Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"the UK is finished"

And Stephanie Flanders is back, with a blog, and it mostly sucks so far. Still the comments are fun, all sorts of people pointing out that some people did predict the collapse. Shame this sort of thing gives fuel to the Austrian School nutters:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/01/so_its_official_the_uk.html

Hilarious comments gang bang.

I think you'll find what Stephanie "private school/Oxbridge/Harvard/City/FT" Flanders means by "noone predicted this" means is "noone in my circles predicted this." To a lot of others, it was bloody obvious.

Flanders' father, Michael Flanders, died in 1975 when she was six years old. She went to St Paul's Girls' School and was a student at Balliol College, Oxford and Harvard University.
[edit]Early career

Flanders began her career as an economist at the London Business School and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. She then became a leader writer and columnist at the Financial Times from 1994.[3] She became a speechwriter and advisor to U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers in 1997, and joined the New York Times in 2001.[4]
[edit]Newsnight
 
One person who predicted it very, very clearly was Robin Ramsay in his book: "Prawn Cocktail: The Rise of New Labour", which starts with Heath abandoning capital controls, which lead to the IMF bailout, which Labour got blamed for and out of power for a generation and afraid of the City, to Thatcher's deregulation, to New Labour's abandonment of manufacturing or society at large in favour of the City in the 90s.

All in about 50 pages. Brilliant book.
 
I think saying that Britain is going to do a Weimar/ Nazi Germany is going abit too far , it won't get to that point.

Hummm .... I wouldn't be too sure.

I reckon we have a bit of a disease in this country, a disease that makes us think that nothing seriously bad will really ever happen to us as a nation, that bad things happen to Africans or Middle Easterners, maybe South Americans -- but never to us.

And this is probably because we have had, what?, sixty years where nothing particularly bad has happened -- no mass influenza outbreaks, no huge natural disasters, no serious civil conflicts, no harsh disruption of supply lines etc. And I think this has made people a bit naive, they don't honestly think anything bad could happen to them anymore.

I mean, we now have a generation of young voters that have never experienced a recession, half of whom have no GCSEs and a sixth of whom are functionally illiterate -- but that's by the bye.

Things can change really rapidly. Really rapidly. And our modern technological environment has actually made us, weirdly, more exposed.

One hundred years ago, if there's was a problem with a energy supply line, most people could still cook and heat their homes. That's probably true for even fifty years ago.

Now? The gas or electric goes down and a lot of people in the UK get very cold, very quickly. They are cut off from sources of information, advice etc. In urban centres, you are looking at, what?, twenty million people who would be largely isolated in their cold homes, unable to cook etc, cut off from social networks because the mobile runs out of charge, no internet, no TV, no radio and they no longer function as part of a wider self-organising empowered community.

So, in short, the capacity for panic in such a situation is larger and swifter than it would have been sixty years ago. And with panic comes a whole heap of fear and unsocialised behaviour.

To my mind, I can't see a right wing fascist Nazi-like movement growing out of such a situation in the UK. I think we'd go more Argentina, myself, in the first instance. But I do increasingly see the possibility of a 'middle class' revolution forming, that is a revolution of working people who earn from minimum wage up to about £40K a year -- ie. 90 percent of all earners in the UK, including the modal average of £13K pa -- who decide enough is enough.

And this is quite a big pool of people. Off the top of my head, I'd say 80 percent of private sector by that date, so maybe 15 million employed earners who would sympathise, with a quarter of public sector, so another one to two million there.

So call it 16 million sympathic ears out of a working age population of 40 million. And then add the repossessed and layoffs, you could get to maybe 18 million.

That's about, more or less one in three, or one in two, sympathetics in everyone aged between 18 and 65.

In the circumstances are right, that's enough for a 'regime change'. :)

Of course, it all depends what sort of people you get in power after your bloodless coup, but if the circumstances were right, you could end up in a 'new paradigm' that you actually had some element of sympathy and support for because you'd spent the last five years cold, hungry, unemployed, and any income you had being destroyed by hyper inflation, and you are desparate for any hope that 'things can only get better'. :D

Cue a weird political figure that completely remodels the country, and you end up with, say, no rights and no freedoms, but at least you can feed your kids again.

Until said figure announces he/she is about to invade Ireland.* :)

*I can probably come up with a set of economic and financial scenerios for that as well.
 
Thing is when you look at stuff like the Civil Contingencies Act, it's pretty clear that the govt is shitting itself about scenarios like the one you describe DJ, and intends to try to address them by heavy handed and undemocratic methods and no doubt while giving priority to elite interests above everybody elses.

On the other hand, the most promising hope for addressing such situations in a positive democratic and sustainable way is precisely the 'wider, self-organising empowered community' that you point out we mostly don't have anymore. So to my mind, an urgent priority is to start seeding the basis for such community.

See e.g. initiatives like http://www.transitiontowns.org/ (n.b. while the linked stuff was designed to address peak oil, their approach and particularly ways of seeding groups is potentially relevant to other 'contingencies')
 
Oh good a Police State...versus communities trying to work together while the Old Bill use Divide and Conquer tactics.
 
Hummm .... I wouldn't be too sure.

I reckon we have a bit of a disease in this country, a disease that makes us think that nothing seriously bad will really ever happen to us as a nation, that bad things happen to Africans or Middle Easterners, maybe South Americans -- but never to us.

And this is probably because we have had, what?, sixty years where nothing particularly bad has happened -- no mass influenza outbreaks, no huge natural disasters, no serious civil conflicts, no harsh disruption of supply lines etc. And I think this has made people a bit naive, they don't honestly think anything bad could happen to them anymore.

I mean, we now have a generation of young voters that have never experienced a recession, half of whom have no GCSEs and a sixth of whom are functionally illiterate -- but that's by the bye.

Things can change really rapidly. Really rapidly. And our modern technological environment has actually made us, weirdly, more exposed.

One hundred years ago, if there's was a problem with a energy supply line, most people could still cook and heat their homes. That's probably true for even fifty years ago.

Now? The gas or electric goes down and a lot of people in the UK get very cold, very quickly. They are cut off from sources of information, advice etc. In urban centres, you are looking at, what?, twenty million people who would be largely isolated in their cold homes, unable to cook etc, cut off from social networks because the mobile runs out of charge, no internet, no TV, no radio and they no longer function as part of a wider self-organising empowered community.

So, in short, the capacity for panic in such a situation is larger and swifter than it would have been sixty years ago. And with panic comes a whole heap of fear and unsocialised behaviour.

To my mind, I can't see a right wing fascist Nazi-like movement growing out of such a situation in the UK. I think we'd go more Argentina, myself, in the first instance. But I do increasingly see the possibility of a 'middle class' revolution forming, that is a revolution of working people who earn from minimum wage up to about £40K a year -- ie. 90 percent of all earners in the UK, including the modal average of £13K pa -- who decide enough is enough.

And this is quite a big pool of people. Off the top of my head, I'd say 80 percent of private sector by that date, so maybe 15 million employed earners who would sympathise, with a quarter of public sector, so another one to two million there.

So call it 16 million sympathic ears out of a working age population of 40 million. And then add the repossessed and layoffs, you could get to maybe 18 million.

That's about, more or less one in three, or one in two, sympathetics in everyone aged between 18 and 65.

In the circumstances are right, that's enough for a 'regime change'. :)

Of course, it all depends what sort of people you get in power after your bloodless coup, but if the circumstances were right, you could end up in a 'new paradigm' that you actually had some element of sympathy and support for because you'd spent the last five years cold, hungry, unemployed, and any income you had being destroyed by hyper inflation, and you are desparate for any hope that 'things can only get better'. :D

Cue a weird political figure that completely remodels the country, and you end up with, say, no rights and no freedoms, but at least you can feed your kids again.

Until said figure announces he/she is about to invade Ireland.* :)

*I can probably come up with a set of economic and financial scenerios for that as well.

What he said.

IIRR the Civil Contingencies Act permits any, repeat any, minister (ie, minister for fishing not just Jack Straw) to declare a civil emergency at which point the police and army have the power to seal off cities and shoot escapees.

I'm not kidding, by the way.
 
Of course, it all depends what sort of people you get in power after your bloodless coup, but if the circumstances were right, you could end up in a 'new paradigm' that you actually had some element of sympathy and support for because you'd spent the last five years cold, hungry, unemployed, and any income you had being destroyed by hyper inflation, and you are desparate for any hope that 'things can only get better'.

Cue a weird political figure that completely remodels the country, and you end up with, say, no rights and no freedoms, but at least you can feed your kids again.


This is exactly what Jeremy Seabrook was posting over ten years ago in the New Statesman, a populist on a white charger, however, we should remember such dystopian notions are not exactly new on the left.

on the point of civil unrest, Brown is said to be very worried about the youth riots in Greece, as are all G20 leaders, the programme of internships for graduates was seen as one response to this. I don't think he has to worry, shopping and drugs comes first with U.k youth, and then we have the STWC to divert any excess energies. If anything it will be the poverty that the welfare reforms may engender which will spark not civil unrest, but unfortunate inidividual attacks on civil servants, etc.
 
What he said.

IIRR the Civil Contingencies Act permits any, repeat any, minister (ie, minister for fishing not just Jack Straw) to declare a civil emergency

Only for 21 days. Extension beyond has to be by vote of Parliament.

However, the powers are indeed wide ranging and very powerful.
CCA 2004 said:
(3)
Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may—
(a)
confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24 or on any other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular, be—
(i)
a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
(ii)
a power to give directions or orders, whether written or oral);
(b)
provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);
(c)
provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);
(d)
prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;
(e)
require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;
(f)
prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;
(g)
prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
(h)
prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;
(i)
create an offence of—
(i)
failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
(ii)
failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the regulations;
(iii)
obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or by virtue of the regulations;
(j)
disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;
(k)
require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or compensation);
(l)
enable the Defence Council to authorise the deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(m)
make provision (which may include conferring powers in relation to property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(n)
confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal established by the regulations);
(o)
make provision which has effect in relation to, or to anything done in—
(i)
an area of the territorial sea,
(ii)
an area within British fishery limits, or
(iii)
an area of the continental shelf;
(p)
make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for a specified purpose;
(q)
make different provision for different circumstances or purposes.

But

CCA 2004 said:
(5)
Emergency regulations may not amend—
(a)
this Part of this Act, or
(b)
the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).

So that's ok then.
 
Interestingly, about the Human Rights Act?

There is few naughty little clauses under "right to life" which lays out when the State can legally kill.

One of them is to qwell a riot or revolution.

So if we ever found our Wat Tyler, he/she would be straight in marksman's sights before even leaving Trafalgar Square to walk down to Westminster.
 
This is exactly what Jeremy Seabrook was posting over ten years ago in the New Statesman, a populist on a white charger, however, we should remember such dystopian notions are not exactly new on the left.

on the point of civil unrest, Brown is said to be very worried about the youth riots in Greece, as are all G20 leaders, the programme of internships for graduates was seen as one response to this. I don't think he has to worry, shopping and drugs comes first with U.k youth, and then we have the STWC to divert any excess energies. If anything it will be the poverty that the welfare reforms may engender which will spark not civil unrest, but unfortunate inidividual attacks on civil servants, etc.

TL,

It's not youths he needs to worry about. It's the age group between about 24 and 40. The young doctors who've come out of years of medical school, who can't find positions; and if they can, can't afford to live in a reasonable house. The 30-somethings who can only find short term admin contract work year after year, and can see no hope of ever earning over £16K a year, while the baby boomers around them drive MEWed Porsche Cayennes and fleece them on BTL rent.

I think government has got away with the situation for so long because so many people in the last ten years in this age group, who faced these types of economic and financial strains have emigrated. They have just walked -- the EU has made it easier etc.

When I look back to the people I knew in my early 20s, about 75 percent of my close friends have gone -- and newer younger friends are making the same decision today.

There really is no future for a lot of young people in the UK today.

*fk, this all makes me so angry*.
 
TL,

It's not youths he needs to worry about. It's the age group between about 24 and 40. The young doctors who've come out of years of medical school, who can't find positions; and if they can, can't afford to live in a reasonable house. The 30-somethings who can only find short term admin contract work year after year, and can see no hope of ever earning over £16K a year, while the baby boomers around them drive MEWed Porsche Cayennes and fleece them on BTL rent.

I think government has got away with the situation for so long because so many people in the last ten years in this age group, who faced these types of economic and financial strains have emigrated. They have just walked -- the EU has made it easier etc.

When I look back to the people I knew in my early 20s, about 75 percent of my close friends have gone -- and newer younger friends are making the same decision today.

There really is no future for a lot of young people in the UK today.

*fk, this all makes me so angry*.

Happily I saw all this coming and chose not to have any aspirations towards wealth, or even financial security. And still my quote unquote loved ones have the gall to be disappointed in me for not buying into the lifestyle they expected me to have. Because I always did well in my exams (blind recall of facts isn't very difficult ffs) it's always been assumed that I was destined for great things, whatever they may be, but no-one ever thought that perhaps my intelligence* makes it easier for me to see just how hollow and improbable those vicarious aspirations are. Still I feel more sympathy for those of my generation who do (did) expect so much more than they're ever likely to get, and who worked hard for those things in good faith, than I do for myself. I'm mostly optimistic that we now have an excellent opportunity to rearrange our priorities for the better, and to abandon our unrequited love for that gruesome avatar of destruction known as 'the economy'.

Quand tout est perdu, puis on peut commencer.

*Relative to other people in my family that is. This forum regularly reminds me that I can actually be pretty stupid a lot of the time.
 
Happily I saw all this coming and chose not to have any aspirations towards wealth, or even financial security. And still my quote unquote loved ones have the gall to be disappointed in me for not buying into the lifestyle they expected me to have. Because I always did well in my exams (blind recall of facts isn't very difficult ffs) it's always been assumed that I was destined for great things, whatever they may be, but no-one ever thought that perhaps my intelligence* makes it easier for me to see just how hollow and improbable those vicarious aspirations are. Still I feel more sympathy for those of my generation who do (did) expect so much more than they're ever likely to get, and who worked hard for those things in good faith, than I do for myself. I'm mostly optimistic that we now have an excellent opportunity to rearrange our priorities for the better, and to abandon our unrequited love for that gruesome avatar of destruction known as 'the economy'.

Quand tout est perdu, puis on peut commencer.

*Relative to other people in my family that is. This forum regularly reminds me that I can actually be pretty stupid a lot of the time.

Innit.

I remember reading some diagram about how to set booby traps on side roads in some Earth First! manual years ago, which had some sort of disclaimer; "of course, this looks pretty extreme....but when the shit hits the fan, you'd be suprised how many ex-revolutionaries come out of the woodwork."

I believe that.
 
Happily I saw all this coming and chose not to have any aspirations towards wealth, or even financial security. And still my quote unquote loved ones have the gall to be disappointed in me for not buying into the lifestyle they expected me to have. Because I always did well in my exams (blind recall of facts isn't very difficult ffs) it's always been assumed that I was destined for great things, whatever they may be, but no-one ever thought that perhaps my intelligence* makes it easier for me to see just how hollow and improbable those vicarious aspirations are. Still I feel more sympathy for those of my generation who do (did) expect so much more than they're ever likely to get, and who worked hard for those things in good faith, than I do for myself. I'm mostly optimistic that we now have an excellent opportunity to rearrange our priorities for the better, and to abandon our unrequited love for that gruesome avatar of destruction known as 'the economy'.

Quand tout est perdu, puis on peut commencer.

*Relative to other people in my family that is. This forum regularly reminds me that I can actually be pretty stupid a lot of the time.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.
I dropped out of the rat race years ago. Having seen a number of friends not even make it to 40, I decided to take my retirement early! I could see that even if I lived long enough, I would never get a pension that would be enough to live on, if I got any pension at all. Family and colleagues thought I'd completely lost the plot. Sadly for them, they now realise I was right.

There are going to be a lot of very angry "middle class" / "middle Englanders", who believed the the lies they were told and bought into the system - a system which had no future. I don't think these folk, who made sacrifices and worked hard for the perceived security of the great consumer life, are going to just let their homes and cars get repossessed and watch their lives fall apart. I think it's going to get quite ugly, probably sooner than people expect.
:eek: :(
 
Back
Top Bottom