Well, I've been away for a bit. Unsurprisingly, it's largely because I've been obsessively following the footy.
And, barring England's amazingly tedious tedium, it's been pretty good really. Lots of nice shocks, great to see Germany stutter, France and Italy go home early.
Frankly, if I hadn't been born in England I'd be ecstatic about England's travails too. They play a horrible football, which manages to be both pragmatic rather than flambouyant, yet at the same time also largely incompetent. And every time they look to start doing something well, they panic and decide to sit back and defend.
It's pretty horrible stuff to watch. Worse still, though, is the moronic fawning of the media over, say, John Terry hurling himself in front of a shot AND FAILING TO BLOCK IT! Fortunately someone else was actually competent to block it, but still the fawning is over bloody John Terry.
There's so much wrong with the way England play, and in part it's due to the media fawning. Because they love when Gerrard hares around like a headless chicken, they get into his head that he actually can tackle well, and is reliable at passing the ball out of defence. Both not true. He's very good attacking from midfield and has a good shot; and he can pick out a great long pass - but he'll make only 1 in 2 of the long passes and the other goes out of play. That's fine for raking crossfield passes from the left wing. It's utterly disastrous if it's played just in front of defence.
In addition, Rooney is told similar stuff. And Lampard. And the result is that they all think they need to be the fulcrum, all drift in to the middle, and all tread on each others toes, bringing their men in with them meaning that the others in midfield have no space either, and of course, have nobody to pass to. There's horrible positional discipline in this England team. It's really worth noting that they played much, much better when Gerrard stayed further out left against Slovenia.
And, of course, the media are hyping now England's progress when, in fact, they struggled to second place and, instead of being with Ghana, Korea, Uruguay, etc in their part of the draw, they are in with Germany, Argentina and presumably Spain and Portugal. That actually means all those cock-ups against Algeria and Slovenia will have cost us the easiest route ever to a World Cup semi final. Feeble.
Friday 25 June 2010
Monday 14 June 2010
Oil Spill - get a grip
Today, Barack Obama is comparing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to 11/9/01.
Really? Really, seriously?
I know people are talking like idiots here, but seriously. September 11th '01 resulted in 3000 deaths, and many billions of dollars of business lost; it shut down New York and the entire air travel industry for days and weeks.
This, just to remind you, has killed no-one, has buggered some fishing fleets in Louisiana and is beginning the restrict some tourism trade on the Gulf coast of Florida and. er. that's it.
There are some unhealthy looking birds, sure. But, frankly, this is not the same as 11/9.
In addition, Obama's been saying all the "right things". Except it's the stupid lack of perspective bollocks that we thought we wouldn't get from him. We always thought that the great thing with Obama was nuance and subtlety, that we wouldn't get the "I am working as hard as I can to fix this". It's shit. You know it's shit. I know it's shit. You are not an engineer, you're not an oil executive, you haven't the faintest idea how to fix this because it's not your job. Even if you did know how to fix it, you shouldn't. You're President of the bloody USA. There's a ton of other stuff you should be doing. Like running the country.
And, as for the "This is Obama's Katrina" garbage from the US right - you, too, need to get a grip. Again - unlike Katrina, nobody's died since the initial blast. No cities are destroyed. There aren't tens of thousands of refugees trapped in a sports stadium without food or sanitation. There's no mad lawlessness on the streets. It's hogwash.
Really? Really, seriously?
I know people are talking like idiots here, but seriously. September 11th '01 resulted in 3000 deaths, and many billions of dollars of business lost; it shut down New York and the entire air travel industry for days and weeks.
This, just to remind you, has killed no-one, has buggered some fishing fleets in Louisiana and is beginning the restrict some tourism trade on the Gulf coast of Florida and. er. that's it.
There are some unhealthy looking birds, sure. But, frankly, this is not the same as 11/9.
In addition, Obama's been saying all the "right things". Except it's the stupid lack of perspective bollocks that we thought we wouldn't get from him. We always thought that the great thing with Obama was nuance and subtlety, that we wouldn't get the "I am working as hard as I can to fix this". It's shit. You know it's shit. I know it's shit. You are not an engineer, you're not an oil executive, you haven't the faintest idea how to fix this because it's not your job. Even if you did know how to fix it, you shouldn't. You're President of the bloody USA. There's a ton of other stuff you should be doing. Like running the country.
And, as for the "This is Obama's Katrina" garbage from the US right - you, too, need to get a grip. Again - unlike Katrina, nobody's died since the initial blast. No cities are destroyed. There aren't tens of thousands of refugees trapped in a sports stadium without food or sanitation. There's no mad lawlessness on the streets. It's hogwash.
Thursday 10 June 2010
University places
Last one for the day - and haven't I gone on and on.
Anyway, big news today is that the government wants to ramp up tuition fees for university places. Apparently, if you're as student who takes advantage of the university system, you should effectively pay higher tax.
This seems a bit intellectually inconsistent to me.
Because the government want more people going to University so we have more educated people in the workforce, which means a stronger economy and therefore, you know, more tax.
The fact that you're earning £50,000 rather than £20,000 per year means you're already paying tons of extra tax. The government think it's worth it, so they really should pay the investment.
The thing is, both the government and everyone else knows that some university degrees get people into decent jobs fairly easily; and others are useless.
What the Conservatives don't tell you is that, often, media studies and materials sciences and all those semi-practical degree courses are the ones that earn the jobs; and the old university pure subjects, the classics, or PPE, or history, or Eng Lit, are the ones that are fundamentally useless in the jobs market.
This goes against the standard right-wing press trope that we're losing elitism in the higher education system by letting non-trad subjects in.
The reality is, the government should increase tuition fees. But, specifically, only for degrees for which there isn't demand exceeding supply in the jobs market. So all those old Tory subjects should charge more; but the people learning IT, or engineering, or modern languages, or practical subjects, should be fully subsidised by the state.
One thing that does grate, with me, is the subsidy on tuition fees for people from poor backgrounds. Because the loan only gets paid back once you are earning a decent wage. So, whether you start poor or not, you only even pay out on the loan once you're relatively wealthy. It's a stupid bribe, and a meaningless one.
Finally - one thing that needs to be maintained is the student loan. Not just for tuition fees, but also for living expenses for the duration of the university course. These shoud, again, only be paid back once the graduate is earning good money; and should be lent out at government base rate only, with no premium, and therefore no profit. If we're going to charge our students to study, we have to make sure that they aren't being gouged by the money lenders in the process.
None of these things seems to be on David Willett's agenda - which seems largely ill thought through and of the "Hey, if the students are going to have fun for three years they should pay us for the privelege" line.
Anyway, big news today is that the government wants to ramp up tuition fees for university places. Apparently, if you're as student who takes advantage of the university system, you should effectively pay higher tax.
This seems a bit intellectually inconsistent to me.
Because the government want more people going to University so we have more educated people in the workforce, which means a stronger economy and therefore, you know, more tax.
The fact that you're earning £50,000 rather than £20,000 per year means you're already paying tons of extra tax. The government think it's worth it, so they really should pay the investment.
The thing is, both the government and everyone else knows that some university degrees get people into decent jobs fairly easily; and others are useless.
What the Conservatives don't tell you is that, often, media studies and materials sciences and all those semi-practical degree courses are the ones that earn the jobs; and the old university pure subjects, the classics, or PPE, or history, or Eng Lit, are the ones that are fundamentally useless in the jobs market.
This goes against the standard right-wing press trope that we're losing elitism in the higher education system by letting non-trad subjects in.
The reality is, the government should increase tuition fees. But, specifically, only for degrees for which there isn't demand exceeding supply in the jobs market. So all those old Tory subjects should charge more; but the people learning IT, or engineering, or modern languages, or practical subjects, should be fully subsidised by the state.
One thing that does grate, with me, is the subsidy on tuition fees for people from poor backgrounds. Because the loan only gets paid back once you are earning a decent wage. So, whether you start poor or not, you only even pay out on the loan once you're relatively wealthy. It's a stupid bribe, and a meaningless one.
Finally - one thing that needs to be maintained is the student loan. Not just for tuition fees, but also for living expenses for the duration of the university course. These shoud, again, only be paid back once the graduate is earning good money; and should be lent out at government base rate only, with no premium, and therefore no profit. If we're going to charge our students to study, we have to make sure that they aren't being gouged by the money lenders in the process.
None of these things seems to be on David Willett's agenda - which seems largely ill thought through and of the "Hey, if the students are going to have fun for three years they should pay us for the privelege" line.
Flags again
After my last comments on the car flags that are all over the place, I think I have to rethink my opinion.
Because now they're utterly ubiquitous, which means that they're on all kinds of peoples' cars. Sure, pretty much every white van is flagged up, but - certainly in London - you'll see posh blokes in Mercs, black mums on the school run, just about every kind of person, with their St George's flags out.
And that means it really has just become a symbol of support for the football team and nothing else. And that makes me feel good.
What makes me feel better still, in London, is that you begin to see other nations flags appearing too. It's regional - so in Stockwell you see Portuguese and Brazilian car flags, elsewhere perhaps Ghanaian ones. There's a fair South African presence in Earlsfield - although less than you'd expect, perhaps because they're all rugby fans who don't really care about football.
But, whatever the reason, I'm now beginning to get a rather nice warm feeling from the flood of flags.
Because now they're utterly ubiquitous, which means that they're on all kinds of peoples' cars. Sure, pretty much every white van is flagged up, but - certainly in London - you'll see posh blokes in Mercs, black mums on the school run, just about every kind of person, with their St George's flags out.
And that means it really has just become a symbol of support for the football team and nothing else. And that makes me feel good.
What makes me feel better still, in London, is that you begin to see other nations flags appearing too. It's regional - so in Stockwell you see Portuguese and Brazilian car flags, elsewhere perhaps Ghanaian ones. There's a fair South African presence in Earlsfield - although less than you'd expect, perhaps because they're all rugby fans who don't really care about football.
But, whatever the reason, I'm now beginning to get a rather nice warm feeling from the flood of flags.
Coalitions again
OK. Enough with this now. Really, enough with it.
"Look, there are cracks in the coalition. They don't agree with each other." Cry Labour, the press, the right wing blogs.
Well, no shit Sherlock. If they bloody agreed on everything they'd have stood for the same party, wouldn't they?
Seriously, some people have real difficulties with this. And it's baffling, because it was utterly apparent in the last government that there were a ton of ministers who didn't always agree with what Brown or Blair were doing.
It's what happens. You can't expect the kind of people who go into politics to be so utterly devoid of independent thought (although the Labour leadership candidates do hint at it) as to go along fully with everything anyone else proposes.
So, you know what happens? They compromise. And this is a good thing for everyone. The Lib Dems get some of their policies through that they wouldn't get through otherwise. And temper the worst of the Tory programme. But clearly can't veto all of it, otherwise, you know, they'd be the senior partners. And the Tories get a huge majority of their program through, and with an ample enough majority to mean there's no risk of collapse of the government so the program actually survives.
I get a feeling that everyone getting excited about splits is just being disingenuous and actually realises this. But it does need reiterating.
The Lib Dems and Tories are going to disagree on government policies. It's inevitable, and actually desirable. And usually they'll come to some compromise; but some of the time they won't but basically have to say "Yeah, fair enough, you have this stuff I oppose, because in the end it's better that than the entire government comes down".
It's called being a bit mature, and flexible, shades of grey, and compromise.
"Look, there are cracks in the coalition. They don't agree with each other." Cry Labour, the press, the right wing blogs.
Well, no shit Sherlock. If they bloody agreed on everything they'd have stood for the same party, wouldn't they?
Seriously, some people have real difficulties with this. And it's baffling, because it was utterly apparent in the last government that there were a ton of ministers who didn't always agree with what Brown or Blair were doing.
It's what happens. You can't expect the kind of people who go into politics to be so utterly devoid of independent thought (although the Labour leadership candidates do hint at it) as to go along fully with everything anyone else proposes.
So, you know what happens? They compromise. And this is a good thing for everyone. The Lib Dems get some of their policies through that they wouldn't get through otherwise. And temper the worst of the Tory programme. But clearly can't veto all of it, otherwise, you know, they'd be the senior partners. And the Tories get a huge majority of their program through, and with an ample enough majority to mean there's no risk of collapse of the government so the program actually survives.
I get a feeling that everyone getting excited about splits is just being disingenuous and actually realises this. But it does need reiterating.
The Lib Dems and Tories are going to disagree on government policies. It's inevitable, and actually desirable. And usually they'll come to some compromise; but some of the time they won't but basically have to say "Yeah, fair enough, you have this stuff I oppose, because in the end it's better that than the entire government comes down".
It's called being a bit mature, and flexible, shades of grey, and compromise.
Let them entertain you
I've been away for a few days and there are a number of things I want to ramble on about. First up is away from politics. Over the last few days I've been to see the Sex and The City 2 movie, and Kenny Rogers live in concert. Neither of these are things I'd ever have chosen to see myself (many thanks to the Good Lady Indolent Cyclist). And, frankly, the reviews of S&TC2 are pretty accurate in describing it as a very bad film indeed.
But, despite this, I thoroughly enjoyed both evenings. I think if you go in to almost any entertainment with an open and uncynical mind, and allow yourself to go with the flow, you can come away entertained.
Post facto, I opened my critical mind to the film and frankly it was utter garbage, bordering on racist is places. I say this as someone who's studiously tried to avoid all of the S&TC phenomenon - challenging with a wife like mine. So very few preconceived ideas except that I've hated all the fragments I've seen. All of the stuff in the "UAE" was utter garbage. It really is a horrible film. But, and this is the funny thing, I think you can still go along and be entertained.
Kenny Rogers is another matter entirely. His singing voice is gone, now. But it really didn't matter. He pretty much knew that, so he just played all the hits (and it's amazing quite how many hits there are), kept them largely to being fragments - maybe 1 minute or 2 at most for almost all the songs. Didn't even bother with an encore - he'd already told us that he'd play the encore and not bother with the walking on and off stage when everyone knew he'd be back. And put in a ton of very entertaining and funny patter between the hits, like a proper entertainer. So, although his voice was gone, you came out thinking you'd been to a proper live performance; something a lot of younger bands could learn something from - we don't just want to see you play your songs; we actually want something that's different from the records. Seeing you in person playing note-for-note what's on the CD is not worth £50 of my money. I need something a bit more. Kenny, for all his cheesyness, provided that.
On other entertainments, I've just finished reading the new David Mitchell, which takes me back into higher-brow territory. A very fine book it is, too. Really enjoyable and, nicely, every time you feel it's taking you in one direction it tacks back and changes again. But it's much less dense or complex and structurally interesting as his previous novels, I think.
Latest reading - and this is going to be a real test of my ability to let anything entertain - is Sarah Palin's Going Rogue. Wish me luck.
But, despite this, I thoroughly enjoyed both evenings. I think if you go in to almost any entertainment with an open and uncynical mind, and allow yourself to go with the flow, you can come away entertained.
Post facto, I opened my critical mind to the film and frankly it was utter garbage, bordering on racist is places. I say this as someone who's studiously tried to avoid all of the S&TC phenomenon - challenging with a wife like mine. So very few preconceived ideas except that I've hated all the fragments I've seen. All of the stuff in the "UAE" was utter garbage. It really is a horrible film. But, and this is the funny thing, I think you can still go along and be entertained.
Kenny Rogers is another matter entirely. His singing voice is gone, now. But it really didn't matter. He pretty much knew that, so he just played all the hits (and it's amazing quite how many hits there are), kept them largely to being fragments - maybe 1 minute or 2 at most for almost all the songs. Didn't even bother with an encore - he'd already told us that he'd play the encore and not bother with the walking on and off stage when everyone knew he'd be back. And put in a ton of very entertaining and funny patter between the hits, like a proper entertainer. So, although his voice was gone, you came out thinking you'd been to a proper live performance; something a lot of younger bands could learn something from - we don't just want to see you play your songs; we actually want something that's different from the records. Seeing you in person playing note-for-note what's on the CD is not worth £50 of my money. I need something a bit more. Kenny, for all his cheesyness, provided that.
On other entertainments, I've just finished reading the new David Mitchell, which takes me back into higher-brow territory. A very fine book it is, too. Really enjoyable and, nicely, every time you feel it's taking you in one direction it tacks back and changes again. But it's much less dense or complex and structurally interesting as his previous novels, I think.
Latest reading - and this is going to be a real test of my ability to let anything entertain - is Sarah Palin's Going Rogue. Wish me luck.
Sunday 6 June 2010
Balls
Ed Balls today appeared to be saying that the Tories aren't tough enough on all those smelly foreigners. Apparently a limit on the numbers of immigrants even from EU countries should be enforced.
This is the kind of stupid, reactionary, old school anti-European Labourism that existed in the 70s. It's basically protectionism, but, ironically, puffed up in the language of the unpleasant right. He's talking about not letting those swarthy eastern Europeans come in and steal the jobs from good, hard working, British folk, who want to do less work for more money.
It's bafflingly wrong. It's completely antithetical to free movement of labour which is absolutely essential in a free market.
Now, there's been lots and lots of talk recently about failures in the European project because of failings in the Eurozone, because there aren't balancing mechanisms; and one of the key aspects of this is that although there's free movement of labour there are restrictions over culture and language that prevent enough people moving to allow the balancing that's needed.
And there is a serious argument to be had here. But patently, the solution isn't going to be more protectionism, fewer people moving, and less of those balancing elements.
It would be an argument for staying out of the Euro, but the reality is that the problem is only there because of a lack of controls in terms of making sure that all member states adhere to the Maastricht criteria - and that is largely because what should have been an economic project led largely on economic grounds was taken, instead, by romantics who dreamed of getting southern and eastern European states more quickly and succesfully enmeshed with each other and the EU. Which is a laudable goal, but bringing countries into the EU with large debts and deficits, without the mechanisms in place to keep those debts and deficits down, it meant there were countries in the Eurozone who shouldn't have been on any pragmatic economic basis.
There is no fundamental problem with a common currency of countries like France, Germany, Benelux, Denmark, Scandinavia, and possibly the UK. These are similar economies which had, prior to the recent financial mayhem, fairly similar debt and deficit profiles, and could sensibly have had a common currency. The problem comes when people like Portugal and Greece are shoehorned in to a currency that doesn't suit them.
Back to the main point, though: Ed Balls, eh? Almost as bad as Andy Burnham.
This is the kind of stupid, reactionary, old school anti-European Labourism that existed in the 70s. It's basically protectionism, but, ironically, puffed up in the language of the unpleasant right. He's talking about not letting those swarthy eastern Europeans come in and steal the jobs from good, hard working, British folk, who want to do less work for more money.
It's bafflingly wrong. It's completely antithetical to free movement of labour which is absolutely essential in a free market.
Now, there's been lots and lots of talk recently about failures in the European project because of failings in the Eurozone, because there aren't balancing mechanisms; and one of the key aspects of this is that although there's free movement of labour there are restrictions over culture and language that prevent enough people moving to allow the balancing that's needed.
And there is a serious argument to be had here. But patently, the solution isn't going to be more protectionism, fewer people moving, and less of those balancing elements.
It would be an argument for staying out of the Euro, but the reality is that the problem is only there because of a lack of controls in terms of making sure that all member states adhere to the Maastricht criteria - and that is largely because what should have been an economic project led largely on economic grounds was taken, instead, by romantics who dreamed of getting southern and eastern European states more quickly and succesfully enmeshed with each other and the EU. Which is a laudable goal, but bringing countries into the EU with large debts and deficits, without the mechanisms in place to keep those debts and deficits down, it meant there were countries in the Eurozone who shouldn't have been on any pragmatic economic basis.
There is no fundamental problem with a common currency of countries like France, Germany, Benelux, Denmark, Scandinavia, and possibly the UK. These are similar economies which had, prior to the recent financial mayhem, fairly similar debt and deficit profiles, and could sensibly have had a common currency. The problem comes when people like Portugal and Greece are shoehorned in to a currency that doesn't suit them.
Back to the main point, though: Ed Balls, eh? Almost as bad as Andy Burnham.
Wednesday 2 June 2010
Black holes
A semantic complaint today. I'm getting irate, for reasons of pedantry, about the misuse of the term Black Hole by politicians. Mostly, it seems, Lib Dems. Nick Clegg was on the Today program this morning talking again about addressing the black hole in the public finances. Chris Huhne was talking yesterday about a black hole in the nuclear power budget.
Of course, we all know what they mean. They mean "hole". There is a great big hole in the public finances.
But a black hole has a very different meaning. Firstly - you have no idea what's going on inside. No information ever gets out. It might be true, of course, but that, surely, isn't the message that you want to send when you're trumpeting the glories of transparent government, and fiscal rectitude. You really don't want to be telling to public that you have no idea, can have no idea, and will never have an idea, of what's going on with Britain's public debt. Not a good message at all.
Also, of course, if you throw something into a black hole, the stuff disappears and the black hole gets bigger. Again, if you're talking about addressing the public debt, perhaps by raising VAT or CGT, then it really isn't the brightest message to send. Give me your money so I can throw it into the black hole, so it's lost forever and the black hole gets bigger.
It is, really, a very, very stupid metaphor, pushed by people who seem to want to make things seem even worse than they are. You can almost hear the cogs whirring "Hole in the public finances doesn't sound dramatic enough - what could be more dramatic? Hmm. Black hole. Yes. That's what." I won't, yet, extrapolate this as an indicator of their understanding of science, but, you know that I'm waiting.
Meanwhile, on the over-egging the pudding side of things, Nick Clegg was also talking about what a tragedy it is for David Laws. Hmm. A man takes a liberal view of the rules to protect his privacy, comes a bit unstuck, keeps his job as MP, and will probably be back in government in 12 months, when until 2 months ago he presumably thought he hadn't a hope in decades of being in government. This is not a tragedy. It's slightly unfortunate. A tragedy is a couple of hundred people killed in Guatemala in a typhoon; a tragedy might be a number of people killed by illegal, arguably war-like, action from the Israelis; bus crashes, or earthquakes, or volcanoes, or suicide bombs. These bring about tragedies. A bloke being MP and still being MP after a question over parliamentary expenses is not a bloody tragedy. Get a grip.
Of course, we all know what they mean. They mean "hole". There is a great big hole in the public finances.
But a black hole has a very different meaning. Firstly - you have no idea what's going on inside. No information ever gets out. It might be true, of course, but that, surely, isn't the message that you want to send when you're trumpeting the glories of transparent government, and fiscal rectitude. You really don't want to be telling to public that you have no idea, can have no idea, and will never have an idea, of what's going on with Britain's public debt. Not a good message at all.
Also, of course, if you throw something into a black hole, the stuff disappears and the black hole gets bigger. Again, if you're talking about addressing the public debt, perhaps by raising VAT or CGT, then it really isn't the brightest message to send. Give me your money so I can throw it into the black hole, so it's lost forever and the black hole gets bigger.
It is, really, a very, very stupid metaphor, pushed by people who seem to want to make things seem even worse than they are. You can almost hear the cogs whirring "Hole in the public finances doesn't sound dramatic enough - what could be more dramatic? Hmm. Black hole. Yes. That's what." I won't, yet, extrapolate this as an indicator of their understanding of science, but, you know that I'm waiting.
Meanwhile, on the over-egging the pudding side of things, Nick Clegg was also talking about what a tragedy it is for David Laws. Hmm. A man takes a liberal view of the rules to protect his privacy, comes a bit unstuck, keeps his job as MP, and will probably be back in government in 12 months, when until 2 months ago he presumably thought he hadn't a hope in decades of being in government. This is not a tragedy. It's slightly unfortunate. A tragedy is a couple of hundred people killed in Guatemala in a typhoon; a tragedy might be a number of people killed by illegal, arguably war-like, action from the Israelis; bus crashes, or earthquakes, or volcanoes, or suicide bombs. These bring about tragedies. A bloke being MP and still being MP after a question over parliamentary expenses is not a bloody tragedy. Get a grip.
Tuesday 1 June 2010
Israel's attack on the Gaza aid convoy
I'm sure I'm just reiterating what's been said in a million places on the internet by now, but I guess I ought to add my tuppence.
Frankly, it's all a bit shocking. We know, by now, that Israel takes a lax attitude to international law when it's dealing directly with the Palestinians, and there have been arguments about that for years, and some tenuous but just about sustainable defence by the Israelis. It's not a defence that holds much water with most people, but there is a defence, and a justification.
Here, though, they have attacked a peaceful aid convoy, under Turkish flag, in international waters. They didn't even bother to wait until it was in Palestinian/Israeli waters. It's a world of illegal, let alone immoral.
And, astonishingly, they have the balls to claim that they were on the wrong side of a belligerent attack by the people on the boats because - get this - the Israeli troops who abseiled down from their heavily armed military helicopters, had some guns wrested from them. So, these unarmed civilians, try to defend themselves and manage to take a handgun from an incompetent Israeli soldier, and now the civilians are the "armed belligerents". It's utterly laughable. And embarassing.
Of course, many things about Israel's behaviour in the last couple of decades falls into the laughable and embarassing category, but this feels like it's another step beyond. Frankly, if a Conservative PM of the UK is condemning Israel, and if leader columns in the FT are, it's a pretty shocking state of affairs that Israel has managed to create.
How anyone tries to defend this is beyond me, and it's to the US's great shame that it seems to be blocking even statements of condemnation from the UN. The US should finally be bringing the hammer down on the foul behaviour by the Israeli government, but instead appears to be standing meekly by.
Worth mentioning, too, quite the stupidity of the Israelis here in attacking Turkish vessels. Turkey has been the one country that Israel has managed to build a decent alliance with in the muslim world. Not any more. Bafflingly stupid from Israel. Hard to know what else to say, really.
Frankly, it's all a bit shocking. We know, by now, that Israel takes a lax attitude to international law when it's dealing directly with the Palestinians, and there have been arguments about that for years, and some tenuous but just about sustainable defence by the Israelis. It's not a defence that holds much water with most people, but there is a defence, and a justification.
Here, though, they have attacked a peaceful aid convoy, under Turkish flag, in international waters. They didn't even bother to wait until it was in Palestinian/Israeli waters. It's a world of illegal, let alone immoral.
And, astonishingly, they have the balls to claim that they were on the wrong side of a belligerent attack by the people on the boats because - get this - the Israeli troops who abseiled down from their heavily armed military helicopters, had some guns wrested from them. So, these unarmed civilians, try to defend themselves and manage to take a handgun from an incompetent Israeli soldier, and now the civilians are the "armed belligerents". It's utterly laughable. And embarassing.
Of course, many things about Israel's behaviour in the last couple of decades falls into the laughable and embarassing category, but this feels like it's another step beyond. Frankly, if a Conservative PM of the UK is condemning Israel, and if leader columns in the FT are, it's a pretty shocking state of affairs that Israel has managed to create.
How anyone tries to defend this is beyond me, and it's to the US's great shame that it seems to be blocking even statements of condemnation from the UN. The US should finally be bringing the hammer down on the foul behaviour by the Israeli government, but instead appears to be standing meekly by.
Worth mentioning, too, quite the stupidity of the Israelis here in attacking Turkish vessels. Turkey has been the one country that Israel has managed to build a decent alliance with in the muslim world. Not any more. Bafflingly stupid from Israel. Hard to know what else to say, really.
Civil Servants Pay
Today, a big announcement, the renumeration packages of all people working in the public sector who earn more than the PM's salary.
The government are presenting this as a case of honesty and transparency. There's certainly an aspect of that, but it's also very clear that they're trying to set into the public mind the idea that those in the public sector are overpaid.
You can see this is going on because, to start with, there's the cynical line about "more than the PM's salary". Yes, the PM's salary is £142,000. But the PM also earns another £60,000 as his MP's salary, putting his overall income abover £200,000. And all of the figures published today are "overall income". So, if you want to present a fair comparison of "Hey, look, all these people earn more than the PM", you'd discover that, in fact, it's about 20 people, not the 170 that the government are pushing.
Apart from this cynicism from the government, what is the point of publishing this list? Well, almost nothing, I think. Full transparency across the full spectrum would be nice, of course. I don't think anyone should be coy, or should need to be coy, about what they earn, and if someone else actually cares the information should be public. But that's not just in the public sector; and that's not just high earners. It's a bit weird that it's just high earners.
The other thing it tells us, oddly, is that the public sector really isn't that obscenely overpaid, at least at the very top levels. The people running multi-billion pound organisations in the public sector, and running the country, earn a hell of a lot less than the equivalent jobs in the private sector, and will never have the opportunities for share options and bonuses that those brilliant men who run Northern Rock or BP or BA will.
I imagine the relative job security of the civil service, along with perhaps a sense of public duty, will be the only things that keeps the high-quality people in these kinds of jobs. The sense of public duty will weaken every time a real attack, or a coded attack like this, comes in on the people who run the public sector, and I suspect the Tories are working to lower the job security, too. That can't be a good thing.
It's simple and trite and easy populism to attack high earners in the public sector, but, frankly, I suspect it's very counterproductive in the long term no matter how much it appeals to the public at large in the short term. It's almost Blairite in its populist stupidity.
The government are presenting this as a case of honesty and transparency. There's certainly an aspect of that, but it's also very clear that they're trying to set into the public mind the idea that those in the public sector are overpaid.
You can see this is going on because, to start with, there's the cynical line about "more than the PM's salary". Yes, the PM's salary is £142,000. But the PM also earns another £60,000 as his MP's salary, putting his overall income abover £200,000. And all of the figures published today are "overall income". So, if you want to present a fair comparison of "Hey, look, all these people earn more than the PM", you'd discover that, in fact, it's about 20 people, not the 170 that the government are pushing.
Apart from this cynicism from the government, what is the point of publishing this list? Well, almost nothing, I think. Full transparency across the full spectrum would be nice, of course. I don't think anyone should be coy, or should need to be coy, about what they earn, and if someone else actually cares the information should be public. But that's not just in the public sector; and that's not just high earners. It's a bit weird that it's just high earners.
The other thing it tells us, oddly, is that the public sector really isn't that obscenely overpaid, at least at the very top levels. The people running multi-billion pound organisations in the public sector, and running the country, earn a hell of a lot less than the equivalent jobs in the private sector, and will never have the opportunities for share options and bonuses that those brilliant men who run Northern Rock or BP or BA will.
I imagine the relative job security of the civil service, along with perhaps a sense of public duty, will be the only things that keeps the high-quality people in these kinds of jobs. The sense of public duty will weaken every time a real attack, or a coded attack like this, comes in on the people who run the public sector, and I suspect the Tories are working to lower the job security, too. That can't be a good thing.
It's simple and trite and easy populism to attack high earners in the public sector, but, frankly, I suspect it's very counterproductive in the long term no matter how much it appeals to the public at large in the short term. It's almost Blairite in its populist stupidity.
England's World Cup Chances
So here we go. England's 23 for the world cup will be announced today. As usual there will be inordinate hype about our chances, inordinate excitement, dreadfull puff pieces about the usual suspects.
I don't often watch the friendlies, because there's almost nothing as deathly dull as an England friendly with ITV commentators desperately trying to find something to talk about, trying to make it seem like it's important, and trying to push the idea of how wonderful the team are, but I caught quite large sections of the Japan match, and bits of the Mexico game, too. Fortunately with the sound off.
And the only conclusion I can have is that if England are to get to the semi finals or final, then there are one of three things going on
- England will have improved dramatically in a few weeks
- The opposition are very bad indeed
- There's a lot of luck involved.
Of course, this is entirely to be expected. The press won't remind you of this, but right now England are ranked 8th in the world. That means, as any fule kno, we should, just, scrape into the quarter finals, although it would be no disgrace to get knocked out in the second round. This is not the ranking of a team expecting to win the tournament. Of course, there's a chance, given that this is football, but it is basically very unlikely we'll make the last four.
And from watching bits of the friendlies, this is no surprise at all. Primarily because the defence is rubbish. It's used to the hype - Rio and Terry have been told so often that they are oak hearted world class titans that they don't bother to try to improve any more. Which means that, being rather slow and ponderous of both foot and head, they are often turned, often caught out of position, and, in Rio's case, often caught with his brain off in another planet as an opposing attacker strolls past him. How he's managed to become England captain with his mix of failing to show for drugs tests, vacantness on the pitch, and general lack of maturity, would be baffling if the rest of the team wasn't full of the likes of Wayne Rooney and Ashley Cole.
It's a bunch of players that can surely garner no love at all, it makes it hard to support a team full of deeply unlikeable people. In the end, of course, I'll be wailing and gnashing my teeth as we get knocked out. But right now, I feel little warmth for them. I just hope Fabio keeps them on a very tight leash; and - more - tries to keep expectations in the press reasonable.
Unfortunately, it's a self-sustaining beast. The media thrive on having access to "the world's best players" so they need to push the idea that Fat Frank and Barroom brawling Stevie G or drugs cheating Rio or womanising and daft John T or just plain greedy Ashley or fumbling and useless but actually not a bad bloke David James are, actually, on a par with the likes of Messi or Ronaldo or Xavi.
I don't often watch the friendlies, because there's almost nothing as deathly dull as an England friendly with ITV commentators desperately trying to find something to talk about, trying to make it seem like it's important, and trying to push the idea of how wonderful the team are, but I caught quite large sections of the Japan match, and bits of the Mexico game, too. Fortunately with the sound off.
And the only conclusion I can have is that if England are to get to the semi finals or final, then there are one of three things going on
- England will have improved dramatically in a few weeks
- The opposition are very bad indeed
- There's a lot of luck involved.
Of course, this is entirely to be expected. The press won't remind you of this, but right now England are ranked 8th in the world. That means, as any fule kno, we should, just, scrape into the quarter finals, although it would be no disgrace to get knocked out in the second round. This is not the ranking of a team expecting to win the tournament. Of course, there's a chance, given that this is football, but it is basically very unlikely we'll make the last four.
And from watching bits of the friendlies, this is no surprise at all. Primarily because the defence is rubbish. It's used to the hype - Rio and Terry have been told so often that they are oak hearted world class titans that they don't bother to try to improve any more. Which means that, being rather slow and ponderous of both foot and head, they are often turned, often caught out of position, and, in Rio's case, often caught with his brain off in another planet as an opposing attacker strolls past him. How he's managed to become England captain with his mix of failing to show for drugs tests, vacantness on the pitch, and general lack of maturity, would be baffling if the rest of the team wasn't full of the likes of Wayne Rooney and Ashley Cole.
It's a bunch of players that can surely garner no love at all, it makes it hard to support a team full of deeply unlikeable people. In the end, of course, I'll be wailing and gnashing my teeth as we get knocked out. But right now, I feel little warmth for them. I just hope Fabio keeps them on a very tight leash; and - more - tries to keep expectations in the press reasonable.
Unfortunately, it's a self-sustaining beast. The media thrive on having access to "the world's best players" so they need to push the idea that Fat Frank and Barroom brawling Stevie G or drugs cheating Rio or womanising and daft John T or just plain greedy Ashley or fumbling and useless but actually not a bad bloke David James are, actually, on a par with the likes of Messi or Ronaldo or Xavi.
Monday 31 May 2010
The Danny Alexander story
Following on from David Laws, the Telegraph today pushed a "big expenses scandal" story about Danny Alexander, the new Lib Dem Chief Sec to the Treasury.
Except this is an astonishing non story. Alexander didn't pay CGT on a house he shouldn't have paid CGT on, he changed the definition of his primary residence not so that he could flip - like various high profile Tories have done - but so that he could sell his other residence. Nothing crooked, malign, or dodgy here. Nothing against the parliamentary rules, or even vaguely related to them.
But clearly the Telegraph are back on the warpath.
Now, it might just be coincidence, but it seems to me that it's unlikely that the two exposes they've pushed are about Lib Dems in the treasury - when the far more corrupt Osborne and Gove remain with the easiest of rides from the right-wing press - just happen to be the two biggest scoops in the Telegraph's locker.
It seems even less of a coincidence when you realise the Telegraph are heading the right-wing Tory campaign on the CGT issue, on trying to keep it below the levels of income tax: although they never quite explain why. But apparently it's a "bad thing". Yes, for all those buy-to-let landlords who're making obscene capital gains on properties whose value rockets because there are more buy to let landlords paying no tax. It's probably bad for all those wealthy Telegraph editors and journalists and owners who've been using low CGT to get around paying tax on income for ages.
Anyway, off from my sniping about it - the Telegraph are running a campaign against it; Lib Dems in the treasury are going to be much more deficit-hawkish than the Tories in terms of raising tax as well as cutting services to bring finances in order. So, I suspect the Telegraph is trying to bring them down. But it's powder is very, very feeble on this one. Expect them to try and find other ways to go after Alexander now.
Meanwhile, I feel there's a certain irony that they now have a much more liberal and less conservative Lib Dem in the higher ranking job, having disposed of Laws. My guess is that they were hoping Cameron would bring a Tory in. It's very funny that he hasn't, and the Telegraph and right-wing Tories might have ended in a worse position than before.
Except this is an astonishing non story. Alexander didn't pay CGT on a house he shouldn't have paid CGT on, he changed the definition of his primary residence not so that he could flip - like various high profile Tories have done - but so that he could sell his other residence. Nothing crooked, malign, or dodgy here. Nothing against the parliamentary rules, or even vaguely related to them.
But clearly the Telegraph are back on the warpath.
Now, it might just be coincidence, but it seems to me that it's unlikely that the two exposes they've pushed are about Lib Dems in the treasury - when the far more corrupt Osborne and Gove remain with the easiest of rides from the right-wing press - just happen to be the two biggest scoops in the Telegraph's locker.
It seems even less of a coincidence when you realise the Telegraph are heading the right-wing Tory campaign on the CGT issue, on trying to keep it below the levels of income tax: although they never quite explain why. But apparently it's a "bad thing". Yes, for all those buy-to-let landlords who're making obscene capital gains on properties whose value rockets because there are more buy to let landlords paying no tax. It's probably bad for all those wealthy Telegraph editors and journalists and owners who've been using low CGT to get around paying tax on income for ages.
Anyway, off from my sniping about it - the Telegraph are running a campaign against it; Lib Dems in the treasury are going to be much more deficit-hawkish than the Tories in terms of raising tax as well as cutting services to bring finances in order. So, I suspect the Telegraph is trying to bring them down. But it's powder is very, very feeble on this one. Expect them to try and find other ways to go after Alexander now.
Meanwhile, I feel there's a certain irony that they now have a much more liberal and less conservative Lib Dem in the higher ranking job, having disposed of Laws. My guess is that they were hoping Cameron would bring a Tory in. It's very funny that he hasn't, and the Telegraph and right-wing Tories might have ended in a worse position than before.
Saturday 29 May 2010
Laws
A couple of thoughts on this morning's David Laws revelation. He's been claiming, completely against the rules, about £40,000 of second home allowance when he was renting a room from his partner.
Now, he says he claimed because he didn't want to come out as gay. Directly, this seems fair enough. But you do wonder how someone who made millions in the city needs to claim £40,000 in the first place. Particularly if he wants to maintain discretion. Clearly he's not being cynical about his claiming - there's no flipping, no dodginess of the level of Gove or Osbourne if we want to pick other members of the coalition: if Laws steps down, surely those two have to, too - he's been claiming less than an equivalent one bed flat would cost to rent; and if he was really dodgy he'd have had his constituency mansion as his "secondary" residence.
That said, he's clearly on very, very shaky ground, and it's pretty hard to defend. If he was genuinely poor and needed the money, that would be another thing; but he's not. Why break the rules to take money you don't need?
The other thought is that this revelation comes from the Telegraph, who must have had the info for months. Why now? I suspect it's a deliberate attempt to undermine the Lib Dem parts of the coalition because of the CGT thing. The Telegraph are spitting nails now they know they will be taxed on the huge massive unearned profits on their multiple homes. And they know that the Lib Dem in the treasury is the one most likely to make headway on the issue, particularly as his stock has risen dramatically in Tory circles with the way he's handled budget cuts.
So, I'm torn. I think Laws probably should go, but then so should Osbourne and Gove. But I'll be happy if he doesn't for tactical reasons. I suspect Cameron will keep him, anyway - it's too useful to have a Lib Dem take the flak for the cuts; and there's the just-out gay thing, which Cameron may also decide to defend because he wants to be seen a liberal, and not as an old school nasty Tory.
Now, he says he claimed because he didn't want to come out as gay. Directly, this seems fair enough. But you do wonder how someone who made millions in the city needs to claim £40,000 in the first place. Particularly if he wants to maintain discretion. Clearly he's not being cynical about his claiming - there's no flipping, no dodginess of the level of Gove or Osbourne if we want to pick other members of the coalition: if Laws steps down, surely those two have to, too - he's been claiming less than an equivalent one bed flat would cost to rent; and if he was really dodgy he'd have had his constituency mansion as his "secondary" residence.
That said, he's clearly on very, very shaky ground, and it's pretty hard to defend. If he was genuinely poor and needed the money, that would be another thing; but he's not. Why break the rules to take money you don't need?
The other thought is that this revelation comes from the Telegraph, who must have had the info for months. Why now? I suspect it's a deliberate attempt to undermine the Lib Dem parts of the coalition because of the CGT thing. The Telegraph are spitting nails now they know they will be taxed on the huge massive unearned profits on their multiple homes. And they know that the Lib Dem in the treasury is the one most likely to make headway on the issue, particularly as his stock has risen dramatically in Tory circles with the way he's handled budget cuts.
So, I'm torn. I think Laws probably should go, but then so should Osbourne and Gove. But I'll be happy if he doesn't for tactical reasons. I suspect Cameron will keep him, anyway - it's too useful to have a Lib Dem take the flak for the cuts; and there's the just-out gay thing, which Cameron may also decide to defend because he wants to be seen a liberal, and not as an old school nasty Tory.
Friday 28 May 2010
QT and CGT
Acronym day today. First, QT - there's a huge row about the fact that the coalition government refused to put a cabinet member on to the show if Alistair Campbell was appearing.
To me, this looks like the Cameroons trying to invent an argument with the BBC. The Lib Dems, perhaps Laws excepted, might be expected to push back a bit, but the Tory party still seems to want to take down the BBC, and probably privatise it. They, of course, being in the pocket of Murdoch.
So here, they think, is a good opportunity. Labour haven't put a front-bencher forward so the Tories in government throw a pretended fit.
It's assinine, of course. Labour don't have a leader at the moment, so any shadow cabinet position is broadly meaningless; better, instead, to have a Labour heavyweight. And Campbell is about as tightly associated with the Brown and Blair years as anyone except Mandelson. Why on earth would you pretend that this is a serious matter if you're Cameron High Command?
Only if you deliberately want to pick a fight. And it ends up with the government just looking a bit stupid, really. It looks like they're telling the BBC who they can and can't have on their programs. It is, effectively, direct government interference in broadcasting (there's an Alistair Campbell related irony here, too, of course). It is also spectacularly petty - particularly in the weeks when the government is popular, and has just had a queen's speech out which has broadly popular support. Now is the time to bask. The time to hide from the media is months or years away yet, but it will surely come.
The other acronym of the day is CGT. There's a huge amount of froth, from the right wing press - particularly the Telegraph - and from the right of the Tory party, about how evil the proposed changes to CGT are. Apparently, this is going to hit the middle classes. That is right. All those median income earners who have huge share portfolios and who have lots of extra properties.
Which means, of course, only the "middle class" in the definitions of people who are very, very rich. Nothing like the genuine middle classes.
Don't listen to their wailing.
In addition, apparently having CGT at the same levels of income tax will discourage people from being entrepreneurial. Does this mean that income tax discourages people from working? I'm sure, to a small degree, it does. And you know what? Tough. The state needs to raise cash to pay for stuff, and to pay down debt. Some of it comes from income tax. There's absolutely no reason that income you get on a second home appreciating in value through you doing nothing should be taxed at a lower rate to income you get from busting your nuts off working hard.
If anything, it should be taxed higher because the person making the money has done so little to earn it.
Obviously, the government should not be making value judgements on how people earn. So, instead, it should make the value judgement on how much people earn. And whether your income is from renting out your property portfolio, selling your property portfolio, selling shares, income from dividends, or actually, normal, salaries, it should basically be at the same rate. There's no good reason for it not to be.
If the government does want to offer a taper relief, it should exist at the value of inflation only - your house can appreciate by CPI or RPI, and you won't get taxed on those earnings, as they aren't real earnings, they just maintain value. But any other capital increase in the value should be taxed.
Incidentally, share dividends are a slightly different matter in how they should be taxed, because the earned income of the company is already taxed as corporation tax; and therefore that amount should be discounted before "income" (in the broad sense, including CGT) tax is applied.
I hope Cameron doesn't buckle to the laffer curve bollocks of John Redwood and goes with his and David Laws's instincts to raise CGT. It makes things not only fairer - removing a tax loophole for the rich that the poor are wealthy enough to use - but it raises cash to help fill the deficit hole we're in.
Thinking of the deficit hole; I just had a look at last year's treasury report. One thing that the Labour government must be massively commended on is increasing the length of repayment of government yields. The average maturity time has increased consistently during the full length of the last decade or more, and that insulates and protects the country far better against short term debt/deficit issues and against interest rate variations. It's not the kind of thing often talked about but it means we're in a far stronger position than almost any other country with a similar debt and deficit profile.
To me, this looks like the Cameroons trying to invent an argument with the BBC. The Lib Dems, perhaps Laws excepted, might be expected to push back a bit, but the Tory party still seems to want to take down the BBC, and probably privatise it. They, of course, being in the pocket of Murdoch.
So here, they think, is a good opportunity. Labour haven't put a front-bencher forward so the Tories in government throw a pretended fit.
It's assinine, of course. Labour don't have a leader at the moment, so any shadow cabinet position is broadly meaningless; better, instead, to have a Labour heavyweight. And Campbell is about as tightly associated with the Brown and Blair years as anyone except Mandelson. Why on earth would you pretend that this is a serious matter if you're Cameron High Command?
Only if you deliberately want to pick a fight. And it ends up with the government just looking a bit stupid, really. It looks like they're telling the BBC who they can and can't have on their programs. It is, effectively, direct government interference in broadcasting (there's an Alistair Campbell related irony here, too, of course). It is also spectacularly petty - particularly in the weeks when the government is popular, and has just had a queen's speech out which has broadly popular support. Now is the time to bask. The time to hide from the media is months or years away yet, but it will surely come.
The other acronym of the day is CGT. There's a huge amount of froth, from the right wing press - particularly the Telegraph - and from the right of the Tory party, about how evil the proposed changes to CGT are. Apparently, this is going to hit the middle classes. That is right. All those median income earners who have huge share portfolios and who have lots of extra properties.
Which means, of course, only the "middle class" in the definitions of people who are very, very rich. Nothing like the genuine middle classes.
Don't listen to their wailing.
In addition, apparently having CGT at the same levels of income tax will discourage people from being entrepreneurial. Does this mean that income tax discourages people from working? I'm sure, to a small degree, it does. And you know what? Tough. The state needs to raise cash to pay for stuff, and to pay down debt. Some of it comes from income tax. There's absolutely no reason that income you get on a second home appreciating in value through you doing nothing should be taxed at a lower rate to income you get from busting your nuts off working hard.
If anything, it should be taxed higher because the person making the money has done so little to earn it.
Obviously, the government should not be making value judgements on how people earn. So, instead, it should make the value judgement on how much people earn. And whether your income is from renting out your property portfolio, selling your property portfolio, selling shares, income from dividends, or actually, normal, salaries, it should basically be at the same rate. There's no good reason for it not to be.
If the government does want to offer a taper relief, it should exist at the value of inflation only - your house can appreciate by CPI or RPI, and you won't get taxed on those earnings, as they aren't real earnings, they just maintain value. But any other capital increase in the value should be taxed.
Incidentally, share dividends are a slightly different matter in how they should be taxed, because the earned income of the company is already taxed as corporation tax; and therefore that amount should be discounted before "income" (in the broad sense, including CGT) tax is applied.
I hope Cameron doesn't buckle to the laffer curve bollocks of John Redwood and goes with his and David Laws's instincts to raise CGT. It makes things not only fairer - removing a tax loophole for the rich that the poor are wealthy enough to use - but it raises cash to help fill the deficit hole we're in.
Thinking of the deficit hole; I just had a look at last year's treasury report. One thing that the Labour government must be massively commended on is increasing the length of repayment of government yields. The average maturity time has increased consistently during the full length of the last decade or more, and that insulates and protects the country far better against short term debt/deficit issues and against interest rate variations. It's not the kind of thing often talked about but it means we're in a far stronger position than almost any other country with a similar debt and deficit profile.
Thursday 27 May 2010
Good news for London, probably
It looks like Boris wants to increase the congestion charge and get rid of the western extension.
You would think that, as a cyclist, I'd want the congestion charge everywhere. And high. And that's partly true. But it has to be a sensible congestion charge.
When the central zone was introduced it was a huge success, and it remains a big success, and it raises a decent amount of cash. It's a very good thing.
But the western extension, from Park Lane out to Earl's Court, was utterly ludicrous for a number of reasons. It is actually counter-productive. Mostly, this is because the western extension is a very largely residential area, in a way that the central zone isn't. That means that there are lots of people obliged to pay it. This wouldn't be so bad if they didn't get a massive discount. But they only pay at 20% of the rate the rest of us pay.
That means, ironically, that all the obscenely wealthy people in Kensington and Chelsea, who drive their hideous BMW X5s and Porsche Cayennes and so on, get to drive in London for less than everyone else. What's worse, though, is that lots of people have automatically paid the charge just because they're taking young Jack to his private prep school 200 yards down the road. And now they've paid it, and are out in their monstrous 4x4, why not just drive into work? Why would you put up with the horrors of the District Line if you're already comfortably listening to John Humpreys in your preheated faux-leather seats?
Having a congestion charge in a highly residential zone just encourages the people who live there to drive more.
There is a better solution than abolishing it - that is, to have it as an entirely separate zone: Pay £5 to drive in the western zone, but it gives you no right to drive in the central zone. I doubt Boris would do anything quite so likely to anger the motoring lobby, though.
I'm pleased, too, that the price is going up. Central London's congestion is returning to previous levels, so it makes sense to charge more. The worst that can happen is that London stays as the mess it is, but the GLA's coffers get fuller, paid not by London's taxpayers but instead by the people who make it a misery. Or, better, some people stay away and London becomes fractionally more civilised.
You would think that, as a cyclist, I'd want the congestion charge everywhere. And high. And that's partly true. But it has to be a sensible congestion charge.
When the central zone was introduced it was a huge success, and it remains a big success, and it raises a decent amount of cash. It's a very good thing.
But the western extension, from Park Lane out to Earl's Court, was utterly ludicrous for a number of reasons. It is actually counter-productive. Mostly, this is because the western extension is a very largely residential area, in a way that the central zone isn't. That means that there are lots of people obliged to pay it. This wouldn't be so bad if they didn't get a massive discount. But they only pay at 20% of the rate the rest of us pay.
That means, ironically, that all the obscenely wealthy people in Kensington and Chelsea, who drive their hideous BMW X5s and Porsche Cayennes and so on, get to drive in London for less than everyone else. What's worse, though, is that lots of people have automatically paid the charge just because they're taking young Jack to his private prep school 200 yards down the road. And now they've paid it, and are out in their monstrous 4x4, why not just drive into work? Why would you put up with the horrors of the District Line if you're already comfortably listening to John Humpreys in your preheated faux-leather seats?
Having a congestion charge in a highly residential zone just encourages the people who live there to drive more.
There is a better solution than abolishing it - that is, to have it as an entirely separate zone: Pay £5 to drive in the western zone, but it gives you no right to drive in the central zone. I doubt Boris would do anything quite so likely to anger the motoring lobby, though.
I'm pleased, too, that the price is going up. Central London's congestion is returning to previous levels, so it makes sense to charge more. The worst that can happen is that London stays as the mess it is, but the GLA's coffers get fuller, paid not by London's taxpayers but instead by the people who make it a misery. Or, better, some people stay away and London becomes fractionally more civilised.
Triangulation
There's been some interesting commentary recently about how the various realignments in British politics are going in this post-coalition world; and how these relate to previous years. In particular, these thoughts were triggered by some comments from David Lammy who mentioned that New Labour had increasing success under Blair as they triangulated their opinion by shifting rightwards on to natural Tory territory.
This was tactically succesful because core Labour voters weren't going to shift to Tory; and because it might encourage those in the centre to vote Labour. Mostly, Blair pushed right, and nastily, on war in Iraq, and cosying up to Americans, along with all the law and order and civil liberties stuff, along with some pretty unpleasant hints about immigration.
What this did, initially, is to shove the Tories out further right - they appear to have had a feeling that they wanted to be even more nasty than Labour, because they all knew Labour were soft and pathetic.
This created a mood in the public of an extreme and rather scary Tory party who were unelectable.
When Cameron came in to the leadership of the Tory party he almost immediately changed the mood music on civil liberties stuff. You never quite trusted that he really believed it; it always seemed pretty cynical. And as the last couple of years went on, Tory policy seemed to drift further and further back to the sort of stupidities we heard under Hague and Howard.
Now, though, he's in a much stronger position, ironically. Being in a coalition with the Lib Dems, it means he has an excuse to not track to where his party wants him; and this breaks the mould a bit. He can push for more redistributive policy, and to protect services, or - as right now - he can push to raise tax through using CGT and when his party throws a fit he can stand up to them. It is, in a way, his Clause 4 time. His way of proving to the public that he's not as mad as his party.
And that makes this coalition extra dangerous for Labour - it means that the public, which are used to seeing the Tories as extremist nutters, get to see them as people inclined to pragmatism and compromise, and implementing some sensible policy, like the elimination of ID cards, or cutting tax for the poor by raising tax on the rich.
This makes some mutterings I heard last week from Andy Burnham "The Blairite it's OK To Like" seem even more problematic. Burnham commented that the public liked some Blairite stuff, and that their anti-crime stance really helped the poorest; he was pushing the line that the anti-civil liberties extremisms of Labour were, in fact, not only redistributive but also popular. This is the same sort of madness as we regularly hear from Tories claiming that the public are concerned about immigration, so they actually want to hear politicians being extreme and unreasonable.
As I mentioned in my previous post - the public may want tough on crime, or tough on forriners, policy; but they very rarely vote for it. They understand, enough, that this is representative democracy, and even if we want nasty policy in individual cases, we'd rather have moderate and reasonable leaders who, in general terms, will be moderate and reasonable. The ones who froth about rivers of blood are not, basically, to be trusted to be reasonable on any other matters. The ones who think Labour should talk more about beating up criminals are not to be trusted.
Cameron, I think, does understand this, and is going to reap the benefits - provided he can keep his party together. If the party begins to reject it, and brings down the coalition with the Libs, there's a good chance the public will see the Conservatives as still being unreasonable and extreme - and not only that, it means likely future coalitions will be Lib/Lab and thus pretty crippling for the Tory future. At the moment, Andy Burnham, and I suspect the various Eds and Millibands, do not quite understand this, and until they do, they'll be in an IDS type wilderness.
This was tactically succesful because core Labour voters weren't going to shift to Tory; and because it might encourage those in the centre to vote Labour. Mostly, Blair pushed right, and nastily, on war in Iraq, and cosying up to Americans, along with all the law and order and civil liberties stuff, along with some pretty unpleasant hints about immigration.
What this did, initially, is to shove the Tories out further right - they appear to have had a feeling that they wanted to be even more nasty than Labour, because they all knew Labour were soft and pathetic.
This created a mood in the public of an extreme and rather scary Tory party who were unelectable.
When Cameron came in to the leadership of the Tory party he almost immediately changed the mood music on civil liberties stuff. You never quite trusted that he really believed it; it always seemed pretty cynical. And as the last couple of years went on, Tory policy seemed to drift further and further back to the sort of stupidities we heard under Hague and Howard.
Now, though, he's in a much stronger position, ironically. Being in a coalition with the Lib Dems, it means he has an excuse to not track to where his party wants him; and this breaks the mould a bit. He can push for more redistributive policy, and to protect services, or - as right now - he can push to raise tax through using CGT and when his party throws a fit he can stand up to them. It is, in a way, his Clause 4 time. His way of proving to the public that he's not as mad as his party.
And that makes this coalition extra dangerous for Labour - it means that the public, which are used to seeing the Tories as extremist nutters, get to see them as people inclined to pragmatism and compromise, and implementing some sensible policy, like the elimination of ID cards, or cutting tax for the poor by raising tax on the rich.
This makes some mutterings I heard last week from Andy Burnham "The Blairite it's OK To Like" seem even more problematic. Burnham commented that the public liked some Blairite stuff, and that their anti-crime stance really helped the poorest; he was pushing the line that the anti-civil liberties extremisms of Labour were, in fact, not only redistributive but also popular. This is the same sort of madness as we regularly hear from Tories claiming that the public are concerned about immigration, so they actually want to hear politicians being extreme and unreasonable.
As I mentioned in my previous post - the public may want tough on crime, or tough on forriners, policy; but they very rarely vote for it. They understand, enough, that this is representative democracy, and even if we want nasty policy in individual cases, we'd rather have moderate and reasonable leaders who, in general terms, will be moderate and reasonable. The ones who froth about rivers of blood are not, basically, to be trusted to be reasonable on any other matters. The ones who think Labour should talk more about beating up criminals are not to be trusted.
Cameron, I think, does understand this, and is going to reap the benefits - provided he can keep his party together. If the party begins to reject it, and brings down the coalition with the Libs, there's a good chance the public will see the Conservatives as still being unreasonable and extreme - and not only that, it means likely future coalitions will be Lib/Lab and thus pretty crippling for the Tory future. At the moment, Andy Burnham, and I suspect the various Eds and Millibands, do not quite understand this, and until they do, they'll be in an IDS type wilderness.
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Academy Schools and Devolution of Power
Apparently, Cameron is obsessed with handing power back to local communities; he's all about giving power away from central government.
It's interesting, then, that the first thing he's done in terms of local government is to freeze council tax. Which should be the decision of elected local councils - it should be local people making local decisions. But instead, he's decided that diktat from above is the best way to approach this. Frankly, it bodes ill. It bodes ill, too, in terms of evidence that he actually cares about cutting debt - because you do actually need to raise tax as well as cut spending.
And there's lots of evidence that he's prioritising and fetishising stuff ahead of cutting the deficit and debt - why ringfence healthcare? why ringfence defence? why prevent councils from raising tax?
In particular there's today's announcement of allowing absolutely every school in the country to apply for academy status. It's madness. Academy schools cost lots more per pupil than LEA schools. So here's yet another insane spending commitment, throwing more cash away. It also removes the schools from local, community, control and brings them under central control - so this rather gives a lie, again, to the Cameron agenda of giving power back to local people. And, finally, it's deeply unprogressive. Academy schools appear to have been fairly succesful at helping deprived pupils in deprived areas, so there's some argument that throwing extra cash at them has a genuine progressive benefit. It helps bring the disadvanataged a bit further forward and gives them more opportunities.
Now, though, all schools that are graded excellent can have the chance to apply. And, of course, almost all "excellent" schools are in nice, polite, gentile neighbourhoods. This is not because they're better schools. It's because it's much easier to employ good teachers to go and teach well read, middle class pupils with engaged parents; it's because it's much easier for those pupils to get good grades. It's because the measurement process is flawed. But, it turns out, it's a rather nice way for that moderate Mr Cameron to throw lots of cash at the advantaged, well off, pupils in public education in areas where education is already good. Which, inevitably, means it takes cash away from the disadvantaged.
I wonder if this is a rather cynical way of counteracting the Lib Dems "pupil premium" on pupils from disadvantaged areas, so that Cameron's normal support in the shires doesn't get too annoyed with him helping out people who need help, rather than helping people who don't need help but vote Tory.
It's interesting, then, that the first thing he's done in terms of local government is to freeze council tax. Which should be the decision of elected local councils - it should be local people making local decisions. But instead, he's decided that diktat from above is the best way to approach this. Frankly, it bodes ill. It bodes ill, too, in terms of evidence that he actually cares about cutting debt - because you do actually need to raise tax as well as cut spending.
And there's lots of evidence that he's prioritising and fetishising stuff ahead of cutting the deficit and debt - why ringfence healthcare? why ringfence defence? why prevent councils from raising tax?
In particular there's today's announcement of allowing absolutely every school in the country to apply for academy status. It's madness. Academy schools cost lots more per pupil than LEA schools. So here's yet another insane spending commitment, throwing more cash away. It also removes the schools from local, community, control and brings them under central control - so this rather gives a lie, again, to the Cameron agenda of giving power back to local people. And, finally, it's deeply unprogressive. Academy schools appear to have been fairly succesful at helping deprived pupils in deprived areas, so there's some argument that throwing extra cash at them has a genuine progressive benefit. It helps bring the disadvanataged a bit further forward and gives them more opportunities.
Now, though, all schools that are graded excellent can have the chance to apply. And, of course, almost all "excellent" schools are in nice, polite, gentile neighbourhoods. This is not because they're better schools. It's because it's much easier to employ good teachers to go and teach well read, middle class pupils with engaged parents; it's because it's much easier for those pupils to get good grades. It's because the measurement process is flawed. But, it turns out, it's a rather nice way for that moderate Mr Cameron to throw lots of cash at the advantaged, well off, pupils in public education in areas where education is already good. Which, inevitably, means it takes cash away from the disadvantaged.
I wonder if this is a rather cynical way of counteracting the Lib Dems "pupil premium" on pupils from disadvantaged areas, so that Cameron's normal support in the shires doesn't get too annoyed with him helping out people who need help, rather than helping people who don't need help but vote Tory.
The flags are out
Over the last week, the wave of little St George's Cross car flags has begun to arrive. Increasing numbers on the streets every time I venture out.
You often hear claim that we've "reclaimed the flag" from the far right; that it's no longer the emblem of the BNP and the racists. I think this is slightly missing the point.
Firstly, of course, the BNP are primarily about the Union Flag, not the St George's Cross. There is no reason to reclaim it from them, because they never had it.
But, also, it is fairly apparent that when you look at the kinds of vehicles that are flying the St George's flag that they're primarily white vans, or cars driven by the kinds of blokes you might expect to see in white vans. Whilst I'm pretty sure that most of these people are, in fact, lovely, tolerant, reasonable nice people (when they're not behind the wheels of their white vans, obviously), they are also the kinds of people who would traditionally be associated with working class racism: they are the natural constituency that the Nick Griffins of this world try to appeal to. And I wonder if we can really think the flag has been reclaimed until a wider group of people start flying it.
Then again - apart from supporting national sports teams, I wonder why on earth anyone would want to reclaim the flag. Why should we fetishise a bit of cloth? When I'm in the US and see myriad star spangled banners flying everywhere, it doesn't move me, and I get a feeling that it doesn't really offer anything of any value to anyone. The flag itself is archaic (as, arguable, are nationalism and patriotism, although that's a much deeper discussion).
We should think of it as purely a football symbol; like wearing the shirt. Once it becomes the flag of the England Sports Teams, rather than the flag of the country, then we can start to believe that it really doesn't carry any other racist meaning.
--
As a little addendum, here's a silly story about someone being kicked off the bus for wearing an England shirt. First - it didn't happen, but apparently that doesn't stop the Metro pushing the "It's PC Gone Mad" line, as the media desperately try and push this sort of rubbish on the most tenuous of links. Second - it is worth remembering that the England shirt does still carry some baggage, and people will have some trepidation when faced with blokes (OK, not 2 year olds...) wearing it.
You often hear claim that we've "reclaimed the flag" from the far right; that it's no longer the emblem of the BNP and the racists. I think this is slightly missing the point.
Firstly, of course, the BNP are primarily about the Union Flag, not the St George's Cross. There is no reason to reclaim it from them, because they never had it.
But, also, it is fairly apparent that when you look at the kinds of vehicles that are flying the St George's flag that they're primarily white vans, or cars driven by the kinds of blokes you might expect to see in white vans. Whilst I'm pretty sure that most of these people are, in fact, lovely, tolerant, reasonable nice people (when they're not behind the wheels of their white vans, obviously), they are also the kinds of people who would traditionally be associated with working class racism: they are the natural constituency that the Nick Griffins of this world try to appeal to. And I wonder if we can really think the flag has been reclaimed until a wider group of people start flying it.
Then again - apart from supporting national sports teams, I wonder why on earth anyone would want to reclaim the flag. Why should we fetishise a bit of cloth? When I'm in the US and see myriad star spangled banners flying everywhere, it doesn't move me, and I get a feeling that it doesn't really offer anything of any value to anyone. The flag itself is archaic (as, arguable, are nationalism and patriotism, although that's a much deeper discussion).
We should think of it as purely a football symbol; like wearing the shirt. Once it becomes the flag of the England Sports Teams, rather than the flag of the country, then we can start to believe that it really doesn't carry any other racist meaning.
--
As a little addendum, here's a silly story about someone being kicked off the bus for wearing an England shirt. First - it didn't happen, but apparently that doesn't stop the Metro pushing the "It's PC Gone Mad" line, as the media desperately try and push this sort of rubbish on the most tenuous of links. Second - it is worth remembering that the England shirt does still carry some baggage, and people will have some trepidation when faced with blokes (OK, not 2 year olds...) wearing it.
Tuesday 25 May 2010
Queens Speech, Good and Bad
We've just had the Queen's Speech outlining what the government intends to do this year.
Let's start with the really bad part of it. 22 bills. 22. Are they serious? I know they want to be a great reforming government blah blah blah. But they're a government that wants cuts, that wants to do less, apparently. And they're starting this process with 22 bills? There should be about 6, probably. There's way too much clutter on the agenda, and this means way too many people doing way too much stuff; all the teachers and nurses and policemen and the rest are all going to have yet another bunch of things to adjust to, rather than just carrying on with their jobs. If the Tories and Lib Dems had really meant that they wanted government interfering less, they could, rather than having a new bill on changing school curricula, instead just not have a bill at all. Wait. Do nothing. That would be radical, and revolutionary, and welcome.
That said, there's stuff in this speech that's welcome, and stuff that's unwelcome. Unwelcome are the ludicrous Free Schools. They will be used as a trojan horse to get businesses to run schools, of course. But, frankly, I think that's mostly a misplaced fear. Because, really, this is a classic "Big Society" idea of Dave's, which means that it's ideologically fine for him, but he forgets that society is apathetic as anything and you struggle to find school governors in the most polite and middle class of surroundings, so really there is just not going to be much take up of the idea. It's silly, and ideologically screwed up, but it will be harmless because nothing much will actually happen.
Other stupidity is stuff like setting the state pension to be earnings linked again. Why would you put one of your absolutely highest ticket items, and make sure it increases ahead of inflation? You're in the middle of an economic crisis, and we're told we've got a horrendous sovereign debt problem. So you're going to throw more money away? And what message does this send, too? Under Labour, at least we were finally getting it into everyone's thick heads that there's not a hope in hell that the government can afford to pay for their retirement in 20 years time. Has the demographic time-bomb suddenly magicked away? I don't think so. We still won't be able to pay your pensions, folks, this is just a short term, pointless and expensive splurge that'll make it harder to wind down the state pension when they actually need to.
But - a vote on AV (and, cunningly, it seems, some Labour types might sabotage this and put in an amendment to make it STV, which could really screw the Tories...) is hugely welcome. And reform of the Lords: hopefully fully elected, but if not then leaving appointed peers with only speaking rights. And getting rid of ID cards. And restricting government use of DNA and CCTV. There's a lot of excellent liberal stuff here. Get this through and Britain will be a more liberal, more relaxed, more tolerant, less statist and less overbearing place.
Let's start with the really bad part of it. 22 bills. 22. Are they serious? I know they want to be a great reforming government blah blah blah. But they're a government that wants cuts, that wants to do less, apparently. And they're starting this process with 22 bills? There should be about 6, probably. There's way too much clutter on the agenda, and this means way too many people doing way too much stuff; all the teachers and nurses and policemen and the rest are all going to have yet another bunch of things to adjust to, rather than just carrying on with their jobs. If the Tories and Lib Dems had really meant that they wanted government interfering less, they could, rather than having a new bill on changing school curricula, instead just not have a bill at all. Wait. Do nothing. That would be radical, and revolutionary, and welcome.
That said, there's stuff in this speech that's welcome, and stuff that's unwelcome. Unwelcome are the ludicrous Free Schools. They will be used as a trojan horse to get businesses to run schools, of course. But, frankly, I think that's mostly a misplaced fear. Because, really, this is a classic "Big Society" idea of Dave's, which means that it's ideologically fine for him, but he forgets that society is apathetic as anything and you struggle to find school governors in the most polite and middle class of surroundings, so really there is just not going to be much take up of the idea. It's silly, and ideologically screwed up, but it will be harmless because nothing much will actually happen.
Other stupidity is stuff like setting the state pension to be earnings linked again. Why would you put one of your absolutely highest ticket items, and make sure it increases ahead of inflation? You're in the middle of an economic crisis, and we're told we've got a horrendous sovereign debt problem. So you're going to throw more money away? And what message does this send, too? Under Labour, at least we were finally getting it into everyone's thick heads that there's not a hope in hell that the government can afford to pay for their retirement in 20 years time. Has the demographic time-bomb suddenly magicked away? I don't think so. We still won't be able to pay your pensions, folks, this is just a short term, pointless and expensive splurge that'll make it harder to wind down the state pension when they actually need to.
But - a vote on AV (and, cunningly, it seems, some Labour types might sabotage this and put in an amendment to make it STV, which could really screw the Tories...) is hugely welcome. And reform of the Lords: hopefully fully elected, but if not then leaving appointed peers with only speaking rights. And getting rid of ID cards. And restricting government use of DNA and CCTV. There's a lot of excellent liberal stuff here. Get this through and Britain will be a more liberal, more relaxed, more tolerant, less statist and less overbearing place.
£6bn of savings
Yesterday, Osbourne and Laws announced £6bn of savings - to try and save the country from a sovereign debt crisis.
Frankly, a bit pathetic, really. If they want to actually do something about debt levels - which I suspect that they do - they need to make rather bigger inroads than this, which appears to be something 5% of the annual deficit. The errors on the previous month's deficit calculation were bigger than this.
It's all posturing, mixed with cowardice - either they actually don't want to do anything yet because they're scared it will screw the recovery: an entirely reasonable viewpoint, but then why make £6bn of cuts? Or, they want to cut now, to make inroads quickly, in which case £6bn is a piss in the ocean and not worth mentioning.
And, of course, where has this £6bn come from? At least nothing very stupid yet, really. The child trust fund was pretty assinine to start with, as are any non means-tested benefits. To put it bluntly, why should Sammy Cammy be getting a lump sum of a few hundred quid from the government when she's got god knows how many millions in the bank? The rest seem to come from "non front line efficiency savings". Well, either the people doing these jobs were wasting their time and were utterly pointless in the first place - and, no matter what you think of New Labour, I don't think they're stupid enough to employ random people to do nothing at all, purely for the sake of wasting taxpayers money and driving up everyones' taxes and therefore losing votes - or this will have some, if only minor, impact on public services.
My guess is that it will have a very slight impact, but the cuts are so pointlessly small that it won't really be felt yet. But there have to be much bigger cuts to come next year. Let's hope the economy is stronger by the time that happens.
Frankly, a bit pathetic, really. If they want to actually do something about debt levels - which I suspect that they do - they need to make rather bigger inroads than this, which appears to be something 5% of the annual deficit. The errors on the previous month's deficit calculation were bigger than this.
It's all posturing, mixed with cowardice - either they actually don't want to do anything yet because they're scared it will screw the recovery: an entirely reasonable viewpoint, but then why make £6bn of cuts? Or, they want to cut now, to make inroads quickly, in which case £6bn is a piss in the ocean and not worth mentioning.
And, of course, where has this £6bn come from? At least nothing very stupid yet, really. The child trust fund was pretty assinine to start with, as are any non means-tested benefits. To put it bluntly, why should Sammy Cammy be getting a lump sum of a few hundred quid from the government when she's got god knows how many millions in the bank? The rest seem to come from "non front line efficiency savings". Well, either the people doing these jobs were wasting their time and were utterly pointless in the first place - and, no matter what you think of New Labour, I don't think they're stupid enough to employ random people to do nothing at all, purely for the sake of wasting taxpayers money and driving up everyones' taxes and therefore losing votes - or this will have some, if only minor, impact on public services.
My guess is that it will have a very slight impact, but the cuts are so pointlessly small that it won't really be felt yet. But there have to be much bigger cuts to come next year. Let's hope the economy is stronger by the time that happens.
Monday 24 May 2010
The New Politics
It's been a long time since I posted anything, so this is an attempt to revive myself a bit.
Anyway, away from cycling, I've had lots of thoughts about the results of the recent election. It's an interesting time, and it's pretty much impossible to tell how it's going to play out. That said, I get some fantastic pleasure right now from watching the maniacs on the right wing of the Conservative Party, and in the media.
The daft idiots firstly don't seem to understand that they didn't win the election. So they're deeply upset at the failure of their government to implement the full Tory program. Livid, almost. Read, for example, the mad Fraser Nelson trying to explain that, in fact, the Tories didn't get a huge majority because they weren't mad and right wing enough, and didn't blather on more about immigration.
They haven't spotted that, in fact, Cameron became popular when he went off from early 2000s Tory obsessions and actually tried to present a moderate face. Stuff about immigration may appear to be popular with the public, but in fact voters mostly seem to want generally moderate leaders, rather than leaders that match their exact opinions.
But, in addition, there's the bilious anger against David Cameron every time he bends slightly to accommodate the Lib Dems. I love seeing this bilious anger. If Melanie Phillips and Fraser Nelson are angry, it can't be all bad, can it?
Anyway, away from cycling, I've had lots of thoughts about the results of the recent election. It's an interesting time, and it's pretty much impossible to tell how it's going to play out. That said, I get some fantastic pleasure right now from watching the maniacs on the right wing of the Conservative Party, and in the media.
The daft idiots firstly don't seem to understand that they didn't win the election. So they're deeply upset at the failure of their government to implement the full Tory program. Livid, almost. Read, for example, the mad Fraser Nelson trying to explain that, in fact, the Tories didn't get a huge majority because they weren't mad and right wing enough, and didn't blather on more about immigration.
They haven't spotted that, in fact, Cameron became popular when he went off from early 2000s Tory obsessions and actually tried to present a moderate face. Stuff about immigration may appear to be popular with the public, but in fact voters mostly seem to want generally moderate leaders, rather than leaders that match their exact opinions.
But, in addition, there's the bilious anger against David Cameron every time he bends slightly to accommodate the Lib Dems. I love seeing this bilious anger. If Melanie Phillips and Fraser Nelson are angry, it can't be all bad, can it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
