 |
| For the lost on both sides of the war. We Will Remember Them. |
Monday, 2 April 2012
Empire Strikes Back
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Guild elections, the Kremlin & Vegetarian Sandwiches
Tweet
Follow @HortonEddison
Despite a decidedly unethical attempt by one candidate to
defame the good character of the incumbent Guild President by leaking a non-story
to the national press, none of the candidates really managed to grab any
headlines. Indeed, no amount of distinctly unsustainable, unethical A4 paper plastered
all over campus will ever make up for the lack of genuine excitement or buzz
that an engaging election should create among the student body. This is partly
because none of the candidates actually got to grips with the fact that it is not
the source of our coffee but the serious lack of quality Union facilities that
students really care about. To admit this, would be to confess the perpetual
failure of the Guild to keep pace with the needs of the modern Aberystwyth
student, a failing that those standing for re-election are at least partly
culpable for. This of course is with the exception of Meakin’s excellent work
attracting Starbucks to the Union. But one such initiative is not enough, and
the Guild’s services will appear even less satisfying with fees set to rise to
£9,000 per annum from September. Students who pay more will expect more. Indeed,
far too many manifestos forwarded empty hyperbole which didn’t actually mean anything
at all and served only to underline the broad feeling that there was no single
candidate in any position really capable of thinking of (let alone delivering)
the kind of ‘outside the box’ solutions required to drag the Guild kicking and
screaming into the 21st Century. Most students care little about
whether we are recycling our ethically sourced eco-friendly fair trade coffee
cups or not when the facilities in which we spend our time fall so far short of
even the most basic expectations. This dissonance between what the students
really wanted, and what the candidates actually promised, was the true unspoken
cause of such enormous voter apathy at the heart of this election.
The Guild is in-fact distanced by a yawning chasm from the
actual student body. Distanced that is,
in geographical, ideational and relational terms. Most of us know there’re some offices at the
back of the Underground somewhere, but the vast majority of students never
venture past the pasties and toilets into the Kremlinesque maze of closed doors
and peeling paint where the Guild’s elected officials are caged. Instead, for many students, the only part of
the Guild that we’re aware of or actually visit are the commercial enterprises;
the disappointing offerings presented by the Union bars and the Union Shop when
we’re up on campus for lectures or seminars. For the rest of the time, around
two thirds of students live at the end of a very tiring and very tall hill; at
the bottom of which is a bustling town offering shops with pricing and quality
as their core values, not high minded (and high priced) principals of ethics
and sustainability as might be found in the Union facilities. The town pubs,
bars and clubs offer drinks at half of the price of the Union, and in an
environment which is twice as appealing.
The real problem with the Guild is that it’s been losing money for
years, partly due to a lack of imagination or innovation. Consequently, there’s no money to change anything,
and there’s no money because nobody goes, and nobody hoes because nothing changes. However, something has got to change
before the whole system follows the Soviet Union and grinds to a juddering
financial halt. Wat students and the
Guild really need are experienced people who are not just willing but capable
of working with University staff to draw-up a student-focused yet equitable,
financially-sustainable plan to ensure the Guild’s long-term survival. This probably doesn’t involve higher wages
for Union staff and more vegetarian sandwich options as promised by one
successful candidate.
Broad student apathy was a direct result of a lack of such commercially
capable candidates. No one candidate
suggested that the Guild buy a bar in town (why not Yoko’s?) and generate
revenue from that. Nobody suggested turning the Penglais Union into a daytime Starbucks
serving a noisy ‘group study’ area in order to restore the library to silent
working only and generate revenues for the Union. Not one put forward a plan to
recover the Hugh Owen for the studious and generate much needed revenue for the
Union for all of our benefit. Not one manifesto
suggested any real understanding of financial management or presented any
economic model at all for that matter. None pointed out that only after
generating real revenue could the Guild offer, and deliver any real change or
improvements for and on behalf of students. After studying all of the election
manifestos (yawn), it’s obvious that none of the candidates had either the
vision to imagine or the experience to implement real changes on such a vast
but necessary scale.
Follow @HortonEddison
This piece was originally written for the Aber Courier for
last week’s Election Special. However,
the Courier didn’t have the balls to publish it, so here it is in full for all
to read and share:
Guild elections, the Kremlin & Vegetarian Sandwiches
The sharp-eyed reader may have noticed that last week played
host to the annual Guild Election beauty contest. Being asked to write an article on the
elections for The Courier really whet
my appetite; finally, a chance to get stuck into a left wing institution in
general (the NUS) and to wax lyrical about all that’s wrong with our Guild
specifically. In-fact it didn’t turn out that way; what started out as a
cognitive explosion of passionate ideas decrying the inherent left-wing bias of
the Union movement, soon turned to utter boredom, complete disillusionment and
finally, an unrelenting, grinding paralysis of apathy.
With some positions uncontested and most others fought-over
by candidates promising near identical manifestoes focusing on issues lifted
straight from the script of an edition of children’s TV programme Newsround,
there was barely a recycled sheet of A4 paper to separate them. Indeed, if
you had an hour of your life to waste last week, then you may have watched some
of the campaign videos or read some of the campaign posters. If you survived
the mind numbing resultant coma, you’ll have noted how incredibly formulaic and
‘samey’ they all seemed. Most listed either housing or mental health as the
primary plank of their manifesto (wonder why?), reinforced by several secondary
Lizo Mzimba-inspired pledges concerning the environment, fair trade coffee and
the world changing notion of talking to estate agents on your behalf. The
battle of mindless mundane mediocrity was on. A sort of general malaise set in.
Voters turned off. Some dribbled. Probably.
 |
So, having established that the manifesto pledges weren’t
worth the paper that Lizo’s guiding hand wrote them on (think of all those poor
trees) who were the Guild Elections
actually for, or rather who do they benefit? Well, the answer is pretty obvious
I’m afraid; despite the promises, it is not the student body en-masse,
definitely not me and definitely not you. The successful candidates have won
some CV points in the form of an impressive sounding title and as an added
bonus, the Sabbatical Officers get to stay in Aber for another year, paid for
by you (despite your Union losing tens of thousands of pounds each year). And
this is the final point. Welcome to local politics, rule number one; it’s not
about your needs, it’s about the politicians’. Next time you cast a vote, pause
and question who that vote really benefits; you or the candidate?
I’ll leave you with Jeremy Paxman: “You cannot trust a word any politician says and if you shake hands with them, you ought to count your fingers afterwards. They are not the people you would want your son or daughter to marry”.
If you like this blog, please show your support by tweeting, posting and citing as often as you can.
Also, click now to follow me on Twitter: @HortonEddison
Follow @HortonEddison
Tweet
I’ll leave you with Jeremy Paxman: “You cannot trust a word any politician says and if you shake hands with them, you ought to count your fingers afterwards. They are not the people you would want your son or daughter to marry”.
If you like this blog, please show your support by tweeting, posting and citing as often as you can.
Also, click now to follow me on Twitter: @HortonEddison
Follow @HortonEddison
Tweet
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Socialism not Bankers to Blame for Public Sector Cuts
Follow @HortonEddison
Tweet
Today has seen tens of thousands of Britain's vast army of 6,000,000 public sector workers out on strike. The Prime Minister's own press secretary has been forced to man the immigration desk at Heathrow Airport. Millions of school children have lost a day of education, as well as elective surgeries cancelled and disruption across the country. Annoying for the UK, certainly, but for the rest of the world these are also worrying times, with more than a few echoes of the economic situation of the inter-war years. In this article, we debunk the myth that it is 'the bankers' to blame for the mess we're in by making an assessment of why 'developed' economies (including our own) have come to owe so much money in the first instance.
In the 1930s the near collapse of capitalism was brought about by a series of defaults in an international debt triangle which ultimately forced the great depression and a second war in Europe. Indeed, right now in 2011 a an economic pyramid scheme which is at least superficially similar to that which was at fault in the '30s can be seen at play around the US/IMF/China triumvirate. Similar pillars of cyclical debt current underpins the EU experiment. In this article, we explore how modern socialist state economics are to blame for this unholy trinity and how such economic thinking has once again brought the international system to the brink of collapse.
For many on the left, the theoritical models of JM Keynes provide the genealogy of their present-day economic policies.
Indeed, Keynesianism became the prevalent economic theory throughout much of the middle part of the last century. It is based on the essential pre-requisite that economic growth slows when the demand for production stagnates as a result of unemployment. Keynesianism suggests that the stagnation effects of unemployment can be overcome by creating the economic circumstances under which it is possible to increase the demand for products once more. The key concept to Keynsianism is that a short-term government funded stimulus which creates direct state employment, paid for with money borrowed from the markets or other nations, re-establishes the ability for the citizenry to purchase goods and services en-masse. This thus increases the need for products - ergo manufacturing - which in-term creates employment once more in the private sector. Keynsianism was not designed as a long term status-quo and was not designed to be a permanent life support system for economies, rather a short-term economic defibrillation. Indeed, the success of Keynesian investment depends on short-termism.
'Spent too much for too long and borrowed too much to pay for it'
Consequently, Keynesianism was employed with some success throughout the middle part of the 20th Century, including assisting the revival of most major economies before, during and after WW2. Therefore, it is not difficult to see why Keynesianism has attracted fans, particularly from the left where it seems to fit nicely with the ideological requirement for high public spending on generous public services. The UK Labour party’s economic policies are understandably based heavily in an interpretation of Keynesianism. Indeed, Gordon Brown's pledge as chancellor to bring about an “end to boom and bust” echoed strongly Keynes’ aims ‘to stabilize economic output during the cycle’.
However, there are enormous problems with the modern centre-left's faith in Keynes' economic theories, as the ongoing failure of the so-called PIGS countries show us. Over the last 30 years, the governments of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain have been dominated by the centre-left. Their economic policy has, like the UK's, been driven by bastardisations of Keynesian theory, borrowing heavily in order to spend on public services (read public sector workers). All have consequently spent too much for too long and borrowed too much to pay for it.
How then has Keynesianism failed so catastrophically in the PIGS and brought Britain and the US to the maximum of their credit limits?
The first part of the answer lays partly as discussed in the fact that Keynes only ever meant high public borrowing/spending as a short term solution, not as the basis of long term economic policy. Indeed, what the current Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls, and his party leader Ed Miliband, both fail to understand is that it is not that the current coalition government is ‘cutting too far, too fast’ but that the previous Labour government was spending too much for too long. Labour's current policy is entirely bi-polar; acknowledging the need to cut the deficit at the same time as advocating high levels of spending on public services.
The second part of the answer is absolutely the key to understanding why the left can never be trusted with the economy again. It is more nuanced, but also more important. It concerns what public borrowing is actually spent on.
In Keynes' time, an economic stimulous would buy short-term project specific blue collar workers; navvies, factory workers and builders. In the 21st century these manual trades have largely disappeared to be replaced by police officers, community outreach workers and NHS administrators who are employed on permanent contracts with pension schemes. Jobs for life. This is a change which partly reflects the evolving nature of our increasingly service based economy, but it also allows centre-left governments to claim increased public sector 'investment'. Employing one extra police officer for example, removes one person from the jobless total, adds one person to the number of police on the street, provides a basis for 'investment' in the police force. A very tempting proposition for any democratic government. In the 21st Century this is the fundamental problem with Keynesianism, and it is one that all ‘advanced’ economies (USA, PIGS, GB etc) suffer from. Here's why:
"The difference in the nature of public funded employment is the key to the mess we’re in, and it is also the key to the way out. The difference is the question of permanence"
In the middle-part of the 20th Century, working for the government meant building Autobahns in '30s Germany, manufacturing munitions in '40s America or NHS hospitals and social housing in '50s Britain. In the 21st Century, well educated citizens used to a higher standards of living simply do not wish to be employed in menial work. Instead, increasingly voter conscious centre-left parties throughout the West have sought to apply Keynesianism to jobs more conducive to electoral success, but less fitted to Keynesian stimulous.The difference in the nature of public funded employment is the key to the mess we’re in, and it is also the key to the way out. This difference is the question of permanence. Put simply, it is possible to hire and fire blue collar workers much more flexibly; when a motorway is finished, a war won or a hospital built the dependant workers can be, and are, laid off.
However, white collar workers are of a different nature and have different expectations. Historically, office jobs form part of a career structure which assumes a level of permanence and confers a much more secure tenure as well as other benefits such as generous pensions and access to union and or legal representation which means that they are very difficult to fire an they very rarely wish to leave of their own accord.
Consequently, the centre-left’s fondness for creating jobs out of thin air has brought electoral prosperity for the left by means of supplying the unions with many thousands of members as well as simultaneoulsy cutting the jobless statistics and increasing 'investment' in public services. But it is a policy which has saddled the country with literally millions of extra hungry mouths to feed, in many cases from 18 until the grave.
Whenever you hear Labour talking about 'creating jobs' or 'investing in public services' what they actually mean is 'investing in votes' and 'creating a legacy of debt'. Next time you feel sympathy with public sector workers on strike, remember that your children's children will be repaying the debt accrued to pay today's public sector pensions. Instead of blaming those attempting to reign in the deficit, it's time we blamed those who created it.
Follow me on Twitter: @HortonEddison
Here are some powerful facts:
Tweet
Follow @HortonEddison
Tweet
Today has seen tens of thousands of Britain's vast army of 6,000,000 public sector workers out on strike. The Prime Minister's own press secretary has been forced to man the immigration desk at Heathrow Airport. Millions of school children have lost a day of education, as well as elective surgeries cancelled and disruption across the country. Annoying for the UK, certainly, but for the rest of the world these are also worrying times, with more than a few echoes of the economic situation of the inter-war years. In this article, we debunk the myth that it is 'the bankers' to blame for the mess we're in by making an assessment of why 'developed' economies (including our own) have come to owe so much money in the first instance.
In the 1930s the near collapse of capitalism was brought about by a series of defaults in an international debt triangle which ultimately forced the great depression and a second war in Europe. Indeed, right now in 2011 a an economic pyramid scheme which is at least superficially similar to that which was at fault in the '30s can be seen at play around the US/IMF/China triumvirate. Similar pillars of cyclical debt current underpins the EU experiment. In this article, we explore how modern socialist state economics are to blame for this unholy trinity and how such economic thinking has once again brought the international system to the brink of collapse.
For many on the left, the theoritical models of JM Keynes provide the genealogy of their present-day economic policies.
Indeed, Keynesianism became the prevalent economic theory throughout much of the middle part of the last century. It is based on the essential pre-requisite that economic growth slows when the demand for production stagnates as a result of unemployment. Keynesianism suggests that the stagnation effects of unemployment can be overcome by creating the economic circumstances under which it is possible to increase the demand for products once more. The key concept to Keynsianism is that a short-term government funded stimulus which creates direct state employment, paid for with money borrowed from the markets or other nations, re-establishes the ability for the citizenry to purchase goods and services en-masse. This thus increases the need for products - ergo manufacturing - which in-term creates employment once more in the private sector. Keynsianism was not designed as a long term status-quo and was not designed to be a permanent life support system for economies, rather a short-term economic defibrillation. Indeed, the success of Keynesian investment depends on short-termism.
'Spent too much for too long and borrowed too much to pay for it'
Consequently, Keynesianism was employed with some success throughout the middle part of the 20th Century, including assisting the revival of most major economies before, during and after WW2. Therefore, it is not difficult to see why Keynesianism has attracted fans, particularly from the left where it seems to fit nicely with the ideological requirement for high public spending on generous public services. The UK Labour party’s economic policies are understandably based heavily in an interpretation of Keynesianism. Indeed, Gordon Brown's pledge as chancellor to bring about an “end to boom and bust” echoed strongly Keynes’ aims ‘to stabilize economic output during the cycle’.
However, there are enormous problems with the modern centre-left's faith in Keynes' economic theories, as the ongoing failure of the so-called PIGS countries show us. Over the last 30 years, the governments of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain have been dominated by the centre-left. Their economic policy has, like the UK's, been driven by bastardisations of Keynesian theory, borrowing heavily in order to spend on public services (read public sector workers). All have consequently spent too much for too long and borrowed too much to pay for it.
How then has Keynesianism failed so catastrophically in the PIGS and brought Britain and the US to the maximum of their credit limits?
The first part of the answer lays partly as discussed in the fact that Keynes only ever meant high public borrowing/spending as a short term solution, not as the basis of long term economic policy. Indeed, what the current Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls, and his party leader Ed Miliband, both fail to understand is that it is not that the current coalition government is ‘cutting too far, too fast’ but that the previous Labour government was spending too much for too long. Labour's current policy is entirely bi-polar; acknowledging the need to cut the deficit at the same time as advocating high levels of spending on public services.
The second part of the answer is absolutely the key to understanding why the left can never be trusted with the economy again. It is more nuanced, but also more important. It concerns what public borrowing is actually spent on.
In Keynes' time, an economic stimulous would buy short-term project specific blue collar workers; navvies, factory workers and builders. In the 21st century these manual trades have largely disappeared to be replaced by police officers, community outreach workers and NHS administrators who are employed on permanent contracts with pension schemes. Jobs for life. This is a change which partly reflects the evolving nature of our increasingly service based economy, but it also allows centre-left governments to claim increased public sector 'investment'. Employing one extra police officer for example, removes one person from the jobless total, adds one person to the number of police on the street, provides a basis for 'investment' in the police force. A very tempting proposition for any democratic government. In the 21st Century this is the fundamental problem with Keynesianism, and it is one that all ‘advanced’ economies (USA, PIGS, GB etc) suffer from. Here's why:
"The difference in the nature of public funded employment is the key to the mess we’re in, and it is also the key to the way out. The difference is the question of permanence"
In the middle-part of the 20th Century, working for the government meant building Autobahns in '30s Germany, manufacturing munitions in '40s America or NHS hospitals and social housing in '50s Britain. In the 21st Century, well educated citizens used to a higher standards of living simply do not wish to be employed in menial work. Instead, increasingly voter conscious centre-left parties throughout the West have sought to apply Keynesianism to jobs more conducive to electoral success, but less fitted to Keynesian stimulous.The difference in the nature of public funded employment is the key to the mess we’re in, and it is also the key to the way out. This difference is the question of permanence. Put simply, it is possible to hire and fire blue collar workers much more flexibly; when a motorway is finished, a war won or a hospital built the dependant workers can be, and are, laid off.
However, white collar workers are of a different nature and have different expectations. Historically, office jobs form part of a career structure which assumes a level of permanence and confers a much more secure tenure as well as other benefits such as generous pensions and access to union and or legal representation which means that they are very difficult to fire an they very rarely wish to leave of their own accord.
Consequently, the centre-left’s fondness for creating jobs out of thin air has brought electoral prosperity for the left by means of supplying the unions with many thousands of members as well as simultaneoulsy cutting the jobless statistics and increasing 'investment' in public services. But it is a policy which has saddled the country with literally millions of extra hungry mouths to feed, in many cases from 18 until the grave.
Whenever you hear Labour talking about 'creating jobs' or 'investing in public services' what they actually mean is 'investing in votes' and 'creating a legacy of debt'. Next time you feel sympathy with public sector workers on strike, remember that your children's children will be repaying the debt accrued to pay today's public sector pensions. Instead of blaming those attempting to reign in the deficit, it's time we blamed those who created it.
Follow me on Twitter: @HortonEddison
Here are some powerful facts:
- Portugal: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 30 years (100 %)
- Ireland: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 18 years (55 %)
- Greece: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 22 years (73 %)
- Spain: Years Socialists in power since 1981: 21 years (70 %)
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)