the Austerity Con or Con

[Serial_Apologist]

Interesting comments, S_A. I agree with you about the "spiritual" dimension, if you mean something more holistic and not purely materialistic. I also think that the 'class struggle' idea, whatever its value as a description of historical social change, is useless as a basis for formulating a programme of change - it simply polarises and draws on hatred rather than anything constructive.

But when one sees the intellectual bankruptcy of European political parties, most of whom are marching to the austerity tune (apart from the nastier ones which are marching to something even more unpleasant), it's unsurprising that there is near total disillusionment with the political process and people feel that change can only come from extra-political groupings, whether communities like Occupy, 38degrees, the Spanish Indignados or environmental groups like Transition here. Why has no progressive politician almost anywhere in Europe, for instance, attempted to tap in to the widespread indignation about banks and tax evasion/avoidance and come up with serious proposals for tackling these failings? My conclusion is that they are not really interested in change, that the status quo is quite satisfactory: all the opportunities for private enrichment, the merry-go-round of non-executive directorships and speaking engagements, the revolving door between business and politics (even the HMRC and business), the lobbying scandals. We are almost back to the C18 world of political corruption, with the political class almost totally divorced from the rest of society.

On the materialism issue, the term has become rather outdated by virtue of socientists no longer seeing "matter" as the basic "stuff" of the universe, and mystified by use as a religious condemnation of greed, seen as basic to human nature.

The Labour Party has always been reformist, taking advantage of periods of relative prosperity to grant reforms under pressure from its own base. Deprived of that base - or, rather, pressured from the trade union bureaucracy, itself reformist - and having kicked out its far left entryists and got rid of Clause 4 of its constitution - the leadership now finds itself with only the advisory role provided by Compass offering alternative suggestions: some of which aren't bad, but are basically seen as for implementation at government level. Meanwhile, capitalism offers scant opportunities for more egalitarian reforms as far into the future as is possible to foresee, and this, as I see it, is why Miliband and all the rest of them are in such a mess.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

So, on austerity, is the feeling that Ed Balls had it right in 2010?

quite possibly, but only on the basis that a broke watch is still right twice a day ... the chap is in hock to the trades unions politically and requires their continuing presence in his party power base ... now Alistair Darling might well have more to offer ... ... he was right once too ... and viciously derided for it

[aeolium]

The relatively marginal differences in economic philosophy between the parties pale into insignificance when viewed in the light of the widespread corruption of public life by corporate interests as outlined in this article. This sort of revolving-door corruption has of course been well publicised by Private Eye over a number of years and it's clear that the 'sting scandals' are small money compared with the really hefty rewards available. Corporate and private funding of political parties also means that talk of getting tough on tax avoidance is likely to be just that - talk: politicians won't readily bite the hands that feed them.

Meanwhile the evidence mounts up about the damage being done by austerity economics. For political commentators and politicians of all parties - Labour having now effectively fallen into line behind Osborne's budget plans - austerity remains the only alternative. Yet it can easily be seen that a meaningful tax contribution from large corporations (particularly multinationals) - and by meaningful I mean commensurate with their profits rather than the infinitesimal amounts some of them currently pay - would wipe out the requirement for any drastic welfare cuts as well as provide the platform for investment in infrastructure. There is nothing inevitable about austerity - it is a deliberate choice by self-interested politicians in hock to greedy corporations.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

..and let us not forget the greedy rich types, city slickers and spread betters etc, who bankroll Osborne and his cronies ... nor the forex cash stream which corrupts on a scale that dwarfs the combined revenues of the drugs and arms trades .... [notice how the case for transaction taxes is losing the argument?]

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

this is a serious piece by Paul Krugman reviewing several books on Austerity ..... it is a con in the interests of creditors and right wing moralists .... and has damaged our economies severely, the more so the more savage the austerity ....

[amateur51]

this is a serious piece by Paul Krugman reviewing several books on Austerity ..... it is a con in the interests of creditors and right wing moralists .... and has damaged our economies severely, the more so the more savage the austerity ....

Initially a bit of a trudge, Calum but eventually well worth the effort - many thanks

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

why austerity bashing is not straightforward .... where's my duvet?

[eighthobstruction]

Cue a cartoon : of all the G8 standing around a quicksand pit watching Greece etc sinking : with caption "well I guess it's down to them Bilderberg lot to sort it out, put in a call"....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

UK

Greece

[french frank]

Greece http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22861577

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

way to go Will Hutton

[teamsaint]

way to go Will Hutton

can we vote for him?
That would be good.
Brilliant article.

[french frank]

can we vote for him?
That would be good.

Probably not. But you can vote for Labour (we'll cap welfare, we won't borrow to reverse spending cuts - we will end the concept of universal benefits, however ...)

[amateur51]

Probably not. But you can vote for Labour (we'll cap welfare, we won't borrow to reverse spending cuts - we will end the concept of universal benefits, however ...)

Or of course vote LibDem (we're everso sorry about last time but we will be absolutely clear next time which parts of our manifesto programme are coalition-negotiable, depending on who nearly-wins the best ...)

[french frank]

Or of course vote LibDem (we're everso sorry about last time but we will be absolutely clear next time which parts of our manifesto programme are coalition-negotiable, depending on who nearly-wins the best ...)

Or Conservative.

Or Green - you'll be certain about what you'll (not) get.

Or UKIP - ditto

The theoretical/philosophical aspect to this is why 'all parties are the same' or don't stand a chance of being elected. (Otherwise it's Politics & Current Affairs)