Labour: Still Not Getting It On Spending

A new Labour sound bite (apparently):

Indeed, the Labour leadership have come up with a sound bite of their own on spending - "Building schools and hospitals did not create the deficit."

If it is a soundbite, then it is quite simply a terrible one. Firstly, from a tactical point of view, it doesn't work as it is entirely defensive. It is highlighting one of the areas in which Labour is most vulnerable, and then defensively claiming that parts of their operation while in government where not responsible for it.

Secondly, it wilfully ignores that fact that it wasn't just spending on the NHS and the education system that fucked the British economy. What about bailing out failed banks? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They weren't exactly cheap, you know. And the Millennium Dome - that notorious, enormous breast built on the south bank of the Thames that once symbolised New Labour profilgacy - was actually the tip of an iceberg when it came to a government determined to spend as much as possible without it having any meaningful result.

Which is the third problem. Yeah, Labour spent a lot of money on education and health. Well fuck-a-doodle-doo. Such boasts would be far more impressive if that spending hadn't large been a waste of fucking money. The NHS remains largely fucked - a vast bureaucracy floundering under unthinking mangerialism that is capable of swallowing pretty much any amount of money thrown at it. The education system turns out school leavers unable to write a coherent sentence and utterly unprepared for adult life. Spending should only be championed if it has done something good; Labour should not be boasting about their spending in these areas since it was, with very few exceptions, utterly ineffective. Ok, so they are technically talking about building schools and hospitals. But what about those existing hospitals filled with overworked and underpaid medical professionals struggling to keep their heads above water? What about the fact that so many hospitals were so dirty that they actually became lethal for some patients? And what about the education system, which was focussed so much on hitting meaningless targets that it ceased to be effective at, well, educating? Yeah, you built new hospitals and new schools to throw into two failing systems. Well fucking done.

So this soundbite doesn't work on any number of levels, but there's a final problem that it is worth considering. The very fact that Labour remains unashamedly proud of its spending ways shows that it remains, as a party, utterly unfit for office. Labour needs to show that it understands the damage it did to this country while in power, and that it understands that the citizens of this country - and the majority of them never voted for Labour - are still paying for their idiotic spending in a number of different ways.

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.

Rioting and Austerity

Over at The Guardian, we learn that austerity causes riots. Actually, we don’t – despite what the headline says, this is not a “fact”. The “fact” is that there is a correlation between the implementation of some austerity measures and some social unrest. But let’s not dwell on that – we know that this nation’s media are not big on facts. Let’s instead pretend that it is fact and therefore ask the question “so what?”

Seriously, so what if austerity measures cause riots? Does that mean we should never ever cut spending, just in case? Even if spending is at a horrific, unsustainable level? No, of course not. That would be a bit like saying we shouldn’t allow immigration because it causes rioting from EDL louts. A far more sensible policy (if this was “fact”) would be to make sure that, when austerity measures are introduced, thought should be given to the potential impact they might have on social stability. Or to put it another way, the police should expect some rioting, and prepare accordingly (i.e. by doing a bit more than standing by looking blankly when it all kicks off). Furthermore, if the government changed its economic policies owing to these riots, it would be implicitly condoning rioting or, at the very least, saying “rioting works - if you don’t like our policies, burn down a Gregg’s and raid a Foot Locker, and we’ll change them”.

There have been numerous attempts to explain these riots and, to some extent, to excuse those rioting. Such attempts are, as far as I can see, simultaneously unsuccessful and utter bullshit. The riots were caused by (a) the fact that some people like fighting and (b) the fact that some people like free stuff – something that can be facilitated by stealing stuff. Any analysis more complicated than that is frankly adding a gravitas that the situation simply does not call for.

TUC and the Rally Against Debt

A TUC spokesperson on the Rally Against Debt:

"Half a million people joined the TUC march for the alternative to deep, early spending cuts.

"The fact that only a few hundred people rallied for more Sure Start centre closures and punitive cuts on disabled people, shows how little support there is for the government's economic plans."

Where to begin with this utter bilge? Firstly, no alternative has been offered to the government's reduction in spending other than "we'd prefer them not to do it" - a position which, given how crippled this country is with debt, just doesn't work.

Secondly, it is pretty offensive to claim that people were rallying for Sure Start closures and punitive cuts on disabled people. They weren't. They were rallying against the idea of future generations being burdened with completely unneccessary debt - something the TUC seems to be completely ok with.

Furthermore, I'd imagine most of these people don't support the government, and would like a more radical debt reduction plan combined with a refusal to contribute to further EU bailouts - neither of which the present government seems willing to do.

And yeah, only a few hundred people turned up - to a grassroots rally designed to advocate the taking of difficult decisions now for future generations. As opposed to the TUC backed march, organised by backers with thousands, if not millions, of pounds to spend and thousands of members to call upon. Furthermore, it is always easier to get people marching in favour of naked self-interest - which is what the TUC backed march earlier this year was about.

Cut Protestors and Their Idiocy

As up to a quarter of a million people descend on London to protest against unavoidable spending cuts, I sit in Leeds shaking my head in mild despair.

These people truly are economic dullards. To bring London to a standstill on a Saturday afternoon is an immensely economically damaging plan. Businesses will face reduced custom - if not having to close - on their busiest day of the week. Which will lead to less revenue for businesses, which in turn will lead to less tax for the government. Which in turn will lead to what? More spending cuts. So in order to protest about spending cuts, the protestors could risk future spending cuts. Meaning they truly are absolute lackwits.

Fortunately, some muppet from Unite is on hand to clarify what they want to achieve:

"Our alternative is to concentrate on economic growth through tax fairness so, for example, if the government was brave enough, it would tackle the tax avoidance that robs the British taxpayer of a minimum of £25bn a year."

Where to start? Ok, let's concede that this is a marginally more sophisticated position that simply picketing businesses because they (completely legally) avoid taxes since it instead focusses on the government who, after all, allow them to avoid taxes. Of course, having the demonstration on a Saturday when most of that government have buggered off elsewhere to avoid the inconvenience seems to be a stupid position. But nevermind, eh?

I do like the conflation of bravery with agreeing with a personal opinion. There is nothing intrinsically brave about challenging banking tax avoidance, just as there is nothing intrinsically brave in people following my personal opinion that people should ignore Unite. Bravery is about a bit more than complying with the prejudices of another.

Now, it is true that I don't see a lot of bravery in David Cameron. In fact, it looks to me like he has all the backbone of wilted spinach. Which makes his refusal to truly jump on the bash-the-banker bandwagon (at least to the same extent of Labour and the anti-cut protestors, because he and his government still have their anti-banking moments) is a rare example of mild courage from our Prime Minister. It is arguably more brave, see, to stand against the current anti-banker mindset so prevalent in this country at the moment.

But even if we do agree that standing up to banking tax avoidance is brave, we should also acknowledge that bravery can also be stupidity. And we can then argue that penalising banks through the tax system may be a brave but also stupid thing to do in this day and age. Because we live in a global economy, and if banks feel they are being shat on they will upsticks and fuck off elsewhere. So the end result of tackling (perfectly legal) tax avoidance is pretty stupid. And counter-productive. And deeply naive.

Still, naive is probably the best word for those who are protesting these cuts. At least, it is the best possible non-profane word.

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.

Crippling the Big Society

I'm starting to read a lot that the spending cuts will undermine Cameron's Big Society. This is, of course, utter bollocks. In as much as we can define Cameron's Big Society, it seems to be asking the people of this country to do what the state can no longer afford to do. Therefore, the Big Society is not undermined by spending cuts; rather, it is (at least in part) created by those spending cuts. The more Cameron's government cuts spending (or, rather, cuts the growth in government spending) the more the Big Society will be called on to plug the gaps.

But I'll tell you what will kill off the Big Society - a failure to cut taxes. It is all very well expecting people to volunteer to work for and to donate money to their local communities; it is another thing entirely to expect them to do so while paying the same exorbitant tax rates for fewer services from the government. There's nothing wrong, as far as I am concerned, with expecting individuals and their community to take more responsibility for their own communities. There is something naive about expecting them to do so while still giving such a high percentage of their incomes to the government.

Spending cuts won't kill the Big Society; taxes will.

Library Cuts

Leave the libraries alone. You don’t know the value of what you’re looking after. It is too precious to destroy.

So Philip Pullman ends his furious polemic against those who would dare to close public libraries. It is a great piece of writing; unfortunately it also pretty much completely wrong as far as I am concerned. In fact, I’m with Charlotte Gore on this one; our libraries are not all as great as the likes of Pullman make them out to be.

There seems to be a great tendency for people in this country to see institutions like public libraries (and other institutions like the NHS) as good things simply because the intentions behind them are good. The reality – once we remove our rose-tinted glasses and look at what libraries are actually like – is that the quality of the institutions concerned vary massively. I know there are some good libraries out there that manage to do more than simply loan the public books (which is itself an honourable thing to be doing) – they provide communication services and a real interface between the public and often very bureaucratic and monolithic local governments. Yet other libraries are decrepit old institutions – a throwback to a different age, and as a result dated in every conceivable way. And at a time of austerity – when there is no longer any slack in the system – something will have to give. So why not get rid of the poor libraries?

Except there is no need to get rid of anything; we need to more away from the belief that institutions like libraries and hospitals are only legitimate if they are funded and owned by the government. This is something that Pullman doesn’t seem to get – libraries can exist in the private sector; there is no reason why communities cannot come together to save – and dramatically improve – a library if they so wish. The state is not the sole supplier possible for the community; the community itself can provide what it feels it wants and needs.

We need to accept the reality that the government cannot afford to continue spending in the way it has been. We also need to accept that this can actually be quite a good thing, since we shouldn’t need the government to hand us everything it thinks we need on a (generally poorly maintained) plate.

Of course, the government could help achieve this by giving the people the people more flexibility – perhaps by reducing the tax burden. Indeed, this is where the Big Society fails for me (and where Pullman is partially right); it is all very well to ask communities to take more responsibility for running and funding certain services, but it is problematic when we still have to pay so much in tax. But that’s an aside; you want to save your local library from the axe, then start working with people in your community to save it. And losing yourself in the sort of romantic nostalgia like Pullman isn’t going to help you or your cause.

Those Protestin' Blues

The usual caveat that students, like everyone in our increasingly limited democracy, applies to this post. That said...

...the latest protest against spending cuts in education/tuition fee rises left me wondering just what the hell those involved wished to achieve. If it managed to achieve anything, it was simply alienating even more people. You could, as the students protested again, hear the whole of Middle England tutting in unison as their preconceptions about students were reinforced. Hell, even I muttered something under my breath about that combined "workshy" and "students", and I'm one myself at the moment. Way to win support, ladies and gents. Next up, you should have someone punching an old woman to make your "point". That should work even better. Assuming, of course, that your objective is to alienate as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

I dare say that the point of these protests was to draw attention to their cause. Which, in a sense, meant that these protests worked. In the same way that the tramp on the bus on the way home who has pissed himself also gets attention. Another protest so soon after the last one and before any real negotiation with the government takes place is the clearly the best way to make all those protesting look like gargantuan tools. And in the long term, it will cease to even get them attention. Tedious people doing tedious things over and over again is never the best way to capture the national imagination.

Of course, I suspect that there is a sense in which this was not a protest to actually make a point, but rather because protesting has become (probably briefly) very fashionable again. It's what all the cool kids are doing, see? At least until they get bored and find some other way of posturing.

Sure, I sound cynical - but guess what? That cynicism is borne from experience. These protests will achieve nothing - and the more there are of them, the more self-indulgent the students will look and the more powerful the government will become in this matter. If you want to stop these rises in tuition fees, then you need to work out a much better way of doing so. The efficacy of protesting can always be questioned; continued protesting is just plain dumb.

Student Morons

Via the ever melodramatic Penny Red*, an interesting comment from one of those idiotic students who rioted last week:

"Look, we all saw what happened at the big anti-war protest back in 2003," says Tom, a postgraduate student from London. "Bugger all, that's what happened. Everyone turned up, listened to some speeches and then went home. It's sad that it's come to this, but..." he gestures behind him to the bonfires burning in front of the shattered windows of Tory HQ. "What else can we do?"

What else can you do? Well, perhaps you could try negotiating in the year or so before these fee and cuts rises come into effect before you resort to violence.

See, there is this thing you might have heard of called diplomacy. It allows for people to talk, to negotiate with each other and come up with a peaceful solution. It is what countries do when they don’t agree on things – a dispute between rival nations tends to lead to further talk, rather than sending in the bombers.

What else could you do, Tom? You could have talked – tried to persuade the government to change their plans, or persuaded the people to back you in your dispute with the government. Instead, you and your idiotic ilk have managed to alienate pretty much all moderate people in this country at the same time as making the government – and the Tory party – into the victim in this little drama. The riot, the broken windows, the possible attempted murder charge – what you and your friends did, Tom Not Nice And Dim, is pretty much the worse thing you could have done. Any sympathy most people may have had has gone – and it is your fault.

*As an aside, check this article out for some more jaw-dropping hyperbole from Ms Penny - where the student rioters are compared to the suffragettes.

Spending Cuts - A Suggestion

To all those complaining about the scale of the spending cuts, in particular those relating to welfare, here's a suggestion - if it bothers you that much, then find an applicable charity and donate money to it. That way you are doing your bit to help even though the government is no longer in a position to afford to help. And if you don't want to do that, then I'd like to politely suggest that you shut the fuck up.

Why We Shouldn't "Respect the Government"

Via the Angry Teen, a gem from our old friend Richard Murphy:

Respect the right of government. Don’t try to undermine their income streams. Pay the tax they expect. Enjoy the benefits that flow from doing so.

AT does a lot to rebut the idiocy of this statement:

Tax destroys growth, allows politicians to get us involved with wars which kill thousands—sometimes millions—of people, allows the state to decimate our civil liberties, and countless other things. It is impossible to overestimate the damage done to society by government. Its services are always inferior to the services of the private sector The NHS is a good example of this. It seems to only be able to "improve" when the price is skyrocketing.

In fact, I've got little to add beyond this observation - there is something very dangerous in the fundamental assumption that underlies this argument. It assumes that the government will always be benign, working in the best interests of the people. By accident or design, that is not always the case. Think about it: there are no shortage of governments in history that have actively damaged their people, and many more who have done so by accident or through negligence. The benefits that Murphy sees flowing forth from government are by no means guaranteed. For example, our taxes payed for the war in Iraq - something that cannot be described as a benefit by anyone other than a Nu Labourite politician.

Now, I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. I do believe there needs to be some sort of government in place. But I don't believe that we should "respect the right of government" - quite the contrary, the government needs to respect our rights. And they need to justify every penny and any liberty that they take from us. A healthy attitude towards government isn't blind obedience and thoughtless compliance - it is a constant suspicion of the political class and the resulting scrutiny to ensure that they act in our interests, not their own.

Murphy - and all other statists - assume that government will always be benign. Those with even the smallest knowledge of history know that this is not always going to be the case. Which is why government must always be challenged and restricted. The blindly obedient and the meekly compliant like Richard are like the devoutly religious - they hope those they have put their faith in will do good, while ignoring the damage done by the political class in our name and at our expense.

Let's actually have ideology in politics

Chuntering noisemonkey Ed Balls on the "regressive" Coalition:

“The government’s ideological assault on our welfare state and public services is not simply economic vandalism, I fear it will damage the very fabric of our society too."

I have little interest in what Balls has to say - I'm tired of listening to his vapid and deeply predictable assaults on the Tories and/or the Lib Dems. You could replace Balls with a basic programme designed to spew out attacks on the Con-Dems every few days without damaging political discourse in this country. In fact, such a programme would positively improve British politics, if only because Balls would be excised from it. Binning Balls would be lancing a festering wart on the face of British politics.

No, what does bother me is the increasing use of the word "ideological" in relation to the government's spending cuts. Put simply, there is nothing ideological about these cuts; they are basic economics. The Labour government spent too much, the new government has to spend less - therefore it has to cut spending.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with ideological attacks on the size of the state and state spending. In fact, I'd love it if the government was being ideological. It would make a welcome change from the bland technocratic government that we have had to endure in this country since 1997. To actually have a government doing something because they believe in it rather than to get good headlines or because they have no choice would be a welcome fucking change, quite frankly.

Using the term "ideological" in the way the quote above does is to run the risk of turning it into an insult - which would be beyond stupid, even for a witless toad like Balls. Surely the reason why people get into politics and join a political party is because of ideology? Politics should be ideological, and if the main parties actually remembered the ideologies they are meant to believe in then politics in this country would be one hell of a lot more interesting than the beyond bland bullshit and empty posturing that had now been substituted for political debate.

A Thumbs Up for a Playground Spending Cut

As the government cuts a spending programme based on playgrounds, parasites across the nation start to bleat "won't someone think of the children?" Here's an example of one such idiot from the BBC news website:

Parent Emma Kane has worked with children in Hook Norton to set up a playground scheme which is now unlikely to go ahead. She said: "It's insane to cut what is such a small amount of money."

The small amount of money is £47,000 in this case, fact fans. And I've just checked - that is a lot of money, particularly when you can get a basic play set from Argos for less than £100.

She said playgrounds were a "soft target" for the government's "drastic cuts."

Except, of course, they're not a soft target in the sense that as soon as the cuts are mentioned, people like this Emma Kane start bleating and statists across the land try to paint the coalition as anti-child. In that respect, this is a tough thing for the government to cut as it creates what the modern politician hates most - bad publicity.

I will concede, however, that Playbuilder - for that is the Orwellian name of this statist project - is a soft target in the sense that it is not essential, and therefore ripe for cutting. But as anyone with even an iota of common sense will tell you, if you've got to make cuts, you cut the non-essential stuff first.

She added: "Playbuilder is unique in that communities had to come together and work together to get the funding, in a perfect example of 'Big Society'.

My own perception of the "Big Society" is that it is meaningless toss, so in that respect I'd say Playbuilder is a perfect example of it.

But the cutting of the programme does not stop communities coming together, pooling resources and creating a playground if they so desire. All this cut is stopping them from doing is expecting that playground to come from a government that uses someone else's money to fund all of its schemes. Basically, this simply means that those who kids would benefit from a playground now have to come up with the money if they really want to have one - rather than expecting the taxpayer to fund it.

"There's lots of disappointed children out there, they keep asking me what's happening and I just don't know what to say to them.

How about "go and play with a football in your back garden?"

"Furthermore, as everyone knows, playgrounds fight childhood obesity. What does it say about the government's strategy to cut projects that promote both health and communities working together?"

Yeah, because the way to fight childhood obesity is to let the government spend thousands on playgrounds. Rather than, I don't know, expecting parents to take some sort of fucking responsibility for their spawn and stop them turning into chunkers without government intervention. Or to put it another way, to act like parents.

This sort of thing exasperates me - it shows just how unimaginative and bovine large swathes of the population in this country have become. People no longer seem able to do anything unless the government does it for them. The government has to buy and build playgrounds. It has to keep children thin. Because it is completely ridiculous to expect parents - those who actually created the fucking children they bleat on endlessly about - to take some responsibility and actually do some fucking parenting, isn't it?

The government was right to cut this programme. The only reason why the decision has attracted any controversy at all (aside from those whipping up controversy for party political reasons) is because far too many people in this country have lost sight of the concept of personal responsibility and have become used to gorging on the teat of a bloated, profligate state.

Those "Ideological" Spending Cuts

It is an odd phrase that is really starting to bother me - "ideological spending cuts". Every time the coalition government trims a budget (often canceling planned future spending rather than actually making a cut, mind) the Labour party and its mindless followers scream that the cuts are "ideological". Yet against every available definition of the word "ideological" it appears that these spending cuts are anything but.

First up, let's look at the parties involved in implementing these cuts. The Tories are probably the least ideological they have been since that fat, shambling oaf Edward Heath led them. And the Liberal Democrats showed the extent to which they are a centre-ground, middle of the road ideological vacuum with their shameless flirtation with both parties after the General Election in the desperate hope of gaining some sort of power for themselves. Whatever this coalition might be about, it is based on compromise between two ideologically compromised parties. Their policies, including their spending cuts, are not about ideology.

Then you've got the fact that Labour were also committed to making spending cuts. Would their spending cuts have been ideological too? Or does the fact that the Labour party would have been doing them absolve them from the charge of being ideological? Because the Labour party has never tried to pursue ideological ends before now, has it? Oh, wait...

And then there's the timid, almost apologetic way in which the coalition has gone about its spending cuts. This isn't a bold, ideologically driven government relishing the chance to cut back government spending - this is a fragile coalition desperately trying to avoid a backlash for the spending cuts it is being forced to make owing to the incompetence of the previous administration.

So by all means attack the spending cuts for their size, their targets and the way in which they are being carried out, but don't try to make out that they are ideological in their nature. They're not. I for one would relish a government ideologically committed to reducing the size of government spending and the state; however, this timid coalition is very much not that government.

The Harsh Truth About Spending Cuts

LabourList has an article up entitled The grim reality of "savage cuts" - you can go read the whole thing if you so wish, but you can probably guess what it is going to be like just by reading the title. It is one long whine from a Labour writer addicted to government spending.

Obviously, as a Libertarian, I have no issue with spending cuts - in fact, I think they are not only essential but also the right thing to do. And I'm not naive enough to think that a LabourList writer is going to understand that point of view - after all increasing government spending is pretty much the Labour party's reason for being. However, I do think that the article in question - like most of the bleating from Labour party types about spending cuts - misses the truth about those cuts.

Because, ladies and gents, the Labour party is the reason why those cuts have to be made.

Had the Labour party not dragged us into two wars that it actually didn't have the will to fight properly, then maybe there'd be enough money to prop up the existing bloated state. Had the Labour party not tried to nationalise the failing sections of the banking sector, maybe the cuts could be small rather than savage. Had the Labour party not fucked up both the economy and, to a large extent, the country as a whole, maybe the bloated state could have lumbered on for a bit under a flabby post-Blairite consensus.

But no - the last Labour government has forced the coalition's hand through its utterly inept dealings when it came to the economy and to spending. So you'll have to forgive me if I feel nauseated by the hypocrisy of a party bemoaning cuts that it made inevitable.

The Labour party needs to go away and think about what went so badly wrong during its 13 years in power, and what it plans to do to prevent history repeating itself if they ever win power again. Until then, they really should show some humility and shut the fuck up.

Those *Painful* Spending Cuts

I've not commented on the spending cuts announced earlier this week, partly because they felt so inevitable - a bit like the warm weather giving away to the rain. And let's be honest, those cuts were inevitable - and if you don't realise that, then you probably need to go away and find a website more suited to your level of intellect. Like the CBeebies one.

But the response to these cuts seems to have been dull and predictable - with Labour (who, lest we forget, were also committed to making spending cuts) MPs and members treating the cuts as a cross between the plague and limited nuclear warfare. Everyone else seems to be at odds to point out how painful these cuts are.

Yes, these cuts may well be painful, particularly if you are affected by them. However, they are also inevitable and necessary - which seems to be a message that is muted at best, and not even being communicated at all at worst. Let's examine one of these cuts in detail - a reduction on the spending for university places*:

And extra university places and schools services in England are to be cut - Labour had promised an extra 20,000 university places but this has been cut to 10,000.

First things first, it sounds like what is being cut here is extra places - so places on top of the university places already in existence. Which means that there will still be a net increase in the number of people going to university. Making this a cut in additional spending, rather than an overall reduction in spending. I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like this isn't as scary as it first might sounds.

But even if the number of university places is being reduced then this may well prove not to be such a problem. One of the most stupid things that Nu Labour did was to set an arbitrary level of what percentage of people at a certain age should be attending university - 50%, if memory serves (and it does). It was predicated on two largely false assumptions - that 50% of people are capable of attending university, and that 50% of people will actually find their lives and their career prospects enhanced by attending university. And, of course, this all came out at exactly the time when student loans were introduced. So what we've ended up with is a large number of people attending university to study esoteric topics with remarkably little connection to the real world and saddling themselves with massive debt in the process. Whereas they might have been better served getting a vocational qualification or work experience - which would also eliminate the debt angle.

I'm not saying that certain types of people shouldn't attend university, or that the experience isn't worth the expenditure. What I am saying is that a cut in the number of extra university places created in order to chase an arbitrary and stupid Nu Labour target is not that great a sacrifice. What the Con-Dem's need to do is make this case, and explain to the people not only that the cut is happening, but why it is happening. And just to sweeten the deal for them, they could also throw in a little explanation of what it is Nu Labour's fault that the cut is being made.

At the end of the day, all of these cuts had to happen. If you earn £1,000 a month and spend the money on essentials, and then spend another £500 a month that you don't have on going out and getting wasted, then at some point you're going to hit crisis point and you're going to have to cut back on the money you spend partying. It may be a painful sacrifice, but it is also a necessary and inevitable one. All that is happening on the national level is this process - cutting back after overspending.

Because - and make no mistake about this - Nu Labour have spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. And now it is down to others to clean up the mess they left behind. If we as a nation should learn anything from these "painful" cuts, then it is that the government cannot overspend indefinitely any more than individual can. And consequently, we should never, ever fall for something like the Nu Labour confidence trick again. All that talk about the black hole in Nu Labour's spending plans was 100% correct and right now, as jobs, spending and schemes are all consumed by that black hole, it may be too late to heed the warning this time, but it can stand as a warning for the future.

*And before anyone belly-aches that I don't understand the implications of cutting the spending on universities, let me assure you that I do and that it is actively impacting negatively on my life right here, right now. On a personal level, I want the government to throw as much money as possible at Universities, so some of it gets to me. On a national level, I can see that the government needs to make cuts, and than some academic funding can (and possibly should) be trimmed. I guess it's called perspective.

David Cameron: Class Warrior?

Johann Hari reckons that it isn't Gordon Brown who's after fighting a class war; but, rather, one David Cameron. Yep, with the sort of rhetoric and political insight that would be more befitting of someone like Wolfie Smith, Hari seems to think that Cameron is an evil rich man, determined to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

The article is, of course, packed full of crass gems. I'd just like to take apart a couple of examples that seem to highlight the stupidity of Hari's assertions. Let's start with this one:

The problem isn't Cameron's extreme privilege – it is that he has never tried to see beyond it. He keeps accidentally revealing how warped his view of Britain is, and how little of it he understands. For example, Cameron said in an interview: "The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school."

Read that sentence again. Now imagine how Britain looks from inside David Cameron's head, where the 97 per cent of us who went to day schools are "very unconventional". (In the Bullingdon Club, he called George Osborne "oik", because he had gone to the £20,000-a-year St Pauls, not the £30,000-a-year Eton.) This points to a wider mindset. The group he considers "conventional" and "normal" are the only people he has ever really mixed with, and they are the people he chooses to staff his office with today – very rich people. Is it any surprise he makes policies that serve them, not us?

I'm not entirely sure how Cameron's perceptions of his wife's schooling - which ended years ago - is relevant in any way, shape or form to his potential success or otherwise as a Prime Minister. It certainly isn't proof positive that he has never tried to look beyond his admittedly privileged upbringing. And as a head's up, for someone truly "blue-blooded", it would be odd if they did go to a day school.

I'm also pretty sure that we shouldn't make a judgment about whether Cameron is able to empathise with the way in which the rest of the people in the UK live (who are themselves not a homogenous group of people with identical experiences that are diametrically opposed to those of Cameron, contrary to what Hari seems to think) based on a quip he made at university as part of a club that gleefully and childishly relishes elitism. It would be like dismissing a Labour politician for having a teenage flirtation with Marxism.

As for Cameron making policies to benefit the rich people with whom he has such a connection, well, I'd have to disagree on that as well. Cameron - whenever he decides to actually commit to anything - tends to focus on populist politics. Or, to put it another way, politics that bows to popular opinion. His background is clearly and consistently dominated and overpowered by his desire to win an election and become a Prime Minister. Cameron is trying to create neutral policies that either appeal to, or at least don't offend, the majority of people in this country. Not to kowtow to those who share a similar background to him.

This whole idea that a rich man like Cameron cannot empathise with those beyond their own social background is blatant nonsense. You only have to look at, say, Franklin Roosevelt to see that "rich" people can act on the interests of the "poor" and/or the "middle classes". Hari's crude idea that the rich lack any sort of empathy is as crass as it ignorant. Someone's background - be it ethnic, regional or financial - does not mean that they cannot understand those who don't share similar backgrounds. To believe so is to be almost the definition of bigoted. It also is to misinterpret representation - the truth is that in order for someone to represent you, they don't have to be exactly like you. In a world made up of individuals, such a misinterpretation utterly destroys the concept of representative democracy.

The truth is plain, and it is provable. David Cameron's policies will take money from the hard-working majority of Brits, and hand it to his friends and relatives on landed estates and in tax havens. He is not on your side; he is on the side of a tiny clique who have every luxury in life and now bray for even more. Cameron bragged to his supporters last month: "Nothing and no one can stop us." It's up to the majority who will lose out if he become PM to say – oh yeah?

And here we have the essence of the problem that I have with Hari's argument - that Cameron will be taking money away from hard-working Brits (as an aside, when did the left-wing get so populist and nationalist?) and giving it to the rich. Because if Cameron does get round to giving tax breaks to the rich, it won't come from the normal people. No, he will be taking from the state and giving to the rich. By all means criticise Cameron for only giving money back from the state to the rich; but don't pretend that he is taking it from the poor or from normal hard-working Brits. There is a big difference between the people and the state; to assert otherwise is utterly deceitful. Hari makes a point that he has been better off since Labour came to power. Well, he'd have been even more better off if the Labour government had not tried to redistribute income and had instead enabled itself to make tax cuts by rolling back the parameters of the state. The problem with Cameron isn't so much that he is willing to cut taxes for the wealthy, but rather that he isn't willing to commit to tax cuts for all. That doesn't make him so much of a class warrior as a tentative politician afraid of committing to something that isn't in mainstream political discourse.

The ironic fact is that the only true class warrior who emerges from Hari's article is Hari himself, as he is the one who is prepared to dismiss people based purely on their social background.

The Robin Hood Tax

There should be a website that details – and tears apart – the seemingly endless number of Facebook groups that are set up by people with a slender grip of reality. Another day brings another unthinking left-wing Facebook associate joining another idiotic group:

Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on bankers that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad.

If governments took a tiny tax of 0.05% from international bankers’ transactions, it could generate hundreds of billions of pounds every year – that could stop cuts in crucial public services at home in UK, and help fight global poverty and climate change.

This is so irritating in so many ways that it really is a case of some many gripes, so little time. So I’ll focus instead on my biggest issue with this craptastic idea. It isn’t so much the damage this might do to an already struggling banking sector, nor the naïveté involved in the idea that the whole world could agree on one particular point of economic policy, when they cannot even agree on what the best basis of an economy should be. It isn’t even the ongoing stigmatisation of the banking world, despite the reality that others – such as governments and consumers – also played a crucial part in the down-turn we’re just coming out of.

No. What really fucks me off is this naïve assumption that government knows best. That if you give money to government you are automatically doing a good thing. That is, of course, total shite. Don’t believe me? Well, let’s take a look at what the British government spends its money on. War and (generally poor, not fit for purpose) weapons. More CCTV cameras, more invasions into the privacy of the people. And – best of all for these banking haters – buying large stakes in failing/failed banks. Yeah, let’s give the governments more money. Because they don’t waste it now, do they?

And this notion that the money will be used to stop crucial cuts in public spending at home in the UK – bollocks. If the government gets around to making cuts in public services, then than can do so by cutting out some of the waste within the public sector.

The Robin Hood Tax is perfect propaganda for the government. It subtly yet effectively reinforces the idea that the government is a benign entity that will do more and more good the more money we all give to it. Unfortunately, the government is not benign. It is both wasteful and, on occasion, extremely malignant. Licensing the government to take more money from the private sector is like giving a gambling addict 200 quid and pushing him into Ladbrokes. It is stupid, it is dumb and it is irresponsible.

The Robin Hood Tax – stealing from the rich to give to the incompetent. Unfortunately, the ineptitude of the government ensures any money they take from banks will not reach the poor.

Interesting:

Hewlett Packard, the US computer group, has agreed to pay £200 million in interim damages to BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster, following a landmark lawsuit over a failed IT contract.

Last month, the High Court ruled that EDS, a subsidiary, had fraudulently misrepresented its ability to complete an upgrade of BSkyB’s customer services systems on time.

This could have positive implications for the government. After all, they have had more than their fair share of shitty performances from IT companies. Taking this case as a precedent, the government could win back a lot of money that has been fleeced from them through various IT contracts. But will they do it?

Probably not. Partly because to do so would require backbone, and the government has less spine than a jellyfish. But mainly because there doesn’t seem to be any incentive for the government to go after the money. BSkyB are incentivised by the need to make and maintain profits for shareholders. The government doesn’t need to make a profit, and if it needs more funding, it simply asks for more money from its shareholders – in other words, the taxpayer. Actually, scratch that – it demands more money from the taxpayer.

Which is the big difference between a business and the government – the former exists to make money, the latter to spend money. And it is why I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the government actually used this case as a launching pad to extract some of the money it has sunk into the various money pits IT contracts.