EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
message 1:
by
Linda
(new)
Jul 13, 2015 06:48AM
But isn't the euro really the old deutsche mark currency that Germany has decided to share with the rest of the Continent of Europe? That's why they have such a say in what happens. And when you say you can't have capitalism which doesn't permit creditors to go bust, you certainly can and must. Certain countries such as Germany, England, and the US absolutely can't go bust.
reply
|
flag
Yes they can but they won't. Capital has to be able to fail just in the way death is an essential feature of life. You cannot have capitalism without it. It becomes a Soviet style command economy which is what the Germans have now imposed on Greece.It is morally bankrupt and is hiding the losses that will never be repaid to Germany and the Eurogroup, in just the same way the Soviets covered up the mess they were in until the whole thing fell down.
As for printing money. After the crash only the US and UK did this using the asset swap method. Never mind the technicalities, but the UK printed £375 billion ($580 billion) and the US about $2 trillion. This rebooted their economies and both are now the fastest growing since the crash.
The EU is stagnating with record unemployment in the south.France and Germany are at loggerheads. The EU's future is now in doubt. Britain will either become semi-detached or leave altogether. The Euro in its present form is doomed.The crisis is not Greece but Germany.We have been here before.
I don't see how you can compare the Soviet economy with the German economy. The Soviets had no real economy. The German stock market has been one of the privileged four for the past two hundred years: US, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan. It not only has a real economy, it's the leading one on the Continent of Europe. That's why it leads the EU. The Germans aren't the problem. I think it's the rest of Europe. Somehow they have to deal with it and try to bring them up to their economic level. The reason they won't let Greece go is probably political, not economic. They don't want trouble from the East.
Linda you have misunderstood this post. I did not say the German economy was Soviet nor the EU economy. I said refusing to acknowledge that Greece is bust and forcing it to continue with never ending bailouts and austerity which has not worked after five years is to deny the basic principle of capitalism that failure is essential to renewal. Of course the German economy is the best in Europe but that does not give it the right to subjugate suffering people. I am very angry with the Germans at the moment. If you read my next post copied here you will see. If they still had the deutsche mark it would be valued way higher and their goods would be much more expensive and difficult to sell. The euro is held back by the weaker economies and that benefits Germany.So it has a duty to be realistic.
REPRODUCED FROM BLOG
The whole of the EU should hang its head in shame that one of its members, Greece, is being subject to the blackmail and coercion to which this impoverished country and its people are now subject. The Euro Group will be condemned by history for defying the principles of fair and just capitalism which it is founded to uphold, in order to disguise the huge losses its own defective governance, lax diligence and plain stupid rules has brought upon itself. To hoodwink its restive voters it has now embarked on a type of Soviet command economics with representatives (commissars in plain English) in all Greek ministries enforcing draconian and cruel financial repression upon a browbeaten population, whose primary sin was to believe a tawdry procession of lying and corrupt Greek politicians, with whom in happier times their repressors in the Euro Group were more than happy to deal.
Just look at some of the list. Top VAT rate 23%, VAT on fresh food, energy and water at 12% and 6% on medicines. These are tough for everybody but pulverizing in ferocity and cruelty for the less well off and potentially fatal for many of the poor. Now this craven bunch of finance ministers, for the most part blind to the enormity of what they do, led by Germany regressed back into a dark past and doing what it does best, subjugation of the weak, meets to cough up more loans so that it can pay itself back for the money it has already lost. It beggars belief.
I'm sure that Greece is subjugated by its own upper class. It's not a very democratic place. It's one of the only places where you find immigrants pouring into the USA just to grab education, money, and property and then returning to the home country where they live like kings. My mother knew a family like this when she was teaching English. Her fellow teacher was a first generation Greek American who spoke English, but her parents were born in Greece. She married a recent Greek immigrant whose family owned lots of property in Athens. She had two kids and was coerced into moving to Greece and leaving America behind to join this corrupt family. What Germany has to do is to deal with the more corrupt nations of Europe to advance the agenda of unity. Of course it is furthering its own power. Germany has been on the advance now for a century and a half. I still think that what the Germans don't like about Hitler is that he didn't win. Otherwise they would still support the regime. They still want to win. But then didn't Britain want to win when it had its empire? Doesn't America want to win?
Even though I'm an American I was raised to think that Germans were very advanced. My mother used to say things like, "The Germans are so thrifty. They'd never waste money like this." Or "You'd better clean up your room. Don't you know that in Germany they scrub the streets?" And guess what? When I was in Germany a few weeks ago I took a photo of Germans along the Rhine River cleaning the streets!!! I should post it and send it to you. I'm visiting here in Pittsburgh now. Would you believe that you see echoes of Germany in Western Pennsylvania? There is a Hofbrauhaus Pittsburgh. There is a Nuremberg Road. We just came off the PA Turnpike yesterday which was modeled after the German autobahn in the 1930's when Hitler was around.
I told you that when we were eating dinner in Dortmund, Germany there was a TV on the wall playing a program about Hitler and the Third Reich and emphasizing what you could find if you went on a dig. What I haven't had a chance to mention yet was the last place we stayed on the outskirts of Hamburg at a hotel called Hotel and Restaurant Zur Linde in the tiny hamlet of Hittfeld. No American or even British tourists were in evidence. The other guests at the hotel were all German families on vacation, frequently with their family German shepherd or dog. Gary went downstairs to use the W/C and found a lower level or basement full of documents and maps from Germany in the 1930's. The biggest map showed the boundaries of Greater Germany in 1938, Hitler's best year. They also had on display bric a brac from the 30's.
Yes I agree with and like most of your three posts above and the insight you bring to the debate. There is no doubt that Germans are best at almost everything and even though they are no longer a military power they have become a financial power instead. The problem is they never know when to slow down, stop or row back. They lack the compassion gene.Greece is probably the worst governed country in Europe and yes you find Greeks everywhere especially in the US and UK. But that still does not give the Euro group, which is controlled by Germany, the right to do what it is doing now. But there is already a change of heart developing in Germany as it has been stung by the backlash from all across Europe and the UK especially, which does not like kicking a man who is down.
There are three threads to the German view.Greece must pay its debts. Greece must stay in the Euro.Greece must reform. But now it is beginning to see that Greece can never pay its debts, it will never reform to German standards and it could be better if Greece left the Euro. That would be the compromise for writing off its debts. I suspect that is what will eventually happen.
As for wanting to win, yes Germany is determined to win. So is America. Not so Britain. It really is not fussed. It only ever operates at about a third of its capacity. Until the chips are down. Then it mobilises very fast, shifts up two gears and becomes a formidable player. It is now beginning to pay attention. It knows something is going to happen but it is not sure what. But it is stirring, I can tell.
I think it has realized that rather than Germany becoming part of Europe, Europe is becoming part of Germany.But it is not yet sure what it thinks about that. History will depend on how it eventually resolves its view. It is still the only power in Europe which can challenge Germany.But it is not in the Euro and that for the moment is where the action is.
I agree that England is the only power that can challenge Germany. That is why we had WW1 and WW2. But I like your remark, "rather than Germany becoming part of Europe, Europe is becoming part of Germany". I'd like to quote it on my website.
I've posted the quote on my website. It's on Edward Ware Thrillers today.
Linda wrote: "I've posted the quote on my website. It's on Edward Ware Thrillers today."Thanks for the promo! I am glad you liked the theme. I think there is a lot more to come on the EU front. It has gone quiet for the moment. Quiet before the storm perhaps?
Quiet before the storm . . . That sounds like a good title. Very dramatic.
Come to think of it, you are right! It is a fairly common saying in England even today, but it goes way back.
Maybe Germany has something of the idea of the US. Once you join the union, the EU, you can't drop out. That's the only way to take it seriously.
Well you are quite right that the view is that once in the currency you cannot drop out, although this no longer looks realistic. The EU differs from the U.S. In that it is not one country and therefore is more flexible about membership. However nobody has ever dropped out, but if a democracy votes to do so it will happen. What are known as the Federalists in Europe want a single state with a union government on US lines, but the rise of German dominance has dampened enthusiasm for that, as it is now clear it would in effect be a new German Empire. The UK would absolutely never consider joining such a thing, which is probably why it will never happen. Without the UK the French would be too nervous of German dominance and the French voters would throw it out, as they did the proposed EU Constiution which was to be the first step on the Federal road.
The problem they now face is that you cannot have a shared currency without a shared government. It just becomes the currency of the strongest financial power, which calls all the tunes. That is now what has happened. Greece is run from Berlin. Paris is getting very nervous.
I don't think England has to join for Germany to dominate the continent. I think it's been Germany's role since the middle of the nineteenth century. After it grows to it's appropriate size, then it can deal with the Russians and the East effectively. It's the only power in Western Europe that can do this. It's part of Germany's history.France lost big two hundred years ago in 1815. During WW1 it barely held out against the Germans. Though it was on the winning side, it was in worse shape than Germany and was responsible for the stupid reparations policy. During WW2 the Free French were on the Allied side. But the rest of the French were part of the Nazi regime. Now they have no choice but to play follow the leader. The Italians certainly have no problem with Germany. They never did. They were on two sides in the last war, remember?
I'm not sure it makes sense for England to be part of the EU. Historically it's not part of Germany. It stood by itself for centuries and now has an identity crisis. It can't be part of the US and it can't be part of the EU. Start the Empire again? Why not? The US would probably let it. Talk about a novel idea!
There is absolutely no appetite for an Empire in the UK. There is absolutely no nostalgia for it.If the UK had a coherent policy for trade expansion and a lower valued currency, it could probably go it alone. It imports more from the EU than it exports. When you look at it in the round Britain, England especially, remains attached to America by an invisible thread as if the two never broke apart. The British are always suspicious of foreigners. They blame the Russians for everything although Russia has been their ally in every major war in the last 200 years. They are dismissive of the French, they fear the Germans; the rest of Europe they think of as a potential holiday destination , but little more.
But America is different. Americans are never thought of as foreigners. They are family. The Brits don't even think of America as a foreign country. For everywhere else they refer to going abroad. But for America they just say going to the US, or Florida, or America. And they always refer to the people as Americans, never foreigners. They are sometimes jealous of America and sometimes laugh at the lack of sophistication in certain things, but in truth they admire it and love everything about it. To bits.Moreover whenever they go there they feel at home.
If you want to plan the future then bring them back together. It would be the biggest trade/financial/ scientific and military combination in history. There is your novel for you. It would be the reunification of the British Empire but the capital would be in Washington and it would call itself something different. The United Atlantic States or whatever.
England is very much in vogue in America. Everything English is admired. If somebody has a British accent people here are impressed. A Brit here could get hired just because of the way he talks.But I can't emphasize enough that the US never "joins" with other countries. It never "merges". Some people here sort of think Canada is a different country. They flee to it if they don't like US policy. But others probably think it's a US territory or something. But they wouldn't merge with it. They'd probably admit Alberta or British Columbia as a new state. But you see it's contiguous, and it's already part of North America. To "merge" with Britain would be inconceivable in the present age. People here think of Europe as faraway. They think of England as the Mother Country. They'd be more pleased if Britain did some of the work the way it used to. For instance, if it wanted to move troops into Iraq and escalate things, nobody would object. If it took a lead in certain areas of foreign policy, it's the only country that could get away with it. In other words, I think the Churchillian idea of the British Empire working with America could still prevail here which is why I suggested it. It wouldn't have to be the Empire of old. It could be something different.
You say Britain has no appetite for Empire anymore. Why does Germany then? England was on the winning side in the past two wars. Germany was defeated, and yet they keep on coming back for more? How do you explain this? I've never seen another example of this in history. Can you remember anything?
Germany does not really seek an Empire, but they do believe they are best at everything and more or less refuse to do things except their own way. Because they are efficient they always come out on top by default, but they lack the gene that should tell them when to rein in and stop to let others catch up. So they over do it, upset everybody and spoil everything.Yes most empires rise and fall, but Germany falls and comes back. I cannot recall another example of this either.
As my East Prussian Grandfather (he was opposed to Bismark unifying Germany) said, when they get powerful they just make a nuisance of themselves.
Britain is weird in its own way. It lost its Empire, carried on as if nothing had happened and has now entirely forgotten it ever had one.
See, you're a European. I'm an American. We see things different ways. But then I don't think most Americans would have my opinion either. Europe has tried to unify itself for centuries. No one has succeeded permanently. First you had the Roman Empire. You had Charlemagne. You had Napoleon. You had Hitler. Now you have Germany and the EU. Germany really should be able to unify Western Europe on the Continent through the European Union. The other countries like France shouldn't fear oppression or tyranny. After all, the US wouldn't allow it if Germany turned autocratic again. I think it's the only way that Russia and the East can be dealt with. And remember from the East came the disorder that overcame the European World in the early twentieth century --- WW1.
I agree with your analysis except that I see Russia as an ally of western civilisation not an enemy.I do not think Russia needs 'dealing with'.
Hitler wouldn't have agreed with you. He considered the East a great threat. Lots of Germans fear the East, though they deal with it all the time. How do you suppose WW1 happened if there was no threat from the East? You could say there was an arms build up, but still the ignition point was in the East. Also Russia isn't a democratic country. It's ruled by an unstable alliance of military men, Putin, and his cronies. You don't consider that a threat?
No not at all. Russia can never be a democracy on western lines because they seek protection from their government, not engagement. It is a different philosophy and view of life. The west's greatest mistake is to assume it's own inefficient form of democracy suits everybody. What you need is stable and consistent government which provides a secure environment in which ordinary people can prosper. Democracy works only if the losers are willing to be ruled by the winners and if the winners are willing to govern in the interests of the losers. It has taken the west hundreds of years to evolve to that. Russian democracy is only 25 years old.But Russia saved Europe from Napoleon in 1812. It saved France in 1914 and it saved Britain in 1941. It went on to defeat the German army as I have said so many times. The figures are overwhelming. Britain fought Germany at sea and in the air as did the Americans, but on land they were mopping up rather than fighting. Just look at the casualty figures they tell you everything about where the fighting was.
UK lost 385000 including civilians and Japan, U.S. lost 407,000 including Japan. Germany lost 5 million soldiers in Russia and the Russians lost 13 million soldiers. The scale of the fighting in the East was of a totally different dimension to the west. Without that Germany would have won, or the U.S. and UK would have had to lose several million lives each to beat her on their own.
When Russia was communist we had the Cold War which we handled well. But since the Cold War ended and communism collapsed, we have been as stupid as the Versailles people.
Russia needs borders. Historically that has been its problem for centuries. That's why it evolved into a totalitarian state centered in Moscow. It's always threatened by Mongols and peoples from even farther to the East. Somebody --- maybe Germany by dealmaking,maybe the USA --- should impose borders that can be maintained. Only then will Russia begin to merge into Western Europe. At least it will have a chance.
I agree with you that Russia needs secure borders and has always felt threatened by the west. Germany wanted lebensraum in the east while the same area was acquired by Russia as fighting room to keep conflict west of its border. Incidentally I remember in the late seventies Russia nearly had a war with China in the south.
I don't think Russia saved Europe from Napoleon. Britain did. Actually I think Napoleon would have been defeated anyway simply because he didn't have the "right idea" for the nineteenth century --- England did. I don't think anybody won WW1 unless it was the US, which was the only country not to be harmed by both world wars. The Russians and the Germans in WW2 is a complicated, pregnant subject. It hasn't been fully explored. Russia could hardly have defeated Germany when it was much worse off at the end of the war than Germany was. Also groups in Eastern Europe and maybe even Russia were helping certain Nazis with the Holocaust. It's certain. Russia supposedly has destroyed its records and has erased all mention of the subject. Also Russia has followed Germany for the past several hundred years. It prospers only when Germany does. You can't separate the two countries.
This is very interesting. What you describe is the American view.Here we see it quite differently. Germany was destroyed as a functioning country by the war. Its economy, infrastructure, government, industry and all its institutions ceased to exist. It was divided into four Zones of Occupation, American, British, French and Russian. It was subject to the continuing presence of foreign military forces. Gradually it was rebuilt in the image of its conquerors which caused it to be formally divided into two countries as the Allies and Russia parted company.
Russia began world war two as a very minor power with little real influence outside its land mass and had suffered humiliation of its armed forces in both Finland and Spain. It ended the war as Super Power with an empire which took in all the states of Eastern Europe and the Baltic, extending west of Berlin. It became the first space power, causing near panic in the US. It failed fifty years later not because of the weakness of its people or its institutions but because of the complete failure of communist economics.
Germany took off when it was reunited into one and the introduction of the Euro gave it a devaluation which boosted its industrial and trading capacity and made it the richest country in Europe. But even today it has little influence outside Europe and memories of the Nazi atrocities remain vivid and are kept alive in Europe with all sorts of ceremonies and commemorations. These still damage the German image especially after its harsh treatment of Greece.
I don't think my view is the typical American view at all. Most Americans don't think about other countries at all. And when they think of Germany and the Nazis they think of atrocities like you do. I don't deny that there were Nazi atrocities. But I don't think that Hitler knew about most of them at the end of the war. And I don't think they destroyed Germany despite the four zones of occupation. Germany somehow wasn't really defeated in the important economic sense. This needs further study. It has never happened before in history.
Russia was never a super power during the Cold War. The Americans just created a boogey man Super power to scare themselves with. It has to do with American Isolationism more than anything else. After the war America emerged as the world super power to take the place of the British Empire. But not wanting to take the old British part in world affairs it tried to create a reason --- the Russian monster --- for not doing so. Why couldn't Russia be a super power? Obviously because they had no real economy. Their government was in shambles. They didn't have "the right idea" for the twentieth century or the twenty-first.
Very interesting stuff Linda. Your argument has a lot of merit. I need to digest it.
Russia was in the dark ages until Peter the Great appeared in the 18th century and decided to create St. Petersburg and make Russia a European country modeled after France and Germany --- even the Netherlands. Catherine the Great succeeded him and was the daughter of a Prussian Prince. Her rule helped bring even more of Europe into Russia. This was Russia's finest hour. Russia has never forgotten this. In the 19th century most of the nobles families including the Tolstoy family spoke French. In 1917 most of the nobles and most of the middle class fled the country during the Russian Revolution. Many ended up in Paris. Only peasants were left behind, ones who had recently been freed from serfdom. The Slavs even expelled the foreigners including Germans. Hitler's Lebensraum was partly a reaction to correct this imbalance and repopulate Russia with Germans who had been recently expelled during the First World War. If left to themselves Hitler and Stalin would have divided up Eastern Europe. Stalin was more than willing to follow the leader. Many historians agree that Hitler would not have invaded Russia if it hadn't been for England. Russia was then supposedly on the Allied side but not really and not completely. It was still dealing with Germany even as it fought against it. It doesn't really want to destroy Germany despite all the propaganda about the Great Patriotic War because in doing so it would destroy itself. Remember Germany was the home of Communism as well as the Nazis. East German Communists in Berlin --- Hitler's enemies --- let the Russians in. When the wall fell, the Soviet Union fell. When Germany regained its power after the war and started the euro zone, Russia emerged from its darkest night and started into the Putin era. Now Russia wants to remember the 18th century. Putin is very German leaning. He speaks German. He has a palace, reputedly one that rivals Peter the Great's palaces in Potsdam. Merkel speaks Russian. The two want to deal with each other. Get it?
Germany doesn't want any influence outside of Europe. Hitler never wanted a world empire either. He thought that was best left to Britain and the English speaking peoples who think in those terms.
Linda wrote: "Russia was in the dark ages until Peter the Great appeared in the 18th century and decided to create St. Petersburg and make Russia a European country modeled after France and Germany --- even the ..."Yes I do. This is a very informed post and I thank you for it. I understand all of it and agree with most of your conclusions, although with some diffence in interpretation here and there. But in time I may come round.
Linda wrote: "Germany doesn't want any influence outside of Europe. Hitler never wanted a world empire either. He thought that was best left to Britain and the English speaking peoples who think in those terms."Agree.I also agree Russia and Germany are linked by trade and self interest. The EU sanctions against Putin have damaged both Germany and the EU economy generally. But I have always seen Russia as Britain's natural ally in the containment of Europe and all its rivalries. We are the two book ends of Europe, West and East. Oddly enough throughout the Cold War the Brits never really felt threatened by Russia, inspite of the military stand off.
I can see where the Brits never felt threatened by Russia during the Cold War. The Americans created a boogey man that came to a head during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russians would never have nuked America. The real question was would America nuke the Russians out of its paranoia? My father pointed out that John Kennedy was the worst President he'd ever seen.
I think you are quite right. The Russians are militarily cautious generally but not always, and excel in the counter-attack phase. I think America was more likely to launch a preemptive strike than the Russians, but fortunately the hawks in the Pentagon were held in check.I always felt Nixon was the best cold war President. I thought in getting rid of him America had shot itself in the foot. They then had to endure Ford and Carter, both well meaning but not up to it.
I couldn't agree more. My father liked to talk about Nixon being the best President he could ever remember. From what he told me I could see that he was right. Kissinger was certainly the best Secretary of State of the second half of the twentieth century. Nixon's policy on Russia and China was far reaching and influenced all the presidents who came after him. There was a family in Bethel Park, PA called the Tangs. They were from China. The parents had fled from the Mao takeover, leaving the rest of their family behind. When Nixon opened China to the West --- before that it had been the dark side of the moon --- Mrs. Tang got reunited with her father who was a top scientist in China. The Tangs worshipped Nixon. He could do no wrong.
Linda wrote: "I couldn't agree more. My father liked to talk about Nixon being the best President he could ever remember. From what he told me I could see that he was right. Kissinger was certainly the best Secr..."That is very interesting and rather re-assuring. Kissinger is very disapproving of what is happening now. I heard him on the radio.
Who do you think the American candidates for President will be next year?
I have not yet immersed myself enough to be sensible in my predictions, not least because Trump dominates the media over here. He is regarded as an outrageous clown. The Republicans have far too many in the running so all their messages are lost. When the field is thinned, I would have thought it will be between Bush and Rand Paul with the possibility of Trump as a spoiler third party like Ross Perot.On the Democrat front it looks like Hilary, although this guy Saunders seems to pull big crowds. If voters turn against big names he could surprise the pundits, at least at the start.
Gary says Hillary is toast. If the Clintons didn't win the first time, they won't win the second time. It's been shown that every time she makes a speech, her pool numbers go down. When you;re in politics, you can't keep quiet forever. Gary thinks Biden will be the nominee. The Republican nominee won't be Trump. That's impossible. Jeb Bush is a big contender, but there are 4 or 5 other people who could get the nomination. Right now is too soon to tell according to Gary.
Linda wrote: "Gary says Hillary is toast. If the Clintons didn't win the first time, they won't win the second time. It's been shown that every time she makes a speech, her pool numbers go down. When you;re in p..."When it settles down and we know who the contenders are it will be a very interesting contest. I expect to do a lot of blogging about how it is viewed over here.You and Gary will be a great help with your perceptive observations.
Is this business of Hilary's email server a real issue or is it another Watergate style drama?
Almost nothing in American politics is a real issue. Yes, it's another Watergate style drama. The Clintons are sloppy and they attract this sort of thing. Bill is even sloppier but he gets away with more than his wife.
Yes I know what you mean about being sloppy. We have politicians over here caught out over stuff that is so basic you feel that they may be clever at politics but they are really stupid about the world outside.
I tried to leave this comment at the end of your blog post on your website but it got erased. Now I remember that you told me about that. It said comments were closed about Gordon Brown. So I'm leaving it here:I like the part about the "most unequal society since the 1930's.". I wish you would expand on that. What made society in the 1930's in Great Britain so unequal? Obviously it had to do with the Depression and the fallout from WW1. At the same time in the upper echelons of society it was the last decade of elegance on the level of the 19th century, for many of the people of privilege had been born in the Victorian era and looked back with longing toward that time period. It was the real reason why Gone With The Wind was a smash hit. Forget about the Civil War. It was WW1 that had changed everything. When Scarlet said, "Don't look back!" she meant before the Great War. In Britain this has more resonance than in America.
Oh, this is quite fundamental. America was founded to be an equal society, although it has not always fulfilled the aim in most ways it is, even if some do better than others.But Britain is structured as an unequal society, both in wealth and in privilege. Attempts have been made to equalise it and there is now social mobility where you can move up, or down. But we still have two education systems where those who pay do better than those who don't and where people at the top earn 180 times more than the average. When I was younger the ratio was 20 times. The House Of Lords is still appointed not elected. New titles are dished out three times a year.
Our problem now is that the rich are getting richer but the poor are getting poorer. It s so serious that there is now a risk of political upheaval. That is why the left winger is ahead in the leadership race. Remember in Scotland at the general election Labour lost all but one of its seats. That was not about independence. It was about austerity.
Meanwhile Cameron won with the lowest total of votes of any winner since the war. When Churchill lost in 1950 he had a million more votes than Cameron in 2015. People have walked away from voting but when they return they will come from the left. It is not about fashion and glamour. It is about low wages,bad diet, poor healthcare getting worse not better, while fewer and fewer have more and more. In a recent poll over 60% wanted the railways and public utilities re-nationalised. Socialism is coming back.
