Compare and contrast

The BBC are on the attack over the GDP figures released today, what a contrast with the way they reported economic news a year ago. Then I reported this:

'The BBC have excelled themselves this lunchtime. They report that "Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rose 0.6% last month, taking the annual rate up to 2.9% from 1.9% in November." but it's not one of the main headline stories and although the article contains such information as, the very scary, "That was the biggest monthly rise in the annual index since records began and exceeded the City's expectations for an increase to 2.6%." and "This was a rise from 0.3% in November, and also constitutes the biggest monthly rise in the annual rate of RPI inflation since 1979." The BBC are quick to list the reasons why we should not worry and so provide their Labour government with excuses:

"The annual increase in CPI mainly came about because of a number of unusual factors that had depressed prices a year earlier."

I would suggest that such terrible economic news under a Conservative government would have received somewhat more complete coverage, more wailing and bemoaning the economic disaster and interviews with the opposition. However under a Labour government all is peace and quiet, don't scare the population especially this close to an election.

In fact this news means that we are just starting on the path to traditional Labour high inflation, in fact stagflation which I and others have been predicting for quite some time now. Don't expect to see or hear Robert Peston or Nick Robinson discussing Stagflation any time soon, after all there is a general election to be secured for Labour first. As I have said before, there is still time to buy gold (and silver). '

It looks as though my prediction came true; but was it that hard?

What have 'Progressives' ever done for us?

Greatest Moments in Liberal History Part 1 from RightChange on Vimeo.

Thanks to Moonbattery for the spot.

Stagflation

The Sunday Telegraph this weekend reported in shocked tones that the spectre of 'stagflation' was rearing its head. That's odd, I thought, I could have swor that I have been warning of the return of stagflation for a long time now. So I had a look back and here are some of the posts that I have made...

1) 28 December 2007 - 'The party's over' -

'A quick prediction for 2008 that will not warm the cockles of Gordon Brown's heart.

The economy is screwed...

OK, a bit more detail; the economy is well and truly screwed... The pound is about to go into free-fall and so Gordon will want to support it by raising interest rates but that will hit the hard-pressed home buyers who have believed Gordon Brown's "end to boom and bust" rhetoric. Also Gordon has tasked the Bank of England to suppress inflation and even his "preferred" (for which you can read artificially reduced) measure will be going up as inflation enters the economy so the BofE will want to reduce interest rates, but that will suck in more imports and so increase inflation. At earlier points in the economic cycle, Gordon has raised taxes (albeit stealthily) but whilst that was possible in good times without too much protest from the tame media, the media are now less tame and (apart from the ever loyal BBC)increasingly willing to criticise Gordon's government.

It really doesn't look rosy for Gordon, stagflation is on its way and we are in for a very unpleasant four or five years; it could make 1929 look like a mild downturn. Sorry to be the voice of doom but I think it best we face up to reality. '

2) 14 November 2007 - 'Stagflation':

'The economic news just gets worse and worse for Gordon "an end to boom and bust" Brown, today we can read at Motley Fool that

"Shares are sinking, house prices heading south and consumer spending is constipated. Can it get any worse?

It can. Inflation is back on the agenda.

Britain's benchmark retail price index rose more than expected last month, and danger signs are flashing that shop prices could soon be heading even higher."

Oh dear Gordon, being PM isn't as much fun as you thought, is it? Is the economy about to crash and burn, will that make you sad or angry, or both? Do you wish you had called an election immediately you took over from Tony? Too late now, the end of Gordon Brown's reputation for economic competence is nigh. '

3) 27 November 2007 - 'Economy in Tatters part the upteenth but not the last' - I think this article is important to re-publich at puts the lie to the 'narrative' being faithfully presented by the BBC on their labour partners behalf that the economy is failing because of Tory cuts:

'Poor, poor Gordon; he spouted his usual litany of factors that prove his economic genius. Unfortunately whilst in the past the media and so the general public would have believed him or at least said "well he has done quite well, hasn't he", this time he may have more problems. It appears that the economy is getting closer to the point of collapse - "The City was last night calling on Alistair Darling to raise taxes or cut spending after news of an unexpected deterioration in the government's coffers raised fears of a looming £40bn hole in the public finances. In a fresh blow to the chancellor, data from the Office for National Statistics showed that despite a robust performance by the economy in the first seven months of the year, the government borrowed more money in this period than at any time since Labour came to power in 1997. The ONS said that in October - normally a bumper month for corporation tax receipts - the exchequer had a surplus of £1bn, but this was down on the £3.5bn surplus in the same month last year. That left net borrowing for the first seven months of the year at £24.2bn, up from £17.5bn in the same period of 2006-07. Analysts said that with both the Treasury and the Bank of England forecasting that the economy will slow down in the coming months as a result of higher interest rates and the credit crunch, the prospect was for net borrowing in the current financial year to be even higher than the £38bn deficit pencilled in by Mr Darling in last month's pre-budget report. In the PBR, Mr Darling said the government would not meet the budget forecast for borrowing of £34bn, but John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said the total for both 2007-08 and 2008-09 was likely to be "£40bn or more". He added: "At this point in the economic cycle, the public finances should be improving in order to provide some 'wiggle room' in the event of a future cyclical downturn. "The fact that they are getting worse will be of concern to the Treasury since it suggests possible structural weakness and potential need for further tax increases or greater spending restraint.""

I am sorry folks but when borrowing reaches these levels, whilst inflation is on an upward curve, house prices start to fall and rises in economic output look shaky, it is time to look up the word "stagflation" in the dictionary.

Poor Gordon, if only you had called an election when you had the chance; you would have won and you would now be 5 years from an election. Now you are a maximum of 2.5 years away from an election. I think 2.5 years should be nicely in the middle of a massive recession, well done Gordon you have really screwed the country up. Never mind though because your pension is nicely index-linked; it's just a shame that you'll have to spend most of it on security to keep the general public that you have so royally screwed from getting their revenge. '

How long without a government?

Le record du monde is keeping track how long Belgium has been without a government... 225 days and counting; catching up with Iraq!

If there is a temporary shortage of the people’s money, because of the exploits of the banks, exploits of which we could not be expected to have been aware, we have to unlock some of the money that the people will have tomorrow so that it can be spent today on making up the temporary shortfall. Thus maintaining spending on the people’s priorities. Remember, if the people don’t have money today how are they going to create the money tomorrow from which we’ve borrowed to pay for the people’s priorities today?”

Iain Martin has a wonderful piece of satire about Ed 'con of Brown' Miliband, Ed 'second choice' Balls and Yvette 'has to listen to him go on and on and on and on, but at least he managed to get around to marry me' Cooper...

Is fear the reason why SinnFein/IRA MPs can do what they like?

Allow Sinn Fein MPs to receive money for being an MP without taking the oath, contrary to ... - No problem.

Actually I feel sick when I write about Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness so I am not going to produce a long list of such examples, I will just relate that Michael Crick is reporting that Gerry Adams has 'managed to resign as a Westminster MP... without going through the traditional procedures.' Rather than applying for an office of profit under the Crown as is traditional and indeed required, it seems that Gerry Adams simply notified the House that he was resigning.

I was always lead to believe that an MP wishing to resign their seat had to apply for one of two paid offices of the Crown: Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or of the Manor of Northstead. Failing that a sitting MP could only resign their Commons seat by death, disqualification or expulsion.

As Michael Crick writes:

'A Sinn Fein spokesman told Newsnight that Adams "wrote to the Speaker's office on Friday and informed him of his resignation. It's a non-issue from our perspective. He submitted his resignation and that's it. He's stepped down from that position. He certainly didn't apply for the Stewardship of the Manor of Northstead."'

Now rules and tradition serve a purpose and if Gerry Adams wants to resign his seat then he can damn well apply for a paid office of the British state (whether he supports that state or not) or choose one of the other options - disqualification, expulsion or death. Let's be honest that's more of a choice than the 1,800 or so people murdered by the IRA during 'The Troubles' were ever given.


UPDATE:
Michael Crick has posted an update so I suppose I have to too:

'I've just asked a senior Parliamentary official whether Gerry Adams is still an MP.

"At the last count, yes he is," he told me.

It's all governed by the Parliamentary bible Erskine May, it seems, and the following section:

"It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after he is duly chosen, cannot relinquish his seat; and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire accepts office under the Crown, which legally vacates his seat and obliges the House to order a new writ."

So in British law, Gerry Adams is still an MP, whether he wants to be or not. Until he applies for one of the two stewardships.

I was also advised that one way Adams might get round this without expressing allegiance to the British Crown in any form would be to turn up at the House of Commons and try to sit in the Chamber.

He would then be automatically disqualified from the House on the grounds that he hasn't sworn the oath, and a writ would then be moved for a by-election in West Belfast.

"The seat is vacated as if they were dead," I'm told.'

So that is still an option!

The BBC's Poll Tracker is back!

I see that The BBC's Poll Tracker is back, just in time to report a Labour lead in the opinion polls. The BBC really are shameless aren't they. For history on Poll Tracker's history, take a read of these.

An example of conflation?

The BBC page for tonight's Horizon entitled 'Science Under Attack' runs thus:

'Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.

He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.

This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.'

Did you spot the conflation?

'why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.'

Are all three of those three mentioned theories accepted as fact? I believe that there is a consensus that HIV causes AIDS, I am less sure about the other two. Is the article saying that GM food is safe or unsafe? I am not sure that this has been proved either way. However I am certain that the 'consensus' that 'man-made climate change is warming our planet' is no such thing. Please take a read of this piece to see why.

What's sauce for the goose etc.

Dan Hodges in The New Statesman reports that:

'Conservative party supporters have "placed a bounty" on the head of Ed Miliband's spin doctor Tom Baldwin, following the resignation of Downing Street Communications Director Andy Coulson. According to senior Westminster sources, Tory sympathisers have employed the services of a private investigative agency to explore the background of Baldwin, who was appointed by the Labour leader last December.

Although the investigators were initially recruited prior to the announcement of Coulson's departure, the events of the past week have added to the determination to gather information that could embarrass Ed Miliband and senior members of his staff. "Before Coulson resigned it was business. Now it's personal," said another informed source.'

This is called reporting a story and is fine. However 'The grit in the oyster of the new politics; then reports that:

'"Tom's landing blows and the Tories don't like it," said one Labour insider. "It's no surprise they're looking for ways to smear him."'

So when the Labour party and their tame media friends smear Andy Coulson that is fair but when the Conservatives start to do some digging on Tom Baldwin that is 'smearing' - Well it's a point of view.

Alex Masterley thinks Lady Ashton is a 'waste of space'

Alex Masterley at The Financial Crimes asks that:
we allow him

'to be a little bit politically incorrect, but pragmatic.

...

So the "world", in their ignorance sends Lady Ashton, a woman whose sole claim to fame appears to be that she is married to Peter Kellner and whose sole experience in negotiating is "negotiating" bills through th House of Lords, which is quite frankly chicken feed compared to typical negotiations in the private sector.

So what do the Iranians do when they see this leviathan of international diplomacy heading their way? they check out her CV and see that she started her career working for the unilateral disarmerment faction that is the Cmpaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Not much of a threat there and the Iranians know that they can outbluff the rest of the world when they are faced with a pacifist.

But even then you would have though that a deal could be done, the Iranians bought of with cash plus technology. Ah yes, my friend, but you have obvuiously never dealt with the Iranians, or many in the Middle East, for there is a fatal flaw in the make up of people such as Mrs Ashton and even Mrs Clinton the US Secretary of State which means that the Iranians will never sit down with them to negotiate. For alas, they are women, and in so much as the Iranian President and the Supreme Leader will never be seen to sign a document negotiated with a woman, the whole exercise is a vast waste of time and money, and you, dear tax payer, will be piking up the tab.'

The BBC, the Palestinians and Israel

The BBC's prejudices are easy to spot. When the BBC report a story that is negative to one of their foes - including the Conservatives, the Republicans or Israel - then they report the story. When the BBC report a story that is negative to one of their friends - including Labour, the Democrats or the Palestinians - then they report the denials or questions raised.

Thus whilst this morning's news reports say that Al-Jazeera claim to have sight of thousands of documents that show that Palestinian Authority negotiators have been telling one story of no compromise to their population and the world whilst in reality offering concessions to Israel, the BBC prefer to report the story thus:

'Palestinians question 'offers' leaked by al-Jazeera

Top Palestinian officials have questioned the veracity of leaked documents purporting to show offers of major concessions to Israel.

The documents, obtained by al-Jazeera, suggest the Palestinians agreed to Israel keeping large parts of illegally occupied East Jerusalem - an offer Israel apparently rejected.

But chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said the leaks were "a pack of lies".

The BBC has been unable to verify the documents independently.'

That's an interesting line 'The BBC has been unable to verify the documents independently''. Do the BBC have to independently verify all documents before they accept them as correct? Do the BBC independently verify each Wikileaks document before eagerly reporting it? Did the BBC independently verify each leak from the last Conservative government before rushing to report? Do the BBC have to independently verify all documents or just those that report news that inconveniences their allies?I believe that the documents under discussion in this report have been verified by The Guardian, surely the word of their natural allies is good enough!


The above-mentioned BBC article does of course betray other prejudices; first it parrots the Palestinian line that:

'Current peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians have been suspended for months, ostensibly over Israel's refusal to stop building Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land.'

Not a mention of the requirements, that have been broken, for the Palestinians to cease attacks on Israel and indeed recognise Israel's right to exist within secure borders. There is also no recognition that if these cables are accurate then the Palestinian Authorities screams about Israel's building in East Jerusalem,screams that the BBC have enthusiastically amplified, are meaningless if the PA conceded to Israel this right in May 2008.

Second the piece repeats the Palestinian line that:

'Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967, establishing close to 500,000 Jews in more than 100 settlements.'

Without reporting Israel's claim to this land that was promised to Israel in the Balfour Declaration but given to the Palestinian state of Jordan instead, and only retaken when Israel defeated the multitude of Islamic attackers who invaded Israel in 1967.

Third the piece reports that:

'And they were reported to be willing to discuss limiting the number of Palestinian refugees returning to 100,000 over 10 years.'

Not a mention of who these 'refugees' are and why they are still 'refugees' some 60 or nearly 45 years after the events that made them (or more likely their ancestors) refugees; why are the Palestinians the only people to be made permanent refugees by the United Nations? There is of course also no mention of the millions of Jews expelled from Muslim countries in 1948 who were not declared refugees at the time, nor who still live as refugees now, but were absorbed into Israel as the Palestinian refugees should have been absorbed into Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt in 1948 and 1967.

Fourthly and maybe most importantly the BBC show their prejudices very clearly in this sentence:

'Palestinian negotiators are said to have proposed an international committee to take over Jerusalem's Temple Mount, which houses the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque - Islam's third holiest site.'

The Temple Mount is indeed 'Islam's third holiest site' as the BBC love to remind us. It is also Judaism's holiest site but the BBC prefer to keep that quiet. Whilst Jordan occupied Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 Israelis were no allowed into the Jewish holy sites, Jews were restricted and Jewish religious sites were treated with a lack of respect and in at least one case as an army latrine. By way of contrast Israel has not restricted access for Muslims to the Dome of the Rock & the Al-Aqsa Mosque despite them being partly built on top of the site of 'the Temple'; what would be the holiest site in Judaism had it not been destroyed. Indeed the Western ('Wailing') Wall is all that remains of the Second Temple.

It is interesting that Israel, the only Jewish state and one often derided as an 'apartheid state', has left Islamic holy sites even those that sit on top of Jewish ones alone. Of the Islamic states that surround Israel, how many have done the same for their sites of Jewish religious or historical importance?


The BBC, for them, had a tough choice and an easy choice in reporting this story. The tough choice was whether to take the Palestinian Authority or the Hamas line on the leaks; they have walked somewhat of a tightrope on this one. The easy choice, for them, was whether to take the Palestinian or Israeli line; they plumped for slavishly following the Palestinian line.

I wonder what a poll of BBC staff would find is their view of what should be the future of Israel? I would suggest that the BBC is institutionally biased against Israel, that that was one of the conclusions of the Balen Report and that that is why the BBC is so determined that that report is never released.

Hacking?

Remember amid all these stories of 'phone-hacking' that the technique used was simply to dial the target's mobile-phone number, use the network approved method of diverting to Voicemail and then try the default access code of 0000 or 1234 to see if they had been changed and if not, to access their Voicemail. This was not rocket science, this was not clever hacking at all and so two thoughts come to mind: first what kind of idiot does not change their Voicemail password on Day 1 and second in view of Gordon Brown's suddenly convenient claims that he was worried that he had been targeted when Chancellor of the Exchequer, why would the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been having what should have been confidential discussions over an insecure mobile telephone line? Surely HMG provide rather more secure methods of communication to senior cabinet Ministers, why was Gordon Brown not using them? Should journalists from the BBC and other left-wing news agencies not be asking these questions rather than simply reporting Gordon Brown's opportunistically timed claims without query.

The truth or a whitewash?

'The Science and Technology Committee’s First Report of Session 2010–11, The Reviews into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails, will be published on Tuesday 25 January at 00.01am (HC 444).

Embargoed electronic copies of the Report will be available from 11am on Monday 24 January. Copies of the embargoed Report will be available to media representatives and witnesses only on request.'

That's per Parliament.


Thanks to Bishop Hill for the spot.

A definition of Islamophobia

'If you want a working definition of Islamophobia that rises above the special pleading of religious reactionaries my suggestion would be: 'Islamophobia is a prejudice that dominates western political and media elites and the confused and faintly sinister mind of the Chairwoman of the British Conservative Party. It holds that Muslim women want to be oppressed, that Muslim gays want to be murdered, that Muslims want to have their rights to speak and vote denied, and that Muslim dominated countries want to be ruled by sleazy, life-denying and vicious dictators.'”'

Nick Cohen in The Spectator wrote the above and also wrote this for the Jewish Chronicle:

'A liberal-left that hollers its commitment to anti-racism until it is hoarse is failing to confront one of the barbarous varieties of racism the human race has invented because it regards the Israel-Palestine conflict as the Spanish Civil War of our age; the foreign cause that trumps all others. And just as the left of the 1930s allowed its obsession to blind it to the crimes of Stalin so the left of the 2010s is allowing its idée fixe to blind it to the crimes of the Middle Eastern dictators and the Islamists. Even mild criticism of the suffering Israel’s enemies inflict is bad form; a treacherous diversion from the struggle against the hated Zionist entity.'

Thaks to Harry's Place for the spot.


To my mind a phobia is a suffix used to denote an irrational fear of something. Is there another suffix we can add to the word Islam to denote a well founded loathing of and logically founded opposition to extremist proponents of it?

'EMA is simply part of a system that expects so little from our kids, giving them everything for nothing, never teaching them the vital skills of planning long term, working hard to be rewarded, valuing learning for learning’s sake. EMA tells our children that education is something they need to be paid to undertake – not that it is a privilege they need to take advantage of in order to better themselves. Hence taking/demanding EMA and doing nothing with it, except to sit in a school building every day and feel satisfied for having done so.'

The wonderful Katharine Birbalsingh in The Telegraph in a piece that deserves reading in full. This woman should be given a role in Michael Gove's team; soon.
Else maybe Toby Young should offer her a position in his free Schools organisation.

'Human Rights Rogues Are UN-fit to Serve'

Hillel Neuer at UN Watch have a theory:

'Why does the United Nations' Human Rights Council turn a blind eye to systematic repression in countries such as Cuba, Iran and Zimbabwe? Here's one reason: Its Advisory Committee, meeting this week in Geneva, is dominated by apologists for the world's worst dictators.

...

According to the UN's website, the Advisory Committee is a "think-tank" whose goal is "to ensure that the best possible expertise is made available to the council." The experts, we are told, possess "recognized competence and experience in the field of human rights," "high moral standing" and "impartiality." Their decisions, the UN would have us understand, are based on principle, evidence and logic.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. A quick glance at three of the committee's leading members -- all chosen by politicized regional groups -- makes it clear that they are guided by an extreme ideological agenda.

First is Halima Warzazi, chosen by her peers last year as chairwoman. In the halls of the UN, the former Moroccan diplomat is noticeable for her brightly colored, traditional robes. Those who know UN history, however, remember her for something else.
In 1988, the precursor to the Advisory Committee was considering a resolution to condemn Saddam Hussein for having gassed thousands of Kurds in Halabja. It was an auspicious moment. Two years before Saddam would brutalize Kuwait through torture, murder and rape, and three years before he would kill more than 30,000 Kurds and Shiites, here was an opportunity for a UN body to show the Iraqi dictator that the eyes of the world were upon him.
But it was not to be. Warzazi initiated a "no action" motionto kill the resolution - and won the vote. Saddam went on to murder thousands more. So much for this adviser's "high moral standing."
Then there is Jean Ziegler, who served last year as Warzazi's vice-chair. The former socialist politician from Switzerland has authored numerous books accusing America and the West of being responsible for the world's ills.

Ziegler is a life-long cheerleader for Fidel Castro. In 2002, he praised the dictator of Zimbabwe, saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him."
In 1989, as reported by Time magazine, Ziegler co-founded the Moammar Khadafy International Prize for Human Rights, with $10 million from the Libyan regime. Awardees have included Castro, Hugo Chavez and Louis Farrakhan. In 2002, the prize was given to convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy - and to Ziegler himself.
Finally, there is the newest expert adviser, Nicaragua's Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann. In the 1980s, he was foreign minister under the Sandinista regime of Daniel Ortega.
In 2008-2009, Brockmann served as president of the UN General Assembly, nominated by Ortega after he regained power. While there, Brockmann named his own official advisers, including Anti-American guru Noam Chomsky, Khadafy's U.S. lawyer Ramsey Clark and Hamas sympathizer Richard Falk. In 2009, Brockmann designated Castro a "World Hero of Solidarity."
In 2008, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the opening of the UN to attack America and "deceitful" Zionists, Brockmann rushed to hug him.
And in 2009, he sided with Sudan's President Omar Hassan al Bashir after he was indicted for genocide, saying the charge was "racist."
Warzazi, Ziegler, Brockmann -- these are the "impartial" and "competent" experts guiding the Human Rights Council, whose 47 members already include China, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Not even George Orwell could have imagined this.'

What would happen if the UK had an In/Out referendum?

Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph asks the question and comes to this conclusion:

'The House of Commons is there to represent and defend the interests of the people. Parliamentary sovereignty is an expression of popular sovereignty. Our MPs are the beneficiaries and exemplars of a centuries-long struggle to vest supreme authority in the hands of elected representatives. If they wish to surrender a measure of that authority, they ought at least to ask our permission.

If the referendum goes in favour of continued membership, I promise to accept the result with as much good grace as I can muster. The issue will be settled, the long defeat complete. But let’s at least put the question.'

It is odd how most of those who would vote 'Out' in any referendum would accept whatever the result was and how so few of those who would vote 'In' would do so. Is this anything to do with the likely result or the respective side's views on respecting democracy?

'Is the BBC in thrall to Islam because of a Saudi landlord? '

Archbishop Cranmer asks a fascinating question; go take a look. Of course the BBC were pro-Islam and anti-Israel before this and would be so anyway, but this cannot but help!

Thanks to Katabasis for the spot.

More Arthur Daley than Arthur Laffer

Fraser Nelson in The Spectator exposes the real Ed Balls and if you want more information than the adoring BBC will give you then I recommend you read the whole piece; here's an extract or more:

'To understand Balls, one must understand his self-regard. He’s convinced he is right; this is a huge weakness, given that he has been proven to be 110 per cent wrong. He genuinely can’t see this - and never will.

In opposition, Osborne caved. He signed up to the ruinous Brown/Balls spending plan. At the time, the argument was that one needs ‘permission’ to make an argument: ergo, some causes (like cuts) are simply out of bounds. Successful politics then, means keeping within those boundaries. This suited Balls and Brown fine: they set the rule that state spending would be a one-way process. Over the last decade, British spending - as a share of GDP - rose by more than any other country over any other post-war decade. Again, this is politics rather than economics: the Brownites acted like sheep dogs, herding their Tory flock into accepting a high-spending consensus.

Balls, when he comes back, will want to try this trick again. His main gift is to use fake clarity. He has his tricks, such as saying ‘reducing tax’ when he means ‘increasing tax’ (we caught him out for this on Coffee House). He speaks about ‘supporting the economy’ while ignoring the other side of the debt coin: the effects of debt interest. Osborne can, and should, talk incessantly about the burden of debt we are leaving for other generations. He can humanise it. Because debt is not an abstract concept: it can only be paid by people. You have to put a face on it: the face of a voter’s child, grandchild and great-grandchild. These are the people whose money Balls wishes to spend.

...

Balls will argue that Osborne’s mild cuts are too harsh by keeping it all verbal. Osborne can quash this by giving a crucial figure: his spending cuts average just over 1 percent a year. Which household, or business, has escaped so lightly? Osborne might also care to publish his cuts in the international context. The only place that either metrics have been published is in The Spectator (all the more reason to subscribe, from just £1 an issue).

...

He who sets the yardsticks wins the debate. Balls concealed debt with PFI. When the crash came, Brown even produced a fake national debt measurement that excludes the cost of the bailouts - something the Irish didn’t do, in spite of having much greater cause. It worked. Choose the right metrics, and you get away with murder. But by setting the metrics, Osborne can set the terms of debate; and he’d best do so, before Balls does.'

Ed Balls is dangerous for the Country but with a supportive BBC acting as his cheerleader, he is very likely to win the economic argument and those the next general election. If Labour do win the next general election then it really will be time for all wealth-generators to flee.

Sparks & Faith No More reprise 'This Town ain't big enough for the both of us'

Faith No More and Sparks (with former FNM guitarist Dean Menta) perform "This Town Ain't Big Enough For The Both Of Us" from the Sparks covers album 'Plagiarism' live at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles on December 1, 2010, on the final U.S. date of Faith No More's Second Coming Tour. (okeastron video)


Here's the 'Plagiarism' version...


Here's the original



And here's the Siouxsie & the Banshees cover