No Sleaze Please, We're Lib Dems

It's a good job those Lib Dems are such a force for honesty and decency...



Ah...

Bully Balls

Labour are attempting to blame Ed Balls' poor performance in his response to George Osborne's Autumn Statement yesterday on his stammer and, what they want people to believe was, "nasty" mocking by the Tory front bench.

Not content with attempting to smear the Thatcher cabinet with the Paedo tag (something he's gone very quiet about since the McAlpine debacle), Tom Watson is now chucking stones from within his glass house at Osborne and co, accusing them of bullying poor defenceless Balls. Of course, he, his parties' Shadow Chancellor and his ex-boss, Gordon Brown would know nothing about that kind of behaviour.

But let's not forget a genuinely nasty moment in the House of Commons that happened not too long ago. The moment when Labour MPs mocked Tory MP, Paul Maynard who has cerebral palsy, for the way he spoke.


Mr Maynard spoke subsequently about the attitude of some Labour MPs who take offence at the fact he, a disabled man, should have the temerity to be a Conservative. In their warped minds, the disabled should only consider Labour for their political home. Failure to comply with their thought policy immediately renders you a traitor to your "kind". You've got to wonder at the hypocrisy of this kind of nasty, myopic prejudice.

So, perhaps the likes of Tom Watson and his Watsonettes on Twitter should consider their own side before making ludicrous accusation about others.

Red Ken's Brass Neck And Red Ed's Regret

You've got to admire the brass neck of Labour's Mayoral candidate, Ken "do as I say not as I do" Livingstone.

As Everyone will be aware he was caught out arranging his financial affairs in the most tax efficient way possible, despite condemning others who did the same as evil, tax dodging "rich bastards".

Hypocrisy in Labour politicians being par for the course the issue probably would have blown over by now had it not been for Livingstone's accusations that Boris Johnson, the Tory candidate, had similar arrangements. Boris and Ken had previously covered this territory and Ken knew full well the accusations weren't true.

Red Ken's accusations inevitably led to calls for all the candidates to reveal their financial affairs for public scrutiny. His attempts to avoid disclosure then, when forced, the revelations that he (and to a lesser extent the Lib Dem candidate - they always have to be "equidistant", don't they?) had paid a significantly smaller proportion of their income in tax than Boris, have made all the headlines over the past few days.

Now, Ken is attempting to make out that it was the Tories who made everyone's tax affairs an issue, saying it's a distraction from the "real" issues facing Londoners. In reality it was him, by making false allegations that inflamed the whole topic. The fuss being made about individuals tax affairs has been a distraction, not least as it was only Ken that had a big problem with tax efficient arrangements. But the original revelation on Livingstone's tax arrangements was very much relevant as it showed him up as the hypocrite he is. His response also revealed him to be and out and out liar. Boris Johnson would have to be condemning, and proposing the jailing of, serial adulterers to reach the same levels of hypocrisy as dear old Ken.

Mayoral elections are very much about the individuals as well as their policies. How trustworthy are they? Can we trust them to do what they say they are going to do? etc. Ken, like many politicians on the left in this country, has shown himself not to be trustworthy. His chances of winning are now looking very slim.

After losing in Bradford, Ed Miliband really can't afford to lose in another Labour orientated city like London, especially during a mid-term Tory government. He will hope the inevitable gains Labour will see in the local elections (the Tories will be defending a very high water mark result from 2008) will overshadow his failure in London.

How Red Ed must be regretting going for his colour-sake, Red Ken, now.

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

The Inconsistency Of Being Ed

When you next hear Ed Miliband call for the News Corp/BSkyB deal to be halted due to the phone hacking scandal, bear in mind the details of a memo he circulated to the shadow cabinet via Tom Baldwin, Miliband’s media chief and ex-News International journo:

“Any frontbench spokespeople should use the following line when questioned on phone hacking, BSkyB bid and phone tapping ... these issues should not be linked. One is a competition issue, the other an allegation of criminal activity.”

Hypocrisy would be his middle name, if Inconsistency wasn't already.

The Great Fairness Debate

The reaction to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) has been nothing if not wholly predictable. Leftists popping up all over the shop to denounce the cuts as savage, regressive and unfair. But what does constitute fairness?

Matthew Parris writes on the subject in The Times yesterday (behind a pay wall). He makes the point that fairness is more than some arithmetic calculation of who loses most or whether the cuts are "progressive" or not...

"The essential point about the word “fair” is that it doesn’t add anything to words like “right”, “just”, “reasonable” or “ought”. “Fair” doesn’t (contrary to what the IFS assumes) imply a number, a quantity, a mathematical relationship between two different portions. It doesn’t (contrary to what the Labour Party thinks) imply equality: of outcome, opportunity, pain, gain, or anything else. When a speaker says “fair” he appeals to his hearer’s sense of what people do or don’t deserve.
Without this sense of deserving, any analysis of mere numbers is sterile. The raw, unprocessed arithmetic of financial gain or loss makes no impact on the moral imagination of the public unless illustrated by real cases of real groups about whom we may have an opinion — I stress: opinion — on each group’s moral claim on welfare. Accountants’ formulae for deeming cuts “progressive” or “regressive” are counterfeit, unless weighted by moral judgment.

A crude example: many people would think that, in a queue for an expensive lung operation, it would be “unfair” to put a penniless, jobless and incorrigible chain-smoker ahead of a hard-working young mother who had never smoked — although on the IFS calculation the decision would be “progressive” because it redistributes income from a richer citizen to a poorer one."

This is an important point and, as Parris suggests in his article, not one the coalition is making very effectively. The debate needs to move on from the "progressive" / "reactive" terms, that the left have managed to keep the focus on for decades, and start thinking about what truly is "fair".

The coalition has made a rod for its back by insisting on referring to its plans to reign in Labour's budget overspend as being "progressive". This term means, to most people, that the rich pay more (not just in absolute terms but proportionately) than the poor. Surely, that is fair?

Redistribution of wealth is not, in of itself, fair. Taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots" may have a Robin Hoodesque romantic appeal but it doesn't follow that it is fair in all circumstances. When choosing what to cut and what to spare the Chancellor had to made many individual decisions on what was fair and what wasn't.

This is where we see the fundamental difference between the Tory and Labour approach to fairness. Leftists think the main objective should be to redistribute wealth from the better off to the poor. Thus they hope to alleviate poverty and create a more equal society. This, they tell us, is "progressive". For them it would be enough to be able to prove statistically that they were taking more from the better off than the worse off. That's fairness in their book.

Osborne's starting point was more specific; that it wasn't fair to run up unsustainable debt levels for our children's generation to pay off at great expense. In truth Labour already had, but his point is still valid. We should not continue to grow that debt level by continuing to spend more than we can afford for years and years to come. Remember, all the government is proposing is to stop adding to the national debt, they're not planning on paying any of it back before the end of this Parliament at least.

From there the Chancellor had to make a number of fairness judgements. Inevitably these judgements are influenced by the values of the people making them (which, these being politicians who want to be reelected, in turn are influenced by the broad consensus in the country). Matthew Parris describes the kind of judgements he would make and they clearly tally with the Chancellors'...

"Here are mine; and I wouldn’t trouble you with them if I wasn’t convinced they are shared by tens of millions in our country.
I say it isn’t “fair”, if you’re only on an average wage, to have something approaching half your earnings confiscated through income, council, excise, fuel and spending taxes, and redistributed, even though it was your efforts that earned the money.

It isn’t “fair” that people housed by the State at your expense should be given homes for life, rather than only for so long as they cannot afford to pay market rates.

It isn’t “fair” — from the viewpoint of those who would expect their own grown-up children to rent a room if they lacked the funds to buy a house — that a person assessed as being in housing need, once he passes the age of 25, gets a right to a home of his own rather than just a place in shared accommodation.

It isn’t “fair” that the benefits system provides an incentive to jobless people with a medical condition to claim, and stay on, incapacity living allowance, even if they have a partner in work who can support them; and it isn’t “fair” that the costs and numbers of such claimants have swelled so enormously in recent years, without any evidence that the nation has become more ill or disabled.

It isn’t “fair” that workers in the public sector — whose jobs have been safer and whose salaries have risen faster than those in the private sector — should enjoy pension provisions so much more generous than what the rest of the country gets, paid for partly from the taxes of people in less secure jobs with inferior pension rights.

In every one of the five examples I’ve just cited, I’d bet that a shift in resources away from the recipients of state welfare would be seen by a majority in Britain as “fair”. But any fiscal calculation of the “progressive” versus “regressive” effect of the shift would conclude that the cut was “regressive”."

So, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. To my eyes the CSR has got it about right. There will be a lot more controversy to come as the details pan out over time. Hopefully the coalition can get their fairness narrative sorted before long, otherwise they'll struggle to convince people to accept the pain being inflicted.

And when you hear those leftist politicians, celebrities and journalists berating the government for their actions it would be worth remembering the glee with which many of them welcomed the recession The First Post reminds us. Follow the link and have read if you time. They were happy to accept hard times for the poor, as long as it was framed in anti-consumption, environmentalist terms.

Further to the progressive/fairness debate, I see Guido has an excellent post on the same subject that is worth a read.

It's No Tax and Spend For Ed Miliband

It's not really a new story but the Sunday Times is reporting on Ed Miliband's utter hypocrisy in his exploitation of property tax loopholes. The article is hidden behind a pay wall, of course, but here's a link if you have access: Ed Miliband nets fortune with tax ruses.

Personally, I've not got a problem with him limiting the amount of money the state taxes his father's estate. The issue is "Red Ed's" attack on those who have done the same kind of thing in avoiding tax in his speech last week.

As I say, this is not a new story. It flared up last during the Labour leadership election when Ed M's camp threw mud at his older brother, accusing him of benefiting from exactly the sort of tax loop hole he himself benefited from. See Paul Waugh's piece in the Evening Standard.

What does this tell us about "Red Ed" Miliband? Probably not a lot more than we either knew or suspected about him in the first place. He's not the only leftist high profile figure to exhibit hypocrtical behaviour. Fellow leadership candidate, Diane Abbott sent her son to a private school despite wanting to deny the same opportunities to others. Harriet Harman did the same thing and Tony Blair sent his sons across London to a Grant Maintained school. Labour was opposed to running schools in such a way and proceeded to abolish them, thus denying others of the advantages. It wasn't long until he realised this was a mistake and reintroduced the idea in the form of Academies, so perhaps he can be forgiven? Labour's attack on Lord Ashcroft for being a non-dom was the height of hypocrisy as they had many non-dom financial supporters themselves, some in the Lords (you'll remember that a hefty donation to Labour bought one a peerage not so long ago).

I could go on. The point is, Ed Miliband will really struggle to portray himself as a break with the past. Especially the bits of the past that people most came to hate Labour for; the hypocrisy, lies and spin.