The financial crisis awakens while too many are blaming the powerless

The tories have exposed the UK to global instability

In the last few months there have been no shortage of signs that another financial crisis is coming. Osborne and the tories will probably blame it on Labour while they are responsible for steering the nation through it:



Yet this government are happy to prostitute our resources, markets and workforce to any country as long as the right people are reaping the benefits:

• Our railways are actually two-thirds nationalised but not domestically - the German, French & Belgian states run large swathes of it. So the supposedly patriotic, Queen & country flag-waving tories are essentially saying "any state can run our railways as long as it isn't the British state."
• Immigrants that our elites seem to like, Russian oligarchs and the new super-rich Chinese, are welcomed to inflate property prices for locals & citizens who've paid a lifetime of tax only to be priced-out.
• As we know from 2008 our financial services industry is more open than ever under Osborne's light touch.

Our hyper-globalised economy can be a good thing, but not when run so unfairly for minority vested interests. While true that everyone is dependent on faltering China, the source of the turmoil but the tories seems to enjoy our status as one of the most globally exposed economies. If we had more control over our markets we could make decisions of economic sovereignity.

Anti-EU types seem to pick and choose when they speak about this lack of sovereignty, the much nastier global institutions of the G7 / G20 / IMF / WTO / TTIP are hidden from the spotlight - as is predatory global finance in general.

Stuttering growth is toxic for an unbalanced economy about to take a global hit. The graph below should have the tories apologising and using evidence-based economic solution instead of the austerity delusion. Yet they indulge in the rhetoric of empty triumphalism.





Domestic retail slowdown:

Weak figures over the 2015 Christmas shopping period do not present a optimistic future. The tories even had the gaul to blame it on mild weather. Seem to remember they used cold weather for a similarly disappointing yuletide results.

Meanwhile the supposedly anti-tax tories persevere with their ridiculous burden-on-the-poor VAT rate of 20% having raised it from 17.5% in 2011. Under the Labour it was 15% at one point encouraging consumer spending and liquidity after the 2008 crash.

UK productivity is one of the lowest in the G7 This particularly telling because it shows the lack of attention the tories pay to bottom-up long-term solutions. If there was a plan to incentivise small marginal gains for low-waged workers than the benefits would ripple-up. Instead trickle-down carrots do not permeate further than a small group, which as we know from wider economics.


Tories act as if certain groups are not essential parts of the economy:

While UK steelworkers suffer under market volatility the government does nothing. It appears they are completely at ease with skilled manual labourers losing employment through globalisation and ending up in the local Aldi for pitiful wages. While tax-take goes down it is also a complete waste of experience and expertise which tends to impact already-marginalised communities.

They sit on their hands apologising for dodgy Chinese market practices and provide no answers. No real surprise from the party who callously smashed the miners contributing to the regional issues in the first-place.

Meanwhile the Northern powerhouse has been moved from Sheffield to London. There are no words.

And the corporate media are up to their usual smoke & mirrors by again by failing to scrutinise the institutions which govern our lives. 

When the financial crisis strikes again we will finally realise the extent of media distraction #marr #bbctbq #bbcsp pic.twitter.com/hyTzbvZGG9

— JeSuisFedUp (@JeSuisFedUp) January 31, 2016

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here

The establishment groupthink at the heart of the BBC

Print journalism was famously called 'the Fourth Estate', a remark attributed to MP Edmund Burke at the 1787 introduction of press reporting in parliament. He was emphasising the importance of holding government to account with complete independence - unlike the 3 other estates of the time (the Commons and two Lords).

The following highlights the conflict of interests within the supposedly culturally diverse BBC undermining Edmund' Burke's tenet of democracy in the contemporary media landscape. 

James Harding, Head of BBC News

• Went to same independent school as George Osborne.
• Went to Cambridge.
• Worked as a financial journalist.
• Worked at The Times owned by Rupert Murdoch.
• During his time at the paper he had to apologise for withholding information to the High Court during the Leveson inquiry.

Laura Kuenssberg BBC political editor

• From a well-connected family. Relatives include the last Governor-General of colonial Nigeria, a High Court Judge and the founder/president of the Royal College of GPs.
• Worked at ITV

James Landale, BBC News Deputy Political Editor

James Landale in David Cameron's kitchen

• Went to Eton with David Cameron.
• Worked at The Times.

Andrew Neil, presenter on the BBC Daily Politics

 Andrew Neil with David Cameron, Grant Shapps and Spectator editor Fraser Nelson

• Tutored by Vince Cable during his University of Glasgow days, who he would later interview many times.
• During university was a member of the Conservative Club.
• Worked for Rupert Murdoch as Sky's chief mover in the early days.
• Worked at the right-wing free market Economist and right-wing Sunday Times.

Andrew Marr BBC Marr Show presenter and ex-Political Editor

• Married to Jackie Ashley from another mostly establishment media org The Guardian and daughter of a Labour life peer. Life peers are a thing that exists in 21st century Britain
• Made use of a High Court super-injunction to prevent the media reporting the truth, nevertheless he continues to be regarded highly as a journalist in mainstream circles.
• In April 2003 made the report below celebrating  Blair's illegal Iraq invasion.

Allegra Stratton, BBC Newsnight reporter

• Cambridge alumnus
• Married to James Forsyth political editor of the right-wing The Spectator magazine owned by tax exiles the Barclays Brothers, who also own the right-wing Daily Telegraph

Nick Robinson ex-Political Editor 2005-2015, now at BBC Radio 4 Today show

• Founder member of Macclesfield Young Conservatives
• ex-Cheshire Young Conservative Chairman
• Former Young Conservative National Advisory Committee member
• As a student he was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association

The BBC Board of Trustees

Rona Fairhead, Chairman of Trust

Rona Fairhead being questioned about financial irregularities

• Cambridge alumnus
• Also works for HSBC and PepsiCo
• Declines to answer questions about Swiss banking irregularities.
• Admitted failings when her bank received a fine for money-laundering 
• Commander of the British Empire (CBE) for 'services to industry'

Roger Carr, Vice Chair

• Worked in the City
• Business background at Thames Water, arms company BAE systems & energy giant Centrica
• Knighted

What does this mean for any public interest issue that challenges the weaknesses in their inevitable consensus. It doesn't have to be conspiracy for decision-making to be influenced by mostly privileged backgrounds. All homogeneity by definition has blind-spots.

Would James Harding ever take aim at his powerful old boss about his bigotry or non-dom status?
Would Allegra Stratton ever scrutinise on the financial matters of the Barclays Brothers?

Would Rona Fairhead ever green-light an investigative series on the workings of HSBC, a bank that has already proven to be corrupt and a major part of our economy?

The names are inter-changeable, the outcomes similar.

Below is some background to journalists at The Times I published previously here

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here

Meanwhile in Middle England: what the liberal left echo chamber needs to learn post-election

If you're pretty certain, as I and others are, that austerity is not only wrong but an ideological self-serving policy for the rich and powerful then you would have been disappointed with the election result. It's not as if Labour really challenged that during the campaign but under a broken voting system they were the lesser evil to challenge the unsustainable predatory culture that caused the banking catastrophe. A crash that laid the foundations for the cuts that somehow punish anyone but those responsible.

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk

Now the nation has spoken we have an accurate barometer of the nations' politics. What can those opposing the tory agenda against the vulnerable do to win future battles?

It is important to identify the tory voters who swung it their way. Their shock majority came after poll after poll putting them level with Labour. Concluding that, firstly the polling methodology is questionable. By favouring people who are available and have time to reply - so working people would be under-represented in basic sampling bias. Furthermore respondents are approached incorrectly - being asked about voting intentions straight away produces instinctive responses that warm up questions could curb. Having studied social research methods this seems a incredible blind-spot for organisations who do this for a living.

Yet, this inaccuracy is also party beyond the pollsters control. As tory voters were not picked up it in the polls it is possible there was a 'shy tory' phenomenon. This was used to explain the infamous 1992 shock tory victory. Of course there are always polling in previous elections have been more accurate. This time it more likely that shyness was a factor compared to 2010 when the tories hadn't been in government and were a less toxic brand. The 1992 shy voters had had 13 years of tories to hide.

Other swing tory voters were undecided reflecting the anti-political feeling since MPs expenses and the banking crisis. Undecideds are more likely to be those who engage minimally with media for a small period at the end of a campaign. This could be because they are fed-up, too busy and/or generally consider democracy as something done once every general election. Their political interactions are short and swift and they judge parties on their own terms e.g, running a household finances like the nations - which is a nonsense as I argue here. Their media is likely to be from the most accessible traditional outlets which is largely right wing propaganda. They are exposed to politics as catchy headlines, personalities, catchphrases, gaffes etc. They are vulnerable to right wing propaganda and less likely to read independent counter-establishment blogs (cough) and liberal social media.

Yet for many 2015 swing tories, voting is simply an act of self-improvement - basically in a nation ever more materialistic, voting with your wallet. It is the economy stupid. So while many young rebellious twitter attacks and mocks the conservatives, tory swing voters are seeing their party being favourably reported as guardians of a stable economy. They do not debate politics in the pub like my left leaning peers do. They tend not to share strong opinions on social media. They're more bothered with house prices and child security than cool BuzzFeed articles and likes on Facebook. Many simply vote and their reasons are influenced a combination of traditional media narratives, fear of change and a 'feeling' in their wallet that things are getting better. This all points towards a coup for the tories.

This political identity is well known to me because it is my background as the son of self-made immigrants who adopted the values and aspirations of Middle England. If anything they hold Conservative values more dearly (thick and thin during the Blair years) because their journey to relative security was full of adversity unlike for many of their 'indigenous' Middle England peers.

Meanwhile in Middle England

So many tory swing voters are busy and misinformed or both hence the polling issues. They are from older richer demographics and concerned with money primarily with mortgages and families. They have financial criteria of security that they like to see matched in the nation. These are the ones that swung it for the tories in the southern rural areas. This geographical quirk is important because the swing voters inhabit the region which is the most populous with the most constituencies. Labour only managed to win 11 southern seats outside of their stronghold of London.

Of course these swing voters will choose Labour if the conditions are right. Before Labour's 1997 landslide the tories were in disarray, tired after Thatcher's legacy of social and economic dysfunction. Blair opportunistically rode the wave of misguided optimism as Thatcher's heir with a smile. He was a dog-whistle to these voters who responded to his statesman-like hope, secretly glad his New Labour project had curbed its traditions and moved rightwards away from unionism and nationalisation. John Prescott stood out as the lone high-profile stereotypical northern working class representative.

They are not Blue Labour or Red Tory voters because they are not concerned about fair meritocratic society where anyone can climb-up. They're already on the ladder. Labour will now debate the merits of a New Labour renaissance versus a socialist anti-austerity agenda. But are the Middle England swing voters really listening if the tories continue to appeal.

How can they be convinced that they voted for a short-termist ideological cuts that will do little to improve wages and chronic UK productivity. Will they ask if the hedge fund-backed Conservatives are going to stop the bankers getting away with it again? Is inequality on their radar? Do they realise that it harms the well-off as well as the poor?  These are some of the arguments that need to be made in the next 5 years.

For us who want to real change in the broken system we must ask can all the blogs, memes, tropes and counter-misinformation combat the fact that ultimately a significant section of voters allow themselves to be passively sold the idea of stability, competency and greater wealth under a system that already broke not too long ago.

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here

The UK Austerity Myth

All 3 UK mainstream parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats) and pretend protest party UKIP believe in some form of austerity. Since the 2008 global banking crisis which crashed the international economy austerity has become the consensus of most governments and institutions like the IMF.

It is intuitive to sell cuts to a public who are led to believe that running a country is like running a household. In hard times everyone can relate to the tightening of belts. We hear phrases like 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' and 'maxed out the credit card'. The whole extended metaphor is simplistic.

A country can borrow on global markets and print money via central banks. Debt and deficit are part of nations' finances because a global economy accommodates borrowing for investment. Households cannot use these tools and are not responsible for a population through which they can raise funds through taxation - if they dare. Still the austerity salespeople would like us to think this metaphor is valid.

What actually happens under austerity is a crisis of confidence that means banks stop lending, businesses stop employing and consumers stop buying and the whole household demand economy enters quicksand. Job numbers fall and with it income tax take. Is this ever mentioned by media vested interests?

Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman writes:

So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.

And yet despite the austerity rhetoric the current UK government is actually spending more than in pre-recession days. In 2009 and the start of 2010 the UK was recovering from the the turmoil of the crash under Labour's  economic plan. Then the newly elected coalition started taking an axe to the UK finances leading to stuttering performance until 2013 when they realised what many knew, austerity was incorrect. The legacy is 2 years wasted and then a return to massive borrowing while hypocritically bashing Labour. 

After the 2008 bak bailouts prevented world finance from collapsing. It was necessary but then that is an indication of the broken global system of finance. Quantitative easing is the same socialism for the rich.

The scale of the support currently provided to UK banks has fallen from a peak of £955 billion to £512 billion, but the amount of cash currently borrowed by the Government to support banks has risen by £7 billion since December 2009. It is likely the taxpayer will be providing support for years to come.

So what have the coalition government done they have punished public sector workers, the low paid, and the vulnerable. Further pain would be felt if the Conservatives remain in power after the forthcoming election when they restart their already-failed-once austerity.

Meanwhile there is little sign of a deterrent in the Libor rate scandal (CORRECTION 1 since 2012) or for banks laundering drug money affecting billions.

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here