Bolitics Anti Austerity March - 20th June

[snowychap]

All slightly off topic, the poll tax stuff, but just for good measure from the IFS (pdf) at the time:

 

 

p.45

 

Households with incomes less than £400 per week will on average pay moe in local tax in real terms in 1990/91. Those households with incomes over £400 per week will on average pay less. The hardest hit in absolute terms are households that fall within the income range £150 to £300 a week - households within this income range loose out by approximately £190 a year on average. The middle-income households are hardest hit because they are less cushioned from the changes in local taxation by the rebate system. The biggest gainers are households with net incomes greater than £600 per week. Households within the £600 to £1000 per week net income group would on average gain £210 a year.

 

 

 

 

In their table (4.4 on p.44), they say that the average difference (plus being an increase, minus a decrease) between tax bills from 89/90 to 90/91 for various income groups (£/wk) are as follows:

 

 

Under £100   +46%

£100-£150   +41%

£150-£200   +47%

£200-£250   +39%

£250-£300   +30%

£300-£400   +21%

£400-£500   -3%

£500-£600   -41%

£600-£1000   -27%

over £1000   -40%

 

 

Even if the previous system were grossly unfair, I don't think those average changes across the income groups could in any way be represented as fair.

Edited June 3, 2015 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

All slightly off topic, the poll tax stuff, but just for good measure from the IFS (pdf) at the time:

 

 

p.45

 

Households with incomes less than £400 per week will on average pay moe in local tax in real terms in 1990/91. Those households with incomes over £400 per week will on average pay less. The hardest hit in absolute terms are households that fall within the income range £150 to £300 a week - households within this income range loose out by approximately £190 a year on average. The middle-income households are hardest hit because they are less cushioned from the changes in local taxation by the rebate system. The biggest gainers are households with net incomes greater than £600 per week. Households within the £600 to £1000 per week net income group would on average gain £210 a year.

 

 

 

 

In their table (4.4 on p.44), they say that the average difference (plus being an increase, minus a decrease) between tax bills from 89/90 to 90/91 for various income groups (£/wk) are as follows:

 

 

Under £100   +46%

£100-£150   +41%

£150-£200   +47%

£200-£250   +39%

£250-£300   +30%

£300-£400   +21%

£400-£500   -3%

£500-£600   -41%

£600-£1000   -27%

over £1000   -40%

 

 

Even if the previous system were grossly unfair, I don't think those average changes across the income groups could in any way be represented as fair.

 

 

I think you'll find that there is a marked difference between what a Tory would consider fair and what a Lefty would consider fair.

 

A Tory would consider it unfair that those with lower incomes could vote in a Labour council on the promise of better local services at no cost to themselves, while forcing higher rates upon those with higher incomes, and/or higher property values.

 

The Lefty concept of fairness usually relies on the assumption that it is always fair to take money off the better off for the benefit of the less well off.

 

The only thing that can be said is that both systems were unfair but to different groups of people.

[snowychap]

'Lefty' blah blah...'Lefty' blah blah.

 

 

What's Phil Mickelson ever done to you?

Edited June 3, 2015 by snowychap

[OutByEaster?]

Could someone offer a definition of the austerity the demo is against?

 

10% pay rises for everyone?

 

We're all in it together.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

If anyone is interested - IMF study released yesterday on public debt.

It may be helpful to think of debt levels as falling into three zones: a green zone, in which fiscal space is ample; a yellow zone, in which space is positive but sovereign risks are salient; and a red zone, in which fiscal space has run out. This paper is concerned with green-zone cases. Reducing debt in such cases is likely to be normatively undesirable as the costs involved will be larger than the resulting benefits.

http://tinyurl.com/oln4oo6

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Could someone offer a definition of the austerity the demo is against?

 

10% pay rises for everyone?

 

We're all in it together.

 

 

There you have it; 'End Austerity' is just as much an empty meaningless slogan, as 'We're all in it together'.

 

These slogans are are always euphemisms for something that dare not speak its name.

 

My guess is that it is really about public sector pay but they can't really say that because the private sector has suffered pay cuts, too.

 

In short, ordinary public sector workers want to protect themselves from austerity like the public sector employees in the Palace of Westminster have, and leave their 'brothers and sister' in the private sector, to the ravages of the labour market.

 

So what 'End Austerity' really means is: We don't want to be in it either!

[chrisp65]

This 10% rise was much needed.

 

I now have democratic representation at AM, MP and MEP level that is only costing a third of a million pound a year in salary.

 

In times of austerity, I consider this excellent value.

 

I'm confident they all wish the local council well in their quest, advertised this week, to attract 'volunteer' library workers.

[kurtsimonw]

 

I think its a good thing. But can anybody explain to me what difference its going to make. Its too late, people decided they didn't care when they voted the Tories in with a majority so the govt are not going to be bothered about a minority protesting against cuts. 

would that be the 36.9% of the people that bothered to vote, voted Tory?

 

I'd say that leaves a wide majority of people who didn't vote Tory.

 

A good protest, organised in the right way, in big numbers, is always an effective democratic weapon. It needs the numbers, and the coverage.

 

Maybe it's because I'm not really interested in politics. But surely less than 36.9% of people voted for any other party then, right? If not the party that got the most votes, who should get in?

[snowychap]

Maybe it's because I'm not really interested in politics. But surely less than 36.9% of people voted for any other party then, right? If not the party that got the most votes, who should get in?

I don't think Jon is questioning the outcome of the election here (having read his posts elsewhere, I think I'm safe in saying that he's not a fan of FPTP, though) but rather questioning the reading of the result that PaulC has made, i.e. that 'people don't care' because the Tories were returned with a majority.

[chrisp65]

Would a more illuminating system be a version of PR where the non voters are represented by empty seats.

 

So, essentially, on the state opening of parliament with 'all' MP's present, you'd see a third of seats (34%) empty.

 

Then, we'd also get a pretty simple indication of exactly how representative any party is, with their one third share of the two thirds of the occupied seats.

 

It could even encourage people to set up parties to try and claim some of those empty seats, or might persuade somebody that with 34 empty seats not able to vote for or against something (and the winning party having gained 36 seats), their vote could actually have had an impact and helped fill a seat.

 

All the above very simplistic using 100 to illustrate a point, but yeah, you know what  mean. Chuck a thousand individual seats in the room, leave 340 permanently empty.

[snowychap]

Would a more illuminating system be a version of PR where the non voters are represented by empty seats.

So, essentially, on the state opening of parliament with 'all' MP's present, you'd see a third of seats (34%) empty.

I quite like the idea - with compulsory silence in the debating chamber for that percentage of time, too.

[Jon]

 

Maybe it's because I'm not really interested in politics. But surely less than 36.9% of people voted for any other party then, right? If not the party that got the most votes, who should get in?

I don't think Jon is questioning the outcome of the election here (having read his posts elsewhere, I think I'm safe in saying that he's not a fan of FPTP, though) but rather questioning the reading of the result that PaulC has made, i.e. that 'people don't care' because the Tories were returned with a majority.

 

Yep, you've pretty much negated my need to make  a post Snowster! I think a great many people do 'care'. The Tories have 'got in' with a majority of seats at the H of C. They did that with 36.9% of the actual vote, which when extrapolated to include people who didn't vote, is way less than 30% of the people of this Country. Yet they have a 'mandate', however small, to have their wicked way with us. It should not be that way (for any party).

[Xann]

My guess is that it is really about public sector pay...

 

A couple of nights out with a gaggle of nurses just might cause you to have a rethink.

 

On all sorts of matters

[MakemineVanilla]

 

My guess is that it is really about public sector pay...

 

A couple of nights out with a gaggle of nurses just might cause you to have a rethink.

 

On all sorts of matters

 

 

Are you suggesting that even when they are on a night out they never stop moaning about their jobs?

 

I can believe that! 

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

Could someone offer a definition of the austerity the demo is against?

 

10% pay rises for everyone?

 

We're all in it together.

 

 

There you have it; 'End Austerity' is just as much an empty meaningless slogan, as 'We're all in it together'.

 

These slogans are are always euphemisms for something that dare not speak its name.

 

My guess is that it is really about public sector pay but they can't really say that because the private sector has suffered pay cuts, too.

 

In short, ordinary public sector workers want to protect themselves from austerity like the public sector employees in the Palace of Westminster have, and leave their 'brothers and sister' in the private sector, to the ravages of the labour market.

 

So what 'End Austerity' really means is: We don't want to be in it either!

 

 

I think you're right, I'm not sure what 'End austerity' means, for me what makes me angry is living in a world entirely structured around the corporate good, with no thought to old fashioned ideas like people or society. I'd like to end that, replace it with a better set of core values. I don't think that's austerity necessarily, although I guess you could link it to that, we're all having to be poorer so that the markets can remain stable. 

 

I think there are a lot of people unhappy, about a lot of things, I think we reached a tipping point somewhere along the line where the model we have for the way our lives operate, the 'system' if you will started to serve only itself and we forgot why we wanted it in the first place.

 

I think a lot of those unhappy people would like a chance to march, but aren't sure entirely what it is they're angry about, because it's never really discussed in the media in a sensible way.

 

I think I'm probably better off on the one on November 5th.

[mockingbird_franklin]

just another excuse for faux Trotskyist's to smash a few buildings and cause some carnage on the streets of London 

 

 

So that is your thoughts on the undercover met police that will be present, what about the protestors?

Edited June 7, 2015 by mockingbird_franklin

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

Could someone offer a definition of the austerity the demo is against?

 

10% pay rises for everyone?

 

We're all in it together.

 

 

There you have it; 'End Austerity' is just as much an empty meaningless slogan, as 'We're all in it together'.

 

These slogans are are always euphemisms for something that dare not speak its name.

 

My guess is that it is really about public sector pay but they can't really say that because the private sector has suffered pay cuts, too.

 

In short, ordinary public sector workers want to protect themselves from austerity like the public sector employees in the Palace of Westminster have, and leave their 'brothers and sister' in the private sector, to the ravages of the labour market.

 

So what 'End Austerity' really means is: We don't want to be in it either!

 

 

I think you're right, I'm not sure what 'End austerity' means, for me what makes me angry is living in a world entirely structured around the corporate good, with no thought to old fashioned ideas like people or society. I'd like to end that, replace it with a better set of core values. I don't think that's austerity necessarily, although I guess you could link it to that, we're all having to be poorer so that the markets can remain stable. 

 

I think there are a lot of people unhappy, about a lot of things, I think we reached a tipping point somewhere along the line where the model we have for the way our lives operate, the 'system' if you will started to serve only itself and we forgot why we wanted it in the first place.

 

I think a lot of those unhappy people would like a chance to march, but aren't sure entirely what it is they're angry about, because it's never really discussed in the media in a sensible way.

 

I think I'm probably better off on the one on November 5th.

 

 

Historically marches have a very poor track record in changing things and from Jarrow to the hunger marches of the 1930s they are totally ignored by governments.

 

Labour governments have a particularly shameful record in this respect being that they are supposed to care.

 

The tragic thing about Jarrow is that although it failed, it is always used as a bit of romantic propaganda to perpetuate self-serving myths, about the stout-hearted working-class demanding jobs and how much faith they have in a political system which completely ignores the electorate between elections.

 

Ultimately marches and demonstrations are just mechanisms which the system sees as a means for dissipating opposing internal political forces, which leaves the government to proceed regardless and the marchers/demonstrators naively believing that their voices were heard and they changed something. 

 

Hitler did a lot more to cure unemployment in the North East, than either the Jarrow marchers or John Maynard Keynes. 

[coda]

Seems the Beeb are covering this. It was just live on BBC News with Charlotte Church rabble-rousing. 

[tonyh29]

Seems the Beeb are covering this. It was just live on BBC News with Charlotte Church rabble-rousing.

Charlotte Church as in the the Charlotte Church who said she wasn't rich despite being worth £11m and couldn't continue her lavish life style with "just "that much money

Was she marching in a bid to get £20m so she could survive ?

[chrisp65]

Charlotte Church is ok by me.