Is Connaught the new Polly Peck?
I’m just in from meetings to find, courtesy of Carl’s keen eye, that the TCF stats are through the roof following my post on the possible collapse of Connaught plc, put up last night as the news broke.
The comments from workers at Connaught reflect the anger felt at the news, but perhaps the two most noteworthy comments are as follows.
First there’s a request from Geoff White of ITN to highlight to employees, and I suspect to interested competitors, which is worth highlighting:
We’re looking into Connaught for a story for ITV’s London Tonight programme this evening. We’re looking to speak to employees, either on- or off-the-record. I can be reached at geoff.white@itn.co.uk, or 020 7430 4000.
Second, there’s this information from ‘Lawson Froggatt’:
I used to work for a competitor and we were continually losing contracts by 40% and above.
We all said this could not go on and so it seems to have been proved. The people at the top seemed to want the competition to go away so that as the contracts came up for re-tender they could increase their rates.
One other thing: didn’t their customers, notably social housing, notice and question the disparity in rates?
If this is anything like near the mark then it really does open a whole can of worms not just about the way the business was being run, but – as is noted – the capacity/willingness of local authorities and other public agency purchasers to negotiate outsourced contracts in a responsible manner. This cuts to the quick of the outsourcing problem – many public agencies are so keen to slash costs they don’t even want to know about how the contract is delivered, in terms of quality or even, it may become apparent, in terms of business probity.
In terms of that business probity, more questions are emerging about the way in which the directors have conducted their affairs. Of particular interest is this story from last month, from the Follow the Directors website, about how ‘Founder and CEO Mark Tincknell sold a third of his holding at close to four pounds (375p) not so long ago’, only to see the share price to 11p just a little while later.
Of course we’re into the field of supposition and conjecture here but this, combined with the suggestion that Connaught’s directors may have been inflating paper profits by claiming contract values that weren’t actually agreed with purchasers, really does start to point us in the newly-of-interest Polly Peck direction.
Finally, there’s the small issue of 10,000 jobs at risk. Some commenters have been quick to respond and say that not all 10,000 jobs will go, including James:
The “10,000″ job losses will never happen. There will be some, but the majority of contracts will be taken over by other contractors. The contractors are staffed up to do the work they currently have, so the majority of operatives will be TUPE’d over. This happens whenever one business loses a contract to another provider. The staff become employees of the new contractor. This happens all the time in this industry (spoken as an employee of one of the other major providers).
James is right, and I never actually suggested that they would all go – simply that all employees must now consider themselves at risk. That’s what administration puts employees at, and that’s why there’s the outpouring of anger on this site today from employees, who can see easily enough what’s being done to them.
Yes, it is likely that other contractors will pick up the pieces, but public agencies struggling with the cuts regime may, at the very least, feel very tempted to reduce contract terms and costs, leading to lower levels of public service as well as less employees.
The job for a journalist with more resources than me may therefore be to get together a list of the contracts that Connaught currently have, and ensure the list’s dissemination (TCF will be happy to help), so that unions and activists can start work early to ensure that this likely collapse of Connaught isn’t used as a back door route to reduced services.
I blogged that Connaught was likely to go under several weeks ago after its share price got hammered as a result of the Budget. But, its not the only one. There have been lots of companies whose share priece got hit after the Budget, just on the prospect of losing Public Sector contracts. Imagine when the actual loss of those contracts begins to happen! The companies run from construction companies to IT companies.
That demonstrates what I have said before that the Tories policies are a form of right-wing populism, not in the interests of Capital as a whole, particularly of Big Capital, which requires a degree of economic and social stability in order to maximise profits from its huge investments. Another recession is certainly not what it wants. We should make use of that division of interest.
I think Boffy originally claimed that these cuts would never happen because big capital or forces within the state would attempt to undermine it. Well from my position on the inside the forces within the state are actually trying to deceive elected members in order to sell the cuts – see my comment re the Tory spin machine and big capital is supportive of the Tories.
The die has not yet been cast but it now looks inevitable that significant cuts (upto 30% of budgets) will be implemented, it looks like Boffy is wrong. The only force left to fight these cuts is the labour movement and I am pessimistic about their readiness to fight.
It going to cause big problems in Norwich I fear
Norwich contract is likly to go inhouse on a tempory basis
Actually, I never said the Cuts wouldn’t happen. My original point was that the usual way such deficits are covered is by inflation. You might notice that inflation does indeed remain high. I also pointed out that the Cuts would take the form they have in the past – attacks on Welfare, because claimants can’t fight back, and cuts to the frontline, which would be made up for in increases in bureaucracy. That happened under CCT, for example.
I think a look at the comments today from the police federation, the repeated leaks from various Departments show that sections of the State are trying to hamper their progress. If you were getting £250,000 a year as head of the Audit Commission would you be in favour of its abolition? Talking about 30% cuts is also misleading, because you suggest that there is about to be such a cut, which of course there isn’t, or even a 25% cuts, or anything like it. There is plenty of time for sections of the State to undermine these cuts as they have in the past.
That is not a reason to be laid back, and I have never suggested anything other than that it was necessary to organise the labour Movement to oppose the Cuts. But, a sensible socialist will look for splits in the opposition to utilise where they can. A look at the position in the US, where the State is pressing ahead with further fiscal stimulus and urging its European counterparts to follow suit, shows that it is facile to have this attitude that the State will pursue cuts, or privatisation purely for ideological purposes. Long before Obama started his healthcare reforms, for example, the Republicans responded to the outcries of CEO’s complaining about the cost of healthcare costs compared to their European counterparts, and “socialised” $750 billion off their books and on to the books of the State.
That is also why it is facile to have this split between “State” Capitalism and “Private Capitalism”, and to see the former as some kind of lesser-evil. For Marxists “State Capitalism” is only historically progressive because it is a more mature form of Capitalism, in the same way that Monopoly is more mature than small-scale private firms. Marxists do not assign any further attribute to it than that. We oppose privatisation, for the same reason we oppose attempts to break up monopolies in favour of small businesses, because we are not in favour of going backwards. But, we are in favour of going forwards, and going forwards means counterposing worker owned and controlled property to both Monopoly, and to State capitalism.
If we really want to build a movement against Cuts, if we really want to enthuse all workers to take up such a struggle we have to put forward that socialist idea of Worker owned and controlled property as an alternative to the failed State and private Capitalist property.
A response to Boffy:
I think you have said that the shadowy forces within the state/Big capital would undermine the level of cuts. I think that position is looking rather laid back. (and dead wrong).
“If you were getting £250,000 a year as head of the Audit Commission would you be in favour of its abolition?”
Abolition is different to **cutting** – with abolition its basically tough shit! (unless it is NHS direct and that backdown was a result of ‘people’ power). A chief exec may be in favour of cutting as it would be unlikely to affect him. Each level of the hierachy will focus on cutting below, so it is possible that a manager working out cuts will be unaware of himself being cut by someone above!!
“Talking about 30% cuts is also misleading, because you suggest that there is about to be such a cut, which of course there isn’t, or even a 25% cuts, or anything like it.”
Rubbish. It is a reality. We have literally been told, your net budget needs to be reduced by 25%. There are many ways to achieve this – raise charges, offer part time work, minimise material/equipment spend and get rid of staff through any number of ways etc etc.
Unless the working class fight these cuts are coming.
“A look at the position in the US, where the State is pressing ahead with further fiscal stimulus and urging its European counterparts to follow suit, shows that it is facile to have this attitude that the State will pursue cuts, or privatisation purely for ideological purposes.”
Then how else do you explain what we are now seeing? Ideology can include a rational motive, e.g. makes workers submit, demoralise them etc etc.
“That is also why it is facile to have this split between “State” Capitalism and “Private Capitalism”, and to see the former as some kind of lesser-evil.”
I agree there is a danger in that but there is also another angle you have not included. State capitalist enterprises intimate at a planned approach, a national approach, a more rational approach to organising human economic life. (For example local councils tend to benchmark and share information). Rather than relying on the ‘anarchy’ of the market or in affect being slaves to the corporations.
“we have to put forward that socialist idea of Worker owned and controlled property as an alternative to the failed State and private Capitalist property.”
Couldn’t have put it better myself, the process used to implement these cuts (again see my comment re the Tory spin machine on another thread) makes the case for this position watertight. Any other position is not worth wasting energy on. Question is what is the best way to achieve this?
I have said nothing about “shadowy forces”. I have made the point that the Cuts are not in the interests of Big Capital, and the State represents the interest of Big Capital. Besides that, it is a simple fact of politics that every bureaucracy has its own interests that it seeks to preserve. On every past occasion the higher echelons of the State bureaucracy have sought to protect their own empires, and I don’t expect this to be any different. That is one reason why even under Thatcher the size of the State increased.
But, that is a piece of analysis, and I could be wrong as easily as anyone else. The fact of repeated leaks, and stories like that today from the Polie about the dire consequences of Cuts lead me to beleive that I’m not, and that as in the past there will be attempts to frustrate the effects of the Cuts on the overall size of the State. But, I repeat, from the beginning I have argued that there would be attacks on Welfare, and that the bureaucracy would focus the cuts on front line services where they would be most noticeable, whilst taking the opportunity to divert resources to building their own empires. I have never suggested that workers should not be prepared to fight the Cuts only that they should be ready to exploit any divisions in the opposition. However, our main task is to build a socialist alternative to both private and State capitalism. There is nothing laid back about that.
If you really were what you have claimed elsewhere – a Local Government Accountant – you would know that there is no prospect of an immediate 25% cut. The proposals are for 25%-40% cuts over the next 4 years. That is the potential for an immediate cut of around 5-6%, because the most likely figure is the lower one. Of course, if you just read about this proposal in your local newspaper you may be excused for thinking that the overall figure is what is being immediately proposed, just as you previously told us you had been involved in discussions about closing Bowling Greens, but apparently were so involved that you didn’t know whether it was 4 or 25 greens being closed!
The explanation for what we are seeing is quite easy to explain. Firstly, there is no doubt that ultimately the deficit has to be dealt with. No Government is going to openly say we will deal with it by letting inflation rip, even though that is the way Government have always dealt with such deficits. Labour, as with other centre-Left parties in Europe already occupied the centre ground, and so parties like the Tories could only build an electoral coalition to get elected by occupying a position to the Right, which appeals to the traditional core vote, and to the “common sense” idea that the debt had to be dealt with. It is held hostage to its core vote, and to those sections of small capital, and the middle class which dominate its ranks. In short there is a division of class interests between those elements, and the Big Capitalists, who need economic stability, and to avoid the risk of serious economic and social dislocation, which threaten their ability to make profits, and which under current conditions will also weaken them vis a vis China and other asian economies.
Planned for whose benefit? The State at both nationalo and local level only plans in the interests of Capital. The Nazi State planned too! Planning is now endemic. Every medium to large sized business operates on the basis of detailed planning, from production plans, to marketing plans, plus the extensive use of market research and demographics. In fact, when I worked for such a large firm back in the 1970′s, such planning was common even then. And, if you really were an Accountant, you would know that large companies also work on the basis of bench-marking, and the sharing of information. In fact, not just information. The major car companies share technology, engines, gearboxes, and so on.
But, all of those things, including the planning done by the State is done in order to maximise profit, not to maximise production for human need. And being a slave to the Capitalist State is, if anything even worse than being a slave to a private Corporation. In the Erfurt Programme Kautsky summed it up.
“If the modern state nationalizes certain industries, it does not do so for the purpose of restricting capitalist exploitation, but for the purpose of protecting the capitalist system and establishing it upon a firmer basis, or for the purpose of itself taking a hand in the exploitation of labour, increasing its own revenues, and thereby reducing the contributions for its own support which it would otherwise have to impose upon the capitalist class. As an exploiter of label, the state is superior to any private capitalist. Besides the economic power of the capitalists, ii can also bring to bear upon the exploited classes the political power which it already wields.
The state has never carried on the nationalizing of industries further than the interests of the ruling classes demanded, nor will it ever go further than that. So long as the property-holding classes are the ruling ones, the nationalization of industries and capitalist functions will never be carried so far as to injure the capitalists and landlords or to restrict their opportunities for exploiting the proletariat.”
The way to achieve it is what I have proposed elsewhere, and which you have opposed as amounting to privatisation. It is summed up by Engels when he said,
““It seems that the most advanced workers in Germany are demanding the emancipation of the workers from the capitalists by the transfer of state capital to associations of workers, so that production can be organised, without capitalists, for general account..”
The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers Party
“Of course, if you just read about this proposal in your local newspaper you may be excused for thinking that the overall figure is what is being immediately proposed, just as you previously told us you had been involved in discussions about closing Bowling Greens, but apparently were so involved that you didn’t know whether it was 4 or 25 greens being closed!”
It is 15 bowling greens that are to be closed.
I think it is you who is reading too many newspaper reports. Now I can only really speak for my authority (though colleagues in other authorities are reporting the same things) but our chief exec wants to cut early. Yes the overall affect is to the year 2013/2014. So our projections are spread along the 4 years from 2010/2011 but the actual cuts are coming earlier. You have to remember that within a local authority budget many areas are protected for statutory reasons so the actual cuts to other services are higher than the average. Our chief exec believes that cutting early is the better option, how this plays out over the country I cannot exactly say. If these cuts are not coming then we have all wasted a hell of a lot of time. I cannot count how many reviews are currently taking place, how many people have been accepted for voluntary severance, how many decisions have already been taken.
The problem is you are giving the impression of a slow well thought out consultative process, oh how I laughed. The anti cuts movement cannot afford your level of complacency. It is simple if the ‘general public’ do not oppose these cuts they are going to happen – ther are happening! Big capital will not lift a finger, neither will power blocks within the state.
“But, that is a piece of analysis, and I could be wrong as easily as anyone else.”
I think it is not too presumptious to say you are wrong.
“But, I repeat, from the beginning I have argued that there would be attacks on Welfare, and that the bureaucracy would focus the cuts on front line services where they would be most noticeable, whilst taking the opportunity to divert resources to building their own empires.”
This is just so much drivel. You have no idea about the processes currently taking place, all the major reviews taking place within my authority are on such back office functions, which philistines like you and Tory MP’s think have no value whatsoever. (e.g. Health and safety, cleaning of buildings – Asset management has been decimated). These reviews are different to how front line operations are being dealt with. The reviews literally rip up current structures and put something very much smaller in its place. Front line services are targeted with scenarios, provide us with the affect of 15%, 25% and 30% cuts. In other words what is going on in reality is the opposite of what you say! To speak of what you are doing as analysis is laughable. It isn’t analysis it is ignorant speculation.
The approach to planning, benchmarking, networking, sharing info within local government is different to that in most private firms. If you were to break up state capitalism and hand it over to workers it would be idiotic to take away that national dimension. There is more than the profit motive going on – that is not to say it is anywhere near perfect or ideal but it has within it the idea of how human society can transcend market relations. And it has it to a greater degree than private firms. I think most Marxists see this dimension.
“The way to achieve it is what I have proposed elsewhere, and which you have opposed as amounting to privatisation.”
You have mixed me up with someone else here. I think radical change is needed. The process of cuts we are now seeing does indeed show that state capitalism is an imperfect form to say the very least. When I speak of a democracy deficit I mean that workers need to have far more input into how their money is allocated and far more control over their services. If that were the case we wouldn’t be seeing this utter shambles of a cuts process.
25 or 15, you were so involved that you initially said it was 4!!! A considerable amount of LG Budgets are in Capital Spending, considerable amounts of which are planned for many years into the future, so where cuts are needed they can and are taken out of this planned spending, just as the Tories have done at a national level with School Building. The same is true to some extent with Revenue Spending where estimates are produced for the next three years. Given that the Government has not actually made the CSR yet, and has not announced the LG Settlement, it is not possible to say what LG Cuts will have to be made. When I was involved in this process of producing Estimates we did not formalise the outturns until the New Year, for that reason. But, overall, as you now admit the Cuts, even if they were to be front loaded – and many people beleive they may not precisely because of the danger of a double-dip, which is also why the Government delayed the VAT rise to January and so on – will not be the headline figure of 25%, you had picked up on, and which you claimed in your previous post was immediately upon us!
As for complacency, how is it complacent that for the last year and more I have been saying that the attack would be on Welfare and the front line services??? How is it complacent that I have spoken at Public Meetings, and written about the need to follow the example I and others used in the 1980′s of occupying threatened Public Buildings and so on??? For the record, perhaps you could tell us what motions you have put to your Union Branch, what Public meetings you have attended, and what you are doing practically to oppose the Cuts to counter your claimed involvement in advising your Council about what Cuts to make!
I’ve never said that back office functions have no value! Why would I, I used to work providing precisely such a back office function. I have merely related experience, which is that the usual respoinse udner such situations is to put forward for Cuts, the most sensitive first, because they are the most likely to be rejected, and attention focussed then elsewhere. That is what every Department Head tries to do. Moreover, because in any bureaucracy the heads of such get status and income from the nature of those immediately beneath them, there is a natural tendency to sacrifice the lowly and protect the higher ups. Under CCT, in the Council where I worked, a Direct labour organisation of over 1,000 virtually disappeared, but in its place, a large number of jobs for Contracts Managers, Client Managers, Supervisors etc. arose instead. How is what you describe in any way different to what I have described?
The planning and so on in relation to big companies such as the car makers is not just on a national but a global basis. No one is suggesting scrapping any such national or international sharing, or breaking up existing structures. On the contrary. But, the point is that as you admit that sharing is currently done in the interests of Capital not of workers, it is precisely State capitalism. The fact that you repeatedly defend this State Capitalism, and imply that it is in some way anti-Capitalist, shows that you certainly do not have what could in any sense be a marxist understanding let alone analysis of the State. Your repeated attempts to suggest that it is in some way acting in the interests of workers – which is rather amusing when the rest of your argument is setting out exactly how brutal that very same state is going to be in attacking workers – has nothing in common with marxism, and everything in common with right-wing Labourist ideas, that attempt to fool workers into a belief in the neutrality of the State! How neutral was it, how much against the profit motive was the NCB in 1984, how much of a socialist was Ian McGregor?
No I haven’t you have argued that rather than attempting to bring existing State property under direct workers ownership, we should limit ourselves to some undefined democratisation of the State in order to obtain control over it, and State property. Once again the very opposite of marxism, and the very fabric of right-wing labourism.
reply to Boffy:
Capital is a complicated picture; even though it is supposedly protected from the CSR the reality is different as some major projects have been scrapped due to loss of regional grant. Also much of capital spend is reliant on capital receipts, so it depends on the authority. The simple fact is though that this is all factored into the expected level of cuts to revenue I have already indicated. And a significant amount of revenue income is generated through charging fees to capital. We have lost a huge amount of projected fees from the scrapping of the schools building programme.
Here is a bit of an explanation of the process of budgets since 2010/2011 – though I will not give exact figures as this is compromising info. Originally there was a gap of approx £12 million – this had nothing to do with the October spending review or the emergency budget. This gap was plugged by among other things, freezing the pay award and expenditure inflation but adding a % to income inflation. We then top sliced a number of budget categories, agency, overtime, consultants, printing etc. Some revenue expenditure was capitalised, some money was taken out of the insurance fund. Finally each service area contributed specific savings.
So the 2010/2011 budget was set and the council tax info was published.
Then the work on the government’s emergency budget and the anticipated cuts from the October spending review started. A number of reviews were actioned looking at back office functions such as Business support, Management, Asset management, Finance, legal and some others. The outcomes of these reviews are to be implemented come what may, some have already been finalised. Staff have been informed etc. At the same time front line services have been subjected to scenarios of 15, 25 and 30%.
“Given that the Government has not actually made the CSR yet, and has not announced the LG Settlement, it is not possible to say what LG Cuts will have to be made.”
No we cannot predict exactly what the spending review will entail but enough hints have been dropped to give us a good idea. Perceived wisdon is between 20 and 30%. Local authorities have been working on different scenarios and actually enacted reviews and already made permanent decisions. They have asked staff to volunteer for redundancy, take part time work etc etc. And very very few people are being turned down.
The assumption has already been made that these cuts are extreme and require extreme decisions, local authorities are not waiting for the outcome of the October review, they understand what is before them. And even though the cut projections are spread to 2013/2014 the actual cuts are being done upfront – at least in my authority they are. The chief executive said budget holders should be prepared to begin 2011/2012 with 75% of their current budget.
“how is it complacent that for the last year and more I have been saying that the attack would be on Welfare and the front line services???”
So you said the Tories would attack benefits – well forgive me for not getting to my knees in awe!
You have been telling us that this level of cuts would not be achieved. You claimed big capital and forces within the state would undermine them, I will stick my neck out and say you were wrong. I would start critically analysing your analysis if I were you.
Though from our exchanges there is no wonder your analysis is incorrect, you start from such a position of ignorance. Marx would be proud!
“I have merely related experience, which is that the usual respoinse udner such situations is to put forward for Cuts, the most sensitive first, because they are the most likely to be rejected, and attention focussed then elsewhere. That is what every Department Head tries to do.”
You asked what was different this time, well as I said reviews of generic functions are taking place now. That is always so called back office functions, Business support, Asset management, Managemement, Finance, legal. We have reviews of all these functions and more. They are not what if reviews, the outcomes of these reviews will be implemented no matter what the outcome of the October review. Some of the reviews have already been concluded, staff have been informed and the areas have been decimated. So in actual fact these so called back office functions are first in line.
“Once again the very opposite of marxism, and the very fabric of right-wing labourism.”
Yeah whatever. In that case your ignorant speculation is really Anarchism dressed in Marxist rhetoric.
Firstly, its not speculation that the interests of Big Capital will not be best served by a renewed recession, let alone were that to turn into something more serious. That is why they pressed for such massive intervention to begin with, it is why the US is still pursuing that course, and pressing others to follow suit! Nor is it speculation that the State acts in the interests of Big Capital rather than small capital, or as you seem to assume the workers! Nor is it speculation that even under Thatcher – who as Chris Bambery correctly stated in Stoke recently was far strnger than the current Government – the vested interests within the permanent State undermined cuts in their Empires. The State udner Thatcher continued to expand.
I was just reading an account from 1982 in Capital & Class 17. The following quote is interesting.
“This is why Milton Friedman has publicly despaired of the Thatcher experiment, blaming its failure on resistance from within the Cabinet and the Civil Service”
Of course anyone who has actually worked in Local Government or the Civil Service knows that the reason for the opposition within Cabinet was itself a reflection of the fact that Ministers or Committee Chair always go native, and become prisoners of their top bureaucrats. They are got at, and end up pushing the departmental interest in Cabinet. The difference in the 1980′s is that Big Capital actually did have an interest in slashing Public Spending, because paying for it was an unsustainable drain on its profits. That is far from the case today, where a much bigger drain on its profits will come froma resumption of the recession!
Nor is it speculation to point to obvious instances of where the State is already fighting back against the Tories policies, for example the statements by top cops over the weekend about the chaos that will ensue from police being taken off the beat, and talk about it being like Christmas for the criminals. It is no coincidence that many of these statements have been in those areas of policing and the armed forces that are derest to the hearts of the Tory faithful. Of course, business leaders will talk about cutting the deficit, but there have been plenty of them, including people like Digby Jones, who have phrased their comments also in terms of being careful not to cut in such a way as to risk a double-dip. The fact, is that for all your waffle, the Cuts will not really begin to happen until after the new financial year for Councils. 8 Months away which is time that should be used to build a campaign that opposes the Cuts on a basis that prevents the Tories from being able to split Public Sector from Private Sector workers.
I have NOT said that the level of Cuts would not be achieved. On the contrary, I have said that whilst there are things that the permanenet State bureaucracy can do to frustrate Cuts there are things that a Government can do, which cannot be easily frustrated. That does not mean that the permanent State will not attempt to frustrate where it can, that it will not try to turn Cuts to its own advantages in the way I have previously outlined. I have also demonstrated that there are ways that the Deficit could be dealt with other than by Cuts. That is every Government throughout history has used inflation to simply inflate the debt away. I am far from being alone in pointing out that such measures are likely to be used this time too. The same argument has been made by Bill Jeffries of Permanent Revolution. Nor is the idea that I have put forward that Big capital needs a Big State unusual either. Many if not most Marxists accept that idea.
I notice that once again you have offered absolutely no positive solutions, or suggestions of what workers need to do to resist the Cuts. I notice that you have once again failed to answer the simple question I put to you of exactly what motions you have put to your Union Branch, what Public meetings you have attended to organise opposition to the Cuts. For the record you might want to provide such information telling us the details of your union branch etc. At the moment it seems that you are very good at attacking others actually involved in practical activity to fight the Cuts, whilst yourself only being able to tell us what actions you have performed as a supposedly high-flying Accountant advising your Council on how to best make the Cuts! But, then being as you seemed unable to determine whether you were closing 4 or 15 Bowling Greens, I am led to wonder just exactly what your real involvement even in that is.
The reality is, that everything you write has the tone of a troll pretending to be something they are not.
“The reality is, that everything you write has the tone of a troll pretending to be something they are not.”
Pathetic. I have given you detailed step by step procedures for compiling revenue outturn reports to central government including email addresses. I notice you are accusing someone else who disagrees with you of trolling on Phil BC’s site.
Re the bowling green slur, there are many cuts and many figures, I gave the incorrect figure and I told you about it. Big deal.
As for big capital in the UK, they don’t actually share your opinion of what is best for them. Maybe they are idiots.
Thanks for the histroy lesson from 1982, that is where your so called analysis is still stuck I am afraid. At least the TUC seem to have grasped what is coming.
We all know that the deficit could be tackled differently, the point is that if the working class do not mobilise then the cuts are coming and Big capital will support it. So will the forces within the state.
Most Marxists actually think the bosses want to frighten the workers. Some actually think capital would welcome a double dip recession. There are differences, nothing wrong with that. Problem is your analysis is built on flawed assumptions. Nothing personal but that needs to be exposed.
I have given what is pretty confidential information, I will not give details about myself. Especially with people like you around.