Every Little Helps, Spock would not approve.

Matthew Elliott the chief executive of The TaxPayers’ Alliance, earlier this week, issued this statement;

‘These cuts are a really good start, and a vindication of all the work we have done over the last six years to make the case for cutting spending. Taxpayers have suffered the pain of a recession and rising taxes, and they will welcome the news that a government is finally making the public sector share the burden.’

A point so devoid of logic that Spock himself would be left opened mouthed and some what lost for words. The point that Matthew Elliott seems to be making doesn’t pay any consideration to the fact that public sector workers, do, in fact, also pay tax…all be it less tax than private sector workers as generally if you work in the public sector then you get paid less.

You can’t just rely on the private sector stimulating the economy as they are more interested in stimulating their profit margins. The argument that the Con-Dems seem to be using hasn’t worked already…Labour tried it with the banks and it failed. We injected large sums of money into them, in the hope that they would lend much needed money to business. What happened instead? They either hoarded it or spent it out in bonuses. A prime example of the private sector doing what is best for themselves and not that of the country. Do they really think that we are stupid enough to believe that Tesco will run their business at a loss just to stimulate the economy? Tesco would close down the less profitable shops quicker than you could say ‘Every Little Helps’.

So going back to Matthew Elliott’s point…by the inevitable job losses that these cuts will produce the government has now reduced the amount of money they will be able to inject into the commercial/private sector and they have reduced the amount of tax they will be able to collect in general. They can’t collect income tax on people who now don’t have an income…and people who don’t have an income, generally don’t have any money to spend in Tesco or Marks and Sparks.

It’s bloody hard to ‘Live long and Prosper’ when you can’t afford to feed yourself or your family Mr Elliott!

Chuckle more than Abel?

The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you furious? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

Wise words and ones that should be heeded by messers Ed and David Miliband if they are to revitalise a disconsolate Labour Party. A party still reeling from an election defeat that has left many believing that the party has no immediate future. Now I know that this topic doesn’t relate directly to Camegg but the winner of this brotherly battle will have a direct impact on the Con-Dem coalition. The Conservatives spent years in the political wilderness because they didn’t or couldn’t form a creditable opposition. If Labour get it right now then they could be returned to power in less than 5 years.

Let’s examine a little further the future of this legitimate brotherhood that seeks to rip a hole into the illegitimate bond between Cameron & Clegg. There is evidence to suggest, throughout history, that two brothers working together leaves one less well placed than the other, especially when they both fight for superiority, so how should Ed and Dave proceed? Furthermore, does age count? Will Dave triumph over Ed simply because he is the elder brother? Lets look at some of the evidence;

Cain & Abel – History’s biggest and oldest brotherly fall out. Cain being the first murderer in history, killing his brother when feeling rejected by God and jealous of his brother. Cain was then forced to wander the earth as a punishment. Cain was the elder brother, so 1-0 to Cain. However, you could argue that Abel won as he was the winner in God’s eyes, so maybe it should be 1-0 to Abel…so lets call it a draw.  Elder 1-1 Younger

Isaac & Ishmael – Ishmael being the first son of Abraham, was banished along with his mother Hagar, when his younger brother Isaac made an appearance on the scene.  As we know both Isaac and Ishmael are credited to be the founders of the worlds two oldest religions, Judaism and Islam. Both religions still carry a grudge and refuse to talk to each other…Broigus to an extreme! Isaac was the younger brother so 1-0 to him. Elder 1 – 2 Younger

Gary and Phil Neville – Both started out playing for the biggest football team in the world with varying degrees of success. Gary still plays for Man Utd but poor Phil was farmed out to a lesser club after several inconsistent years. Who knows if there is any animosity around the Christmas dinner table? Gary has continued to win league medals whereas Phil has won nothing since leaving Utd therefore an emphatic win for Gary 1-0. Elder 2 -2 Younger

Rudolf and Adolf Dassler – Both brothers started making sports shoes in their mothers laundry room during the 1920s. Thought to have both fallen out with each other during an allied bomb attack during  1943. Rudolf called the Allied warplanes ‘dirty bastards’ and Adi thought he was talking about him…typical of any brotherly relationship. Then in 1948 they split their business, Adi set up Adidas and Rudi set up Ruda (later changed to Puma). Adidas is by far the more successful brand so Adi wins this one for the younger brothers. Elder 2 – 3 Younger

Noel and Liam Gallagher – founding members of legendary Indi band Oasis. Noel left the band recently because he found the constant arguing with Liam too much. Liam still believes that he is the more talented brother…Noel still believes that he is. Difficult this one really,  Noel the superior songwriter is undoubtedly the most talented out of the pairing, but Noel’s songs are nothing without the chutzpah and vocal stylings of Liam. Draw. Elder 3 -4 Younger

So the younger brother just wins but what can Ed and Dave learn from these historical relationships? Well it’s probably not a good idea, no matter how jealous you get, that you murder your brother…thats the first and most obvious thing to bear in mind. Both David and Ed have said the right things about blood being thicker than water and that first and foremost they are brothers before politicians…but can that last? One thing that these case studies have shown us is that  ambition seems to win out in the end.

There is always an exception and this is no different. A case where both brothers work together in partnership, working together for the common good…’The Chuckle Brothers’. Both Barry and Paul work very well together, although you would have to admit that Barry is the lesser of the two brothers, always seeming to come off worse.

What we can say is that the commonality between all sets of brothers is that neither would have been as successful or notorious without the other. Without Cain there wouldn’t have been an Abel, without Ishmael there would have been no Isaac, no Barry without Paul.  The brotherly rivalry spurred each of them on to achieve more than arguably they could have done alone.

So I suppose the best advice that both Ed and Dave could take would simply be to look no further than their party cards. They should simply turn them over and read, ‘By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we do alone.’

Lets hope that both Ed and Dave look to this Labour core value and they simply don’t play ‘To me, to you’ with the party for too long.

Pupil Premium & Free Schools

The Con-Dem party have delivered the following promises on education;

• new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand
• We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils

These flagship policies from both parties don’t marry together. How can they?

The ‘Pupil Premium’ policy was designed to inject much needed money to disadvantaged pupils/disadvantaged schools. However, the ‘Free School’ policy allows ‘anyone’ to set up a school anywhere for anyone. The government will give state education funding for those who wish to do this. Funding that will have a direct impact on existing school budgets.

Surely this is either taking money away from disadvantaged pupils or taking money out of disadvantaged schools…or at the very least disadvantaging schools further.

Lasting moment of change?

So it’s all change at the top…yesterday saw the start of something special, something very special. That’s right yesterday saw the start of Junior Apprentice…over the next few weeks we get to see ‘Lord’ Alan beat the shit out of little, annoying teenagers, most probably because they are little, annoying teenagers. Ironic really that as we see the birth of a new government, a government rooted in the Thatcherite policies of old, that we also see on our screens the birth of the next generation of ‘Loads-A-Monies’.

So we ask the question, has this new Con-Dem government really brought the change in politics that they proclaim so loudly? Nick Clegg has spent the past 4 weeks trying to convince everyone, which he has done to some degree, that he is the 2nd coming (the first of course is his new friend Dave Cameron). He has told us repeatedly that he wants to change the way that Westminster works, that “the only choice you have is between the two old parties who’ve been taking it in turns to run things for years.”, hitting us with his campaign mantra of ‘Change that works for you, building a fairer Britain’. We all know where ‘Dave’ stands on change, its change this, change that, vote for change. Well how well do Con-Dem stand up to this idea of change? Lets look at some figures (Courtesy of Newsnight);

  • 65% of the the new cabinet went to either Oxford or Cambridge (15% of Tony Blair’s first cabinet were Oxbridge)
  • 61% of the new cabinet were educated at private schools
  • 4 members of the cabinet are women (would we even have Theresa May in the cabinet if Chris Grayling, ironically, hadn’t come out as a raving homophobe (the word ‘change’ once again rings loudly in the ears. Their were 8 women in Blair’s & 5 in Brown’s first cabinet)
  • 1 cabinet member is from an ethnic minority (she’s also a woman)
  • There are no ethnic minority MPs within the Parliamentary Lib Dem party.

Surely if you want to sell a different type of politics then you need a different type of face? What we see is that the change that they offered was a change from a progressive, representative cabinet to a change back to a government that now once again looks very white, very male, very upper middle class and very elitist. At least the Tory party from the 70’s and 80’s had a woman that was there simply not to make up the numbers.

Where does that leave them on the ‘change’ front? Well after 3 years of rebranding from ‘Dave’ and all the trumpeted ‘change’ nonsense from ‘Nick’ we see very little change in the look of the government. How about the ‘change’ to their policies? Lets take the ‘Big Society’ that Dave offered us.

When Cameron stated in his first speech as PM that he wanted to ‘change’ Britain from ‘One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities’, he was selling his vision of change to the country. 23 years earlier Maggie stated that ‘People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations’. The words may have changed but the sentiment hasn’t – its worth noting that Maggie also said in the same speech that ‘there was no such thing as society’ – we all know what happened next – society itself crumbled…we are still suffering the hang-over from that 80’s party.

So in the same week that the budding ‘Loads-a-monies’ of the early 21st century launch their quest for loads of money, the old ‘Loads-of-monies’ of the late 20th century launch their quest for change…the only problem is, they haven’t!

The government of change. Source BBC

Inspect & Regret

It’s hard starting something that you know will ultimately end sooner rather than later. If we knew, as children, the date in which we were to vanish from this mortal coil then our lives might be more enriching but it would be by definition one of inspection and regret.  The date for the final entry of this blog will be the first Thursday of May 2015 (actually lets say the first Friday of May 2015). We hope by this date our words will have been inspected a lot and that their will be no regrets to speak of.

It remains to be seen whether the next general election will manifest itself on this day as in all likelihood the Con-Dem coalition will fail well before this day.

What we aim to do with this blog is provide some insight into the running of this ‘revolution’, of this seismic shift in English politics, of this ‘change’ in the way our government governs. We will be focusing on many aspects including this wishy washy notion of ‘change’ (We will post later some interesting stats that Newsnight discussed on the make-up of the cabinet.) that both parties seem to hold so dear.

We’re fairly certain that this coalition will receive a fairly easy time from the Tory Media, both press and broadcasters. So we are going to take a look at how the Government are reported on both through these biased agencies and through the other mainstream organisations.

To steal a line from ‘Dave’, this blog will succeed through its success…not entirely sure that this makes any sense…apt though as that’s what most people will be thinking about the Con-Dems

Looking at this notion of Inspection and regret, lets ask ourselves how much CamEgg regret their election campaigns of 4 weeks ago?

Do you think they take us all for idiots? Do you think that they can erase their campaigns from our memories? Do you simply put their electioneering down to wanton cravings for power; that they were always closer in policy and ideology than they led us to believe?