'The winners get to write the history'

It's worth looking back to the reality of the 2008 crash, what this coalition inherited and how the LibCons used it to deliver ideologically driven 'austerity' cuts.

It's also worth noting that it is a lie that they were given a recession, the economy in 2010 was in moderate growth(ONS) The recession, the slowest to recover since the 1720's!(Blanchflower- Ex Bank of England), occurred after austerity cuts were enacted. Over half way through his term, Osbourne had to finally listen to the critics and slow the pace of the zealous cuts, which were increasing poverty and depressing living standards. He therefore, failed his target to eliminate the deficit, borrowed more than Labour did in 13 years(ONS) and suffocated the recovery. Finally, after 5 years, we go back to the modest growth that he inherited, but with many economists believing it to be fragile with no government investment to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing, a growing housing bubble and more cuts promised.

Austerity stifles growth, reduces living standards and creates a crisis in underfunded public services, however, it does allow neo-liberal zealots to shrink the State and sell off public services to the private sector (the same people who fund their political parties and pay huge sums for consultancy favours after they leave office). It is a deliberate, opportunistic policy, using 'the deficit' as an excuse to cut and privatise and simultaneously fill the pockets of private companies with tax payers money.

So, the debt. Successive governments since the 80's and the first sell-off's, privatisations, cuts in public services and cuts in taxes, have increased the national debt. In my view, it's obvious what has happened, if the dominant philosophy is one of a low wage, low tax, 'free-market' economy, you can't invest in public services or infrastructure without increasing debt. So that led to PFI's (private/public finance initiatives), building hospitals and schools with private money at exorbitant repayment rates that have saddled us with more debt. It led to outsourcing public services, to more sell-off's of state assets, to low tax receipts so that you can't pay off debt. Private sector investment alone, means that only short term, profitable spending occurs, 'cherry picking' the easiest services and leaving the State to pick up the tab for essential, but costly, services that the nation depends upon. Small government is good for the rich and powerful lobbyists, but not for the rest of the economy, not for infrastructure, skills & training or R&D, not for health & social care, education or housing policy. Not for defence & policing, not for counterterrorism.

This is the neo-liberal free market consensus (low tax, low wage, deregulated economies) from Reagan &Thatcher through Major & Blair. All major parties have adopted it as well as most western governments. To advocate a rise in taxes or more State intervention or regulation of the economy is a heresy, a blasphemy against the 'faith'. And yet, it is this model that inevitably led to the financial meltdown and the biggest depression since the 30's.

An unregulated financial sector, gluttonous on greed, traded in bundles of debt rather than investing in manufacturing, betting on the sub-prime mortgage market despite warnings from risk assessor's and with barely any government regulation. This led to the run on the banks as the bet's turned bad and they run out of money, the 'crash', the tax payers bailout, huge extra national debt, a huge deficit and ultimately, austerity and  recession.

That's not all neo-liberalism managed to do to us, by smashing the trade unions and deregulating the labour market ('flexible'), now we have insecure jobs, agency workers(less rights), exploitation of migrant labour, zero hour contracts, low wages (subsidised by government tax credits) a low tax threshold, and reduced spending in economy.

The State is rolled back, railway services cut and cherry picked, prices up, service down. The Power industry, ripoff prices, service down, no State investment in green energy, an opportunity lost! (Think what could have been done with a kind of 'Green New Deal', jobs and training in renewable energy technology, State backing to make us leaders in Europe). The Post Office, prices up, service down, sold off for a song so City of London spivs could make a quick buck. The slow privatisation of NHS, quality of care down, lots of tax payers money directly into the pockets of corporate healthcare via contracts. Running down the nations housing stock, sold again for a quick buck, lack of affordable homes increasing homelessness and fuelling rising house prices, locking out the next generation and leaving them to the mercy of Rackman landlords. We pay these vultures in housing benefit because the rents are too high for ordinary people to afford. A massive house building program, would have fixed the demand and supply problem, provided homes for those that needed them, created jobs & training and boosted the economy. Basic Keynesian economics, government intervention to help the economy and build infrastructure. That's how you get out of debt, it's counter intuitive, but by investing government money in national projects(at a time of record low interest rates) you create jobs, help businesses rebalance and boost  the economy into growth and increase tax revenue as people have better wages and start spending again. Welfare costs go down as wages improve, rogue landlords no longer need subsidising with housing benefit, less tax credits and unemployment benefits. It has happened before, after the 2WW the Labour government embarked on a massive project, to provide clean, safe, affordable housing, tearing down the slums. It created the NHS, free healthcare at the point of use, ending the fear of unaffordable medical bills and dying in pain that haunted the poor before the war. It nationalised the railways, coal, energy, telecoms and built roads and dams. Just like Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in the US during the depression of the 30's, it brought us out of war debt and into the boom of the 50's/60's. We have to deal with our debt, but we can pay it off gradually, as we can afford It, and when our economy is booming and the tax receipts are rolling in. The banks, who brought us all to our knees, need to pay their debt to us.

 A financial transaction tax to go directly to the national debt.

What we have now with neo-liberalism, are low wages, insecure jobs, lack of government investment, less infrastructure building, less research&development to boost the economy. The low tax consensus has reduced investment in public services which has led to an A&E crisis, primary care crisis, more Baby P's, more suicides, more abuse of our elderly.

Because of this consensus, no government  can raise the basic rate of tax and get elected. So if they do want to invest, they have to use regressive taxes or go into debt, usually both, and privatise.
This 'free market' economics has increased government debt because you can't maintain civilised public services without raising taxes. The ultimate goal is full privatisation of essential services. They will run them down until there is no choice, pretending we can't afford it. We should take our share of the blame, in buying into this bullshit economic 'theory' and allowing it to become a 'faith'.

Paris attacks, Islamophobia and freedom of expression

I have many conflicting feelings regarding the attacks in Paris.
Sadness and despair with both the increasing momentum of Jihadi fascism AND anti-muslim and anti-immigrant populism. Europe is sailing close to the conditions in the 30's that led to the democratic election of the National Socialist Party of Germany(Nazis) and fascism in Spain and Italy. Jews, gypsies and 'foreigners' were being blamed for all our woes in hard economic times.

As an atheist and secularist I instinctually defend the right for all of us to criticise and mock ALL those in power, politicians, bankers, corporations AND those who seek to influence our minds and have the power to do so. So that includes ALL religions, their gods, prophets, saints, their priests, imams and rabbis.

However, with the right to free speech comes responsibilities. As a humanitarian and internationalist, I don't want us to ferment hatred of religious communities and add to intolerance and violence. In the UK there are laws that restrict free speech if it crosses the line into inciting racial or religious hatred. This is, of course, not straight forward. People who want their belief system to be protected from offence, have to be careful. Other beliefs will demand the same. Pro-Israeli groups have attempted to use 'anti-semitism' to shut down criticism of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian land.

In a secular nation, no religion can have its belief system dominate the States laws and institutions. This not only protects citizens who don't believe in organised religion, but importantly, protects ALL minority religious communities from persecution and enshrines their rights to practice their faith in law.

Therefore, with freedom of expression, communities who feel they have been offended, have the right to campaign, to demonstrate, to lobby, to write and to draw. NOT to kill and intimidate.

My instinct is for publications to self censor against an image of Muhammad. However, to muddy the water, I can't help wanting to see the cartoon proposed by a British cartoonist on C4 news. It would have Muhammad with the words "not in my name" written on his shirt.

Iraq, Syria, ISIS and intervention. Whats happened to the civilian crisis?

My fear is that as western attention focuses away from the refugees and potential refugees of the ISIS sociopathic slaughter towards US/UK individual hostages, yet again hundreds of 'Srebranica's' will shame us and abandon the people of Iraq and Syria. 

Western governments and the media just can't help themselves reframing the narrative into 'OUR' hostages 'OUR' national interest 'OUR' assets. Soon the Yazidis, Tukahmen's, Assyrians, Kurds and others even less known, are marginalised and edited out of the story. Thus, they increasingly get marginalised in the military planning. Now the priorities start moving away from preventing genocide and protecting civilians and evolve into 'strategic' goals, who is going to provide the military power, can we sell intervention to our voters, will they stomach troops on the ground and the inevitable body bags coming home, will temporary alliances return to haunt us and who do the west want in power after we leave? All these questions and others, like will this action stimulate rather than diminish violent Jihadism? obviously need to be discussed, but the reality is that this narrative has already left the real victims, mostly muslims, behind. I heard of the plight and existence of the Yazidi only weeks ago, now there is nothing on the news networks. Are there still people on the mountains? If not where are they? Who is protecting them, the Kurds, the PKK or a small band of special forces? What about the other vulnerable people in towns and villages we've never heard of? in Syria and Iraq. How are they being supplied with food, medicine, warmth and shelter? If they've crossed boarders, whose monitoring it, are they safe? 

Now Ukraine and Russia are taking our focus away, just like ISIS have taken the eyes off the occupied territories and Israel's war crimes in Palestine. (Muslims worldwide should take note, Neo-Jihadism has slowed the momentum and damaged the gains made in the journey towards Palestinian Statehood) Yes it is possible that Israel/CIA might have strategically aided ISIS to do just this, we'll see.   

Airstrikes were needed immediately to force back ISIS forces and protect civilians and it appears that that was done. And, it might be that we should take on ISIS and at least severely diminish their military capability. However, where are the protective enclaves defended by force if necessary? humanitarian corridors for people and supplies protected by troops on the ground? Where are the field hospitals? The massive injection of governments aid to neighbouring countries to cope with refugees? These measures need to be mobilised within days of a humanitarian crisis and with the same financial investment that goes into war. The make up of the protective, defensive force can be rearranged over time to suit the local conditions and politics of the region, initially the response is rapid and done by whoever is in the best position to do it. It is not an occupation and can only act defensively to protect non combatants. That means safe havens demand troops actively defend the refugees unlike the pathetic response of the UN command in Srebrenica. So this means that 'troops on the ground' doesn't have to be an 'occupation' and yes it does risk greater military casualties. The reality is that the West's obsession with limiting its own casualties and relying on, almost exclusively, not very precise 'targeted' airstrikes  invariably leads to many more civilian deaths, 'collateral damage' (in our language- hospitals, schools, children....see Gaza). 

If we decide to intervene, we have to do it properly. Not only because the crisis demands it, but because the political capital that is gained from acting honourably and primarily in the interests of the populations that inhabit these lands, makes everyone (including ourselves)  safer, trusted despite differing cultural/religious make-up's, more open to dialogue and change (free from the charge of hypocrisy), open to the idea of extending the hand of friendship, peace and respect. The lives saved on all sides, by adopting a consistent and honourable (free of strategic dirty tricks) foreign policy, will be immeasurable. 

' And in the end the love you take, is equal to, the love you make' - Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starr