaurs who should hop in a time machine and return to the discredited 1970s. And yet state interventionism is rampant in modern Britain: but it exists to benefit the rich. No other phenomenon sums up more starkly how unjust modern Britain is. Social security for the poor is shredded, stripped away, made ever more conditional. But welfare for large corporations and wealthy individuals is doled out like never before. The question is not just whether such an establishment is unjust: the question is whether it is sustainable.

I’ve gone over 2000 visitors today.

never thought I’d get to this audience. Very much appreciated x

Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Speaking at “English Scots For YES”.

He tells us why he is YES and reveals some horrendous truths about the UK/Westminster establishment.

Seriously, listen to the man! A jaw dropping 4 minute deconstruction of British foreign policy http://youtu.be/CIQ8VVn8AJA

This is no crackpot conspiracy theorist, this man is a former UK ambassador. 

This is an outstanding view of the unbelievably dirty realities that go on constantly behind the dark curtain of our shameful main stream media.

“the UK is a psychologically flawed, pathological state which is a danger in the world…”

He unveils the UK and USA policy of shipping prisoners for torture, some to death.

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction “They knew for CERTAIN WMD did not exist.”

We did to the United Nations (over the IRAQ invasion) what Hitler and Mussolini did to the League of Nations.

 

 

This transcript is from Youtube and therefore needs a lot of editing to correct the speech recognition:

0:02
i’d I just like to say I’ve made with
0:05
everything a those two speakers a
0:09
said a with the single exception when the gentleman said that the
0:13
labor party people live without batting an eyelid questioned me to accept MacKay
0:18
said Alistair Darling who blinks
0:19
furiously when the do BK line
0:24
email would seem last night now to come down to question the fundamental
0:29
importance because I
0:30
also do not hold at all with this idea that we should be had quiet
0:35
civilized debate whether you want to come to be independent or not is purely
0:39
a lifestyle choice
0:41
like whether you have no can you copy when his all over we all have been nice
0:45
to each other
0:46
and Big Ten a big lead to changes in up its title will at all
0:50
might tell you why I I with the bishop on other side became it is ambassador I
0:56
was a British diplomat to twenty years
0:58
Thursday packing up to the decision I they they’d
1:02
a member when I first became a British Ambassador
1:05
and when tax in my own flight come up with the Union Jack
1:09
flying on it under the Investor you know I love my to
1:12
the parent movement for me a every six months after that I discovered that in
1:17
the country where I was ambassador
1:19
we in the Americans worshiping people in order them to be tortured
1:23
and some other would talk to today now as you may imagine
1:27
my worldview changed a
1:31
it was a second time bet month later we invaded
1:34
iraq against will all the
1:37
to go to cancel not just without missions Security Council but in the
1:41
full knowledge
1:42
in the goggles good counsel we would have been looked at I and british
1:46
diplomat
1:47
soul all the internal memos the
1:51
went to that decision I know for certain I used to be head
1:55
up the SEO unit monitored got the weapons of mass destruction
1:59
I know people certain I can tell you that they knew they wouldn’t
2:03
it was all a mistake it wall
2:06
a lie on I think
2:09
it is impossible to beat at of the United Kingdom
2:13
I think when we invaded Iraq we did to the United Nations what Hitler and
2:17
Mussolini did to the League of Nations
2:19
and I think what we’ve done since the
2:23
where you know the truth is often much Adam
2:27
and in the bombing you look Libya disaster not
2:30
we bonded we killed 15,000 people when NATO bombs at eight something they never
2:35
told you on the
2:35
BBC and did it make it better? never.
2:39
i’ve seen I saw in with Pakistan I saw gas contract signed by
2:44
in phnom the comical Unocal which George Bush Senior
2:48
was on the ball too big and gas pipelines
2:51
miss Pakistan I’m kazahkstan a
2:54
over Afghanistan a down to the
2:57
Indian Ocean that was actually what the Afghan war was about
3:02
they’d actually had talks with the Taliban and Unocal
3:05
to see the Taliban would provide pipeline security
3:09
a the person who help those tools is the a
3:13
the consultant the Unocal was a certain mister Karzai
3:16
the who after being employed by George Bush Senior Consultant went on to become
3:21
president
3:22
all over Afghanistan that was a bit plan B
3:25
a Taliban do its ten-day it usually
3:30
I’ve seen it on the inside is almost always like to love the daughters
3:33
it any bitches to others become so happens that within 100
3:39
all you have to do you like to do and I can tell you is not an academic
3:43
construct a system stinks Westminster stings
3:46
the British government is deeply deeply model
3:49
they don’t care how many people the killer build if it advances the minute
3:53
anybody
3:54
a who pose no is voting to support
3:59
a psychological aside psychologically plausible
4:03
pathological state which is a danger in the world
4:07
ago the state a state appeared to go to War
4:11
to make a few people wealthy that’s why I say
4:14
is not possible to be a decent person and don’t know
4:18
and we shouldn’t be ashamed to say that

 

Aubade 1977 - Philip Larkin

Aubade 1977 – Philip Larkin copyright, Ian Pritchard, Discordion

“Aubade” Philip Larkin, 1977

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark,
I stare. In time the curtain-edges will grow light.

Till then I see what’s really always there:

Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,

Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.

Arid interrogation: yet the dread

Of dying, and being dead,

Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.

The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse

—The good not done, the love not given, time

Torn off unused—nor wretchedly because

An only life can take so long to climb

Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never

But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to

And shall be lost in always. Not to be here, 

Not to be anywhere,

And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid

No trick dispels. Religion used to try,

That vast moth-eaten musical brocade

Created to pretend we never die,

And specious stuff that says No rational being

Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing

That this is what we fear—no sight, no sound,

No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,

Nothing to love or link with,

The anaesthetic from which none come round.

And so it stays just on the edge of vision,

A small unfocused blur, a standing chill

That slows each impulse down to indecision.

Most things may never happen: this one will,

And realisation of it rages out

In furnace-fear when we are caught without

People or drink. Courage is no good:

It means not scaring others. Being brave

Lets no one off the grave.

Death is no different whined at than withstood.

Slowly light strengthens, and the room takes shape.

It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know,

Have always known, know that we can’t escape,

Yet can’t accept. One side will have to go.

Meanwhile telephones crouch, getting ready to ring

In locked-up offices, and all the uncaring

Intricate rented world begins to rouse.

The sky is white as clay, with no sun.

Work has to be done.

Postmen like doctors go from from house to house.

 

 

Obey - by Shepard Fairey, 1989

Obey – by Shepard Fairey, 1989

 

 

MANIFESTO

The OBEY sticker campaign can be explained as an experiment in Phenomenology. Heidegger describes Phenomenology as “the process of letting things manifest themselves.” Phenomenology attempts to enable people to see clearly something that is right before their eyes but obscured; things that are so taken for granted that they are muted by abstract observation.

The FIRST AIM OF PHENOMENOLOGY is to reawaken a sense of wonder about one’s environment. The OBEY sticker attempts to stimulate curiosity and bring people to question both the sticker and their relationship with their surroundings. Because people are not used to seeing advertisements or propaganda for which the product or motive is not obvious, frequent and novel encounters with the sticker provoke thought and possible frustration, nevertheless revitalizing the viewer’s perception and attention to detail. The sticker has no meaning but exists only to cause people to react, to contemplate and search for meaning in the sticker. Because OBEY has no actual meaning, the various reactions and interpretations of those who view it reflect their personality and the nature of their sensibilities.

Many people who are familiar with the sticker find the image itself amusing, recognizing it as nonsensical, and are able to derive straightforward visual pleasure without burdening themselves with an explanation. The PARANOID OR CONSERVATIVE VIEWER however may be confused by the sticker’s persistent presence and condemn it as an underground cult with subversive intentions. Many stickers have been peeled down by people who were annoyed by them, considering them an eye sore and an act of petty vandalism, which is ironic considering the number of commercial graphic images everyone in American society is assaulted with daily.

Another phenomenon the sticker has brought to light is the trendy and CONSPICUOUSLY CONSUMPTIVE nature of many members of society. For those who have been surrounded by the sticker, its familiarity and cultural resonance is comforting and owning a sticker provides a souvenir or keepsake, a memento. People have often demanded the sticker merely because they have seen it everywhere and possessing a sticker provides a sense of belonging. The Giant sticker seems mostly to be embraced by those who are (or at least want to seem to be) rebellious. Even though these people may not know the meaning of the sticker, they enjoy its slightly disruptive underground quality and wish to contribute to the furthering of its humorous and absurd presence which seems to somehow be antiestablishment/societal convention. Giant stickers are both embraced and rejected, the reason behind which, upon examination reflects the psyche of the viewer. Whether the reaction be positive or negative, the stickers existence is worthy as long as it causes people to consider the details and meanings of their surroundings. In the name of fun and observation.

Shepard Fairey, 1990

 

Artist Taxi Driver Mark McGowan – The language of austerity  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6jHUvpueE

 

 

Maajid Nawaz the War Machine debt destruction death 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_53BThP_KI

Maajid Nawaz the War Machine debt destruction death 2/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX8sx5kMZdk

Maajid Nawaz the War Machine debt destruction death 3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuZUhCNiU9E

 

http://imgur.com/a/cO9Ol?utm_content=buffer9baac&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#yvsb9s9

by MAT HUNTER | MAY 22, 2014

http://www.readability.com/m?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbuff.ly%2F1jLoCsu

If you were to guess the degrees obtained by financial institutions’ employees, it is unlikely that a creative arts or design degree would be your first, or even your tenth choice.

While a creative degree is often seen as a standalone figure in the stable of academic degree choices, there is mounting evidence that it is the uniqueness of a creative arts or design degree which is proving so attractive to employees.

The value and potential of a creative arts graduate has never been higher.

Firstly, the creative industry in the UK is currently just as valuable as the financial industry. Figures reveal that the UK creative industry generates more than £71billion a year for the UK, or £8million per hour.

The Government is also putting strong support behind the industry, recognising the substantial impact the sector currently makes, the future opportunities for growth and the job prospects that will go with it.

In addition, British creativity and artistic talent is recognised around the world, opening up global opportunities.

However, the influence of those with creative training stretches far beyond the traditional creative sector. Beyond venture capitalists recruiting designers to manage their funds, the Government also relies heavily on designers.

This can be seen in the recent launch of the Cabinet Office’s Policy Lab, which will help the Civil Service design policies that work better for citizens, or the award-winning Government Digital Service, which created the single online portal for government: gov.uk.

In my own job, as Chief Design Officer at the Design Council, my role includes working with social enterprises and government by using design to look at issues such as youth unemployment and the ageing population.

>> Student life: top creative universities

As any business or public-sector leader would agree, creativity and innovation needs to be at the heart of any thriving and forward looking organisation.

The modern MBA, the world’s most successful post graduate degree, increasingly includes modules in creative thinking; but while this should absolutely be encouraged, it’s the depth of practice of an arts degree that sets it apart and makes arts graduates so unique.

While most academic models for a degree are focussed on thinking, reading and writing, an arts student will spend their time making, creating and working in teams.

Through working in studios they will build things through trial and error, learning a lot about the difference between theory and practice, so generating new ideas, not just absorbing those of others.

All of this makes them highly desirable to employees who complain about current graduates’ lack of work skills and their inability to act independently.

Despite all of this, recent research from the Arts University Bournemouthdemonstrates that, from a group of young people who were put off pursuing a creatively led career, over one in five (22 per cent) didn’t feel that there were enough opportunities to progress in a career in the arts.

Additionally, over one in four (28 per cent) mentioned that they were put off by the competitive nature of the industry.

More generally, another key barrier that often arises are parents’ expectations and fear that an arts degree does not represent good value for today’s tuition fees.

To me, these barriers seem antiquated as creative arts degrees open more doors than ever before.

The UK has the best art schools in the world. If you are interested in art or design, then this is an incredible opportunity and one that can’t be replicated across the majority of degree options.

As a recent judge for the Arts University Bournemouth’s Who Are You? competition, which aims to get young people worldwide thinking more creatively, I was able to witness first-hand some fantastic young talent from around the world.

If any of these young people were put off a creative degree because they are worried about competition in the sector or were worried that they will be pigeon-holed through an arts or design degree, then I strongly encourage them to reconsider.

Any degree that fosters proactivity, lateral thinking and team work gives its graduates a key advantage and I look forward to seeing UK arts trained creativity continue to develop and be recognised in the nation’s boardrooms.

Mat Hunter,
Chief Design Officer,
Design Council