Productive serf

It's no wonder there are more us feeling just that little bit cranky nowadays. You could almost say we’re looking a bit frazzled around the edges, and weather worn from the slow drip of increasing stress, as the hours glibly fly by.

We’re less than a week into the new year, and already people feel as though their heads are going to explode from the sheer stream of utter bs, streaming in from all directions.

Oh, where to start… Let’s see, tfl, neighbours, letwin, putin, daesh, trump, buses, parliament, presidential campaigns, floods, climate change… Parliament!

Politicians say the modern day serfs are not been productive enough. That they can only expect a pay rise, or improved living conditions, if they work harder. Much harder damn them. We want to see blood pouring from those fingernails, and watch as those layabouts gnash their teeth under another 70 years of hard blue labour!

Now before you nod your head savagely, in sage agreement with them, remember that this will be the same politicians who take even more holidays than teachers. Indeed through dint of elbow grease, or silver spoon, they are the best of the citizenry that's floated to the top, and as such 98% of them shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the reigns of power.

But in their role of representing all those other lazybones - who claim they have better things to do such as foraging around in foodbanks, pretending to be poor by wearing less than their sunday finest, or waiting for a letter telling them how many months they’ll be sanctioned and receive no money for, for failing to receive a letter that should have been sent by the dwps’ 100% efficient machinery, via the department which doesn’t understand the concept that the species hasn’t yet mastered the art of mind reading. Those saintly souls, during the helter-skelter ricochets of 2015s ongoing turbo-charged austerity, had their basic pay packet increased by 10%, or roughly £7k to £74k. That’s only the basic. On top of that they could get anywhere from £13k to £74k extra, dependent on what other post, or job they managed to parachute themselves into, during their hallowed paneled-hall tenure.

Don’t worry, i’m nearly past this bit. If this is proving a bit much, here’s a cat video you can watch, it even includes toilet paper.

The 10% increase, plus extra, was just the first and second fiscal posts for the job of serving the people. Going to the third post are the various expenses that can be claimed, plus subsidised canteens, 24 hour booze dens, pensions, and as we’ve seen from those arch crypto-commie-socialists: brown and darling (plus all the others in the past) the final post of a nice cushy directorship at the end of the line - should you end up pleasing your masters, or a speaking tour where you can charge £15k to tell them just how you got away with it, thanks to the majority lemmings having not a clue.

But this 10% salary increase was made by the independent parliamentary standards authority (ipsa), with the promise that further pay increases will be clipped to the level that mp’s constituents have to face; naturally it fails to say (that i could see in my skiving skimming) whether that’s the average, middle, lower, or upper levels of said mp’s constituents.

Who makes up the board of the ipsa? After all, according to their blurb…

“IPSA is independent of parliament, government and of political parties. In everything we do, we focus on our main duty; to serve the interests of the public”

Well, it’s made up of an ex-mp, a sir, ex-civil servants, an ex-audit company member and so on. Hardly your local reformed gang member, nor checkout assistant from your local sainsbury's; whom would be a true boost to the claim of independence, and could truly be said to have served the interests of the public - however poorly.

I digress.

Of course this 10% inflation busting pay rise eventually followed on from the expenses scandals which peaked in 2009, which were so mouthwateringly audacious, that even ducks would paddle around their moats with a wing held over their heads in shame, at such unfortunate an association. The fact mp’s managed to surpass that peak five years later, is a topic to be mulled over during a different bout of shirking.

The modus operandi we proles, we vast swathes of the bone idle, we feckless grommets, we lazy everyday shirking layabouts have failed to grasp, is that such prized fiscal remuneration would be within grasp of our nettle, if we weren’t so roundly and utterly damned unproductive.

We’re so unproductive that we deserve the austerity brought down upon our necks by the banks imploding and then been dutifully bailed out by the government. Who then found themselves with no other option but to cut public services, and freeze people's benefits due to the sheer cost of having to magic the money out of the air, to bail out the banks, to then go back to the banks to obtain loans with wedges of interest attached; which with hindsight firmly under wing, some might say such politicians had acted appropriately, if the aim was to ensure their future pay-masters needs were properly serviced.

But you, you shirking non-productive unit! You have to work longer hours, harder, and have less benefits, and oh yes, work until you're 90. That will teach you to be so lax in your productivity.

So just in case we've forgotten, ongoing austerity is all our fault. We’re all in austerity together. That's all of us earning less than £74k per year. You might for one moment think that you really can't work any harder, nor faster, and at the rate you're going your body will fall to bits due to the shear levels of stress – but this is only the working environment we’re considering, you can re-allocate time from your leisure, home environments and any other duties which obviously can’t be as important to the servicing of this need.

No you can’t? Well that’s tough. Atos the previous gestapo glove (as viewed by many) of the government's dwp arm is firmly out of the way, and replaced with maximus, another globalised (how many units can we move) company, poised at the ready to sign you back as “fit to work!”. A quick look at their history, might make you wonder which path all of this will lead down. I predict, not the happy one - especially as they’re still implementing the same tests that atos had to, as those are the tests mandated by the government. Or put another way, it’s the same burnt disgusting gravy, just served by a different, more exotic waiter.

When it comes to these tests, you can hide in the casket you were buried in, or have your ashes thrown to the four winds; they'd only send someone around the globe to find all your ashes, pop them back into the urn, take the urn to an examination room and give it a stern telling off, before applying sanctions (so you can only blow to three corners and not four) for been tardy in your approach to gainful employment.

Fuck the machines, and the robots, and the artificial intelligences coming increasingly on stream. You will have to up your productivity to compete, either with some poor five year old from malawi that's been forced to work for 20 hours a day, 364 days a year and drops dead when he’s aged seven, or the machines working every hour of every day until they rust to bits and reach that great bender in the sky. That is the sort of productivity they want from you, and even if you were capable of providing it, they still wouldn't be happy, as it would never be enough.

However societies, the modern ones, where on balance the more intelligent people outweigh the dim ones, are rapidly zooming to a point where their toasters are going to be smarter, and more intelligent than their politicians - let alone the people using the toasters. Pop into that mix the revolution of quantum computers running at a gazillion flippers every second and all just melding together to become the true masters of the planet. Then in 20 years, if we are all connected via our quantum watches and every decision can be voted on instantly, without the spin, the hype, the lies nor mistruths, what will we actually need politicians and parliaments for?

48 percenters

A forwarded link caused a disturbance in my morning ritual of something liquid and preferably coffee, which pointed to breaking (at the time) news of top-cat pay rises which briefly bubbled its way to the top of the uk info charts; before, and seemingly to the relief of many in the corridors of news, being prematurely replaced not even 24 hours later - and strangely to more trumpeting - by the uk coalition governments call to cut the benefits of those layabouts who would dare commit any act of heinous criminality.  Acts such as thieving a bottle of water from lidl or getting caught  trying to manhandle a tv (way too big for the smaller tearaways) off and down the road in a somewhat recognisable wheelchair.  With legislative white papers being made ready for placement before the parliamentary rubber stamp, and soon if they are caught in any act that would add (or not) to their material benefit, as evidenced by many an armchair judge in front of their own legally brought and paid for tvs during the august 2011 riots, for the temerity of wishing to improve  shoddy lives.

I mentioned this was the coalition governments idea, but it contained the hallmark fingerprints (and sticky ones to boot) of hailing from the cranium of ids - well that and he cawed loudly whilst saying so.  A man who would, no doubt, if asked whether the poor should be jettisoned into space to pave the way for new  exploration, i.e., researching longevity for the pantheon of infinitely more deserving - with all patents going to acme corp. - or whether the poor should be offered training so possibly improving their lot -, would plump for the former every time, whilst beating you over the head with his book*.  

I know my mind's truly wondered, when i can imagine hearing "help, the poor" in a kind yet shrieking tone emanating from the head of the once party leader.

The amount of column inches or pixels per inch, foisted on the unmentionable sectors of society fostered the belief that the proportion of ne'er do well's who took part in the fracas would easily number 99%.  Ahh, the gasp of disbelief was almost palpable, when it turned out (admittedly from only those caught and hauled before the beak) that a lowly third (33%, 1/3 or one-third) were actually claiming benefits.  So, what about the other 2/3's who, after a brief spin in the headlights of newsoriety, fell off the press radar faster than an alcoholic vainly attempting to distract you whilst trying to neck your final pint?

More on them in a later post.

Before i leave this ids soupcon, it's best to clear up a few erroneous ideas.  When it comes to equality, poverty and the poor, there's no one more qualified to putt that wayward department (the dwp) of profligacy to the sword.  The only other person, whom i believe could be viewed as only slightly more qualified, has sadly departed.  But i'm sure if genghis khan were still alive today, he'd be more than happy to have ids as his staunchly loyal deputy.

Suppose, for a moment, we assume the figures are correct and 33% of the naughty transgressors were in receipt of the basic jsa allowance instead of a prison stipend.  This safety-net allowance ranges anywhere from £53.45p - for those single criminals under 25, to £67.50 for those hardened single knock-abouts who (no doubt) having spent their formative years submerged in grubby back-alleys stripping narks of their fledgling wealth, then graduating to thumbing through loose and stained copies of "create your own crime wave! Free with every smashed shop window", still managed to trip over the 25 year-old line without having their collar felt - to hard - or spending too many hours indoors.

Basically the government are showing how much they disapprove of such actions, and to ensure the "something for nothing" crowd don't get too big for their boots and ponder future riotous behaviour  - when their existence really starts to turn screw-frighteningly shitty - will set ensure the legislation allows the beaks on high sufficient clout to deduct (or claw) £25 per week from the unwashed's income, as part of the coalition's "get tough on the bastards" approach to re-balancing the country's dire fiscal criminal-induced lot.

For example, if you fell in the £53.45p allowance bracket the new fines (from 2013) would ensure 47% of your weekly income could be clawed back by the government - sorry the courts - as a way of rubbing your evil vile and wicked nose in it, for daring to disrupt the livelihoods and enjoyment of those who are your betters; or 37% of your weekly if you fell into the "you really should know better" category!

As we know the reason touted for this near 50% potential tithe are the riots.  However, i smell a rat.  A rat which was obviously waiting to hatch under lubricious circumstances, the riots dutifully fashioned as a fait d'acomplise..   What does appear swamped by those who think "about time," are people on the other side of the equation actually saying "whoa, hold your horses there speedy.  Do you really want to further impinge the destitute by slicing nearly half of their money without wondering why they took part anyway?" Can probably be counted on two slightly-splayed, overly large fingers.

This new sanction (a word which has apparently become the new dwp catch-phrase) holds a further sting, as it won't be held in reserve solely for those conducting or being part of riotous behaviour.  Oh no, this could easily be any a situation; from falling behind in your credit card or mortgage payments (due to loss of work or reduction in salary), all the way to lobbing a brick through a window and walking down the road with a tv whilst being filmed on the national news, or viewed a few million times from someones mobile phone gatherer.

The day following that announcement, we learnt from the other side of the tracks that the top 100 ftse company directors racked up a 49% annual pay ri-.  Wait a mo.  49% increase on one side, a 47% claw back on the other!  It's the 48% parallel!

It was depressing listening to an advertising executive talking about the time, energy and risk he's put into keeping his multi-billion company upright in the choppy waters of global trade, through recessions, good times and bad.  And so, if anything, his 23% pay rise to £1.5mn was a slight.  Indeed he sounded outraged, as though he had all right to feel outraged at receiving such a pitiful sum.  Which i suppose you would, if you compared your take-home to someone else, like say, sir phillip green or a saudi prince?

 

And what do our august leaders have to say about the 49% increase in boardroom pay, whilst seemingly agreeing with ids on swingeing cuts for those already on the bottom?

"Disturbing."

What?

The fact that boardroom pay (for those who believe they're worth it) has on average increased to £4.9mn, that their annual pay rise is nearly 50%, simply garners the term disturbing from our governing politicians; and only due to the glare of publicity that was temporarily sizzled upon them.

Before we get too carried away, do pity the poor ceo's who only received a 43% pay rise, on average.

Along with mr cameron, many of the front & back benchers form part of a happy flock.  Seagulls happy to skewer each other (or anything viewed as weak) at the slightest twinge of an opportunity.  And now the boot is firmly on the neck of the poor, what better way than to bring some of those wonderful ideas they've been mentally toying with for years, firmly into the limelight.

Timing, oh timing.  It is odd that with less than 0.0002% of people claiming some sort of benefit involved in the riots and/or looting, that the governments use of a deep-sea pile-driving rig to combat the issue, is perplexedly worrisome.

In line with this, there's another pronouncement from the leader (david cameron pm) that if you're now unemployed for more than two years you'll be forced to do community service (leg shackles will naturally be provided, free of cost) for "at least six months, to get you out the house, to know what it feels like to work," and not just stare at that box you've no doubt nicked, all day!

What?  Exactly what jobs are out there that the large intrusive hand of government (from the party that always bellows that governments to big, there's too much red tape) will force people to do, that won't be reminiscent of scenes from films involving chain-gangs?

So now they'll force people to do whatever bit of crap they can find them - and call it work - and they'll receive less than the minimum wage those in work receive.  Yes, that really would make anyone feel very special.  But then he has the temerity to continue saying "people will learn new skills they can apply in the workplace."  Would this be new skills like learning how to bring banks and economies to the brink of bankruptcy?  Perhaps they'll learn how to fiddle expenses?  Instead why not assist or help them into decent training courses in the first place, before two wasted years have passed?  Of course they wont.  Doing that would imply the current setup is nothing more than the complete and utter statistical wasting exercise that it is.

The whole trope smacks of mendacious expediency aimed towards their cawing gallery of hawks, which will eventually end with the poorest getting it, at gunpoint.

So in future, remember!  If you want to gleefully sack hundreds or thousands of people, cut their wages, outsource jobs to cheaper labour markets, destroy markets and even peoples pensions, ensure you're on the right side of the 48% club.

My cup of chilled coffee wobbled, ever so slightly.

* Patently this is ridiculously untrue - allegedly - and possibly wouldn't happen in this or any other timeline.

Kick the bottom there's a pit underneath.

The coalition government here in the uk continues to show it is more than capable of staring down the barrel of a blunderbuss without flinching - especially when bearing down on the knuckleduster choices of swingeing cuts required to repair the uk's ailing economy.  Proving that  there is nothing they hold dear or sacrosanct, and there's no scum-laden pond they wont dredge, in order to bring the good ship uk back on route.

So, naturally, one of their targets are what the oecd classify as being the relative poor.  Not content with removing those who are struggling with either beans on toast, or cheese on beans (thus saving the toast for a rainy day), from a momentary inflation matching rise in their income that was conferred by using the more accurate retail price index (rpi), they decided to use the consumer prices index (cpi) which is a few points lower, and so cheaper.

But even here, the idea that people already wallowing in the trough of poverty are obviously having far too much fun and wantonly exhibiting luxurious spending habits - oh yes and the inflation rate is a bit too much for them to stomach - the treasury (according to the bbc) instead ponders whether they should use a figure which encompasses the average six months of the year on which to base any allowance raises on.  This from the very same people whose idea of poverty and hardship is running out of a jar of mustard, to slather over whatever succulents they've being invited to tuck into.

I wonder if the relative poor could also use that government wheeze for themselves, and pop into their local tescos or sainsburys, perhaps m&s and query, "i propose to pay for these pack of 12 surprise cheesy bean-balls, by using your average six-month price.  Can you tell me how much, mate?"  Which part of their anatomy would the store guards or security launch them into the street by first i wonder!

But as a sign of how desperate things really are: energy prices are going up, water costs going up, rents and clothing costs rising.  Indeed everything the already ravenously poor have no choice but to generally spend money on, are inflating more than the newly proposed increase in the meager safety line many are bobbingly clinging to.  If anything, the governments latest wheeze will ensure already threadbare funds are stretched to final breaking point.

With not much light peeking over the horizon (unless it's the on-rushing flames of a record wild-fire), the future - especially when you consider the double even triple-digit numbers applying for jobs - looks increasingly bleak, and that is the silver lining.  I seriously doubt all claimants live double lives with bentleys or ocean going yachts!

Let's see when the next independent annual mp pay review comes up, whether they'll do the right thing instead of squealing "we never said we should get a pay rise, it was them," and drop a few digits off their rate.  After all, and someone please correct me if i'm wrong, a £650 (or £12.50 per week)  pay rise to those on £65k pa plus expenses, plus whatever junkets, dinner functions, gifts etc., fall their way probably might not fall into the same category as opposed to a £175 (or £3.04 per week) allowance increase impact might have on those who eek by on £3.5k pa, which might mean the difference between heating, eating or freezing to death.


If they do link allowance rises to average earnings, at what stage would they consider their de-coupling?  Perhaps when average earning increases reach the heady heights of directors or ceo's?