FELIX

"Keep the Cat Free"
19/06/13

Post exams party against austerity

Anti-cuts street parties kick off
Luke Sheldon
Sharing

The first twelve months of austerity saw Tory HQ get smashed up and students taking to the streets in their thousands against rising tuition fees. Town halls were occupied as the budgets detailing the severity of the cuts were passed, half a million people marched in London and hundreds of tax dodging stores were occupied by the direct action group UK Uncut. But recently this anger has all died away and turned to disengagement as grown men dressed as penguins get higher votes than the Lib Dems in local elections which less than a third of the population even bothered to show up to (if we’d all rocked out maybe the penguin would have won).

Maybe this is because we’ve realised “there is no alternative” and decided to stand down and bear the government austerity. However with the Institute of Fiscal Studies reporting that only 25% of cuts have actually happened yet, and with the professed economic growth not wanting to appear, the pain has barely begun. On top of this, over the last 3 years the wealth of the 1000 richest people increased by £155bn, greater than the deficit over this time. This is a mocking fact destroying any possible perception that in any way we could even slightly be “all in it together” as the wealthiest amass pointless fortunes whilst the services for the poorest are ruthlessly closed.

Next Saturday (the 26th) the anger that begun the anti-austerity movement will mature into the need to celebrate the future we could have had. UK Uncut has promised a summer of anti-cuts street parties kicking off next weekend in 10 different cities from Central London to Middlesbrough. With the Jubilee and Olympics fast approaching, and the prediction that we should all be told to hold good old community street parties like we were for the royal wedding last year, UK Uncut want us to show there are more important things to come together for as central roads will be closed by thousands of people.

Poverty and inequality are not facts of society... but something people have changed before and will change again

The last time the deficit was as high was post war, a time also of street parties. But it was also a time of progress as the NHS was formed, welfare support began and truly affordable housing was actually being built. With this came a rapidly shrinking inequality gap between the richest and poorest and with that a closing difference in education and health. Now health inequalities are at a level not seen since the 1920s with men in Glasgow living on average 13 years less than those of our surrounding Kensington and Chelsea.

The central London street party will be leaving at 11am on Saturday the 26th from four different locations, highlighting four different areas that are being decimated by the government unnecessarily, to then convene on a secret location (see the UK uncut website for details). There will be a bloc representing the NHS, which is being turned into a machine for corporate profit by the NHS reforms whilst having cuts equivalent to the budgets of 40 large NHS hospitals. There is one for women, to highlight how the cuts are falling hardest on women, through higher unemployment, the closure of children’s services and crisis centres as well as benefit cuts.

The welfare group will leave from Waterloo to make a stand against the unprecedented welfare cuts. This is timely, with it leaking last week that Cameron is planning to magic an extra £25 billion pounds out of the already bare budget. The idea of attacking the welfare budget when there’s such high unemployment defies logic. How can people relinquish their “dependency” on welfare when there are simply no jobs to do so? People don’t seem to understand the alternative to welfare is mass starvation.

And finally the real democracy bloc will meet at parliament. The Tories promised during the election they would look after the NHS to then promptly start the process of ripping it apart days later; whilst not even allowing us to see the risk register detailing the travesty they will leave behind. Combined with this their unwillingness to engage in criticism through withdrawing legal aid and their avoidance of Freedom of Information requests whilst they take payments off big business and maintain cosy relationships with the corporate media mafia has lead to the true deficit being one in democracy.

This may not seem much to party about, but then that’s all the more reason to carnival with the idea of the society that we want. Poverty and inequality are not facts of society to which there is no alternative, but something people have changed before and will change again! And so I invite you to one of the four starting locations to join in standing up to the cuts. People will descend on the final secret location with games, comedy, food to share, a vision of the future not dependent on kicking the poorest the hardest, music and most importantly... bunting.

Comments (21 comments)

Post a comment

Felix Advertising Department

Thursday May 24 2012 22:48

Seeing as this 'Comment Piece' is essentially just an advert for this mediocre excuse for a party you're so desperately flogging, will UK Uncut being paying Felix the standard rate for advertising space?

Linear Combatant

Thursday May 24 2012 23:39

Communism is very naughty and shouldn't be welcome here.

Wild allegations about poverty and starvation are NOT conducive to productive debate. Nor is occupying private property and making a nasty mess. In future please restrict yourself to VALID commentary.

In short I must ask:

'Gehyrst þu, socialista, hwæt þis folc segeð?
Hi willað eow to gafole garas syllan,
ættrynne° ord° and ealde swurd,
þa heregeatu° þe eow æt hilde ne deah.'

That, to be blunt, is what I for one have to say to your Red-tinged demands that taxpayers' money be lavished on mollycoddling, boondoggles and other varieties of vote-buying. I feel sure many will stand arm-in-arm with me to holler a judicious 'NO THANK YOU'.

I call on the good King of Cats, Old King Colvine, to veto future articles which might perpetuate such socialist shenanigans - no more naughtiness PLEASE!

Simple economics

Friday May 25 2012 09:02

What I find particularly objectionable about this article is it bringing up the oft repeated, little understood, factually correct but meaningfully irrelevant fact that the wealth of the richest 1000 has increased over the last three years by 155 billion which is larger than the deficit. This little 'factoid' suggests this 155 billion if given to the government would be enough to pay off the deficit for roughly one year. HOORAY we cry, no need for these cuts after all! For one year that is, as the deficit happens every year and so having raided the rich by slapping a hypothetical 100% tax on the last three years of their wealth increase we would be faced with the prospect of the same deficit as the previous year would have had, but this time no means to fund it. And what with the fact the rich would be packing their bags to leave I imagine the govt finances would be rapidly worsening. So what then should be proposed? Tax hikes for everyone who is left?

Simple economics 2

Friday May 25 2012 09:04

What concerns me about the author therefore, is he either doesn't understand the simple difference between a deficit and a debt, i.e. 155 billion could pay off a 155 billion debt forever but it can only fund a yearly 155 billion deficit once, or he does understand the difference and is just using a phrase that has been going around the press and the internet which sounds like it means something but is ultimately irrelevant. I may as well just say the wealth increase by the richest 50 people each year for the last 100 years would be enough to pay off the deficit and it might well be true. The wealth increases of the richest x number of people in china over y number of years could probably pay off the UK deficit, but it wouldn't exactly be a helpful comment to make. Perhaps if he was arguing for some degree of an increase tax on such wealth accumulation the article might make more sense but that is the point that he makes.

Simple economics 3

Friday May 25 2012 09:04

In summary:

If he doesn't understand what a deficit and a debt is then perhaps he should find out and then decide if he truly agrees with UK uncut considering the crucial difference.

If he does understand, then perhaps he could stop parroting meaningless facts that don't actually add anything to arguments and serve only to manipulate people's views who may only consider them in passing and so take them at face value.

amendment

Friday May 25 2012 09:06

Last line of second one should actually read as follows:

Perhaps if he was arguing for some degree of an increased tax on such wealth accumulation the article might make more sense but that is not the point that he makes.

LouiseNorthwood

Friday May 25 2012 10:45

LOL! I love the way the people commenting above are so confident in their economic opinions that they have to remain anonymous...What a bunch of losers! Simple economics means that when there are food banks in your local neighbourhood because people cannot afford food then the economic system is bust. So I'll be joining the party tomorrow because by coming together we can stand up against these failing policies of this government.

Truthseer

Friday May 25 2012 11:10

Louise is right of course, the entire economy has collapsed. I remember the -99% contraction of 2010 and the return to subsistence agriculture for 99% of the population. Ah I can only barely remember the glory days of going to sainsburys for food rather than toiling under my feudal lord in the field all day long.

Its not great that we need to set up food banks, but its a bit much to pronounce the entire system bust. Any system that can deliver basics noodles for around 10-15p depending on the current price is surely not all bad.

It is also laughable that holding a party will stand up against the government's policies. Do protestors even know what is an effective protest anymore? You might as well do something more effective, like ask the unemployed to strike as a protest... OH WAIT, http://felixonline.co.uk/news/1826/why-im-striking/

Inbetwixter

Friday May 25 2012 11:59

@LouiseNorthwood: Aww **** Northwood is in the house now.

And shes just slagging off other commenters then going to a party?

Nuffink wrong with hiding behind a veil of anonymity, perhaps they want to avoid confrontations in person.

They Call Him BAWSS

Friday May 25 2012 12:25

@LouiseNorthwood: Which economic system would you suggest then?

I suppose you do have a valid point about food banks, in socialist economies people don't go without food. Stalin's rule over the Soviet Union, Mao's over China and the continued grasp of the Kim family in North Korea are well known examples of states in which no one goes hungry. Thank Mark those lucky nations have a nice big government to help everyone out!

I'd also note that 'Simple Economics' did, in fact, offer some economics: an objective analysis and critique of facts and the arguments supposedly based upon them. You, by very stark contrast, saw fit to offer only the oh so very insightful observation that 'in some places there are foodbanks'. What a thoughtful, substantiated and well-argued case you make.

It is because of a liberal capitalist economic system, combined with a sense of community and moral obligation to one's fellow man, that there are foodbanks at all, rather than the scourge of famine.

Lou Southforest

Friday May 25 2012 13:13

@LouiseNorthwood: I'm afraid I don't agree with you, Simple economics posted anonymously but what they said made sense.

You used your name but I'm not convinced that your comment shows merit, but we shall see, perhaps in ten years we shall live in a socialist utopia, looking back on the past in dazed confusion. But don't hold your breath.

Perhaps a physics analogy can explain what Simple economics was saying to our physics researcher author. The confusion is not helped by politicians misusing the words frequently. Prepare for a contrived example! I'll keep it just to Newtonian physics.

Consider a uniform sphere. It has a mass of 1, so force = (1 x) acceleration. Government spending is a force away from you, while government income is a force towards you. The deficit/surplus here is the acceleration resulting from the net force. Towards you is a surplus, away from you is a deficit. The debt however is the speed relative to you. If this contrived example can't explain it I don't know what will...

The SAVAGE CUTS Sword

Friday May 25 2012 13:29

I was made for Osborne, to cut funds already spent:
Friedman saw me,
Thatcher crafted me,
Cameron endorsed me,
Osborne wields me
So that spending shall not exceed revenue
For that is not fiscally viable.

Notorious Q.E.D.

Friday May 25 2012 13:58

@LouiseNorthwood: In what way are the Government's policies failing? The Government's stated mission is to make structural cuts to the existing levels of government spending in order to redress the egregious levels of irresponsible borrowing in which their predecessors indulged.

The country has not defaulted, nor even been downgraded. Given the chaos in Europe, and the downgrades of both infamously cash-splashing France and the mighty juggernaut of profligacy, the USA, this is an achievement without parallel in any other nation.

The Government should be applauded for its clear and consistent policy, and the resolve it has shown in the face of a few instances of vandalism (laughably justified as 'demonstrations' or 'protests') by ill-informed gangs made up, for the most part of stroppy children the the author of this article.

Fraser Waters

Friday May 25 2012 14:15

@The SAVAGE CUTS Sword: Not that Osborne using you very well, cuts one thing geyser of debt sprouts up elsewhere.

Osborne's Razor

Friday May 25 2012 14:19

@Fraser Waters: Cut
ALL
THE SPENDING!

The Cruellest Cat

Friday May 25 2012 16:34

This comment did not follow our commenting policy and has been rejected

Money, money, money

Friday May 25 2012 17:03

Hmm maybe in the next article spend less time advertising a party that'll be filled with an objectionable rabble with no solutions to problems and more time detailing a funded financial plan of how to close the deficit (by funding or cuts as you decide) or how to maintain the markets support in lending you the money you need to run an enormous deficit. I'm sure you must have all the talents you need to once and for all end poverty and inequality with your sure-to-succeed 'vision'.

Government spending isn't just public money, public money is taken in by taxation, the rest is someone else money they agree to lend you on the basis of the public's credit. What you and UK uncut probably don't understand is they aren't obliged to lend you it. Perhaps you'll propose punitive taxes on the rich and grabs of their money and wealth driving us back into an industrial dark age. Its almost worth wanting the government to change course just for people like you to see how terribly badly it would go.

The Pontiff of Punishment

Friday May 25 2012 18:16

'Anti-cuts street parties kick off'

'Kick off' is exactly right. Gather all these undesirables together in a public place (no doubt hooded and masked, re: Ms Northwood's critique of anonymity), knocking back a few cans of cheap lager and bellowing their uninspiring chants, and the result will be pandemonium. Shops will be smashed, passers by attacked, as they have been at all previous student 'protests'.

I can only hope the police will be on hand to offer swift and brutal justice, preferably in the form of a truncheon to the back of an unwashed head.

Fraser Waters

Sunday May 27 2012 01:29

@The Pontiff of Punishment: https://p.twimg.com/At0hER-CEAAY6ij.jpg
They look absolutely diabolical don't they.

Fraser Waters

Sunday May 27 2012 01:35

@Money, money, money: "What you and UK uncut probably don't understand is they aren't obliged to lend you it."
And we are not obliged to give financial institutions the right to expand the credit supply, the government could take back monopoly of credit expansion and print itself (as opposed to every bank in Europe) to liquidity.

Mo Money

Sunday May 27 2012 15:06

@Fraser Waters: We aren't obliged to do so at all, but would it be a sensible idea to completely upturn the financial system the economy is built on just to allow to government to spend as much money as it arbitrarily decides is needed and then fund whatever gap it comes up between the spending and what it bothers to collect in unpopular taxes?

Governments printing money for deficit funding would lead to madness. If you think inflation is bad at the moment imagine what it would be like under such a system. Considering that inflation is essentially a flat tax on everyone its not exactly a progressive policy.

Similarly to your point the government could take monopolies of pretty much every function of the economy if it wanted to. But I doubt such a policy would manage to maintain current GDP, let alone result in growth. In truth the government is sovereign and can do whatever it wants, its just the things it says it cant do are usually too mad to consider. Sometimes there are no easy answers.

Fraser Waters

Tuesday May 29 2012 10:45

@Mo Money: There are points in between allowing the Government to print what it wants and allowing banks to print what they want. Money has many forms, the current form may not be the best given the increasing difficulty nations are having. We've upturned entire fiscal and monitory systems before, maybe it's time to give it a think again, (especially given the fact that it's likely some very new cheep currencies are going to start developing in Europe given the continuing Euro mess).

Also your fears of inflationary printing are already here, go look at credit supply of the last 10 years private banks are equally as capable of being excessive.

Sometime there are no easy answers, but lets think of as many as we can, even the "mad" ones.

Comment anonymously or log in

Anonymous comments are moderated before appearing on the website. Comments posted while logged in appear immediately and are moderated later. Read our commenting policy for more information.

Commenting Policy

Felix is fully supportive of fierce and frank discussions. We will generally allow comments that are on-topic and avoid personal attacks; criticising someone's decision is allowed, criticising their weight, for example, is not.

Comments may be deleted/rejected if they:

  • are off-topic
  • contain ad-hominem attacks
  • are potentially libellous
  • use excessively foul language
  • are obviously spam

Email article

Post exams party against austerity
(Seperate multiple address with a comma)