A woman walks along a random street, hundreds of miles from home. She passes a phone box where the phone is ringing, and out of curiosity answers it. On the other end of the line is her husband, who addresses her by name. He thinks he is talking to her on her mobile phone, but has got the wrong number.
Some people are scared by a coincidence like that. They assume that it could not possibly happen by random chance, and must have some underlying meaning. In many ways that's the foundation of superstition - and perhaps of one or two religions as well.
But, in truth, science tells us that it's statistically inevitable that these amazing coincidences will occasionally occur - so much so, in fact, that we ought to be far more frightened if they don't happen. So when we discover that Inverclyde's Labour MP Iain McKenzie rented a flat using taxpayers' money, and by completely random chance discovered later that he had accidentally ended up with a fellow Labour MP as his landlady, we shouldn't be scared, and we certainly shouldn't be sceptical of his story. We should simply embrace it as one of those extraordinary phenomena, like the aurora borealis, that enrich our world with so much beauty. And when we discover that, even more remarkably, three other MPs also accidentally rented flats from fellow MPs, we should feel even more enriched.
This is, it must be said, a special moment for those of us who predicted that something truly wonderful would happen if the people of Inverclyde had the good sense to elect McKenzie as their MP.
* * *
I've just heard that George Osborne has been caught sitting in the first-class compartment of a train with a standard-class ticket. He asked the conductor for special permission to stay where he was to avoid having to mix with the plebs, but was refused. As per what happened on a ScotRail train last year, I trust a "big man" arrived on the scene to deliver swift and violent justice to the fare-dodger, with the cheers of fellow passengers and the right-wing press ringing in his ears?
Showing posts with label George Osborne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Osborne. Show all posts
Friday, October 19, 2012
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Staines pronounces that black is white once again
I've been enjoying RTÉ's coverage of the Irish general election off and on today, and the following points have been made repeatedly -
1) The centre-left Labour party is heading for its best election result ever, surpassing even the "Spring Tide" of 1992.
2) The well-to-the-left Sinn Féin is heading for its best election result ever.
3) Many left-wing candidates standing as independents or for smaller parties are also likely to be elected. For instance, Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party looks set for a return to the Dáil, having been defeated in 2007.
4) It seems overwhelmingly likely that Labour are heading into government, having successfully checked the Fine Gael bandwagon in recent days by reminding the electorate of the importance of a broad-based administration.
Put all these facts through the 'Guido filter', and what do you get?
"The Irish election results...show that left-wing parties failed to make the breakthrough"
"Adding the Fianna Fail vote the parties of the centre-right got 51%"
The latter point might make some kind of sense if it hadn't been for the fact that a) Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have had a majority between them in every single election in history in which both have stood, b) 51% is an unprecedentedly low combined share, and c) Fianna Fáil are political untouchables at present, so any theoretical parliamentary majority that includes them is fairly academic.
But Staines' analysis gets yet more exotic -
"This will stiffen the resolve of George Osborne to persevere with spending cuts"
Unfortunately for us all, I'd suggest he already had plenty enough "resolve" for that endeavour. I'm not sure where this stunning showing for the Irish left really comes into it.
1) The centre-left Labour party is heading for its best election result ever, surpassing even the "Spring Tide" of 1992.
2) The well-to-the-left Sinn Féin is heading for its best election result ever.
3) Many left-wing candidates standing as independents or for smaller parties are also likely to be elected. For instance, Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party looks set for a return to the Dáil, having been defeated in 2007.
4) It seems overwhelmingly likely that Labour are heading into government, having successfully checked the Fine Gael bandwagon in recent days by reminding the electorate of the importance of a broad-based administration.
Put all these facts through the 'Guido filter', and what do you get?
"The Irish election results...show that left-wing parties failed to make the breakthrough"
"Adding the Fianna Fail vote the parties of the centre-right got 51%"
The latter point might make some kind of sense if it hadn't been for the fact that a) Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have had a majority between them in every single election in history in which both have stood, b) 51% is an unprecedentedly low combined share, and c) Fianna Fáil are political untouchables at present, so any theoretical parliamentary majority that includes them is fairly academic.
But Staines' analysis gets yet more exotic -
"This will stiffen the resolve of George Osborne to persevere with spending cuts"
Unfortunately for us all, I'd suggest he already had plenty enough "resolve" for that endeavour. I'm not sure where this stunning showing for the Irish left really comes into it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wizard Osborne heals the sick and keeps people younger for longer
After the Budget speech or other important government announcements, there's always an irritating period of spin and Chinese whispers during which it's impossibly hard to nail down what the changes really mean. That applies a million times over today following the Bullingdon Boys' gleeful torching of civilisation as we know it. But, just to be getting on with, a couple of things leap out -
1) The removal of 'contributory Employment and Support Allowance' (ie. incapacity benefit) after someone has claimed for one year. Now, if Osborne thinks he can legislate to limit sickness or certain forms of disability to a duration of one-year, perhaps he can also put his powers of sorcery to further use by legislating to reduce the UK's annual rate of rainfall. Alternatively, he's just sacrificed any credibility this government ever had as a "progressive" administration, by decoupling the eligibility for lifeline benefits from people's true needs.
2) The limiting of housing benefit for single people under the age of 35. Discrimination against people on the basis of their youth always carries the suspicion of injustice, but if it's going to be justified at all it surely has to be restricted to a very narrow age range in which overwhelming numbers can objectively be seen to fall into a special category, ie. full-time education or training. As the BBC puts it, everyone up to the age of 35 has suddenly become a student in Osborne's eyes.
1) The removal of 'contributory Employment and Support Allowance' (ie. incapacity benefit) after someone has claimed for one year. Now, if Osborne thinks he can legislate to limit sickness or certain forms of disability to a duration of one-year, perhaps he can also put his powers of sorcery to further use by legislating to reduce the UK's annual rate of rainfall. Alternatively, he's just sacrificed any credibility this government ever had as a "progressive" administration, by decoupling the eligibility for lifeline benefits from people's true needs.
2) The limiting of housing benefit for single people under the age of 35. Discrimination against people on the basis of their youth always carries the suspicion of injustice, but if it's going to be justified at all it surely has to be restricted to a very narrow age range in which overwhelming numbers can objectively be seen to fall into a special category, ie. full-time education or training. As the BBC puts it, everyone up to the age of 35 has suddenly become a student in Osborne's eyes.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
One 'mistake' that a senior UK minister has correctly identified
Much as Nick Clegg isn't exactly going to be my nominee for Man of the Year, there was something symbolically rather satisfying about finally seeing a senior UK government minister stand at the dispatch box and unequivocally declare the invasion of Iraq "illegal". Spain had its 'purging' election in 2004 when the enthusiastic Bush cheerleader Aznar was ousted by Zapatero, and even the US itself eventually elected an opponent of the Iraq war as President. But it appeared that the British electorate were never going to have the opportunity to express their disgust at the events of 2003 in such a clear-cut way, due to the complicity between the Labour and Tory leaderships over the issue. Probably what happened today was just about the best we could ever realistically hope for.
And George Osborne and William Hague's faces when Clegg said the words were an absolute picture. They had obviously built themselves up to nod their heads furiously and shout "Hear, hear!" regardless of what Clegg said during PMQs, and they didn't quite manage to pull out of their approving facial expressions in time.
And George Osborne and William Hague's faces when Clegg said the words were an absolute picture. They had obviously built themselves up to nod their heads furiously and shout "Hear, hear!" regardless of what Clegg said during PMQs, and they didn't quite manage to pull out of their approving facial expressions in time.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Cam'n'Clegg face the audience with a fantastical false choice
Back in the days when Paul Merton had his own Channel 4 show, he recounted the story of how a woman had reacted to someone advancing republican views. "You don't want the Queen? So what do you want, then? Hitler?"
"You can't really argue with stupidity like that," Merton mused.
For some reason those words popped into my head as I was watching the performance of Nick Clegg and David Cameron on the hastily-arranged Face the Audience show. They were both determined to present us with an utterly fantastical false choice - either you accept every last dot and comma of the Budget, or you do absolutely nothing, and don't tackle the deficit at all, with all the problems that would cause down the line. Anyone would think VAT was the only tax that could possibly have been raised, or that there is some kind of legal cap on how much bankers can be penalised for their wrongdoing, and on how far the wealthy more generally can be asked to pay their fair share.
Clegg said at one point that he was sure he spoke for David Cameron in reassuring us that if only it had been possible to claw in all the necessary funds by hitting the bankers alone, that's what the coalition would have done in a trice. Well, I'm absolutely certain he doesn't speak for Cameron in saying that, and frankly I'm dubious about whether he even speaks for himself.
It struck me watching the programme that, if this government is going to survive its full five year term, there is going to have to be some kind of relaxation (even if only an informal one) of the normal principle of collective responsibility. Cameron and Clegg were both essentially defending a Tory Budget tonight, so it's no surprise that Clegg looked the most ill-at-ease. Liberal Democrat supporters looking for reassurance that the coalition has been worthwhile will have wanted to hear their leader say "OK, this is not exactly what we wanted to happen, but coalition is a constant compromise and we've been able to offset some of the worst effects". Instead, they saw him dying in a ditch trying to defend the Tory policies he was berating just a few weeks ago.
One point on which I can commend the government, however, is their apparent determination to stand firm on the ring-fencing of the overseas aid budget. A member of the audience tonight trotted out the now familiar suggestion (previously advanced by the likes of Irwin Stelzer) that much of that budget is poorly-targeted. That's undoubtedly true, which is an argument for making sure that every pound of the very small proportion of national wealth set aside for international development is properly prioritised and helps those who actually need it most. It's not an argument for clawing the wasted money back to the exchequer. If there's one group of people more vulnerable than those clobbered in Britain by George Osborne this week, it's the poorest of the poor in Third World countries.
"You can't really argue with stupidity like that," Merton mused.
For some reason those words popped into my head as I was watching the performance of Nick Clegg and David Cameron on the hastily-arranged Face the Audience show. They were both determined to present us with an utterly fantastical false choice - either you accept every last dot and comma of the Budget, or you do absolutely nothing, and don't tackle the deficit at all, with all the problems that would cause down the line. Anyone would think VAT was the only tax that could possibly have been raised, or that there is some kind of legal cap on how much bankers can be penalised for their wrongdoing, and on how far the wealthy more generally can be asked to pay their fair share.
Clegg said at one point that he was sure he spoke for David Cameron in reassuring us that if only it had been possible to claw in all the necessary funds by hitting the bankers alone, that's what the coalition would have done in a trice. Well, I'm absolutely certain he doesn't speak for Cameron in saying that, and frankly I'm dubious about whether he even speaks for himself.
It struck me watching the programme that, if this government is going to survive its full five year term, there is going to have to be some kind of relaxation (even if only an informal one) of the normal principle of collective responsibility. Cameron and Clegg were both essentially defending a Tory Budget tonight, so it's no surprise that Clegg looked the most ill-at-ease. Liberal Democrat supporters looking for reassurance that the coalition has been worthwhile will have wanted to hear their leader say "OK, this is not exactly what we wanted to happen, but coalition is a constant compromise and we've been able to offset some of the worst effects". Instead, they saw him dying in a ditch trying to defend the Tory policies he was berating just a few weeks ago.
One point on which I can commend the government, however, is their apparent determination to stand firm on the ring-fencing of the overseas aid budget. A member of the audience tonight trotted out the now familiar suggestion (previously advanced by the likes of Irwin Stelzer) that much of that budget is poorly-targeted. That's undoubtedly true, which is an argument for making sure that every pound of the very small proportion of national wealth set aside for international development is properly prioritised and helps those who actually need it most. It's not an argument for clawing the wasted money back to the exchequer. If there's one group of people more vulnerable than those clobbered in Britain by George Osborne this week, it's the poorest of the poor in Third World countries.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Scrapping Trident would have been the real 'tough choice'
It's testament to the fact that Jeremy Paxman is perfectly capable of facilitating an illuminating discussion - on the rare occasions when he can temper his belligerence - that on Monday's Newsnight there was a very interesting philosophical exchange between Labour MP John Mann and "Red Tory" Phillip Blonde on the case for means-testing benefits that are currently universal. I must admit this is an issue that hurts my head slightly - on the face of it, paying child benefit to millionaires can scarcely be seen as redistributive, and Mann's defence of universality on the basis that middle class people "need to have a stake in the welfare state" didn't seem terribly convincing. He was probably on stronger ground with the "thin end of the wedge" argument, ie. that once the principle of universality is abandoned, the range of people eligible to receive child benefit would gradually be squeezed, until eventually those genuinely in need are affected.
However, that debate is now purely academic, as George Osborne surprised many by not introducing means-tests for child benefit in his Budget, instead choosing to claw the money back through a freeze in the benefit across the board. Clearly, the new Chancellor's notion of us "all being in it together" is that both rich and poor must suffer an equal hit in absolute terms, and it doesn't take a genius to work out which group will be suffering a greater proportionate loss of income as a result. It's essentially the Poll Tax philosophy, albeit marginally better disguised. Mark Easton's report on the BBC Ten O'Clock News confirmed that the bottom in society will be taking a bigger hit than anyone other than the very richest - "fairness is in the eye of the beholder," he wryly observed.
So much for 'tough choices' across the board, then - there can hardly be an easier choice for a Tory Chancellor than to hit the vulnerable sections of society who would never dream of voting Conservative anyway. Which brings me on to the choice the Tories regard (for some reason) as so tough that it's unthinkable even to confront the issue : Trident. All I can do is weep in despair every time a journalist points out to the SNP that cutting Trident would "only" save £3 billion this year. OK, but how much does the child benefit freeze save annually? How much does the penny-pinching at Stonehenge save, even as a one-off? And yet those cuts were deemed utterly essential - while the future of Trident isn't even up for discussion.
Whenever I've managed to get defenders of Trident to engage honestly about their motivations, it seems to boil down to this - "yeah, probably we don't really need it, but somehow it makes me feel better about our status as a country, so I'll always support it". And yet these are the self-same people who would denounce the proper protection of jobs and welfare spending as "grossly irresponsible at a time of crisis". Giving up on a hugely expensive status-symbol (that in truth was fairly superfluous to this country's defence even at the height of the Cold War) to ease the burden on the poorest should be the easiest choice in the world. If for purely psychological reasons it doesn't seem quite so easy for our new masters, then no problem - they talk about "tough choices", so let's start with that one.
However, that debate is now purely academic, as George Osborne surprised many by not introducing means-tests for child benefit in his Budget, instead choosing to claw the money back through a freeze in the benefit across the board. Clearly, the new Chancellor's notion of us "all being in it together" is that both rich and poor must suffer an equal hit in absolute terms, and it doesn't take a genius to work out which group will be suffering a greater proportionate loss of income as a result. It's essentially the Poll Tax philosophy, albeit marginally better disguised. Mark Easton's report on the BBC Ten O'Clock News confirmed that the bottom in society will be taking a bigger hit than anyone other than the very richest - "fairness is in the eye of the beholder," he wryly observed.
So much for 'tough choices' across the board, then - there can hardly be an easier choice for a Tory Chancellor than to hit the vulnerable sections of society who would never dream of voting Conservative anyway. Which brings me on to the choice the Tories regard (for some reason) as so tough that it's unthinkable even to confront the issue : Trident. All I can do is weep in despair every time a journalist points out to the SNP that cutting Trident would "only" save £3 billion this year. OK, but how much does the child benefit freeze save annually? How much does the penny-pinching at Stonehenge save, even as a one-off? And yet those cuts were deemed utterly essential - while the future of Trident isn't even up for discussion.
Whenever I've managed to get defenders of Trident to engage honestly about their motivations, it seems to boil down to this - "yeah, probably we don't really need it, but somehow it makes me feel better about our status as a country, so I'll always support it". And yet these are the self-same people who would denounce the proper protection of jobs and welfare spending as "grossly irresponsible at a time of crisis". Giving up on a hugely expensive status-symbol (that in truth was fairly superfluous to this country's defence even at the height of the Cold War) to ease the burden on the poorest should be the easiest choice in the world. If for purely psychological reasons it doesn't seem quite so easy for our new masters, then no problem - they talk about "tough choices", so let's start with that one.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Lesson of the day : never rely on a Liberal Democrat to defuse a bombshell
It's slightly surreal to think that it was just a few weeks ago that the Liberal Democrats were unveiling 1992-style posters, warning of the Tories' devastating "tax bombshell". This was a direct reference to the "plans" - denied in non-denial fashion by David Cameron - to increase the rate of VAT, and it triggered a furious attempt by journalists such as Andrew Neil to force Lib Dem spokesmen to acknowledge that the Tories were in fact "planning" no such thing. The response was that, while the Tories weren't openly admitting their intentions, nothing but a hike in VAT could ever make their sums add up.
Well, one good thing can now be said for the Lib Dems - they were completely right and Andrew Neil was completely wrong, but given the circumstances I don't think that's going to do them a lot of good. Perhaps I just missed the small print on those billboards saying "but, hey, we love Tory tax bombshells!".
UPDATE : Until I saw this photo, I'd completely forgotten that the ill-fated billboard launch took place in Scotland. Tavish Scott does seem to have an uncanny knack of finding himself in the wrong place at the wrong time (eg. Jack McConnell's government). Still, at least Charles Kennedy can hold his head up high.
Well, one good thing can now be said for the Lib Dems - they were completely right and Andrew Neil was completely wrong, but given the circumstances I don't think that's going to do them a lot of good. Perhaps I just missed the small print on those billboards saying "but, hey, we love Tory tax bombshells!".
UPDATE : Until I saw this photo, I'd completely forgotten that the ill-fated billboard launch took place in Scotland. Tavish Scott does seem to have an uncanny knack of finding himself in the wrong place at the wrong time (eg. Jack McConnell's government). Still, at least Charles Kennedy can hold his head up high.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Osborne's true potential
George Osborne on the Ask the Chancellors programme : "I've got to remember that it's not my money I'm dealing with, it's the public's".
A great pity. Dipping into the Osborne family fortune sounds like a deficit reduction plan with considerable potential.
Mysterious that it was perfectly feasible to find a politically balanced audience for this debate, drawn from across the whole United Kingdom. As I've mentioned before, the audiences for the main leaders' debates will be restricted to a fifteen mile radius of the venues, all in England. This not only means that residents of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be literally banned from participating, but also that the audiences cannot possibly be politically balanced, as by definition SNP and Plaid supporters will not be present, despite commanding roughly 3% support across the UK.
A London party stitch-up? Perish the thought.
A great pity. Dipping into the Osborne family fortune sounds like a deficit reduction plan with considerable potential.
Mysterious that it was perfectly feasible to find a politically balanced audience for this debate, drawn from across the whole United Kingdom. As I've mentioned before, the audiences for the main leaders' debates will be restricted to a fifteen mile radius of the venues, all in England. This not only means that residents of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be literally banned from participating, but also that the audiences cannot possibly be politically balanced, as by definition SNP and Plaid supporters will not be present, despite commanding roughly 3% support across the UK.
A London party stitch-up? Perish the thought.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Toff Guy
Mike Smithson at Politicalbetting.com is speculating about whether Labour's apparent plan to draw attention to the class background of senior Tories can possibly work. That strategy of course failed spectacularly in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election last year, and I share Mike's gut feeling that the goodwill towards David Cameron means that Labour will have severe difficulty making it any more effective in the general election. The irony is, though, that in a way the attack deserves to be effective. Not because an individual Old Etonian has any less right than anyone else to seek an individual high office, whether that office be Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or anything else. The problem is rather more that we happen to have a whole group of Old Etonians seeking a group of high offices simultaneously. I can already hear the Tory retort - "in the Conservative Party we appoint people on merit, we can't discriminate against people just because they happened to go to the same school". Hmmm. If I (in a parallel universe) became Leader of the Opposition, do you think that line would work for me? If half my appointed Shadow Cabinet had all attended the same comprehensive school as me, would anyone be able to keep a straight face if I asked them to accept that as 'appointment solely on merit'?
Well, quite. So why should be people be any more forgiving - or any less sceptical - just because the school in question happens to be Eton? And yet somehow they are. Suggests to me that class prejudice is alive and well in Britain, and that contrary to the belief of some, it still ultimately works rather more in favour of the likes of David Cameron and George Osborne.
Well, quite. So why should be people be any more forgiving - or any less sceptical - just because the school in question happens to be Eton? And yet somehow they are. Suggests to me that class prejudice is alive and well in Britain, and that contrary to the belief of some, it still ultimately works rather more in favour of the likes of David Cameron and George Osborne.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)