The German Comedy Ambassador On Debt

I've been a big fan of Henning Wehn since I saw him supporting Stewart Lee during his If You Prefer a Milder Comedian Please Ask For One tour. I was just enjoying some YouTube clips of "The Germam Comedy Ambassador" when I was reminded of his take on the British attitude to debt. The clip below was posted in 2008. It was and is very apt at the time as we as a country, were already running up enormous public and private levels of debt. It contunues to be apt as we are continuing to do so.

However, I'd love him to do this routine today, in Greece, about the Greeks' attitude to debt. I think it would go down a storm..? He could then tour his show to Italy, Ireland and Spain. Mind you, being a German I imagine he'd want to start any European tour in Poland, regardless of whether Germany is needed to bail them out or not.*



* Cheap, lazy reference to the Second World War that was totally unavoidable. Sorry.

Clarkson - More Twitter Faux-Outrage

I was going to blog about what I felt was motivating the massive over reaction on Twitter to Jeremy Clarkson's One Show comments on the strikers, but felt I'd rather added to the whole over reaction myself by spouting out several tweets, one of which was re-tweeted over 70 times (although thanks for those that did RT - much appreciated).

However, the main point I wanted to make has been made very succinctly by Toby Young on the Today programme so I'll just link to it here.

Basically, most of the "outrage" was affected by those on the left, not because what he said (about the strikers at least) was offensive, but because, taken out of context of the broader joke, the comment offended their political sensitivities on a big day for them. Arguably, what he said about suicides was more offensive given the recent Gary Speed news story.

The broader joke being that his first comment was supportive of the strike because it meant London was empty and he could "whiz around" but, this being the BBC and them having a (mostly totally ignored) requirement for political balance, he added a totally over the top counter point that actually he'd have them all shot. You may or may not find it funny but it's not offensive and it is certainly not illegal. So Unison can stop spending their members' (and no doubt indirectly tax payers') money on legal advice.

There's Money In Them There Kids

I see the "Charlie Bit My Finger... Again" YouTube video has earned his parents loads of money. So that's it. I will be filming every second of my children's lives from now on and publishing it on the interweb.

I published this video while back but it has earned me nothing. Come on kids! TRY HARDER! Charlie's got over 11 million views. Thomas, you've got just 70 odd. Perhaps you should bite your brother or sister?

OccupyLSX And Ed Miliband - A Match Made In Heaven

Awkward Ed Miliband has expressed his support for the campers, sorry, protesters outside St Paul's Cathedral. And why not? They present themselves in the media as a broad collective that are against a lot of things (most of which most people would also be against, such as greed, irresponsible banking, MPs on the take, big bonuses for poor performing executive etc etc). But they have nothing constructive to suggest as an alternative. Sounds like a perfect fit for Ed's New New Labour.

Of course, the image of the "occupiers" being moderate minded average Joes who are just frustrated with the failings of modern leaders and financiers is not wholly accurate. They are, in fact, a hotchpotch of left wing/eco-warrior/conspiracy fantasists who see the current financial crisis as an ideal opportunity to push their delusional political views out onto the wider population while they are living through uncertain and worrying times. Those who have actually spent time talking to the (at least daytime) tent dwellers report demented and/or vacuous conversations that the following YouTube video illustrates well...

These are Ed Miliband's people. They are certainly NOT the 99% and he is welcome to them.

Recommend read: Capitalists@Work: Miliband backs the protesters

What Women Want - More Debt For Their Children?

Alice Thomson writes in The Times today about the problems the Tories have with attracting female voters.

I have no reason to doubt that every word she writes about how current Tory promises to women are wide of the mark. She writes convincingly...

"But new curbs on internet sleaze won’t make women vote Tory, nor will having more females in the boardroom or outlawing girls’ T-shirts saying “Jail Bait”. This is all about money. Women don’t care if there are more female candidates for mayoral posts when they are struggling to pay their household bills.

Mothers may well be concerned that their children can see hard porn on the internet , but they are more worried that their graduate children will never be able to get on to the property ladder. They are not expecting the Government to help them become a non-executive director of Tesco; they are wondering whether they can afford to buy their daughter a new outfit for the Christmas school disco. Nine out of ten mothers in an Asda study said “things are tougher” than they were last year."

Being a man, obviously I have no idea what women are thinking. But I can relate to the statement above, perhaps as a parent. While most of the measures are welcome, they do not get to the core of women's (and I would argue parents of both sexes) real concerns. That the focus on reducing the deficit is in danger of reducing our children's life chances and quality of life. It's a line that Labour is playing for all it's worth.

This is where Alice Thomson's conclusion comes in, and I think it's very important that the Tories understand the point she's making and start to make it themselves with much more energy...

"In the short term we will have to keep suffering. But the Government needs to make it clear to women that in the long term the best we can do for our children is to pay off this debt. Ronald Reagan once said: “Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we’ve ever known.” If that is to remain true we need to suffer now so our children can reap the benefits later."

Parents want what is best for their children. Even if it means making sacrifices themselves. The truth is we have been living off enormous levels of debt, both personal and state, and pay back time has arrived. Depending on what accounting rules you apply, the government is in hock to the tune of between £1 trillion and £5 trillion. This debt costs us, and will cost future generations, billions in interest payments every year. The Government is not talking about reducing this horrendous debt level. Cameron is simply looking to reduce the rate at which we add to it every year.

The moral high ground is not Labour's "keep spending" approach, but the Coalition's message that it is not fair or moral to continue to increase the debt burden on our children's and their children's generations by forever increasing tax spend on ourselves. 

Our children already have a massive burden of debt to support. If we can stop adding to it, inflation and, God forbid perhaps even a current account surplus in some distant years time, will begin to reduce that burden and ensure that more of the tax they pay will go on services they want and vote for when they are adults and less on paying our debts and interest off.

That, it seems to me, is a powerful message to women, and men, who care about their children's future.

LibDems Non-Evidence Based Tax Policy

If there's one thing LibDems like to think of themselves it is that they are the most rational and open minded of the 3 main parties. Drawing up evidence based policy, not overly ideological but eminently pragmatic.

Tim Farron
Swivel eyed ambition: The next leader of the LibDems
offering a strategy for another 90 years of opposition

Well, that self belief may be justified in some areas of policy but not when it comes to the 50p tax rate. Here, left wing ideology reigns supreme. Even their more centrist leader, Nick Clegg is now threatening the coalition if the Tories insist on reforming the top tax rate. And this week, party president, Tim Farron, who fancies himself to replace Nick Clegg as leader and never misses an opportunity to appeal to the seemingly dominant left of the party, says the idea of scrapping the tax is "morally repugnant" and "economically witless". All this despite the fact a review of the tax is soon to report on its effectiveness and many, lets be honest, much more economically literate people, cast doubts on how much the tax raises and express concern about how it is probably costing Britain taxes and jobs. Even Channel 4's FactCheck, hardly a renowned right wing, free-market media outlet, expresses doubts.

But, instead of waiting for the review to report and basing their policy on evidence, it seems the LibDems would rather pander to the left and indulge in potentially popular rich bashing. God knows they need to improve their popularity but I can't help thinking they'd gain more credibility in the long term by pursuing policies that will help encourage growth and actually increase tax revenue. Showing leadership is what being in power is about.

At the same time as he panders to misplaced populist sentiment, Farron accuses the Tories for doing just that after the Riots. If there's one person that reflects what needs to change with the LibDems it's Farron. They can't outflank Red Ed's Labour on the Left. They need to show they are a grown up party with a genuine liberal economic and social outlook. I think Clegg understands this, but he needs to slap down the likes of Farron and other reform blockers on the left. If he does, his party can emerge transformed in 2015 with a different make up of supporters, but with a lot more credibility.

UPDATE
Tim Farron today denied he has "any ambition" to be LibDem leader. Apparently he would refuse the position if he was offered it. Of course he wouldn't ever be offered the job, what with the Liberal Democrats be democratic 'an all. He'd have to be elected. But I'm sure that's just me being pedantic.

Red-heads Banned From Making Deposits

There is news of a sperm bank that is so awash with the stuff, that it has decided to be selective in who can and can't donate their gentleman's relish. In this process they are declining to take further donations from red-heads. Apparently, there isn't as much demand for theirs as there is supply. I'm not sure if this means red-head sperm is unpopular or just that red-heads are prolific and very generous masturbaters. If' it's the former, then it does tell us something about kind of prejudice there is out there against "the gingers".

I'm attempting to train my red-headed boy to defend himself should his hair colour become a target of bullying. It's difficult to come up with non-violent responses. Any verbal retort to "Duracell" or "Ginger nuts" has to navigate a tight and highly restricted path, avoiding attacking personal attributes that are protected under common rules of political correctness. I'm not even sure calling a kid with classes "four-eyes" is allowed any more as it's offensive to the focally challenged. Even accusing the attackers Mum of being a whore is considered sexist nowadays, apparently. The only other group of people society is allow to lambaste are Tories. I've told the boy to keep shtum about this blog.

It seems that it's not just humans that have it in for the auburn haired. The poor fella has, according to The Daily Mail, been cast out by its colony due to its hair colour...

...that, and the fact that it is almost blind. There are no rules protecting this little fella from being picked on. Not even for his blindness. Mother nature is a cruel duchess and no mistake. Much like the class room.

I better get my boy into some boxing classes.