Thousands of British police join anti-austerity protest
by Michael Holden via magus - Reuters Thursday, May 10 2012, 8:57am
As criminal (printing toilet paper money) Banker controlled Western Capitalism unravels in Europe, and thousands take to the streets in protest, what do you suppose are the headlines in America? No, not Wall St panicking or Bankers hanging from light poles, BUT homosexual Obama (his first preference is men) supporting gay marriage, how earth shattering! The desperate Corporate media must maintain the illusion and keep distractions flowing, FOR DEAR LIFE -- we wouldn't want the comatosed American population waking up and joining the GLOBAL movement against crooked Bankers, market traders and exploitative/rapacious, tax avoiding Corporatists!
Just most of them!
(Reuters) - Thousands of off-duty police officers took to the streets in London on Thursday in a rare display of collective anger against government austerity measures, joining a mass protest by public sector workers including immigration officials, healthcare workers and prison officers.
Unions predicted some 400,000 public sector workers would walk out, a smaller protest than in November when Britain saw the biggest strike in years, but a significant show of public discontent just after Prime Minister David Cameron's government took a drubbing at local elections.
The government said only about 100,000 had taken part and dismissed the action as "futile".
However, the sight of some 20,000 police officers in black caps marching through London will be particularly embarrassing for Cameron, whose centre-right Conservatives pride themselves on being the party of law and order.
Deep cuts to police budgets and a government-commissioned report that recommended allowing officers to be sacked, pay reductions for some and raising the pension age, have all caused disquiet.
"I feel like the government has misled the public. It's nothing to do with making a leaner, more efficient police service," said Anthony Coultate, 32, a sergeant from Leeds in northern England.
The officers, whose caps bore the slogan "Cutting the police force by 20 pct is criminal", marched slowly past the interior ministry and other government buildings, blowing whistles.
Gareth Rees, 35, who suffered serious injuries while on duty requiring nine operations and three years of treatment, said he would have lost his job under the proposed changes.
"British policing could change forever if these changes are allowed to be pushed through and ultimately it's going to be the public that will lose out," he told Reuters.
DEEP SPENDING CUTS
The Conservatives and their junior Liberal Democrat partners have vowed to press ahead with unpopular austerity plans despite both parties suffering badly in local council elections last week amid discontent that the country had fallen back into recession after two years of deep spending cuts.
Public hostility to austerity has hit governments across the European Union, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy ousted by Socialist Francois Hollande who promised a gentler approach on debt reduction, and Greece in political crisis after voters deserted the main parties.
Nick Herbert, the minister in charge of policing, defended the government's planned reforms.
"It's very important that tough decisions are taken to deal with the deficit and the police service, police officers, I'm afraid, can't be exempted from that. I really don't think that would be fair," Herbert told Sky News.
Police officers have been legally barred from taking industrial action since the 1990s.
The Police Federation, which represents 135,000 low-ranking officers in England and Wales, said Thursday's action was set to be larger than the 2008 protest over a pay row with the then Labour government.
"We're at the lowest ebb I can ever remember," Paul McKeever, the federation's chairman, told Reuters.
"We're not against change," McKeever said. "What we're against is ill-informed change based on ideology which is going to damage the service, damage officers and most importantly damage the public as well."
On Wednesday, the government announced it was pressing ahead with proposals to overhaul public sector pensions. Those plans prompted one of the most widespread strikes ever seen in Britain last year.
Thursday's protest is unlikely to be the end of the action. Len McCluskey, general secretary of Britain's largest union Unite, has already warned that public spending cuts justified action during London's Olympic Games which start in July.
(Additional reporting by Li-mei Hoang; Editing by Louise Ireland)
© 2012 Thomson Reuters
COMMENTSshow latest comments first show comment titles only
jump to comment 1
and it worked!
by bernie Thursday, May 10 2012, 9:35am
The Obama distraction has even captured the American alternative, moronic media; they are all running with the story at the expense of REAL headline news.
They'll have to resurrect Bin Laden next time, they're running out of gimmicky headline grabbers.
Economic Democracy, Not Austerity or Keynesian 'Growth'
by Richard D Wolff via red - Truthout Thursday, May 10 2012, 10:04am
Recent defeats of Dutch, Greek and French governing parties show rising opposition to their austerity policies. Across Europe and North America, similar oppositions mount. Bailing out large financial and other corporations with borrowed money has been the almost universal government plan for coping with global capitalist crisis. The result - rising government deficits and debts - was followed by "austerity policies" to reduce those deficits and debts. After suffering a crisis and then bailouts that bypassed them to favor major corporations, people now face austerity cutbacks of government jobs and services to offset the bailouts' costs. As opposition mounts, will it seek Keynesian "growth" or go beyond capitalism to economic democracy?
Keynesianism (expansionary state economic intervention) never was capitalists' preferred policy for capitalism's recurring recessions and depressions. Their Plan A was government borrowing to bail out major financial and other corporations followed by "austerity policies." Austerity repays the costs of bailouts by siphoning money away from (cutting) government jobs and services. Only when anti-capitalist movements threaten from below, as in the 1930s, do anxious capitalists abandon Plan A and shift to Plan B - eventually formalized as Keynesianism. Via government spending, Keynesian policies claim credit for jobs and income "growth" and aim to keep political control away from anti-capitalist forces. Keynesianism's dependence on radicals' pressure from below explains its strength in the 1930s versus its weakness today.
Capitalists prefer austerity for many reasons. Because universal suffrage allows politics to undo capitalism's consequences such as unequal wealth, income and power distributions, capitalists worry about how far universal suffrage will go. Majorities may, during crises, reject bailouts and austerity. The Greek and French just did. They may then demand Keynesian "growth" via government jobs and income and wealth redistribution. Or they may demand transition beyond capitalism to democratize their economies by socializing means of production, planning the economy and transforming enterprises into self-directed worker collectives. No wonder that conservative mainstream economics (so-called "neoclassical economics") celebrates capitalism as a self-healing system requiring no government intervention.
Keynesianism also frustrates crisis mechanisms that discipline workers to capitalists' advantage. Rising unemployment makes worried jobholders accept reduced wages, benefits and job security: good news for employers. As falling wages reduce costs for surviving capitalists, they anticipate rising profit opportunities. They will then invest, renewing growth and prosperity. That's how most capitalists prefer to "let the market work through" economic crises.
In contrast, Keynesian government spending lessens unemployment and thus slows or prevents falling wages, benefits etc. It also usually requires increased state borrowing, money supply and/or taxes on capitalists and the rich. They oppose such tax increases, balk at lending to ever-more-indebted governments and worry about inflationary risks posed by money supply increases.
"Austerity policies" (capitalists' Plan A) aim to pay for bailouts while reducing government deficits. They may also include some state charity for the worst victims of crisis. Republicans and Democrats (or, in Europe, conservatives and social democrats) squabble over how much charity to provide alongside the austerity they impose.
Keynesianism is capitalists' Plan B when radicalized and organized workers demand systematic entitlement, not charity, and threaten capitalism itself. In the US during the 1930s, successful mass unionization by the Congress of Industrial Organizations and mass radicalization by socialist and communist parties built social movements with strong anti-capitalist components. In response, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) offered a deal. Instead of austerity, he would provide unprecedented government services to people (today perhaps called a "growth" plan). He would establish the Social Security and unemployment compensation systems and create and fill over 12 million federal jobs for the unemployed. Despite three times today's level of unemployment and a worse federal budget crisis, FDR funded greatly expanded government public services. Obama plans to reduce Social Security and never mentions a federal hiring program. Capitalism then faced a powerful threat from below; today it does not (yet).
FDR funded his deal by taxing corporations and the rich and partly by borrowing from them (the lesser evil for them). Many of them agreed because they, too, feared the anti-capitalist opposition. FDR persuaded most of the left, in exchange for expanded state services and jobs, to downplay anti-capitalism. Many abandoned "socialism" as a goal; some redefined it to be what FDR proposed. FDR's deal built an alliance that won four consecutive presidential elections.
Keynesianism - the formalized theory and policies drawn from John Maynard Keynes' work in 1930s Britain - developed after FDR's deal. It prompted a revised understanding of the Great Depression. Attention shifted away from how anti-capitalist and working-class pressure from below reoriented FDR's policies. Instead, smart economists and astute politicians were depicted using Keynes' "brilliant new economics" to moderate, manage and exit capitalist crises.
After 1945, corporations and the rich still supported Keynesian government spending (they feared depression's return), but they got reduced taxes for themselves. They also got some shift in government expenditures from social services to more capitalist-friendly defense and infrastructural improvements. Keynesians also mostly joined neoclassical economists in dismissing Marx's anti-capitalist economics. Capitalism's crises, they insisted, were well understood and managed (by Keynesianism). They were mere temporary blips punctuating capitalism's prosperous growth. Anti-capitalism was theoretically outmoded and politically suspect in cold war times.
Keynesian economics was, for enthusiasts, superior to the mainstream orthodoxy that had always endorsed austerity policies for crises. Keynesianism became the new orthodoxy from the 1930s to the 1970s. Then, a capitalist boom returned dominance to neoclassical economics (renamed neoliberalism). Even after the 2007 crisis hit, Keynesians (e.g., Paul Krugman) have so far failed to regain policy-making dominance
The "great" debate between neoclassical and Keynesian economists is neither great nor much of a debate. Both sides endorse, celebrate and defend capitalism. Their "debate" - between Plans B and A, more or less government intervention to sustain capitalism - periodically revives as a substitute for seriously engaging with critical economic theories, anti-capitalist social movements and their demands for economic democracy. The debate between austerity and growth policies is a sideshow for the main event: capitalism's weakening battles with its own contradictions and with looming demands for transition beyond capitalism to economic democracy.
Author retains copyright.
<< back to stories