Another ‘I Don’t Understand. Nobody I Know Voted For Nixon!’ Moment In The ‘Guardian’

 

I’ve worked with the super-rich my whole career. I worked for more than a decade as a lawyer advising high net worth individuals, and many of the people I worked with had assets worth more than £10m.

And now you're writing articles in 'the Guardian'? My, I guess you weren't all that good at it... 

Many of the super-rich have ties all over the world, decamping to homes in the south of France in the summer, or their Alpine chalets for ski holidays. Some have constructed more contrived connections to places like Singapore or Bermuda to reduce their tax bills. But regardless of their undeniable worldliness, the super-rich love living in the UK.There is a prestige to owning property in the UK. A bolthole in London allows you to visit the Frieze art fair in Regent’s Park or sit on Centre Court at Wimbledon. On the practical side, many are enticed by how easy it is to set up and conduct business in the UK. Of paramount concern to certain ultra-wealthy families is that the UK offers peace of mind in terms of affording them refuge from those who might otherwise see them as a target for kidnapping in other jurisdictions.

Is it just me, or is there a faint whiff of envy emanating from this article? 

This hasn’t stopped the Times from publishing endless doomsday prophecies of a wealth exodus on an epic scale. The endlessly repeated trope is that the ultra-wealthy will flee at the first signs of higher taxes, taking their tax revenue and business investments with them, and having the overall effect of lowering growth. However, recent research by Tax Justice Network, with Patriotic Millionaires and Tax Justice UK, discredited previous, similar claims as vastly overexaggerated.

Ah, I see where we are going now.... 

We have an economy in which work doesn’t pay – the income of people who work for a living is taxed at higher rates than that of those who earn money from simply having money.

Any normal person would therefore suggest the answer is to reduce the amount of tax on people, but of course, this is the 'Guardian', and so their solution is to rob from the rich. 

Before becoming a private wealth lawyer, I hadn’t realised that the way the ultra-wealthy earn their income is quite different from the majority of us. While the average person earns money from their daily work, the ultra-wealthy make eye-watering sums simply from owning assets. They generate wealth from investment funds and rent and sales profits from their property empires.

And do investment fund mean that the money disappears? No, it's invested in other businesses! 

I now work with people focused on giving away their wealth.

There's a big need for prople like you? What do you do? Hold their hands as they write a voluntary donation cheque to the Treasury? 

They recognise the privileges they have and acknowledge that they have benefited from a tax system that protects their wealth at the expense of ordinary people. Many of them tell me they see their responsibility of paying higher taxes on their wealth as merely practising good citizenship and contributing to the benefits of living in the UK.

Well, nothing to stop them. The Treasury accepts donations, after all. But of course, it's not enough for those motivated by the politics of envy... 

The moral and pragmatic case for a wealth tax is clear. Those with the broadest shoulders can and should contribute more.

And if they don't want to do it voluntarily, they must be forced to.

Do You Want Trump Forever? This Is How To Get Him…

And if you've never heard of Huck Gutman, like me, well, you can probably imagine what his 'solutions' will be when I tell you he was a former chief of staff to Senator Bernie Sanders and emeritus professor at the University of Vermont...

Those who fight for the future of our nation need to fight not just against threats, but for a just and equitable future. Too often the well-deserved plaudits for those who fight against do not extend to articulating a program of what the American nation needs, in addition to democratic institutions.

Here are five specific suggestions for what we should be fighting for.

Oh boy! Let me get my popcorn! 

First, the nation needs a new minimum wage, a living wage, not the residue of 1938 legislation called the Fair Labor Standards Act. No one can live on $7.25 an hour, which translates to about $15,000 a year.

Oh, wouldn’t it have been nice if the first suggestion hadn’t been something that’s been discredited every time it’s been tried? Socialists, eh? 🤷‍♀️

Second, Americans deserve healthcare as a right. A Medicare for All system would extend healthcare to every person. Its cost would be more than offset by eliminating the 25% of healthcare spending that goes for overhead in our private-insurance-dominated system.Cutting $1tn of needless bureaucratic expenses and bill-keeping would ensure that we have the money to provide healthcare to everyone.

Ah, so, give America the NHS? Which is such a raging success here, and would never lead to needless bureaucratic expense…

Third, Americans should find it easy to join unions if they wish. The decline in unionization is a major reason why, as the wealthy get ever wealthier, wages have been flat or declining for almost 50 years.

Wages are flat or declining because we are finding new ways to get things done, ways that don’t rely on manpower. It’s called ‘progress’.

Fourth, we need to increase taxes on the wealthy. There is no reason that Warren Buffett, as he has said, should pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

And there was no reason Buffett couldn’t write a cheque - sorry, ‘cut a check’ in your vernacular- to the US Treasury for the difference, if he felt that strongly about it. Did he?

Fifth, we should reverse the deeply damaging Citizens United decision, which enabled the wealthy and their special interests to buy elections.

Because now someone outside of your clique has done it, Huck?

The same old tired socialist ‘ideas’ that American voters rejected. Couldn’t you have found five that they might want? OK, maybe you can’t get Trump again, but keep pushing this stuff and you’ll just get someone like him next time.

Something Starmer Should Take Note Of…

President Nicolás Maduro said he had ordered a 10-day block on access to X in Venezuela, accusing the owner, Elon Musk, of using the social network to promote hatred after the country’s disputed presidential election. Associated Press (AP) journalists in Caracas found that by Thursday night posts had stopped loading on X on two private telephone services and the state-owned Movilnet.

Another thin-skinned socialist dictator who hates the very thought that ordinary people have an outlet? 

Electoral authorities declared Maduro the winner but had yet to produce voting tallies. The opposition claims to have collected records from more than 80% of the 30,000 electronic voting machines nationwide showing the winner was its candidate, Edmundo González. Musk used the social network to accuse the self-proclaimed socialist leader of a “great electoral fraud”.

“Shame on the dictator Maduro,” Musk said in a post on Monday.

It seems Musk is the only one speaking truth to power these days. No wonder those with reason to have a guilty conscience and who are precariously clinging to power are frothing about it, eh, Kier? 

No, Actually, Troy, It Isn't...

It is hard to fathom the boredom of pet fish.

...it's exactly like the boredom I felt scanning down this tired, hackneyed 'Guardian' column. 

Written by Troy Vettese, who is 'an environmental historian at the European University Institute and co-author of Half-Earth Socialism (Verso 2020)'. His premise is that the world would be better if we gave up pets (because what else is socialism taken to the extreme?).

In a post-pets era, we could still enjoy the company and beauty of animals, but from afar as naturalists in a wilder world. We can only speculate what this new era might look like, but its realization begins once we accept that true happiness cannot be predicated on the suffering of others.

Not sure that's true. Seeing this joyless little twerp suffering would give me true happiness... 

"How Very Dare They..?!" Pt 2794138

Did you think they should just roll over and take it, Francisco..?

But, of course, there’s been opposition – from Scotland’s landlord lobbies. Their argument was that the freeze was unfair on those in their ranks struggling with the cost of living crisis themselves. They also warned of a potential landlord exodus, further increasing demand issues.

As always happens when the government thinks it can solve an issue by meddling with market forces... 

But for all the “good landlords” out there who don’t price-gouge and who maintain their properties well, there are many tenants for whom these arguments won’t evoke sympathy: in 2019, the Scottish house conditions survey showed that 52% of privately rented homes in Scotland were found to be in a state of disrepair.

And are they all the fault of the wicked landlord, or of the tenants themselves? 

Opportunism

Jonathan Nunn London-based food writer:

The pandemic offers us an opportunity to shine a light on the less visible reaches of the restaurant ecosystem.

Oh? And what would that be, then?

There are the landlords, whose rents are so extortionate that many restaurants in city centres struggle to break even. The developers who use restaurants like magnets to attract the “right sort” of people in gentrifying areas, transforming swathes of our cities into pseudo-public spaces of boutique restaurants, pushing working-class Londoners further away from their homes. PR companies who ensure that only those establishments that can afford their services get media coverage. Private equity funds that turn restaurants into short-term investments, relentlessly cut costs (and ultimately quality), and fuel the notion that the only way to turn a profit is to rapidly expand.

Ah. Sounds a lot like a litany of the usual suspects' lists of 'enemies' of the glorious socialist revolution, doesn't it?

We, as greedy consumers, have to accept some responsibility.

Yup, the principal enemy always being the people who just won't do as their betters want them to...

Not every fish needs to be ike jime and couriered from Cornwall, or every chicken corn-fed from Fosse Meadows, but we should accept that fish and meat need to be priced higher across the board if those behind the scenes stand a chance of being paid a decent wage.

Is there anything stopping 'those behind the scenes' finding better-paid work, then? What next, a call for unionisation?

As for restaurants themselves, chef Asma Khan tells me the biggest issue is unionisation. “After this,” she says, “our priority should be to create a powerful union that is the voice of the workers, not the owners and investors.”

*sighs*

We are in uncharted waters: the industry has never seen this before, and all signs point to the likelihood that restaurants as we know them aren’t coming back for a while. To move forward, we must start by examining what we would like to save about the industry, giving space to the things that nourish us and our communities, and discarding what we believe doesn’t deserve to survive. After all, the real danger the restaurant industry faces isn’t annihilation – the danger is that it comes back the same as it was before.

I hope it does. Just to annoy grubby little scocialist opportunists like you...

”… a deadly weapon, shooting to kill every radical bone in your body…”

What is? Well, according to Viv Groskop, ‘Downton Abbey’

Yes. Really…

You can watch the show in Persian, Russian and Korean, and it has an estimated global audience of 160 million. On a cycling trip to Angkor Wat, in Cambodia, the actor Jim Carter, who plays the butler, was greeted by a throng of tourists screaming “Mr Carson!”.

The series did well abroad immediately and, as series five starts in the UK on Sunday, the upward curve of viewers shows no sign of flattening. The US in particular has taken the series to heart: Ben Stiller, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Hanks and Katy Perry are all fans, while Michelle Obama requested early previews of the last series. Should you wish, you can buy Downton Abbey wine, soap and jewellery.

Hurrah, a British success! Join me in a toast, Viv?

… Downton is just the latest in a long line of conservative cultural phenomena that get lapped up internationally and end up representing Brand Britain, whether we like it or not. From Merchant Ivory and Jeeves and Wooster to Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill via royal baby fever, our best-known cultural exports are painfully reinforcing “olde worlde” class stereotypes.

So..? It seems to be what the viewers like. Well, when they aren’t liking superhero stuff.

What we’re actually exporting is nostalgia, an unhealthy obsession with class, and a peculiarly dusty form of conservatism. It turns out that people can’t get enough of these things.

I trust the irony of a CiFer scorning someone else’s ‘unhealthy obsession with class’ isn’t lost on anyone…

”I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.”

Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Politaki become the latest Greeks to demand to watch the world burn:

In December 2008, in Athens, a "special security officer" shot dead a young student, igniting demonstrations, strikes and riots. Young people were at the forefront of the protests, in a country with a long tradition of youth participation in social and political movements. Several commentators at the time spoke of a "youth rebellion".

Following severe austerity measures in 2010-11, there were again mass demonstrations and strikes, culminating in the "movement of the squares" – protests against the destruction of private and social life. Young people were again prominent, lending enthusiasm and spirit to the movement.

Hurrah! Hurrah for 'young people'! They'll leas us into world socialism before the...

What?

Oh.

Then there was nothing. As economic and social disaster unfolded in 2012 and 2013, the youth of Greece became invisible in social and economic life. The young have been largely absent from politics, social movements and even from the spontaneous social networks that have dealt with the worst of the catastrophe. On the fifth anniversary of the events of 2008, barely a few hundred young people demonstrated in Greek urban centres. There was no tension, no passion, no spirit, just tired processions repeating well-known slogans. Where were the 17-year-olds from five years ago?

They grew up..?

The answer seems to be that the European youth has been battered by a "double whammy" of problematic access to education and rising unemployment, forcing young people to rely on family support and curtailing their independence.

Translation: they realised they couldn't live forever on political fervour. Unlike Laurie Penny.

Matters cannot continue indefinitely along these lines. Frustration is mounting among both young people and their parents. But if those who make policy refuse to acknowledge the problem, major change could be delayed for a long time. The result would be a massive accumulation of sullen anger across Europe, with unpredictable outcomes. Those who care for social development had better take notice.

"Yeah, you just watch out, world! You wouldn't like us when we're angr - ooohh! Squirrel!"

Unrealistic Expectations…

The ‘Guardian’ continues its series on work, and yet again somehow manages to find a person who can’t seem to grasp the concept that economic reality dictates wages, and not some nebulous concept of ‘fairness’:

Willio Lacomme of Cincinnati, Ohio is a fairly typical "behind the scenes" Walmart associate. He works in the receiving department, unloading trucks for $8.25 an hour.

Is Willio happy to have a job, in the current climate? No. Not exactly:

When I first started two years ago, I was in maintenance and only got $7-something an hour. I kept saying, this is what you guys pay? They said, if you want more, we have this position in receiving. So that's how I got to $8.25 an hour. I'm still fighting with them because it is so much work for very little.

So find a better job! Just like, well, you already did once...

But you get the feeling that Willio, like Willietta before him (gosh, is it something to do with the name..?), doesn’t want a different job, he just thinks he’s entitled to be paid more for the one he has:

Technically for me, there's no good day. It's just when you get there, you already know how it is and what it's going to be like. You know, it's a struggle every day. You don't get paid well. You never do exactly what you sign up to do. You finish doing what you're supposed to do and then they drop more. If we finish the truck fast and think we're going to have a short day, they just say "ha ha". And then they ask you to do more. There's never a "good day" in that sense. No matter how hard you work, you have to meet the minutes.

Congratulations, Willio, you just described the world of work, for pretty much everyone who isn’t their own boss.

Yes, you go in to work and they tell you what to do, and you do it. In return, they give you what they think that work is worth. What did you expect..?

It used to be said that an American, watching a Cadillac go by, would say 'Wow! I got to get rich & buy me one of those!' whereas a Brit would say 'Hmm, I really don't think he deserves that when I only have a Mini'. Clearly, that no longer applies...

The English attitude is still there, though:

Julia Casson, of Hove, has taken a stand at Italian restaurant Otello in Church Road, Hove, after being told waiters don’t receive a share of the tips.

The mum-of-two said she gives waiters cash instead – but has now been told not to return. But the restaurant said the disgruntled diner was not banned and warned she must pay the obligatory service charge.

Ms Casson said: “I’ve taken it very personally.

“Several waiters have told me the tips go to management<.b> and towards maintenance of the building.

“So I always leave cash on the table instead and the waiters have always been grateful. I was told if it happens again I would not be welcome back. I don’t see why my hard earned money should be given to the fat cat owners.“

Because it’s their business, Julia. It doesn’t belong to the waiters, it’s up to the business owners to decide on tips policy, not you.

What about this is hard to understand?

Yet More Politics Of Envy In The 'Guardian'...

Danny Dorling (a ‘professor of human geography’...) joins the swelling chorus of envy at the ‘Guardian’:

One British household in every 10 now has total assets exceeding £1m, according to a new book based on work by researchers at the London School of Economics.

Hurrah! More people are getting richer. A good thing. Right?

No. Apparently wrong:

Hill – who previously headed Whitehall's National Equality Panel – points out this is real money, and a little bit of it will be used to secure an extra social advantage for the offspring of the tenth who now are so wealthy. It will pay for that master's degree, or the deposit on their "starter" home.

Families working to support themselves and their children through life. *shudder* How awful…

That will have the effect of reducing social mobility because educational attainment will begin to depend more on having parents who can pay, and being able to take that good job in London will depend on having parents who can help you buy a place to live should you wish to stay in the job for long.

Shocking! All ‘help’ should flow from the state, clearly, once it’s taken the money from everyone in taxes!

So why are house prices so high? It is not, as often suggested, because we have too few homes. Prices are high because a few have so much more money to spend than before. They buy a big house for a small family, or more than one home, and reduce what is available for everyone else.

How dare people buy a house that’s too large for their needs (according to Danny, who clearly knows just what everyone needs)!

And why do you think parents are so frightened about their children's futures? It is not because our schools are poor.

Oh? Really? That's not what they themselves often say. But you clearly know better...

We've never had so many well-qualified and committed teachers working per child, and we have never had so many university places available per child.

And we’ve never had such poor exam results and so many children leaving school unable to read and write…

And why are so many young people unemployed? Our overall wage and salary bill has never been higher. It is not that we don't have enough money to employ them. If fewer people were allowed to hoard so much wealth, and those at the top were paid a little less than they currently are, it is not hard to calculate that everyone aged under 25 without a job could have one, full-time paid at the living wage.

Oh, Danny, I think I know just what sort of system you are describing.

So, what is to be done? Rising inflation will eat away at the wealth of the rich. Housing bubbles all burst, eventually, it is just that no one knows when the London crash will begin, but one day someone will calculate the cost of a square foot of land in Kensington and work out that even if it were tiled in gold it would not be worth this much. Then they will buy some gold instead of that apartment, and theirs will be the very first decision of many that will bring us a little nearer together again.

Unlikely. As Mark Wadsworth points out, the 'danger' is rather an exaggeration.

Has The Strike As A Weapon Had Its Day?

That certainly seems to be Donald MacIntyre’s conclusion:

Whenever national strikes have been threatened in this century, ears have been pricked to detect the distant echoes of those in the last one – especially now that there is the prospect of industrial struggle against a Conservative government.

‘Industrial’? No, no, Donald, that’s not quite the case here.

None of the threatened strikes are coming from coal miners and the like, are they? They are coming from the public sector.

Some Tory MPs, young enough to have been at primary school during the epic confrontation between Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill's miners 27 years ago, must be asking themselves in irritation: didn't she see off all this for good?

Yes, she did. Many new rules were brought in to halt the sort of chicanery and secondary picketing and intimidation that we saw in the miner's strike.

From Peterloo to the poll tax riots, the resilience of the normally phlegmatic Briton has always had its limits. The territory is uncharted.

Yes, it has. But what 'ordinary Briton' are we talking about here?

European anti-austerity strikes, such as the one called for yesterday in Greece, could catch on.

They could, it's always possible. But I can't quite see it myself. We aren't Greeks. We don't do that sort of thing...

But neither side should assume the unions will be the blunt instrument that forces the Government to change course.

He's hit on something here.

… those of us who covered the big national public sector strikes of the 1970s and 80s can remember only a handful that were unequivocally successful, such as the miners in 1974 and the firemen in the long cold winter of 1977-78.

And the reasons why are obvious:

As both groups relied, in the face of real physical danger, on an unusually high degree of mutual aid and dependence in their working lives, they had no problem finding the same solidarity when on strike – whether in sometimes violent run-ins with the police, picketing in extreme weather, or facing financial hardship. Both groups had the support not only of other trade unionists but – to some extent – of the wider public.

As he points out, that is emphatically not going to be the case this time round:

Whether that last will be as easy to sustain among parents, patients and others hit by the stoppages now being planned by the unions in already hard-pressed services remains to be seen.

I don't think it will. The most successful strikes are those that resonate with the public, that call on that great British sense of 'fairness'. These strikes aren't going to do that.

Because they are emphatically NOT about 'fairness', but rather, its exact opposite:

If the most imminent stoppages are about preserving public service pensions intact, they may not be the most popular cause among those who don't work in the public services. If they are against job cuts, reduced services and the Government's management of the economy, can they stay the distance?

Are those 'job cuts' also going to be as unpopular as he supposes, though?

Did this strike have the public thinking 'Gosh, we can't have this. Such vital services!' or 'Who the hell are these people and why are we employing them in the first place?'..?

Interesting times ahead...

Easily Answered Questions...

Peter Wilby is baffled by the continuing failure of socialism to make headway as he’d like:

Why aren't we more angry? Why isn't blood running, metaphorically at least, in the streets?

Because we're not all bitter socialists. Next!

But top pay also suggests political failure, particularly on the left. To put it crudely, why can't leftwing parties harness middle-class anger against the super-rich?

Because you can never win (for long) with spite and envy. Next!

Oh, he's all finished with the questions, and on to the statements of fact:

This generation of the middle classes has internalised the values of individualist aspiration, as zealously propagated by Tony Blair as by Margaret Thatcher. It does not look to the application of social justice to improve its lot. It expects to rely on its own efforts to get ahead and, crucially, to maintain its position.

*GASP* How awful...

But as the super-rich stretch further ahead, appropriating, with the assistance of a Conservative-led government, ever increasing proportions of national resources, Ed Miliband and Labour have the opportunity to build a new cross-class consensus for a more equal society.

Ah, yes! Ed Miliband! Well, there's another answer to your second question, Peter, eh..?

The Beating Heart Of Socialism…

Allotment holders in Poole who have devoted years to their plots face having to give them up as part of a council shake-up.

With more than 900 people on the allotment waiting list, multiple plot owners will be asked to choose which one they want to keep.

Because it’s far too difficult to simply find some more land suitable for allotments and build new ones to meet this increased demand. Also to raise prices on second, third, fourth allotments to fund this.

No, socialism demands that those who have been judged to have too much of a precious resource should simply be forced to give it up - for the greater good.

Frank Court, chairman of the Alder Farm allotments, said: “People can spend about £200-£300 a year on their plots and these are just going to be passed on to someone else.

“The fear is people see gardening shows on TV and fancy a go, but then will give them up after a few months once they get bored.”

Well, quite. After all, we can’t rely on this global warming to make it easier, can we?

The council has offered multiple owners, many of whom have worked their land for decades, the olive branch of a year’s free rent on the plot they choose to keep. Cllr Neil Sorton, the council’s cabinet member for leisure, said he wanted to support both new growers and current plot holders.

But he clearly didn’t want to have to do any work towards that. Not when robbing those who are judged to ‘have’ in order to give to the ‘have nots’ is easier…

“People are increasingly looking to grow their own food,” said Cllr Sorton.

“The new policy will help manage future allocation as fairly as possible and provide a commitment to help secure new plots to meet growing demand.”

If there really is land available for new plots, why not try that first?

Although most people with multiple plots took them on when demand was low, the council said it now had to address the increased call for households to grow their own produce.

Plus, of course, grow their own little crop of revenue-providers:

In another blow to current holders, rents will also be increased as part of the shake-up.

Other changes include dividing plots to increase the number available for new tenants and tightening up inspections.

More inspections = more council staff, right?

The True Face Of The Anti-Cuts Protest

From the 'Guardian':

Paint-splattered police officers look on as protesters attack Topshop on Oxford Street during the anti-cuts march in London.

They must not be listened to. Are you listening to that, Cameron?

Cut more, cut harder.

Professor Dylan Wiliam Clearly Never Got Picked To Answer A Question In Class…

…because it obviously still stings, after all these years:

In a remarkable experiment, a class of 13-year-olds learned twice as quickly when they were not allowed to put their hands up in response to a teacher’s question.

Instead, the entire class was forced to write answers on small whiteboards and raise their answers in the air together.

And the purpose of this barmy (albeit, seemingly successful) experiment?

Professor Dylan Wiliam, deputy director of the London University Institute for Education, who led the project, said: ‘The kids and teachers hated it at the beginning.

‘The kids who were used to having a quiet time were rattled at having to do something; the ones who were used to showing off to the teacher were upset.’

Ah. That’s a quite telling bit of phrasing, isn’t it?

Answering questions is ‘showing off’. Hmmm…

Professor Wiliam said he wanted to stop the minority of bright pupils dominating the class and to encourage the whole class to take responsibility for their behaviour.

Aha! It seems the Prof is a bit of a...well, I couldn’t possibly comment, but wasn’t there a bunch of people famous for experimenting with children to create a better society?

I seem to recall they were quite keen on exercise too:

The Classroom Experiment – which will be broadcast later this month – also found that making pupils exercise at the start of each day helped academic performance.

And also putting everyone in fear of informers to encourage obedience and full control:

The teacher also monitored a single pupil’s behaviour each day – without telling the class which student was being placed under scrutiny – and then offered a reward of a day at Alton Towers if the student behaved.

The move was intended to encourage the whole group to take responsibility for earning the reward.

I’d like to know: did his team of researchers follow the time-honoured path of quiet observations with a clipboard, or did he install a huge bank of CCTV screens, the better to observe from his underground volcano lair while cackling maniacally?

He’s clearly very proud of his achievement, too:

‘The changes we made gave the quieter children confidence, made all pupils know they are expected to participate and created a more supportive atmosphere – nobody laughs any more if someone gets something wrong,’ he said.

Oh, that laughter still rings in your ears, doesn’t it?

Was it because they thought you couldn’t spell ‘William’ properly, Prof..?

‘I hope this programme shows how difficult high-quality teaching is.’

Well, when people like you are using their classrooms are experimental labs, yes, I’m sure it is…

After one term, pupils learned at twice the speed of peers not taking part and the school was so impressed by the experiment it is continuing with the techniques.

Hertswood head Jan Palmer Sayer said: ‘The difference was tangible – both in achievements and the dynamics of the class.

‘Teachers were given clear strategies for improvements which didn’t involve spending lots of money on new technology.’

All they have to lose are their souls and their free will, I guess…

But maybe I’m alone in finding this all rather creepy?

Guardian Writer In ‘Let’s All Take Up Smoking’ Shock!

Sholto Byrnes thinks that there’s a problem with the smoking ban.

But not the one you might think. Certainly, not the ones that Leg-Iron and Dick Puddlcote, among others, have identified:

When a statue of Isambard Kingdom Brunel was unveiled at the London college bearing his name three years ago, some commented on the absence of the cigar that Brunel was rarely seen without. (He got through 40 a day.) The worry was, apparently, that Brunel's vile habit had fallen victim to the disapproval of drinking, smoking, violence and gambling in public spaces.

And it’d be a valid concern. It’s happened, after all, to other historical figures.

Brunel University and the sculptor both denied this. It was a matter of aesthetics, they said.

And like the excuses proffered in the Churchill furore, it rang just as hollow…

But news comes of a much greater threat to the cigar industry than moralisers – a threat so grave it leads one to question whether a stogie would even be available to a late 21st century or 22nd century Brunel. Cuban cigar exports have dropped by two thirds in three years, according to a report this morning, falling victim to a combination of the recession, a drop in airline passenger numbers (a quarter of sales are in duty free), and the smoking bans that have already driven puffers out of taxi cabs, offices and restaurants – and perhaps soon will shoo the huddled masses from the doorways, awnings, public parks and private vehicles in which they are now forced to take a pleasure known to mankind for centuries.

Which, you’ll be surprised to find, isn’t viewed with pleasure by this Guardianista.

This is a tragedy...

Indeed! But why?

… more than that, it is pretty serious for Cubans, who have 70% of the world market in cigars. Stubbing out this source of revenue would be a heavy blow for an economy that is already in a critical condition and which has long laboured under an American embargo imposed when the cold war was at its chilliest but which makes no sense today.

Ah. Right. It’s a tragedy because it’s hurting a socialist paradise.

Sod all the poor smokers, eh, Sholto?

So there are two options available to those concerned about the plight of Cubans in these hard times. One is to write to Barack Obama urging him to end the embargo…

And the other is to repeal the smoking ban, right?

The other – and I realise this would be an unpalatable choice for many – would be to support the Cuban economy by following the example of Brunel and taking up cigars…

So….what?

You’re calling on people to sit outdoors, huddle in doorways, be treated like pariahs by the Righteous and also pay more for that privilege…?

All so that Castro’s little gulag-on-the-high-seas doesn’t get unduly affected?

Johann Hari’s Ox Is Gored, And Gored Thoroughly….

…and the screams of anguish are earsplitting:

Who have they decided can afford to take the pain first? Not rich people like them: they will continue to enjoy big state subsidies to build up their savings and maintain their estates. No. Step forward instead the unemployed, poor kids who are falling behind in their reading, children in care, the elderly, the disabled, and any feeble little steps we were making towards building a low-carbon economy.

Hurrah! When do we start sending the kiddiewinks up chimneys again?

When you hear that the Communities Department has taken a 27 per cent cut, it sounds anodyne: what is it anyway? It's the money that goes to local authorities to pay for home help for the elderly and disabled, for monitoring children at risk, and children in care. Osborne has said he doesn't want councils to make up the difference by increasing council tax. So, very soon, there will be a big increase in the number of confused old people left unwashed and untended, and abused kids we never find in time.

And we’ll notice that, will we? We’ll be able to compare it to the halcyon days of the Labour Period, when there were no abused children, no elderly left to die in squalor, and we all ran frolicking in the meadow among the sunbeams?

Many of these cuts will end up costing us money in the long term. Over the past few years, children – mainly in poor areas – who have not been able to learn to read have been given special one-on-one tuition to get them up to a decent standard, rather than tumbling through their school years getting more confused and angry.

I note that he doesn’t ask the question of just how it is that the normal comprehensive education isn’t sufficient to enable children to learn to read…

Literate people are far less likely to commit crime and much more likely to pay taxes later in life.

Really? All those thieving bankers and fat cat industrialist tax-dodgers and expenses-fiddling MPs that he’s always whining about had good educations, didn’t they?

Cameron just closed the programme. The same child who loses her reading tutor now also won't get a small Child Trust Fund of £2,000 when she turns 18 – thanks to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who lives on an £4.2m trust fund of his own.

Yes, Johann, but I don’t begrudge him his trust fund because he isn’t sticking his hand in my pocket to pay for it. Which is most certainly not the case with the government scheme, is it?

David Cameron's claims to care about global warming also just drowned. The subsidy to build wind turbines, the encouragement to buy electric cars – all gone.

Hurrah! In fact, double hurrah! Bring on the nuclear power!

Of course, the Cameroons say they have no choice but to do all this, because we are "bust". There is currently a £178bn-a-year gap between what the Government takes in, and what it spends. But there are two crucial questions here: when the Government should close this gap, and how it should close it.

The answers being ‘soon’ and ‘by any means necessary’…

It seems logical to pay off a debt as soon as possible.

Why, yes, it does. But that world-renowned economist, Mr J Hari, disagrees.

Better a deficit than a depression. Better to pay interest tomorrow than the dole to millions more today. And when the time for closing the gap does come, there is a much better way to do it – by closing the income gap. The first people to pay should be those who can afford it: the wealthy.

OK, we’ll target all those quango heads on more per annum than the Prime Minister. OK with you?

For example, the 1,000 richest people in Britain have added £77bn to their wealth in the past year alone. Can't they afford to make sacrifices a little more easily than a 17-year-old on the dole?

Yes, they probably could. They could also afford to up sticks and decamp for friendlier climes, and then we wouldn’t have them here, employing people, using goods and services… Would you like to see that, Johann?

Class War...

...Labour feel you're never too young to get a taste of it:

A children's centre set up by Labour to provide care for local youngsters has been forced to close... because the families using it were judged too middle-class.

Nice going, Labour!

Summer's coming, you know. Want to send some goons out to the beaches, maybe kick over the sandcastles of any under-fives whose parents look a little too affluent as well?

Yes, under-fives. This government knows how to pick its targets...

Paint Pots Arts Club was established in 2000 under the Government’s flagship £7billion Sure Start scheme, with the aim of teaching under-fives to paint, draw and sing.

It is one of the busiest of Britain’s 3,500 Sure Start centres and caters for 500 children of all backgrounds who live within a two-mile radius.

Note that: '...caters for 500 children of all backgrounds...' Pretty unequivocal, no?

However, it seems someone didn't get that message:

The area covered by Paint Pots is one of the most diverse in the country, including deprived council estates and houses worth £1million.

Paint Pots director Ella Ritches said the Learning Trust, which runs 19 childcare centres on behalf of the Government, ordered her to target more deprived families in 2008.

So, she duly leafleted nearby estates held meetings with the local Turkish and Kurdish communities. They didn't bite.

And:

...in January this year, Mrs Ritches was called to a meeting with officials from the Ann Tayler Children’s Centre, a larger Sure Start programme which the Learning Trust used to fund Paint Pots.

She discovered that the Learning Trust had scanned the postcodes of all parents using the centre and decided the home addresses indicated users were not sufficiently ‘vulnerable’.

Ahh, now if only the guardians of educational achievement put that much ingenuity and hard work into, say, teaching the kiddiewinks to read, write and add up....

'Fair' Means Something Quite Different To Socialists...

Peter Wilby in 'CiF' is baffled that so many people are against paying Labour's 'death tax':

Gordon Brown abandoned plans for an election in 2007 after the Tories announced they would exempt all estates worth less than £1m from ­inheritance tax.

So we are no nearer a solution on funding old people's care, a problem that Labour has tiptoed round since 1997 as though it were an unstable nuclear reactor.

And why so?

Because no-one is prepared to pay twice, or endure a further tax on things already taxed, you moron!

'Vote for me, I'll make you penniless!' isn't exactly a stirring rallying cry, now is it..?

The present system, whereby only those with assets of £23,000 or less are paid for wholly by the state, is widely resented. Many old folk have to sell the family home to meet care bills and it causes them great distress to dispose of their most treasured asset.

Fancy that! I'd never have believed it...

But what about Income tax and NI? Weren't they sold as a means to fund social care for all?

Ah, here Peter lets the lefty cat out of the bag, you ignorant suckers!

They believe the state should meet the full cost of personal care and, ignorant of how the system works, some always thought it would do.

And whose fault is that? Wasn't that how it was sold to us all? It is, after all, called 'National Insurance'...

If there is such wide antipathy to a tax that affects only the largest estates – 2% in America, 6% here – what hope for a similar one that would hit most of us, as a levy for elderly care would?

Maybe it will play better than straightforward inheritance tax because people will see what they are getting, and recognise that the certainty of a small levy on the estate after death would be infinitely preferable to the possibility of a near-100% charge if you are unlucky enough to need years of expensive care.

And maybe it won't.

Certainly, the comments to this article should give you a bit of a clue. If you can't carry the regular CiF'ers, you certainly aren't going to carry Mr & Mrs White Van Man, looking glumly at their income tax forms and wondering just what benefit their money is buying them...

Over the past decade particularly, the capacity to borrow against the security of a house has helped disguise stagnation in ordinary people's incomes. No wonder they wish to hand on this precious, hard-won asset to their children just as aristocratic families wished to hand down intact estates to their heirs. No wonder, even where an inheritance tax is unlikely to affect them personally, they empathise with those who have to pay it.

Of course they do! People don't like handing over yet more money to the reckless, troughing cretins in government so that they can squander it on yet more bloated schemes. Hold the front page, folks! Peter's had a revelation...

In other words, the "death tax" runs up against the same emotions as the requirement for old people to sell their homes to finance care while still alive. It would be the most socially just means of funding, as well as the most economically efficient, but it will be hard to convince the voters. That is a measure of how far the left in Britain and America have allowed the case for social justice to go by default.

No, it's a measure of how far you've lost the plot, in believing that one day, that goose isn't going to start asking where all its golden eggs have gone.

And there you are, with yolk dripping from your mouth and a 'Who, me?' expression on your face...

Private Ownership; Labour Despises It…

…for other people, naturally:

The era in which all Britons aspire to own their own home may be coming to an end, according to the Housing minister, John Healey. In a controversial speech, he suggested that Britain may be moving towards a European model, with renting on a roughly equal footing with buying. He said home ownership had fallen from 71 per cent of households in 2003 to 68 per cent today, noting that this trend began in 2005, well before the recession. "I'm not sure that's such a bad thing," he said.

Rent your own house, do you, John?

You certainly rent a flat in Lambeth, don’t you? Or rather, we, the taxpayers, rent it for you:

A minister of state at the Department for Communities and Local Government, John Healey claimed parliamentary expenses for his flat in Lambeth, where he has spent thousands of pounds on renovations.

Mr Healey’s mortgage interest payments stood at £691 per month in 2008, when he was also making regular claims for food, utilities, phone bills and cleaning.

In 2007 Mr Healey claimed £1,431 to replace his front door. The taxpayer even picked up the £16 bill for two days’ worth of Congestion Charge payments made by his locksmith.

You wonder how he can pontificate on the costs of renting vs owning without shame, don’t you?

At least, until you realise these creatures have no sense of shame whatsoever…

Mr Healey, a close ally of Gordon Brown, challenged the assumption behind housing policy under both the Tories and Labour since Margaret Thatcher introduced legislation to allow council tenants to buy their homes 30 years ago this month. It led to two million homes being sold to tenants. "You don't need to be a grocer's daughter to know it is not a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket," Mr Healey told the Fabian Society. "Yet not even a drop in the housing market can convince people not to use their home as a store of wealth."

That might be because your ‘close ally’ totally screwed their pensions, and housing is probably the only stable thing they still possess…

He said almost a third of people rely on their home to top up pensions. "The property piggybank is unsustainable and unfair," he added.

Ahhh, the perennial cry of the closet socialist; ‘It’s not fair!’

It’s not fair that other people, having worked all their lives, have something that other people, who may not have worked all their lives or may not have invested wisely, do not have. An outlook championed by a man living high off the hog on the taxpayer.

It’s enough to make you vomit…

"Increasingly, those without the property-funded 'Bank of Mum and Dad' are finding it hard to buy homes of their own," Mr Healey said. The gap has widened in the recession, during which the average age of first-time buyers getting parental assistance has stayed the same but the average age of a first-time buyer without parental help has risen from 33 to 37. "As housing wealth is passed from parents to children, inequality is compounded over the generations," he said.

Leaving anything to your kids, John? I bet you are.

Mr Healey stressed that a similar status between forms of housing tenure did not mean hostility to home ownership, and emphasised a need to find new ways to support those who wanted to become homeowners.

This is the ‘Oh, but don’t worry *wink* we don’t really mean it *wink* please keep voting for us. You dummies..’ message…

A new model with greater flexibility is needed, he argued, allowing people to change from buying to renting without moving home. "Not all or nothing, but a flexible system which suits the different stages in people's lives," he said. "In the future, I'd like to see it be just as easy to sell equity in your home back to the council, housing association or co-operative, allowing people flexible tenure in the same property that adapts to their circumstances. People may choose to release equity whenever it suits them and build it back up when they can and if they want."

In other words, we want to make it easier for people to buy care from the council when the time comes and they realise what a hellish pyramid-scheme con National Insurance was…

This being the ‘Indy’, a case study was used to back up this report:

Owen Armstrong, 27, rents a property in Dalston, east London. The projectionist agrees that many people no longer aspire to buy a house, because the costs involved make it little more than a pipe dream

Or in other words, all the people that a 27 year old projectionist in Dalston knows. And that’s the whole world, right?

"Trying to find something suitable in a large city, especially if you have a young family in tow, is very prohibitive. In order to afford something, you have to rely on someone else's income and move out towards the fringes of the city, which I would not like to do. In certain areas you are looking at £500,000 to buy somewhere; even then you are not always even getting a whole house. I don't want to lay out that kind of money for part of a house."

I fancy a Ferrari, but I don’t want to pay that kind of money for a car. Where’s the Minister to take up my case and insist someone else pays for it?