Thursday, September 23, 2010

The Cuts in 233 words

Over on 38 Degrees' Facebook there is a page on what we think of the cuts. Here's my 29 worth:

The deficit is bad, created by Labour borrowing for the NHS and education, and also by the banks.
The national debt has been worse in the past, and other countries are in a worse position than  the UK.

Debt is an inevitable part of the way money is created by the banks, by making loans at interest.
In the past debt was seen as OK ("Deficit budgeting" & "Leverage") but now the bipolar nature of the markets has created the perception that the debt is absolutely awful.

The credit rating agencies whose assessment of sovereign debt is so vital are the same agencies who failed to spot the toxic assets that triggered the 2008 bank crisis.

Part of the drive for the cuts arises from the neo-liberal, free market fundamentalist ideology of "the small state".

The cuts are going to do huge harm to the UK, increasing unemployment and poverty, and will bringing on and make worse a double dip recession.

We must oppose the cuts by all means necessary, including a General Tea Break.

It is possible to bring down the deficit by cutting Trident and other military follies, by stopping tax avoidance/evasion and bringing in a capital wealth tax on the  top 10% of UK citizens - and still have money available for the Green New Deal, which is an investment in energy security that helps to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Red Pepper on countering the Cuts Myths.


howard ex-gpns said...

Well, a volte-face has occurred: you stood down as Green Party parliamentary candidate in the recent General Election - hoping your assumed support would transfer to the Lib-Dems, led by Nick Clegg who, at their 2009 conference, had recommended "savage cuts".
Water under the bridge and all that etc but doesn't your current response to the cuts (which you now oppose), the preposterous 'General Tea Break', indicate a continuing disengagement from political reality?

DocRichard said...

I always opposed savage cuts. My decision was based on the possibility that Cameron might have won by one seat.
The Tories are ideological small statists, whereas the LibDems are reluctant cutters, and more greenish than the Tories.

There is always a tension between the relativistic political action - "which is the least bad party" and idealistic political action - which party has the purest ideology.

If anything, my bum decision serves as an object lesson to show that Greens should continue to stand for the sake of raising the standard of green ideology. Which is not to say that the Green Party's policies are 100% Green in every particular.

The rationale for the General Tea Break is as follows:
1 the cuts proposed by Osborne are ideologically driven.
2 they will cause immense harm to the fabric of society, economy and state.
3 they will only be roled back as a result of direct action
4 Iraq demonstrated that peaceful demonstrations, no matter how large, can be ignred
5 violent demonstrations (see Poll Tax) are more effective, but the Green Party rightly eschews violence
6 a General Strike would be effective, but the people are not yet ready for a General Strike
7 a general Tea Break is a way of sliding and sidling gradually towards a General Strike, and when business and politicians see this coming, it will persuade them that the will of the people is against the cuts in a real way. If they have any sense, they will row back from their foolish cuts before it reaches General Strike.

Not "preposterous" at all.