So the ECB has agreed to raise its limit on emergency loans to Greek lenders by a further €900m over one week. And acting on the assumption Greece will stay in the Euro, the plan was finalized to provide a €7bn bridging loan to avoid a default on Monday. In response, the Tsipras government has caved in over EU’s insistence on more austerity – tax up, pensions down. So Eurozone finance ministers have agreed to talk about an €86bn rescue package.
What does it all mean?
Continue reading Greece Again
The anti-austerity protest which is getting under way on 20th June, is not just a politically motivated objection to a policy of the governing Party. It is a protest with deep foundations in both theory and common sense.
For successive governments GDP growth has been the holy-grail. Despite misgivings over its validity (http://gordonpearson.co.uk/2015/02/19/the-great-gdp-deception/#more-1278), it is accepted that balancing a budget with a growing GDP is a whole lot easier than doing so in recession. But imposing austerity on the economy only stifles GDP growth. So why do governments of both main Parties – assuming Labour takes the suicidal Blairite route – accept austerity as the necessary medicine for our economic ills?
The economy is a complex of many different sectors, public and private, that relate to each other in all sorts of different ways, and it is continually on the move with some sectors growing and some shrinking, some dying off altogether and new ones emerging. That dynamic is the result of millions of people striving to make progress. Politicians don’t control the economy; the best they can aim for is to do the people no harm.
Continue reading The Common Sense of Austerity and GDP growth
The dominant political, financial and media establishment seems close to resolving the outstanding Labour leadership problem to its satisfaction. There will be no serious challenge from Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper, or, of course, Liz Kendal. Nor would there have been from Mary Creagh who pulled out of the leadership race, blaming Miliband’s lack of business friendliness as the reason Labour lost the election. The only difficulty might lie with Jeremy Corbyn, should he achieve the necessary nominations to stand for the leadership.
Corbyn could be dangerous to the established Tory/ New Labour Westminster consensus simply because he does not go along with it. His candidacy would challenge that Osborne-Cameron clique in a way the other candidates would fear to tread.
Continue reading Corbyn-led coalition government
Why would the Economist publish an article commending Labour to vote its ‘Blairite candidate’ to the Party leadership? Why would that rather formulaic libertarian publication be concerned?
The Bagehot article purports to be about Liz Kendal, Labour Party MP for Leicester West. But in reality it is just another salvo in the mainstream media’s attempt to ensure Labour poses no threat to the established Osborne-Cameron clique. The main message is the suggestion that Labour lost the election because, under Miliband’s leadership, it moved too far to the left. If it is to have any chance of future election success, it must recover its Blairite centre ground by voting Kendal. That was the suggestion.
Acknowledging Labour lost all but one of its seats in Scotland to the SNP, the article pretends that Scottish failure was all about independence. The establishment is clearly nervous that Labour might follow the SNP example offering policies focused on fairness and social justice, financed by the fruits of economic stimulus rather than being strangled by austerity.
What would happen to Labour support if it were to go against all privatisation of public services in health, education and social welfare, against the fire sale of UK publicly owned assets to foreign investors, and focus on the eradication of poverty, the building of affordable social housing, government subsidized higher education, and serious investment in renewable energy as well as progressive taxation of income and wealth. Such a social democratic programme is currently only advocated in England by the Green Party. But if Labour was persuaded to that position based more on human values than Old Labour class war loyalties, there might be a genuine threat of Labour revival.
With its miniscule majority, the Osborne-Cameron offering of privatisation and surrender to corporate monopolists, might then find the Labour / SNP opposition more than just challenging. If, on the other hand, Labour could be misled into appointing its ‘Blairite candidate’, the challenge would be easily repelled. That is why the mainstream media, including The Economist, is concerned.
Survey data re the 2015 general election is confirming the previous posting. But it is not a picture that is widely acknowledged. For example, Martin Kettle in today’s Guardian, suggests it is more important we should ask why the Tories succeeded, than why Labour failed. But the truth is the Tories are only a smidgeon ahead of their 2010 vote when they had to rely on Lib-Dem support to form a government. That can hardly be regarded as great success. The 24 additional seats those few additional votes produced was a quirk of the first past the post system. Labour undoubtedly failed, being stuck only 1.5% above their 2010 low point in terms of votes, but losing 26 seats, also a result of first past the post.
The survey sample referred to in the previous post has produced some further confirmation. The Lib-Dems were written off some time ago as having completely sold out. That may be grossly unfair, but that is the predominant reason being given by those former Lib Dems surveyed. The main cause emerging for Labour’s rejection was their failure to offer an economic programme that was significantly different from George Osborne’s. In particular, Ed Balls’ adherence to the Tory austerity programme, in case Labour should be seen as irresponsible, appears to have been a prime cause of frustration and rejection.
Those small changes in voter numbers disguise a lot of voter movement. In the survey, a significant number of former Labour voters turned to UKIP and the Greens, where they substantially increased numbers to around 5m but produced no additional seats. Labour’s losses to UKIP and Greens appear to have been more than compensated by deserting Lib-Dems.
Continue reading Tory’s Rocky Road Ahead Confirmed
The election result took many by surprise. As the results became clear, George Osborne briefly stated the Tory commitments to an essentially social democratic sounding manifesto, including more jobs, affordable housing, tax cuts for working people, help with childcare, improved educational chances for all etc, etc. He concluded that they had put it all in the manifesto and “it seems to have been warmly received.” Further detail was later spelled out by David Cameron in his victory speech outside No 10, a transcript of which follows.
It is possible there may be some misunderstanding. Osborne’s perception of a warm reception may be sadly mistaken. Prior to the election, extensive campaigning was focused on what appeared to be deliberate misinterpretations so as to spread misunderstanding and deliver tactical voting, ie voting not for what you believe in but in order to prevent what you actively reject. The result is uncertainty about the electorate’s true position.
The most actively rejected were, of course, the Lib Dems, followed by Labour. A rather non-scientifically designed survey sample, but nevertheless one of considerable geographic spread, is being conducted to identify reasons for that rejection, with some preliminary results are already to hand. In both Lib-Dem and Labour, the main cause emerging for their rejection was their failure to offer a real alternative to the Tory manifesto. The Lib-Dems were written off as having completely sold out. That may be grossly unfair, but that is the predominant reason being given by those former Lib Dems surveyed. Labour also lost support because of their failure to offer a significantly different economic programme. In particular, Ed Balls’ adherence to the Tory austerity programme in case Labour should be labelled as irresponsible, appears to have been a prime cause of frustration and rejection.
Continue reading New Tory’s Rocky Road Ahead
In this election campaign, much is being made of whether or not the main UK Parties are business friendly. The fire sale of British owned assets, euphemistically nominated as foreign direct investment, is held to indicate that the UK is ‘open for business’. Over the past 35 years, company after company and industry after industry has been sold off to foreign ownership. The same has been achieved with the sell-off of public assets, the latest example being Eurostar, and public services and utilities which have been privatised and in the majority of cases sold to foreign owned entities.
It all has nothing to do with being ‘open for business’. The political motivation is to achieve a short term (ie relating to the next election) economic gain, completely ignoring the long term costs. The short term stats appear to be all that matters, so they can be quoted ad nauseam in media interviews.
Being seen as business friendly is clearly conceived as being worth either a lot of votes or a lot of money. So Parties shrink from confronting or challenging in any way what they conceive of as “business”. They appear ‘intensely relaxed’ about business people getting ‘filthy rich’. They seem tolerant of tax fraud on a massive scale. They shrink from regulation of markets. They are in awe of the financial sector. They talk about support for the SME sector, but do little. It seems they simply do not understand what business is about. Why should they? They’ve none of them been near it except for photo-opportunities.
Continue reading UK ‘Open for Business’