Long, long time ago, in a galaxy not so far away, Murdoch extended his media empire to cover the Sun, the Sky, and much else besides.
He had a simple vision: rich and powerful people like him would be praised, poor and vulnerable people like the jobless and refugees would be condemned, and any politician who doesn’t support him would be vilified. One part of his empire was even known for hacking into the phones of public figures, including politicians, to dig up information which could be used against them.
But many were beginning to get fed up with the imperious arrogance of the emperor, and when he plotted to take even greater control of the few media outlets outside his clutches, an opposition was formed to stop him. It could be a new dawn – people might once again find truth in the media and not be battered by the insidious propaganda onslaught launched by Murdoch and his henchmen.
Alas, Cameron has come to the emperor’s rescue. A great admirer of Murdoch’s vision of the world, he learnt from the master by hiring one of his most trusted lieutenants, the one who presided over the phone-hacking division of the empire, and then met with the emperor’s son to talk about what would be in their mutual interest to discuss (we cannot tell you what exactly they discussed because in case evidence should come forth about any gross impropriety, Cameron has refused to disclose the contents of their conversation ahead of the Government’s decision to refer or not Murdoch’s latest takeover bid to the Competition Commission).
Now all the promise of halting Murdoch’s latest bid to expand his media empire even further, of giving it scrutiny and tight controls, has vanished. There will be no referral to the Competition Commission. Murdoch, with Cameron’s connivance, can do whatever he wants. In return, Murdoch’s media will no doubt praise Cameron to the sky.
The only ‘concession’ is that while Murdoch will continue to fund Sky News, he would not be ‘personally’ directing its editorial policy. Sky News will tell its audience whatever it wants to regardless of its paymaster. Cameron is very satisfied with this. It is a very good step forward for everyone. If you don’t believe it, you can tune into Sky News, or read the Sun, or the News of the World, or if you want to follow the story about why pigs can fly thanks to the latest Republican Party policies, there’s always Fox News.
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Thursday, 10 February 2011
SOS: Save Our NHS
Are you aware of the Government’s plan to turn our NHS into a marketplace for profit, where your health needs and those of your family will increasingly be buried deep under contracts and deals involving private businesses whose prime concern is to make money? If more money is to be made from someone else, you might just find yourself slipping further towards the back of the queue.
The Conservatives said they would protect the NHS and claimed explicitly that under their watch, to avoid any unnecessary chaos, there would be “no more top down reorganisations”. But the Health & Social Care Bill, now being pushed through Parliament by the Conservative Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, would pile on a vast amount of extra management and financial responsibilities on groups of hard pressed GPs, deflecting them from giving the best care possible to their patients.
What’s more, in addition to bringing about unnecessary chaos, creating another centralised Quango, and wasting public money on management consultants, this Bill would ‘open up’ the NHS as a giant market for profit-driven businesses to exploit for their own gains. It’s no secret that Lansley was “bankrolled by the head of one of the biggest private health providers to the NHS” (as reported by the Daily Telegraph, 14 Jan 2010). Now these private companies could be given unprecedented opportunities to make money out of the NHS.
Lansley’s Bill would establish that the first and foremost duty of the health service regulator is to “promote competition”. It could provide extra incentives to bring new private operators into a market by insisting that GPs pay them a preferential price. Private companies would in turn be allowed to offer “loss leaders” to gain a foothold in the market before squeezing out not-for-profit NHS providers.
If Lansley gets his way, the current cap on the amount of private healthcare work an NHS trust can take on would be removed. Forced to compete with private businesses in making money to survive, more and more NHS trusts, staffed by doctors and nurses trained through the public purse, would have to look to increasing their income by prioritising private patients. They would also have to get business consultants in to help them make more money in the market system.
The Government has already given the go-ahead for NHS money to be spent on “commissioning support” from organisations such as United Healthcare (an American multinational) and management consultants KPMG. It also wants any surplus generated by NHS trusts to be available to pay out to GPs as bonuses instead of it being all ploughed back into patient care. This is at a time when the NHS budget already cannot even keep pace with inflation, and without any plan for reinvestment in the near future to build up the NHS, the new market system will determine which patient will lose out.
What Lansley has in store for us is nothing short of the profitisation of the NHS. If you’re not happy with this development, you should ask your local MP what their position is in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill. Their response should inform how you vote come the next election, which may happen sooner rather than later if the Government refuses to change the course of this stealth bomber against the NHS.
The Conservatives said they would protect the NHS and claimed explicitly that under their watch, to avoid any unnecessary chaos, there would be “no more top down reorganisations”. But the Health & Social Care Bill, now being pushed through Parliament by the Conservative Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, would pile on a vast amount of extra management and financial responsibilities on groups of hard pressed GPs, deflecting them from giving the best care possible to their patients.
What’s more, in addition to bringing about unnecessary chaos, creating another centralised Quango, and wasting public money on management consultants, this Bill would ‘open up’ the NHS as a giant market for profit-driven businesses to exploit for their own gains. It’s no secret that Lansley was “bankrolled by the head of one of the biggest private health providers to the NHS” (as reported by the Daily Telegraph, 14 Jan 2010). Now these private companies could be given unprecedented opportunities to make money out of the NHS.
Lansley’s Bill would establish that the first and foremost duty of the health service regulator is to “promote competition”. It could provide extra incentives to bring new private operators into a market by insisting that GPs pay them a preferential price. Private companies would in turn be allowed to offer “loss leaders” to gain a foothold in the market before squeezing out not-for-profit NHS providers.
If Lansley gets his way, the current cap on the amount of private healthcare work an NHS trust can take on would be removed. Forced to compete with private businesses in making money to survive, more and more NHS trusts, staffed by doctors and nurses trained through the public purse, would have to look to increasing their income by prioritising private patients. They would also have to get business consultants in to help them make more money in the market system.
The Government has already given the go-ahead for NHS money to be spent on “commissioning support” from organisations such as United Healthcare (an American multinational) and management consultants KPMG. It also wants any surplus generated by NHS trusts to be available to pay out to GPs as bonuses instead of it being all ploughed back into patient care. This is at a time when the NHS budget already cannot even keep pace with inflation, and without any plan for reinvestment in the near future to build up the NHS, the new market system will determine which patient will lose out.
What Lansley has in store for us is nothing short of the profitisation of the NHS. If you’re not happy with this development, you should ask your local MP what their position is in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill. Their response should inform how you vote come the next election, which may happen sooner rather than later if the Government refuses to change the course of this stealth bomber against the NHS.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Beyond the Matrix
The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. It’s a make belief world in which everything works perfectly without any need for regulation or publicly funded services. In this world, there is not a budget deficit because a previous government had to spend billions to protect savers, the economy and jobs when irresponsible bankers gambled away so much of other people’s money that they were at risk of going under and taking everyone else with them.
No, in the Matrix, it is not the deregulated bankers but the old wicked government which caused all the problems – squandering money on helping the sick, supporting the poor, nurturing the young, comforting the old, investing in jobs and preventing economic meltdown.
To protect the reign of the profit-makers, renegade champions of the common good (teachers, nurses, community development workers, or anyone with a name like Neo) are hunted down, privatised, and made to serve commercial masters. Public services will wither away, and every aspect of life will just get better and better in this big fat fabricated society.
But the Matrix can only be sustained by the false consciousness created by those who want us to remain subservient to the corporate machine. If you look carefully at this so-called reality where public value must be relentlessly sacrificed for private gains, you will begin to see the cracks appearing in their lies.
Of course it is in their interest to stop you scrutinising their dodgy projections. They want you to believe that there is no alternative, that everything will fall apart if they do not slash the life out of the public sector. They want you to accept without reservation that the only way forward is to count on the mercies of rich executives and beg for private charities.
And do you believe them?
As an old friend once said, the choice is simple. You take the blue option – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red option – you join us in seeing the Matrix for what it truly is, a monstrous deception that must be exposed and eradicated.
This is your last chance. Pledge your vote to those who will end this charade. And get others to do the same. Time is running out. There is no turning back.
No, in the Matrix, it is not the deregulated bankers but the old wicked government which caused all the problems – squandering money on helping the sick, supporting the poor, nurturing the young, comforting the old, investing in jobs and preventing economic meltdown.
To protect the reign of the profit-makers, renegade champions of the common good (teachers, nurses, community development workers, or anyone with a name like Neo) are hunted down, privatised, and made to serve commercial masters. Public services will wither away, and every aspect of life will just get better and better in this big fat fabricated society.
But the Matrix can only be sustained by the false consciousness created by those who want us to remain subservient to the corporate machine. If you look carefully at this so-called reality where public value must be relentlessly sacrificed for private gains, you will begin to see the cracks appearing in their lies.
Of course it is in their interest to stop you scrutinising their dodgy projections. They want you to believe that there is no alternative, that everything will fall apart if they do not slash the life out of the public sector. They want you to accept without reservation that the only way forward is to count on the mercies of rich executives and beg for private charities.
And do you believe them?
As an old friend once said, the choice is simple. You take the blue option – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red option – you join us in seeing the Matrix for what it truly is, a monstrous deception that must be exposed and eradicated.
This is your last chance. Pledge your vote to those who will end this charade. And get others to do the same. Time is running out. There is no turning back.
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Our Bacon Needs Saving
For anyone keen to debate what key historical dates and figures we should all learn about, one great thinker deserves the most serious consideration – Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, pioneer of experimentalist philosophy, author of ‘The Advancement of Learning’ which inspired the founding of the Royal Society (for science) and the progressive outlook of the Enlightenment movement, and the earliest political figure to champion state-funded research and education.
Born 450 years ago today (22 January 1561), Bacon was a pivotal figure in challenging the dominant attitude of his times which insisted that a few authoritative figures in the establishment (the church, universities, or the royal court) could be left to determine what everyone else must believe. Instead, he put forward the revolutionary idea that knowledge could only be pursued through the continuous questioning, experimenting and reviewing of evidence, involving all who could contribute their testimony and critical reflections to test the robustness of any claim made.
Through his extensive writings, Bacon made the case that dogmatic assertions of ‘facts and figures’ were flawed because they were inherently unreliable. If society would not embrace systematic investigation and experimental testing to build up a body of knowledge which could always be further revised and improved in the light of future evidence, he argued, we would be stuck with dubious beliefs which were at best useless, or at worst dangerously misleading.
Although King James I, whom he loyally served as Chancellor, dismissed his ideas, reformists of subsequent generations followed Bacon’s lead and moved British, European, and ultimately global culture away from the grip of arbitrary dogmas towards a far greater reliance on experimentally grounded learning, supported by a sustained investment of collective resources to raise the quality of research and the accessibility of education.
However, after nearly four centuries of progress, resistance is increasingly being mounted by many who could see their interests served by shielding particular dogmas from empirical criticisms. Plutocrats, who want their profit-making to trump all else, are backing the cut back of public investment in the advancement of objective knowledge. It would leave them to propagate their own claims in defence of how their socially irresponsible actions would have no detrimental impact at all on the environment, people’s health, economic stability, or the vitality of family and community life. As educators are faced with reduced resources to carry out impartial research, while the public have to bear increased burdens to acquire the skills to learn and question, the Baconian maxim of ‘Knowledge is Power’ is being turned on its head – disempower citizens by depriving them of real knowledge.
Political and business leaders who value the cultivation of unbiased knowledge for the wellbeing of society should unite to reverse this trend. More, not less, private funding should be channeled through the state to public research and educational institutions with no strings attached, save the fulfilment by the latter of the commitment to expand our shared knowledge through the most vigorous and objective examination, and learning opportunities open to all regardless of their socio-economic status.
Born 450 years ago today (22 January 1561), Bacon was a pivotal figure in challenging the dominant attitude of his times which insisted that a few authoritative figures in the establishment (the church, universities, or the royal court) could be left to determine what everyone else must believe. Instead, he put forward the revolutionary idea that knowledge could only be pursued through the continuous questioning, experimenting and reviewing of evidence, involving all who could contribute their testimony and critical reflections to test the robustness of any claim made.
Through his extensive writings, Bacon made the case that dogmatic assertions of ‘facts and figures’ were flawed because they were inherently unreliable. If society would not embrace systematic investigation and experimental testing to build up a body of knowledge which could always be further revised and improved in the light of future evidence, he argued, we would be stuck with dubious beliefs which were at best useless, or at worst dangerously misleading.
Although King James I, whom he loyally served as Chancellor, dismissed his ideas, reformists of subsequent generations followed Bacon’s lead and moved British, European, and ultimately global culture away from the grip of arbitrary dogmas towards a far greater reliance on experimentally grounded learning, supported by a sustained investment of collective resources to raise the quality of research and the accessibility of education.
However, after nearly four centuries of progress, resistance is increasingly being mounted by many who could see their interests served by shielding particular dogmas from empirical criticisms. Plutocrats, who want their profit-making to trump all else, are backing the cut back of public investment in the advancement of objective knowledge. It would leave them to propagate their own claims in defence of how their socially irresponsible actions would have no detrimental impact at all on the environment, people’s health, economic stability, or the vitality of family and community life. As educators are faced with reduced resources to carry out impartial research, while the public have to bear increased burdens to acquire the skills to learn and question, the Baconian maxim of ‘Knowledge is Power’ is being turned on its head – disempower citizens by depriving them of real knowledge.
Political and business leaders who value the cultivation of unbiased knowledge for the wellbeing of society should unite to reverse this trend. More, not less, private funding should be channeled through the state to public research and educational institutions with no strings attached, save the fulfilment by the latter of the commitment to expand our shared knowledge through the most vigorous and objective examination, and learning opportunities open to all regardless of their socio-economic status.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Deep Freeze Alert
In the last few years, a pair of frogs had chosen the pond behind our house as their annual breeding ground. But there’s not going to be any happy new year for them in 2011. Last December, the pair went into the pond, assuming perhaps they would once again secure their favourite location ahead of spring’s arrival. Unfortunately, with their insensitivity to gradual changes in temperature, the two frogs stayed put in the water as it cooled degree by degree, until they were literally frozen to death.
Are we going to be any better at spotting and dealing with imminent danger? As the civic temperature continues to fall around us, why do the majority of people still look on passively, seemingly unaware that the collective infrastructure, which has taken decades to build up to protect us, is now at risk of disintegration?
Every gauge of the conditions for public wellbeing is showing an alarming drop. Job security is plummeting; the safety net for the vulnerable is lowered and made less effective in cushioning those in freefall; privatized utilities (from energy to railways) deliver less value for much higher charges; all public funding for university teaching (except for a small minority of science subjects) has vanished; the provision of not-for-profit health service is not keeping pace with growing demands; and people seeking to redress unjust treatment are increasingly left to their own impoverished devices.
Perhaps some people don’t yet connect the signs of deterioration with a sense of personal peril. They see and hear about radical changes in the abstract, but think that they would somehow escape unscathed. Others may recognise the threat against them and their communities, but are numbed by the assumption that there is nothing they could do about any of it. What is certain, however, is that if we remain adrift in a state of inaction, life for those of us outside the privileged realm of the corporate elite is going to get very bad indeed.
So while we still have the chance, let’s make this our collective resolution for 2011. We are not to let fear or apathy overwhelm us. Spread the word, sound the alarm, and unite in defence of our common good. It’s time we raise the temperature.
Are we going to be any better at spotting and dealing with imminent danger? As the civic temperature continues to fall around us, why do the majority of people still look on passively, seemingly unaware that the collective infrastructure, which has taken decades to build up to protect us, is now at risk of disintegration?
Every gauge of the conditions for public wellbeing is showing an alarming drop. Job security is plummeting; the safety net for the vulnerable is lowered and made less effective in cushioning those in freefall; privatized utilities (from energy to railways) deliver less value for much higher charges; all public funding for university teaching (except for a small minority of science subjects) has vanished; the provision of not-for-profit health service is not keeping pace with growing demands; and people seeking to redress unjust treatment are increasingly left to their own impoverished devices.
Perhaps some people don’t yet connect the signs of deterioration with a sense of personal peril. They see and hear about radical changes in the abstract, but think that they would somehow escape unscathed. Others may recognise the threat against them and their communities, but are numbed by the assumption that there is nothing they could do about any of it. What is certain, however, is that if we remain adrift in a state of inaction, life for those of us outside the privileged realm of the corporate elite is going to get very bad indeed.
So while we still have the chance, let’s make this our collective resolution for 2011. We are not to let fear or apathy overwhelm us. Spread the word, sound the alarm, and unite in defence of our common good. It’s time we raise the temperature.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
An Interview with 'Father Christmas'
Q: Sir Reginald, you’re one of the most celebrated entrepreneurs and philanthropists in the world. Your renowned generosity has led your friends in the City to call you ‘Father Christmas’. That must make you proud?
R: Well, we should all do what we can. I haven’t given that much. On the latest count, maybe I’ve given about £40 million to charities.
Q: That’s a huge sum. Some have estimated that to be almost 0.005% of your personal fortune.
R: Yes, I think my children sometimes worry that I’m getting too generous. But how many more mansions and companies can I buy them! It’s so important to think about other people. When I look at my vast art collection, for example, I don’t think about myself, I think about the people who might be deprived of a chance to view these masterpieces. So I’ve donated millions to galleries and museums to enable them to display my precious collection to the masses.
Q: And you give substantial sums to political parties too?
R: ‘Parties’, as you rightly noted, not ‘party’. I’m totally non-partisan. Political parties seek to gain power to run our country, and I give them the support they need to do that well.
Q: Isn’t it true that in return your tax bill has been drastically reduced under all the different governments?
R: Not just my tax bill, all my friends have had to pay less tax as well, and most of them haven’t donated a penny to any political party. So once again, others benefit from my generosity, which is fine by me.
Q: Your giving is not limited to this country either, is it?
R: I’m a complete cosmopolitan. We live in a splendidly inter-connected world. And I give to countless overseas projects.
Q: Like the one with the princes in the Middle East where your gifts helped them build up the world’s finest fleet of Rolls Royce cars?
R: Absolutely, and in return, we got a contract for supplying their government with some of the deadliest weapons in the world. I’m very proud of contributing so much to the peace and stability of this volatile region.
Q: Finally, Sir Reginald, what about the people who work for you? What are you most proud of in giving to them?
R: So many things come to mind. I give them all a good income. Some of them complain it’s not enough to live on, but what do they know about the cost of living! They should try the upkeep I have to cope with. I give them a straightforward working environment, with none of these health and safety complications tripping everyone up every second of the day. But above all, I give them that rare opportunity – to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, because every quarter to increase our overall profitability and share values, I give a good number of them the sack.
Q: That must be quite hard to do?
R: You’ve got to think about the big picture. The more people I make unemployed, the lower the pressure is on wage demands. That keeps inflation down, which helps the economy, and all my friends are happy.
Q: No wonder they call you Father Christmas.
R: Well, we should all do what we can. I haven’t given that much. On the latest count, maybe I’ve given about £40 million to charities.
Q: That’s a huge sum. Some have estimated that to be almost 0.005% of your personal fortune.
R: Yes, I think my children sometimes worry that I’m getting too generous. But how many more mansions and companies can I buy them! It’s so important to think about other people. When I look at my vast art collection, for example, I don’t think about myself, I think about the people who might be deprived of a chance to view these masterpieces. So I’ve donated millions to galleries and museums to enable them to display my precious collection to the masses.
Q: And you give substantial sums to political parties too?
R: ‘Parties’, as you rightly noted, not ‘party’. I’m totally non-partisan. Political parties seek to gain power to run our country, and I give them the support they need to do that well.
Q: Isn’t it true that in return your tax bill has been drastically reduced under all the different governments?
R: Not just my tax bill, all my friends have had to pay less tax as well, and most of them haven’t donated a penny to any political party. So once again, others benefit from my generosity, which is fine by me.
Q: Your giving is not limited to this country either, is it?
R: I’m a complete cosmopolitan. We live in a splendidly inter-connected world. And I give to countless overseas projects.
Q: Like the one with the princes in the Middle East where your gifts helped them build up the world’s finest fleet of Rolls Royce cars?
R: Absolutely, and in return, we got a contract for supplying their government with some of the deadliest weapons in the world. I’m very proud of contributing so much to the peace and stability of this volatile region.
Q: Finally, Sir Reginald, what about the people who work for you? What are you most proud of in giving to them?
R: So many things come to mind. I give them all a good income. Some of them complain it’s not enough to live on, but what do they know about the cost of living! They should try the upkeep I have to cope with. I give them a straightforward working environment, with none of these health and safety complications tripping everyone up every second of the day. But above all, I give them that rare opportunity – to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, because every quarter to increase our overall profitability and share values, I give a good number of them the sack.
Q: That must be quite hard to do?
R: You’ve got to think about the big picture. The more people I make unemployed, the lower the pressure is on wage demands. That keeps inflation down, which helps the economy, and all my friends are happy.
Q: No wonder they call you Father Christmas.
Monday, 1 November 2010
On Strikers and Own Goals
Strikers attract headlines. They are a focused and determined bunch. Nothing will deflect them from their goal – scoring in a cup final, smashing home that last minute equaliser, or moaning about one’s club to get one’s pay doubled.
The trouble is when you need them to help you defend your vulnerable position, their impetuosity could cost you a few serious own goals.
Public services are going to be drastically cut back. There will be reductions to the level of support for people, old and young, who would not otherwise be helped; to the number of jobs needed by families and communities; to the resources required for maintaining a basic decent quality of life.
For some, the time has come to bring on the strikers. This would get everyone’s attention, they say. They will score against the opposition, for sure. But how do they think they will actually achieve that. Have they really got a coherent strategy? Have they thought through their tactics?
It has to be said that in these kinds of clashes, the strikers don’t exactly have an enviable track record. They tend to come on and draw attention to the widespread inconvenience they will cause, and away from the problems heaped on society.
That’s 0-1 down.
Every strike from then on, far from raising awareness of the consequences of cuts to jobs and services, just strengthens the hand of those who present themselves as the true custodian of the public good, standing firm against reckless strike action.
That’s 0-2 down.
As the contest goes on, if the strikes continue, the public loses patience completely with what they see as purely self-interested actions, and throws its support behind the shrinking of public provisions, with little sympathy left for those who try to resist it.
That’s 0-3 and the final whistle.
Of course, under the right circumstances, strikes could deliver for social justice. They’ve even made a film - 'Made in Dagenham' – celebrating how strikes helped to further the cause of equal pay for women. But horses for courses, and blind deployment of strikers would just lose everyone the one match they desperately need to win.
Some may say that unless one has a better suggestion, striking is the only way forward. But we don’t always have to know the right solution to be sure what would be a very wrong answer. I have no idea how to carry out brain surgery to help someone regain consciousness, but I have no doubt that you’re not going to bring someone out of a coma by cutting off his head.
The trouble is when you need them to help you defend your vulnerable position, their impetuosity could cost you a few serious own goals.
Public services are going to be drastically cut back. There will be reductions to the level of support for people, old and young, who would not otherwise be helped; to the number of jobs needed by families and communities; to the resources required for maintaining a basic decent quality of life.
For some, the time has come to bring on the strikers. This would get everyone’s attention, they say. They will score against the opposition, for sure. But how do they think they will actually achieve that. Have they really got a coherent strategy? Have they thought through their tactics?
It has to be said that in these kinds of clashes, the strikers don’t exactly have an enviable track record. They tend to come on and draw attention to the widespread inconvenience they will cause, and away from the problems heaped on society.
That’s 0-1 down.
Every strike from then on, far from raising awareness of the consequences of cuts to jobs and services, just strengthens the hand of those who present themselves as the true custodian of the public good, standing firm against reckless strike action.
That’s 0-2 down.
As the contest goes on, if the strikes continue, the public loses patience completely with what they see as purely self-interested actions, and throws its support behind the shrinking of public provisions, with little sympathy left for those who try to resist it.
That’s 0-3 and the final whistle.
Of course, under the right circumstances, strikes could deliver for social justice. They’ve even made a film - 'Made in Dagenham' – celebrating how strikes helped to further the cause of equal pay for women. But horses for courses, and blind deployment of strikers would just lose everyone the one match they desperately need to win.
Some may say that unless one has a better suggestion, striking is the only way forward. But we don’t always have to know the right solution to be sure what would be a very wrong answer. I have no idea how to carry out brain surgery to help someone regain consciousness, but I have no doubt that you’re not going to bring someone out of a coma by cutting off his head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)