Why hasn't there been a peoples protest?

[Ryoko]

Thinking about this the other day, we have the TUC, NUT etc coming out in force to moan about the treatment they get from the government, often treated with disdain from the masses as "they get paid more then us", "they have pensions I don't" etc.

Where is the protest for the people?, the general all encompassing protest at the incessant increase in taxation and drop in living standards that is keeping the economy down by ensuring we all keep our cash in our pockets (what little we have left).

Just a thought.

And the people are even shafted by some of the protests themselves. Because some of teh people "leading" the protests, deliberately lead the people up a cul de sac. And some of the protests, such as on catastrophic climate change, are in order to bring in policies that the elite wanted to bring in all along. So, quite often, the silent majority is either ignored or led by the nose.

It's like Chuck Berry said when he wrote that song "c'est la vie say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell"

How many people agree with the increase in stamp prices of a staggering 39% and 30%? Hardly any. But there'll be no protests. It's like it or lump it.

Apparently it's for the "sustainability" of the postal service. And what caring green could possibly disagree with the progressive word "sustainability"?

Claig, the postal service is being privatised! this is just the start of rising costs.
Brief history lesson, Wages and the economy grew 1840-1970 and for much of that time we had a partially managed economy. Business profits have increased 1970-2008, wages stagnated and living standards fell.

1970-present day. In the late 1970's Maggie came to town. We had the first round of privatisation. 1980's to recent crash-workers took on debt to mitigate rising costs, stagnating wages and falling living standards. Debt can not be paid back in the form of used sofas, holidays and rusty cars. Business and banks can not recoup this debt. We can not borrow and therefore we we have no uptake in consumer demand. Hence quantative easing and other measures still fail.

Businesses can not make use of their capital to increase profit without making use of labour which they refuse because it will effectively eat into profits.

Now a second round of privatisation because the only demand in the economy comes from social need. We are consumers of welfare, education, "postal services" and health. Privatise profits, socialise risk and individualise misery

Capitalism seeks new unchartered areas to exploit, this government hands it to them on a plate. Costs for all of these services will rise because capital demands greater efficiency and savings, profits and growth, this will cause rising costs, lower wages, more unemployment. The costs will be borne by tax payers-that's you included claig. Come back and chat in 2020 and we might be discussing your extortionate tax bill & the possible collapse of our entire economic and political system, shame though that so many will suffer while so few make a quick killing.

I agree, I'm not in favour of privatising everything and privatising the Royal Mail etc. I don't think it is about capitalism, rather it is about some people getting rich.

I don't think we had to use A4E to help people back into work, it could have been done by the government.

Yes it is about people getting rich but make no mistake getting rich requires surplus value-profit which is the whole foundation of capitalism.

Great interview here with a guy called David Harvey, it covers a lot of the topics you talk about claig, climate, profiteering from climate change etc, The guy is a marxist geographer!!!! but he makes many of the same points that you make and he also examines the sustainability of economic growth, by 2030 we would need to invest 3 trillion to get the same growth.

We haven't had a people's revolt because, as someone said earlier, the majority are not that dissatisfied with the measures being taken so far. There was great dissatisfaction with the last administration over many things that affected ordinary working people. The resentment created by well-meant policies on benefits, housing and immigration led to the temporary rise in popularity of far right politics. There was hypocrisy displayed by those claiming to be represent the working person and 'hard working families' and therefore a mismatch in expectations. Austerity measures, in many minds, are seen to be redressing the balance and are consistent with what we expect from a Conservative-led government. That's not to say there is unbridled happiness and contentment. The Health Bill is problematic. Times are difficult for many. However I think the Coalition is still being given the benefit of the doubt because memories of what went before are very fresh.

minimathsmouse, David Harvey makes a very interesting case, but I think that he is wrong.

He says we are now at an inflection point due to the asset bubble and capitalism has to change. But we were at exactly teh same inflection point in the aset bubble of the 1920s before the Great Crash.

He says we can't keep growing, but we don't keep growing, that is why we have periodic crashes to set growth back after which growth can continue again.

He seems to partially argue against growth, for zero growth, just like teh greens do, who even argue for negative growth. But that favours only those who have all the wealth, the elite, and dooms ordinary people to poverty.

I think he is wrong because he doesn't understand that capitalism is not a clockwork system; it is a system run by people and some of those people are only interested in maximising their own riches. The asset bubbles and crises are created deliberately in order to enrich the elite and impoverish the people.

Here is an article about the money that will be made by the markets in the "carbon trading" markets. The progressives cheer it on, but cui bono?

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/

People will be impoverished, will pay through the nose for fuel and energy and will eventually have to restrict their travel as it becomes too expensive for them. But there will be free lanes for the elite as they whizz past in their limousines. They tell us that by breathing out carbon dioxide, we are harming the planet. They say there are too many of us. They say they can't feed us. They say we can't carry on eating meat, because the cows' methane is also "harming the planet". They say we will have to start eating ants and that they provide lots of protein, but are short on "cholestreol". They sell it by using the progressive word "sustainability".

There was a woman in Scotland interviewed on the news the other day. She was worried about the ever increasing fuel prices. She lived in a remote area where there are no jobs.It was costing her an extra £20 a wekk to drive to an area where there was work. She implied that if it continued, she would eventually not be able to work. That will lead to poverty. The restrictions on her freedom to travel with lead to a restriction on her freedom to actualise herself in work. She will be trapped in a zero growth economy with no prospect of a job. They call it "sustainability", some call it "poverty".

They say they "care", they say they are "fair", some want zero growth and "sustainability". Many of those people went to public schools and Oxbridge. Wake up and vote for people that offer growth, don't fall for the wolf in sheep's clothes.

I wouldn't attend a student protest they are full of over privileged brats and prats (like my friend) who just want to shit stir.

OP, you have answered your own question here - but with a myth. The majority of protests are NOT full of over 'priviledged brats', but since media coverage is subject to government spin, this is what they want you to believe

I'd like to think that there's not been a people's revolt because most people are sensible to understand that the credit crunch has meant that even government's have limits to what money they can borrow.

I think over the last couple of decades there's been the sense that AAA rated countries in the western world do not default on loans so noone has thought too much about how much we borrow. Until now.....

Now I know the economic flat-earther's amongst us will now cut & paste long articles on how we can continue to borrow but I'd like to think most of us understand the simple fact that when you borrow money, one day you have to pay it back. And the time of reckoning is now.

So no I don't like the cuts, I don't like to see people's standard of living drop. But it would seem we've been borrowing the money to give us the illusion of prosperity when in reality our economies are not strong enough to support the lifestyle we think we deserve. In the meantime the Asian economies have been hoovering up around us.

As for the "We don't live in a democracy" statement, what utter bollocks. The fact you get to vote, the fact we regularly change government's, the fact you can actually say such bollocks without a knock on the door from the secret police shows that we do. You may not like any of the parties being voted in but you are also free to start your own party off or even stand as an independent.

"She lived in a remote area where there are no jobs.It was costing her an extra £20 a wekk to drive to an area where there was work"

Possible solutions are to move closer to the place of employment, carshare or find a job nearer home. Things change all the time and we either adapt or get left behind.

Homes where jobs are are often more expensive. What if she cares for elderly parents or elderly neighbours where she lives? We can't move the whole country to cities, in order to leave the pristine countryside free for the rich landowners. It's about quality of life and people maintaining their local communities and looking after their elderly in areas where they have lived all their lives.

We have the most expensive fuel in Europe and most of it is due to tax on fuel. It hurts the poor, just like the extra price rise on cheap booze and the tax on takeaway food does too.

'Things change all the time and we either adapt or get left behind.'

Who is forcing the changes? Who puts the high tax on fuel and takeaway food? Who says "get on your bike", whilst they sweep by in chauffeur-driven limousines?

and it costs pennies to move house

there have been protests. The news doesnt report them. How many people knew about the largest march of disabled people last year? Cos we didnt burn down anything like the students there was barely a mention in any press. Frequent protests of carers and disabled people outisde Downing Street - another on April 18Th.
But many people dont care until it affects them.
First they came for the....etc

Kal

i've been active on many online protests (emailing MP, TV stations, shops etc), but after reading this thread am wondering if online activism is actually counter-productive - perhaps it's weakening awareness as less people on the streets is not newsworthy?

It's not counter-productive, because the people in power use it as a form of opinion poll. They can judge the level of discontent by the amount of protest that there is, and the more protest that there is, the more they adapt their policies.

That's also why there are these online polls in newspapers, and press the red button to vote on TV.

Both are important UnChartered as is writing to your MP

not at 60p for a stamp

"Who is forcing the changes? "

Life. Progress. Things change all the time. Industrial Revolution people migrated to cities for work and lived walking distance from the factory. When the internal combustion engine and cheap fuel was available to all, the 'commute' was born and everyone moved to the burbs. If fuel's more expensive it could mean we're back to Shank's Pony or home-working.

'Life. Progress'

No, itis people who force the changes, just like it is people who decide to bail out banks and people who say that we have only 50 days left to save the planet. The changes are the consequences of the decisions of powerful people. Globalisation is not a force of nature, it is a policy created by people.

'If fuel's more expensive it could mean we're back to Shank's Pony or home-working.'

We have teh highest fuel prices in Europe, due to the tax that is levied on it. Yes, I think that Shank's Pony is what the elite and their greens want us to have.

You dont put stamps on letters to MP's! They still arrive though. Anyway, email them on theyworkforyou.com