Yes, because the problem is, and always has been, a lack of spending, rather than - say - an ongoing refusal to reduce taxes so people can actually spend their own sodding money.

Fucking, fucking idiots.

George Osborne and the Hooker

Guido, with his customary desire to pursue and publicise any political story that offers any sort of titillation whatsoever, has been pursuing the George Osborne allegations with his customary salacious zeal. If you want all the details then head over to his site and have a look around some of his more recent posts - I've no great desire to rehash it all here.

The questions is, though, whether Osborne will survive these allegations. Realistically, I think he will. If John Prescott can cling to office despite boffing his secretary at the taxpayer's expense then Osborne can survive allegations made about his conduct prior to attaining high office.

But it isn't just that. We're dealing with George Osborne here. There's something about George that makes him come across as deeply unpleasant. I think it is the fact that he has the appearance and demeanour of a bloated puff adder. Therefore, any scandal involving him doesn't really come as a surprise. Seriously, if I heard that he spent his spare time punching old women in the face, I wouldn't be surprised. And that will work in Osborne's favour. The expectations about his behaviour are so low that he could probably get away with just about anything. The Daily Mash have their tongue planted firmly in their cheek with this one, but there is more than an element of truth in the idea that this sort of scandal actually and perversely (no pun intended) humanise him a bit.

Make no mistake about it, this will be embarrassing for him - almost regardless of whether it is true or not. But career ending? I doubt it somehow.

Why The Tories Will Almost Certainly Win A Second Term

Guido has recently had a post up questioning whether we are witnessing a one-term Tory government. While the points raised are relevant, I can’t help but feel that Guido is hedging his bets to some extent. If the Tories win outright, he has a whole host of posts highlighting the failure of Labour to get anywhere. If the Tories lose, he can point to this post and again be “proved” right. But that could just be my natural cynicism (which is generally rewarded where Mr Fawkes is concerned, though). The point of my post is that, as things stand, I think the Tories will go on to win a second term.

There are three reasons for this. Firstly, while things may get worse in terms of the economy, there is also the possibility that things will get distinctly better – especially if George Osborne clocks that economic recovery is aided by tax cuts as well as spending cuts. A recovering economy tends to reward the incumbent government; if Cameron & Co can pull it off, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t reap the rewards in the ballot box. And, after a year and a bit in office, there is still a lot of time to do it before the country has to go back to the polls in 2015.

The second reason is that the Tories aren’t really campaigning at the moment. They’ve got other stuff to do. Like govern. And, of course, muzzle their coalition partners as much as possible. However, come the next election (and they will effectively decide when that is – don’t rule out the possibility of a snap poll if a Tory victory looks likely in one), they will be coming out all guns blazing, using the healthy war chest to try to dominate the core messages of that campaign. And I think they will be emphasising the compromises they have made for the supposed good of the nation (for example, going into the coalition), the difficult choices they believe they have made (cuts etc) at the same time as hammering Labour for leaving them such a fucking mess to deal with in the first place. In the meantime, Labour have little else to do but campaign. And how well are they doing at that? Well, they are attracting back some of the supporters they lost during the long, messy years they spent in power, but those people are coming back for no real reason other than they don’t like the Tories and the reality of that party being ineffective control of the country narks them a bit. Labour, despite having all the time that no longer governing affords a party, are struggling to effectively vocalise any sort of popular message or image.

Which leads me to the third reason why a Tory victory still looks likely – Ed Miliband is just plain shit at the job of being Leader of the Opposition. And if you are shit at that job you have precisely no credibility when it comes to pitching for the promotion to the top job. Especially when the guy you are fighting for that job is already in it. Cameron may be compromised by, say, his association with Rebekah Brooks, but he still looks a lot more credible and Prime Ministerial than his Labour counterpart. Of course, Miliband Minor might be binned before the next election. But who would they replace him with? The reason he won the last Labour leadership election was because he appeared to be the least shit of those running in it. That situation hasn’t changed; there appears to be no-one in the upper echelons of the Labour party who could look credible against even that lightweight David Cameron.

Of course, lots could change, politics is constantly changing blah blah fucking blah. And yeah, something could happen that radically changes the political landscape. But as things stand, I think that enough of the British people will decide, in balance and when faced with the reality of voting in the ballot box on Election Day, that they prefer the devil they know rather to the one they don’t. The Tories will, most likely, benefit from a grudging refusal on the part of the British people to embrace change unless they absolutely have to or have grown utterly repelled by the incumbent government.

After all, that’s what allowed the odious Tony Blair to be re-elected. Twice.

Ed Miliband: Economic Dullard

Ed Miliband - a-ok with bombing Libya, but revise a growth forecast, and he's all ersatz rage.

Of course, it just plain doesn't work. Despite all of his jibes and quips, Eddie Boy just doesn't look credible. Partly it is his grating, partially constipated voice. But mainly it is down to the fact that he, and his party, have the economic credibility of a profligate drunk in a Las Vegas casino. In power, they pissed money away like someone with a fiscal urinary infection. They made the coalition - a government with all the ideological convictions of an empty plastic bag - into the government of controversial cuts. Watching Ed Miliband berate the coalition is a bit like watching a drunk clutching a can of Special Brew berating a social drinker. It just isn't convincing.

Ed Miliband blames the Coalition for slowing the pace of growth. I blame Ed Miliband, and his incompetent party, for making growth an issue and for doing their level best to bankrupt our country. Ed Miliband: the coalition may be pretty shite, but you have all the credibility of a tapeworm.

The Simple World of Laurie Penny

In a nauseatingly self-congratulatory post, Laurie “THE CELEBRITY” Penny writes this:

If I ever lose perspective, or start praising George Osborne, or just turn into a massive wanker, I’m counting on the people whose opinions I’ve always valued to take me to task.

Sorry all, but it is just too easy to say that Penny has never had a sense of perspective, or that she has ever been anything other than a massive wanker. Those cheap shots you should make elsewhere. As, if you are so inclined, no doubt you will.

No, it is the bit about praising George Osborne that gets to me, because it reveals so much about Penny’s mindset. She deals in absolutes, see. And here the absolute is that GEORGE OSBORNE WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING SHE CAN SEE AS GOOD. Which completely ignores one of the most fundamental facets of life – change. Penny might, in future years, move away from the clichéd left (‘growing up’ I believe is the actual term) and realise that people like Osborne can offer valid opinions and policies, even if you disagree with the broad parameters of what they stand for. Furthermore, she also denies the idea that Osborne himself could change; maybe on day, in one area, Osborne will position himself on the tedious left. Doesn’t seem likely, but it is not an impossibility either. Unfortunately, Penny’s naïve worldview is simply too narrow to encompass any such possibilities.

Of course, you could argue that her statement was meant to be tongue in cheek, but anyone who has read Penny’s blog knows that (a) it is exactly how she feels about Osborne and (b) it is typical of the way she looks at the world.

There may be some intelligent statists and socialists out there – those who understand the contingent nature of political identity and political reality. Judging by this and pretty much the rest of her output, we can rest assured that Laurie Penny is not one of them.

Political Bruisers

Since British politicians have ceased to form any useful function - they don't make decent laws, they don't represent their constituents, they don't do anything other than milk the teat of the taxpayer's purse - I've been thinking about how they might become more helpful. Specifically, I've been thinking about who'd be best to have on your side in a pub fight.* Bear in mind this is a list comparing ten political leaders; I'm not saying that this is a list of the ten best fighters in politics. If it was, then Miliband certainly wouldn't be in the list...

10: David Miliband: Possibly the wettest politician in living memory, Miliband looks not just like someone who was bullied at school, but is still bullied to this day. Not just by his brother, but by everyone in the Cabinet. He looks like an earnest, wetter version of Adrian Mole. And he is the only man who can stand next to a banana and make the banana look harder than him. 

9: George Osborne: Everyone knows he is David Cameron's bitch, which is a pretty unflattering position for any politician to be in. Yet he is still a little less of a geek than Miliband, hence the higher spot in the list. And he is in better shape than his pudgy, out-of-shape party leader. 

8: John Prescott: Oh, yes, he punched a voter. Ignoring the fact that in most real democracies punching a voter would be frowned upon rather than being turned into a fucking folk tale, go take a look at footage of Prescott punching that man with a mullet. He doesn't really punch him; instead, he gives him a hearty man-slap. Prezza doesn't come across as a bruiser in that footage - he comes across as a petulant diva throwing a hissy fit. Prescott isn't as hard as he makes himself out to be.

7: Nick Clegg: I have no evidence that Clegg would actually be good in a fight; but let's face it, he's a crap leader of Britain's third party. He can't talk eloquently, he can't debate well and he can't win by-elections. He's got to be good at something, so I'm taking a gamble and reckon that his one talent is fighting. Or, failing that, being a little bit harder than David Miliband. Plus, in the interests of balance, there probably should be a Lib Dem in the list, and aside from the positively professorial Cable, he's the only one I can remember off the top of my head. 

6: Charles Clarke: He is so resentful that I reckon he is a ticking time-bomb of rage. He's been itching for a fight since he was sacked from the Home Office; I reckon that if you set him on the right target, then the curiously inbred looking Clarke would take them out in next to no time...

5: William Hague: I can't imagine he is any good at fighting, even if he has claimed in the past to be a mighty drinker. But both his appearance and deeply irritating voice would be great to have on your side in a fight - if only because your opponents would concentrate on beating him into a fine pate rather than you. 

4: Ed Balls: For similar reasons to Hague: he's so deeply unpopular and generally unlikable that people would rather punch him than you. Plus, he looks like such a nasty piece of work that I reckon he must be good at fighting. He certainly has the sort of air to him that suggests he likes punching other people on a regular basis. 

3: John Reid: A man who created an image around being a bruiser, he looks like a man who wants a fight, 24/7. Yet he's not going any higher because of the suspicion that he is actually a bit wet beneath his carefully constructed facade. He's the one who couldn't cope with the Home Office, and he's one of the people who bottled a battle with Gordon. 

2: David Davis: Of course, he's the angry, slightly scary, impetuous Tory who has still managed to keep a backbone during the Cameron neutering project. Yet he doesn't quite make it to the top spot because he was in the Territorial SAS rather than the real SAS. Yes, that is a harsh judgment - particularly from someone who would avoid any sort of involvement with the military like the plague - but this is a harsh list. 

1: Gordon Brown: To paraphrase an iconic 1970's movie, Gordon Brown is a big man, but he's out of shape. Yet there is something terrifying about Gordon Brown. It is probably the fact that he looks positively unhinged these days. He looks like he wants a fight, and he also looks like he would fight as hard as possible to destroy whoever he identifies as his enemy. He's like Begbie; you might not like him, and he might not look like the best fighter, but Jesus - you'd want him on your side rather than coming at you. 

As always, other options/comments/agreements/disagreements in the comments section. Oh, and the political death match I would like to see is Clarke v. Brown. It be the ultimate grudge match...

*I'm not a fighter. I don't like fighting. Not because it is ungentlemanly or anything like that, but simply because I'm not any good at it and am a bit of a coward when it comes to physical violence. So the people I class as being good in a fight are those who could either fight for me, or distract the enemy whilst I run away. Not that dignified, I know. But at least cowardice means I get to maintain my handsome good looks...

The Fictional Truth about George Osborne

Via Henry North London, I give you this gem of a story (that I really wish I'd written myself) mocking the attempts by Damian McBride and his fellow evil goblins to make up random shit about the Tories:

George Osborne is concealing a terrible secret.

In 1998, ten prostitutes were found murdered and mutilated in Oxford. Horrific crimes that shocked even the hardened lead detective on the case - the hard-drinking, twice-divorced, reckless but loveable maverick Jack Riley.

When Riley interviewed the helpful, blandly smiling clean-cut student George Osbourne to take a routine witness statement, a distant alarm bell started ringing in the back of his mind. There was no evidence tying this handsome and well connected young man to the horrific murders, but....

There's something about him, thought Riley starkly. I can't put my finger on it. Something wrong.

He started investigating Osbourne's movements and alibis for the nights of the murders, and told his sergeant. The next day, Riley was summoned to a private meeting with his sergeant. He was formally told he was being removed from the investigation.

'We're replacing you with Detective Muppet,' his sergeant told him awkwardly. 'You're being transferred to the Makework case.'

Riley stared at him in disbelief.

'You can't be serious. Muppet's never solved a case in twenty years.'

His sergeant didn't quite meet his eyes.

'I'm sorry, Jack. This comes from higher up. I'm just following orders.'

Yet, haunted by his suspicions concerning Osborne, Riley continued digging in secret. God damn it, he needed to know the truth. The more he learned, the more chillingly certain he became that Osborne's charming facade concealed a deadly psychopath. He learned of the woman who'd been found killed in the exact same way near Eton five years ago. Another identical case near the village where Osborne had grown up. Jesus, Osbourne had been doing this all his life. And now he was out of control.

Then quite unexpectedly, Riley was summoned for a meeting with the Chief Commissioner. The urbane and silver-haired older man greeted him warmly, and ushered him into his book-lined inner sanctum.

'Care for a glass of scotch, dear boy? Forty years old. I have cigars too, if you'd care to indulge.'

They stood together before a roaring fire. Riley felt as tense as strung elastic. The Chief Commissioner patted Riley's arm. The gesture was avuncular, yet somehow sinister.

'You are a young man. You have a promising career before you. I will do everything in my power to help that career progress. But first, you must let these ridiculous suspicions drop.'

Riley stared at the Chief Commissioner. He could feel the blood draining out of his face.

'W-what do you mean?'

There was a new and steely note to the Chief Commissioner's voice.

'You know exactly what I mean, Detective Riley.'

Riley hadn't told anyone he was still investigating Osbourne. He was sure of it. Jesus Christ, was he being followed?

As soon as he got back home that night, Riley went straight to his computer and started searching for answers. The luminous white light from the screen illuminated Riley's disbelieving face, as the final piece of the puzzle fell into place - and he found himself looking at a family photograph from an old news article that said it all.

Oh my God, Riley thought starkly. The Chief Commissioner is Osborne's uncle.

He grabbed up his mobile and rang a trusted friend - a newspaper journalist. He had to share what he knew with the world, before it was too late. His friend's voice answered on the sixth ring, sleepy and irritated.

'Jesus. Riley. Do you know what fucking time it is?'

'I've got something to tell you,' Riley said urgently. 'This is front page shit, Greg. I can't talk over the phone. It might be bugged.'

'So come on over,' his journalist friend grumbled. 'But this had better be good, motherfucker.'

Riley raced out of his flat, down the dark and silent stairs and out into the freezing, moonlit night. The world was deadly silent. Nobody around. He got into his car, his heart hammering away inside him. He slammed the door behind him, and turned the key in the ignition.

The car exploded in a ball of flame. Riley died instantly. His knowledge intact.

His death was blamed on a terrorist ring he'd helped to lock up five years ago.

To this day, the ten prostitutes' murders have never been solved.

Okay, it's not even remotely true, but it would make a fantastic story.

And there can be few better summaries of just where exactly McBride went so wrong: "Okay, it's not even remotely true, but it would make a fantastic story."

Richards and the Death Tax

Steve Richards seems to have lost the plot:

Nonetheless there is one policy (the Tories) could propose that would change everything. It would show how serious they were about repaying debt and doing so in a way that was fair. It would be dramatic, make every front page, top every news bulletin and throw Labour into turmoil. David Cameron and George Osborne could announce that they are scrapping their pledge to abolish inheritance tax.

Uh-huh, they could announce that. They could also announce that they are going to give free marshmallows to every pixie in the sky. Just because they can do it, doesn’t mean they should do it.

And yes, it would be all of the media as a top story. Just as the Opposition doing anything incredibly crass would be.

But he offers *reasoning*, if you can call it that, for his idea:

Imagine if the Tories announced that they were scrapping their pledge. Labour would either have to follow suit, looking weakly pathetic again. Or it would enter an election supporting a tax cut they do not believe in against the Tories claiming to be the progressive party of prudence and with ammunition to back up the claim. If Mr Osborne were to reverse his pledge on inheritance tax there would be the same beneficial impact for the Tories as there was when he made the proposal in the first place. I know some close to the leadership are contemplating such a move. I wonder if they will dare to make it.

There are two reason why I think Richards is talking utter, utter crap. Firstly, there is the little matter of reality. Then there is the moral argument.

First of all, what beneficial impact do the Tories need about now? When they made their pledge on inheritance tax, they were behind in the polls and were facing an almost certain defeat at a snap General Election. Now, they are so far ahead in the polls that David Cameron would have to do something really extreme to lose the next election. Like punch a granny or something. Likewise, the Tories don’t have to do anything to make Labour look weak and pathetic. Labour do that for themselves, pretty much every time they let any member of the Cabinet (and in particular the Prime Mentalist) open their gobs. The Tories don’t need gimmicks to get ahead in the polls. The reality of the situation is that they are ahead, and the next General Election is there for the taking.

And then there is the moral case. Just because Richards is happy to endorse Inheritance Tax – the taxing of the dead and the robbing of the bereaved – doesn’t mean everyone else is happy with that policy. Sure, the Tories have hardly been vigorous and robust with their attacks on that particular tax, but at least their existing pledge is the step in the right direction. Cameron’s whole time as leader has lacked any ideological backbone; to back track on the Death Tax would be absolute confirmation that Cameron really is like Tony Blair, and therefore will say/do anything to get into power.

Richards’ article is wishful thinking. He wants the Tories to drop their Death Tax. However, his wishful thinking is backed up neither morally or by reality.

A New Brown Strategy

So here we have the new Gordon Brown strategy. Whenever the opposition disagree with them, Gordo will tell them that their opposition is unhelpful and that they should unite behind the government in difficult times. Be it the outcry over Baby P, or the economic meltdown.

The implication is clear. If the opposition dare to oppose, then they are being obstructive and are damaging the attempts to rescue the economy and, the bastards, may actually be putting the lives of other kids at risk. It is not a million miles away from the same sort of strategy and the same rhetoric that allowed Bush to suppress any opposition to his policies in the aftermath of 9/11. If you opposed Bush, you were unpatriotic. And if you oppose Brown, then you are unpatriotic. And are damaging the country.

Which is, of course, palpable nonsense. Ignoring (for the sake of brevity) the fact that Brown is wrong over pretty much everything, let's instead note what the point of Her Majesty's Opposition. It is to oppose. And the Tory opposition does precious little actual opposing, so they should be praised when they do. See, when someone opposes Brown, they actually have a different opinion from him that is not right, not wrong, but just different. It is the totalitarian arrogance of Brown that allows him to claim any deviation from his supposed orthodoxy is unhelpful and wrong.

I've no doubt that Brown, if challenged, would argue that these are unprecedented times and that the Tories should get behind him. But are they really unprecedented? Babies have been murdered before. The economy has nosedived before. And the opposition they... well, they still opposed. After all, did the Labour party completely stop opposing the Tories during the recession of the early 1990's? If memory serves, they weren't - to say the least - that supportive. In fact, the last time there was geniune unity between the Labour party and the Tory party - to the extent where opposition stopped altogether rather than there being agreement on some issues or on some laws - was back in World War Two. And whilst things aren't great in this country at the moment, things certainly aren't as bad as back in the dark days of 1940, when Britain faced a real threat of invasion by a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship.

Brown's attitude towards anyone daring to oppose him is typical of Nu Labour arrogance. They have some solutions that they believe (wrongly) will help the country. They are so detached from reality, and so believing in their own hype (and the hype that the rest of the country stopped believing years ago) that anyone who does not agree must be being deliberately destructive. Rather than just someone with a different opinion.

George Osborne and the Adventure of the Billionaire

There is something about George Osborne that reminds me of Harry Potter. Seriously, stick some glasses on his boyish face, scratch a bizarre birthmark on his forehead, and Osborne becomes Harry Potter. Just a boy, with powers he can’t understand or use effectively, desperately trying to make sense of a dizzying world. I don’t rate George Osborne – the Tories I know who have met him don’t either – but somehow he projects this image of innocent, feckless charm which means that he’d be one of the last politicians to be involved in a donations scandal.

Just goes to show how much I know, eh?

I don’t care about who said what at any given point of time. The tedious, playground level of this debate infuriates me, and I don’t really want to acknowledge it, let alone dissect it. What I will say about it is this: if Osborne really did meet a billionaire and didn’t try to solicit money by any means necessary, then he has a lot to learn about modern politics. He should have ignored the legalities and been begging for that loan. After all, that does seem to be the done thing…

What really does get on my tits is this attempt by the Tories to position themselves as the party of the people – more in touch with the man or woman walking down the street than their counterparts. Seriously, what a lot of big hairy bollocks. Osborne is in this position because he was invited onto a billionaire’s yacht. Maybe I just have the wrong sort of friends, but I have yet to meet anyone who has a private yacht and wants to invite me onto it. Osborne can do what the fuck he likes on his holidays; but he can’t then expect us to follow the Tory line that they understand the lives and concerns of the vast majority of people in this country. Frankly, a lot of the concerns in this country at the moment are about keeping jobs and homes. Not what went down on a billionaire’s yacht over an opulent summer holiday.

And before any Labour types start clapping their hands and gleefully shouting “class war!” like the guest speaker at a moron convention, let’s remind ourselves that a senior Labour party figure – and now government minister – was there as well. And this is the same senior Labour party figure who has had issues – resigning issues – with rich people before. And apparently this isn’t his first visit to a billionaire’s yacht under dubious circumstances. I’m sure that there are genuine working class people in the Labour party; those who want to fight for social justice and fairness in British society. To them I say this – look at Mandelson. He is – and pretty much always has been – at the very heart of the Labour party leadership. Look at him, as he swans around on the yachts of the exceedingly wealthy. He is indicative of the Nu Labour leadership, and has precisely fuck all to do with and in common with any socialists in the Labour party.

Oh, and before any Liberal Democrats get excited and start pointing out that their leader wasn’t on the yacht, let me point out that there is not a hope in hell of your boy being invited onto a billionaire’s yacht. He simply isn’t important enough.

This whole shabby incident, that has gone from Osborne gossiping about Mandelson to Osborne being asked serious questions about his conduct, shows just how rancidly corrupt and outrageously self-serving our political class is. Seriously, Osborne isn’t in power because he wants to change the world for the better. If that happens, it is a happy accident. Osborne – and Mandelson, and the vast majority of the turds in the Houses of Parliament – are there for one reason, and one reason alone. Naked self-interest. And this incident should stand as a stunning rebuke to anyone who argues that the Tories will be better than Labour. Ultimately, the Shadow Chancellor was on the same yacht as Mandelson. They are all cut from the same cloth, and their arguments are just a smokescreen for their real intentions. Which is to live off you and me as much as possible, for as long as possible.

There is an alternative; an alternative that has such a long journey to go on and needs as much support as possible. But if you are sickened by the behaviour of all parties in the self-perpetuating oligarchy that rules this nation, then I urge you – I absolutely urge you – to take a look at the Libertarian party. Yes, they will be tested on their bold claims if they ever attain political power, but at least they are willing to start from an open and honest standpoint that seems to be an anathema to any of the major political parties in this country:

“...they (LPUK politicians) will not accept offers of hospitality, travel junkets or similar freebies, which could be seen as an attempt by any individual or organisation to gain influence or favour”

I’m not just using this issue as a plug for LPUK as I am a member; rather, I am sick to the back teeth of the opulent corruption of the ruling class, and I know that change will only come from a new party committed to fighting that corruption. If you are waiting for the main parties to put their own house in order, then you are going to be waiting in perpetuity. It ain’t gonna happen.