Growth for the few on the backs of the many

The 0.8% growth that the Chancellor, George Osborne, said signalled the country is now firmly on the mend has been achieved on the backs of short term contracts, part time jobs, zero hours contracts, youth unemployed, the workers at Granemouth and its wider community and the Remploy workers, and key to it all, low pay.  Only the bankers, the corporate leaders and the Tories and their sidekicks are reaping the benefits.  The Tories through doggy donations to their coffers. The rest through inflated salaries and bonuses, supported by a government who has taken legal action to stop Europe from dealing with bankers bonuses.  Not forgetting the highly dubious lobbying and bankrolling by the energy companies, hedge funds and other asset strippers.

I have missed out whole groups of people who are also suffering for this 0.8% up-turn: the pensioners who will have to decide to heat or eat or die, the users of foodbanks who are unable to feed their children and the Unions who are being attacked for standing up for their members.  

Russell Brand is not my most favourite actor/commedfian, but watching him with Jeremy Paxman, what he said was absolutely correct.  He had an answer for every question posed by Paxman and justified why he has never voted.  His simple argument is that there is no alternative to vote for and I have to agree with him.  And yes we do need a revolution.  At least we have got to do something about this appalling situation. That should be a real wake up call for the Labour Party.  If you have not yet seen the Brand/Paxman discussion, the link is below

Read Owen Jones’ comment in the article on Grangemouth in The Independent’s ‘I’ again the link is below.

Finally I have also included the link to the short video from ‘Positiver Money’

As Jones says at the end of his article,

“The power exercised by the likes of Ineos owner, Jim Ratcliffe depends on our collective resignation, a sense of fatalism and powerlessness.  Grangemouth could be a turning point, a catalyst for other employers to demolish what remaining power and rights working people have.  Or it could be a moment where enough of us realise what is happening to modern Britain, and - in the finest traditions of this country - do something to challenge it.”

Article by Owen Jones -

Russell Brand -

Positive Money Video -


Views: 155

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Jeremy

I read through the comments to the Owen Jones article - some of them really are quite disturbing.

Well as I was pointing out only yesterday, there's a lot of could, would and should do's when it comes to tackling global capitalism, but when one examines the many advocates for a new paradigm, it's difficult to find one not clinging to a lectern. Some are the natural allies of the Tea Party movement and Walmart.


You are right Joe, some of the comments were extremely disturbing and many show just how ignorant people are of the present situation.  As I said in my reply to one comment, which extolled union bashing,

Just remember this, when the 'gagging' bill has been passed; the unions can no longer fight for the workers; lobbying by the rich and powerful continue unabated and democracy is a thing of the past, your voice and mine will be silenced.

I forgot to include the issue of the press being controlled by politicians, however indirectly.

Brand and Jones are basically saying the same thing. We need radical change.

Abuse goes with the terrority when you agitate against vested interests, as we state on our own web site:   

"These problems almost always stem from government corruption that was a way of life in the USSR, and remains so to varying degrees.  Hence the overall process of what we do in promoting change inevitably runs into varying degrees of conflict along the way.  Dealing with such things as threats and smears is as much a part of projects as the hope and good will built within communities for standing up to it.  Hope, good will, and improved lives far outweigh the stresses and strains mounted by corrupt government officials, so strife and institutional resistance to change are taken in stride as part of the change process."

It came in the form of anonymous defamation ranging from fraud to drug and child abuse. Anything to discredit the whistleblower. 

"Opening up the reality of that situation resulted in threats against me and anyone else interfering with that system.  I came under direct assault by tax police, government’s primary enforcement arm if anyone steps out of line.  This is not a research activity where many, if any, other people dared to participate.  UNICEF was willfully blind to the matter because it was just too dangerous to bother to intercede  Powerful interests remained entrenched with enforcers to make it dangerous."

It began with a call for radical change which was introduced to the UK in 2004 with this warning

"While the vast majority of people in poverty suffer quietly and with little protest, it is not safe to assume that everyone will react the same way. When in defence of family and friends, it is completely predictable that it should be only a matter of time until uprisings become sufficient to imperil an entire nation or region of the world. People with nothing have nothing to lose. Poverty was therefore deemed not only a moral catastrophe but also a time bomb waiting to explode."

Predistribution is a word which has entered the political lexicon in the last year or so.

Reply to Discussion


Other ways to keep in touch:

© 2018   Created by Freire Institute.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service