We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the role of politicians. I do blame political actors for being unable to act in their electorate's best interest.

Succumbing to the needs of Capital, to religeous mania, to the cult of celebrity, to hypocricy, to the desire for an exclusive education for their children. It's up to us, we can say "No" to anything we don't like about our politicians.

We didn't.

Always, unclear.

I don't think it's possible to draw such a clear distinction. All the politician's world-views are based entirely upon the short termist capitalist derived orthodoxies of the type that prompted the hubris of Francis Fukuyama (in pronouncing the 'end of history') and of Gordon 'no more boom and bust' Brown. These views are entrenched by paying attention only to very recent history and being surrounded by the wealthy whose financial clout grants them access.
The politicians are the medium through which capitalism distorts our political life.
The political objectives of our elected leaders are determined by the needs of capital. It gets into our democratic institutions through tiny holes like lax campaign funding laws and the threat of taking jobs overseas and gradually widens these holes, exerting it's power over the legistlative agenda (cf. the Digital Economy Bill) and the rule of law (cf. BAE and the Saudis) until what you end up with is fascism of one form or another.

I don't think you can blame individual political actors for being unable to resist the massive forces of international capital. Not when our constitution is so massively flawed as to practically invite this kind of interference.

BTW thanks for your mention of Kondratiev the other day. Hadn't heard of him before – really interesting stuff.

I was encouraged somewhat by Ed M's speech to conference in which he seemed to making the point that the previous government had disregarded the public. Could this become a political theme across the political spectrum? One can but hope. So maybe this election result represents a turning point – towards greater accountability and representation.

The Harvey claim isn't outrageous except in the inference that it was solely done for the purpose of subduing the labour force. I agree with you (and him) about the consequences.

In fact there was much I agreed with in the film, except I reject the idea that it is Capitalism that tries to circumvent barriers and obstacles; it is politicians who do that in order to bend and distort an economic system in order to achieve their short term political objectives. It's like tying knots in a high-pressure hose.

Off to pick some blackberries now, or 'foraging for food' as it will become known.

As ever, Unclear.

In the film that 'dave from france' recommends, David Harvey makes the outrageous claim that the working class (need a better phrase for this) were handed mortgages so that they would be less likely to go on strike. Despite the silliness, it does highlight an important point, that people are less likely to protest when they think there will be dire consequences.
I find it interesting that there was more hoo-ha about the ban on fox hunting than the bank bail outs.

The mind abounds with mutually exclusive conclusions!

Have a great weekend y'all.

On that I am clear. Unclear.

We easily can see where it comes from -we have less pay, the library is shut, the school has fewer teachers, the hospital has fewer doctors. Our government is hugely in debt, debt for which we & our children will have to work hard for years in order to pay off.

But some people also wonder, this money we have just given to the banks, where does it go to??? I mean, where does it end up?

The sad answer is that in fact, it goes to everyone. To the rich more than the poor, but actually , to everyone to some extent. Everyone has already had it.

Remember all those years when the average working person could have computers and MP3s & new cars and fancy big TVs and a hugely overpriced houses, and holidays abroad on cheap jets, while just doing a normal days work??

Well, that's where the bailout money went. We've had it already. A bubble-loan from the future, to buy useless crap in the present. Of course, the richest 1% got most of it and used it to buy land or factories or whatever you do if you're really rich – but actually everyone had some of it too.

The party's over, this is the bill for it now. Of course, we were not told we would have to pay, we were told that things were just great – economic growth (having more stuff every year than the year before, without working harder) was natural and in fact our _right_ .

Very few challenged this concept. Maybe people will slowly start to question a few more assumptions about how they expect the world to work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=player_embedded

Check out this RSA Animate – Crises in Capitalism. It covers the openng gambits of the financial crisis in a very visually captivating and amusing way. @ 11 minutes long.

"In this RSA Animate, renowned academic David Harvey asks if it is time to look beyond capitalism towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that really could be responsible, just, and humane? This is based on a lecture at the RSA "