The collapse of Carillion exposes the “recklessness, hubris and greed” at the core of a system that has one goal, syphon public money in to private pockets.


Writing's a fight and this boy needs a battle
News outlet.
This is a really disturbing report. We are sleepwalking into the digital panopticon. As the panopticon gains strength our behaviour will be streamlined to fit the algorithm of efficiency, obedience and subordination. Descent will be excised, creating a society of compliant drones. This is the workforce being automated.

This article in The Guardian asserts that “Knife and gun crime has surged in England and Wales, but the causes and solutions are unclear”. I don’t think the causes are unclear. The blame rests firmly at the feet of the Conservative Party and their policy of austerity.

Austerity has meant local authority budgets have been slashed, cutting support for all kinds of social programmes, there to help “at risk” kids stay out of trouble. Even something as simple as a youth club can provide early interventions, offering support to young people, and stop them getting involved in crime.
Those who think the causes are unclear should look at the work of Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner in their 2005 book Freakonomics. They argue access to abortions in the USA in the 1970’s reduced the crime rates in the 1990’s.
Crime rates in the 1990s came down because there were fewer unwanted pregnancies in the seventies and eighties. Women who felt they were not ready to care for a child, were able to terminate the pregnancy.
Apply that same logic to the rise in instances of gun and knife crime in the UK. The Home Office blames “changes in the nature of drug sales and use, highlighting crack cocaine, social media and music glamorising violence as among the issues fuelling the problem”.
I’m going to say that drug sales, social media, and music, are not the cause of the problem but a consequence. Austerity is the cause.
Ten years ago austerity started to remove support for youth programmes.
We now have a rise in gun and knife crime.
Is it really that hard to see the link?
Carole Chadwalladr’s piece in The Guardian outlines “what increasingly looks like a cover-up”.
It sounds to me like laws have been broken, that the outcome of the referendum was manipulated, allowing leave to win.
I’d argue for a pause to Brexit proceedings until the truth can be clarified. It also raises the question, is this scandal cause enough to demand a second referendum?
The media is awash with stories from the Paradise Papers, a cache of 13.4m leaked files exposing measures taken by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals, to minimise their tax liabilities.

The Guardian’s article highlights the extent of the problem that allows “Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people”.
Another example exposes “A previously unknown $450m offshore trust that has sheltered the wealth of Lord Ashcroft”.
Another highlights “Aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, including Nike and Apple”.
All of the examples in this article, and the many more in the Paradise Papers, expose one thing, the extent to which wealth insulates itself against taxation.
I think tax is the price you pay to live in a civilised society. If you want to do business in any country, you should pay tax in that country. Tax pays for the infrastructure that allows you, as a company or an individual, to make a profit.
If there’s no tax income, there’s no schools to educate your workforce, no roads to transport your goods, no healthcare for the consumers of your services. If you do not pay your fair share, you have no right to agency in that society, and no right to profit.
The real problem exposed in the Paradise Papers is the low tax territories that allow the wealthiest to move their money into off-shore accounts or trusts or businesses.
For me the only solution to this kind of behaviour is a single rate of tax, all over the world, no matter the territory you are in. The only way to stop wealth being moved to low tax territories is to remove low tax territories. I know this won’t happen. I have no faith that anyone will do anything to curb these aggressive tax avoidance schemes. The political will just isn’t there, the vested interests are too powerful.
But a single worldwide tax rate is the logical extension of the multinational business. If multinationals trade internationally why not make them pay an international tax rate. If rich individuals live internationally, why shouldn’t they pay an international tax rate.
That would close the loophole allowing low tax territories to exist in the first place. What’s the point of moving your money if there is no benefit to this slight of hand.
Just a thought.
This article in The Guardian reports there are 1,652 properties listed as unoccupied in Kensington and Chelsea.
That’s 1652 properties that could be used, not as an investment, but as homes.

(This map shows London’s 20,000 empty homes: Time Out: May 10 2017)
It is estimated there are twenty thousand “ghost” homes across London. That is twenty thousand properties that could be a home to someone.
That is an outrage.
There are many reasons for this, not least because interest rates have been kept at ridiculously low levels since the 2008 crash. Those who have money, have been buying property because it gives them a return. This nugget of information was given to me by the estate agent who sold the flat we rented, when our landlord wanted to sell. Throw into this mix foreign nationals, encouraged by UK based estate agents to buy as an investment, and you have a deepening crisis.
Most people, even those on above average incomes, are priced out of the market.
There are a couple of thing that could be done to stop this kind of hoarding. Interest rates could be increased so those with assets get a decent return on their money. This might force the prices down so hoarding brings less of a return. If interest rates went up, some of those who’ve benefited from historically low interest rates would not be able to afford their mortgage, properties would be repossessed, releasing property into the market, forcing prices down.
This brings with it a whole level of misery I wouldn’t wish on anyone. I also don’t think it would have the desired outcome. I suspect the repossessed properties would be swallowed up by those with pockets deep enough to speculate.
The other strategy is more radicle. The fist half involves extending the rights of private tenants. We need laws that give renters long term leases. Not six or twelve months but five or ten years. People need that kind of stability in their lives. These long term leases also need to come with rent controls. The second half of this strategy is to force the owners of all property that sits empty to become landlords. Your property sits empty for more than six months, you have to rent it out, on a long term lease, at rent controlled prices. Investors will either sell their property because they don’t want to be landlords, or the properties would be used as they were intended, as homes for people to live in.
I can just feel the vitriol coming my way, but the neoliberal market is broken, and we need radicle solutions. These are about as radical a way to home people as I can think. Yes build more affordable homes but also put the stocks we have to better use.
You must be logged in to post a comment.