Rich Man Joins Social Network! Fails to Engage the Lower Classes!

As of about 8.15am, on Wednesday 20h March 2013, Gideon 'George' Osbourne joined the quagmire of nonsense that is Twitter. Not that anyone will really care after about 5 minutes of realising and once they've sent one tweet expressing their opinion of him. His first foray into the muddy waters was a brief, not overly insightful and rather self-indulgent:

'Today I'll present a Budget that tackles the economy's problems head on helping those who want to work hard & get on'

It was made worse by the use of this picture as an accompaniment:

                                       
I won't spend any time attempting to present some form of analysis of the picture, how it's structured or what it says about Gideon's PR people. I'll just settle for stating the obvious; it's clearly faked as no one can actually write with a suitcase on their desk. He's also holding his pen next to a typed section - with no sign of wet ink in sight - but I'm going to leave the analysis to the experts/ obsessives/ people who have nothing better to do than write sprawling blog entries about politicians vague attempts to engage with the public.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the decision taken by Gideon's team to introduce him to Twitter, or what effect they think it'll have on his non-existent popularity. If anything it'll just give people an easy avenue through which they can vent their fury at the 'verified' account of one of the many incompetent people charged with the job of running the country.

Not that Gideon's team would ever let him actually look at the replies for fear of him feeling bullied and wondering 'why the peasants don't like what I'm doing'.

So as to not disregard all analysis, I should point out that what I can skim from the phrasing of this introduction, notably the reference to 'work hard and get on' aside from opening up possibilities for cheap innuendo, is that it's a phrase which will please the right-wing press as it'll mean they can say 'OSBOURNE ATTACKS BENEFIT SCROUNGERS IN BUDGET'. This is somewhat ironic given the stereotypical demographic of such newspapers.

I am also glad that he is hoping to present a budget which will 'tackle the economy's problems' as if there was another option; 'a budget which won't really help anyone except those who are too rich to care, like me'.  It is after all, the job of the Government to make sure that things don't go all Greek over here. Or Spanish, Portuguese, Icelandic...

Ultimately though, I do rather wish that politicians would spend less time attempting to interact with people via social networks and spend more time getting on with the job which they are paid to do. A shocking and controversial opinion I know. If this latest foray into the 21st Century is being thought of as an attempt to 'digitalise' those in power and 'engage with the big web of chatter' that is the internet. Then I must once again ask you this; do you really think that anyone who doesn't already follow the news either online, television, radio or print will somehow be introduced to Gideon now that he's come down to their level? I doubt it.

I like to have some insight and analysis with my news, and I don't always like it to come straight from the horses mouth, as by the time it's reached it there have already been numerous meetings to finalise each and every syllable which he will then say to the press such that it needs an interpreter to actually work out what was 'not' being said. There's going to be hundreds of blogs about Gideon, Twitter and the Budget today.

Isn't the internet fun.

I'm no Economist, but I can't escape the feeling that if we just stopped fiddling, the world would sort itself out

                                

Money, money, money, no one really understands what to do with it

At the end of last week, the EU leaders agreed on a 'historic' budget for the next seven years of something like £900bn. The actual figure was calcuated in Euros, but when you're dealing with numbers of this size, currency and exchange rates are pretty irrelevant. We'd be better off just saying 'a lot of money' or 'more money that any of us could ever really conceive of in any tangible way. It was also apparently a 'Victory' for DC as he'd achieved a 'cut' in the overall budget, but Britain's contributions were going to continue to rise. Meaning that Nigel Farage had an excuse to get on tv again, something which none of us really want. 

On the subject of Mr Farage, I'd like to take this opportunity to quote a tweet, of which I cannot recall the author, but whoever they are this is their joke: 'Voting UKIP because you don't like Labour or the Tories is like saying "I don't like Coke or Pepsi so I'll drink piss"'. 

It's unlikely that any of us will actually feel any noticable effect of the new deal with Europe, not that that justifies an obfuscation of the matter, as it does remain important. The point which I'm trying to make here is that getting up and angry about the actual economics seems to be a waste of time, unless you're an economist who understands what the problems (or otherwise) are with the way the deal has been done and why such large sums of money are being passed around in cyberspace. 

It's a similar issue with many of the broad sweeping cuts and the headlines that accompany them. Take this story for example 'Inheritance tax freeze to fund social care cap of £75,000'. In principle, I understand what they're trying to achieve. Which is people not having to pay for care when they reach retirement age, I can also see that what Jeremy *unt is attempting to do is tax people who get a large inheritance in order to pay for those who don't have much left to give when they die as they've sold it all to pay for care. 

Actually, this is a relatively straightforward example of how the Government is trying to make things better, however, as you read down the article it soon becomes clear that things are going to cost £Xbn or £Ym making the entire plan seem grossly over-complicated. This is accompanied by the news that the UK Economy 'slipped back towards recession in the last quarter of 2013'. What does that actually mean though?! When growth is less than 0.5% the only people who seem to be getting concerned over the economics are economists. 

Despite the fate of both Jessops and HMV in the first month of January (the latter of which is downsizing but looks to be moving towards some kind of resolution) for many other business (including the small business for which I work) business has greatly improved in the first 6 weeks of the new year.  

Why Gove's U-Turn on Assessment is Demonstrative of the Power of Speech, and how the Coalition can actually be for the better.

Sorry Govey, you've lost this one mate. 

Although it might seem odd, and somewhat eccentric, I almost cheered on a crowded train when I first read that Michael Gove had been forced to scrap his plans for a new (old) exam system in Britain for 16 year olds. A joke which I should credit to Andy Hamilton; 'Michael Gove wants us to return to the exam system that produced Michael Gove'; pretty much says it all about why we should be worried about any plans which he has to 'reform' education. 

I'd become a known bore on the subject of Gove and his pans to ruin future generations by saddling them with a single percentage instead of a grade and reducing their entire 12 years of education to a single day and a single paper. I had been somewhat skeptical that the plans would actually get through  and survive another Government. Given that they were due to be instigated until 2015. The year when the next election is due. 

I'm not anti-reform of the system, and I do think that there does need to be a re-think of the competition which has been introduced by having numerous exam boards. Having a centralised exam board would solve accountancy problems, but it would leave them unaccountable to anyone else. Anyone who has been through University will be aware that it can take months for work to be returned due to it being looked at  by 'External Markers' a.k.a Academics from other Universities who mark the work independently to ensure that everyone is being assessed on a level playing field. Although there is an argument that this could be done by teachers from different schools. It's a thorny issue to say the least.

How we assess people's ability at 16 has become less significant since the introduction of compulsory education until the age of 18, where qualifications have become more of a 'stepping stone' to the next stage rather than anything else. It is important that people's strength's and weaknesses are determined and I don't favour the complete eradication of assessment at 16, but it's a subject which should be dealt with lightly. As the decisions made will have major consequences on thousands of lives. 

A lot of that is beside the point today however, when what we are acknowledging is the power of objection to reforms by the adults most qualified to make the decisions about how children should be assessed. I'm not going to reproduce the details here, I'll instead harness the power of the internet and give you a link to the superb piece in the Guardian, which has all the details you need, here's that link.

It is also a sign that having a Coalition Government can be for the better. Whatever people may think of  the Lib Dems, they have had a hand in stopping Gove in his tracks. I'm not going to rake over old ground and re-ignite discussions about the morality (or otherwise) of making people pay for Higher Education, as that's not relevant here. 

After a week which started with a debate in parliament over whether or not people are 'equal' in today's society, we're looking to finish it with the news that whilst things might need to change, it needs more thought than just being nostalgic. 

What Politicians could learn from David Bowie, or how to stay interesting in an increasing boring world

                                            

David Cameron wonders how he can get the plebs as excited as David Bowie did.

The internet nearly exploded with excitement this morning, and ordinary people felt like famous people on Twitter were their friend's as they all shared the collective experience of hearing the new song from Ziggy Stardust creator David Bowie. Now, I should be honest from the start and say that beyond his cameo in extras and the Father Ted episode which features three appearance of Elvis and a brief slaughtering of 'Ziggy played guitar' I know almost nothing of David Bowie or his music. What I'm not going to do, is offer yet another opinion to the mire on a song when I can't compare it to the artists other work.

What is more interesting about the release of the single, the upcoming album and the assumptions that there will be a tour is the reaction to the news. The main talking point of much of the coverage of the story was the fact that Bowie hasn't performed live since 2006 and 'has barely been seen in public' a phrase which translates as 'has managed to live his life relatively privately and let others take the limelight'. As such, the release of the new single comes without the weight of the past 7 years of Bowie's non-music life. Increasing the chances of it being judged on musical merits rather than hype. 

Unlike Paul McCartney, who many people just want to disappear quietly, or at least never sing again (I did say after the Olympics that dying might not be such a bad thing for Sir Paul - as it would prevent him from further alienating himself from the British public) Bowie has retained an air of mystery in an age when everyone knows everything and knowledge is there at the touch of a button. Questions which could, in the past have taken hours or days to answer, and which required a competent navigation of Dewey Decimal system can now be asked by a four year old. You don't even have to be able to spell as Google will patronisingly correct you. 

Staying relatively anonymous has now become a harder task than getting noticed. More and more it is possible for people to say contentious things on social media and then get noticed, not caring what is said about them. Only that stuff is being said and that they are the headline topic. For all of three minutes. 

The title of Bowie's single 'Where are we now?' is as ambiguous a statement as it is broad. A question which could be applied to any number of subjects, but which when viewed from a certain historical perspective (it's a decade since Bowie released any new music) a awful lot has changed about the world and as we enter the year that wasn't supposed to be, if you believed the Mayan's that is, it's a fair point to make, where exactly in the overall course of human history are we? Sure, we can tell where we are geographically, but probably not morally. 

What then, is the lesson that not just Politicians, but many more people besides, could learn from Bowie after today. In short, it's that keeping your head down and not saying anything until it is absolutely worth saying does you a lot of favours. There is a distinct surreality to the way in which politicians now give their statements, with new correspondents often saying '[Politician] is expected to say [main point of politicians speech slightly reworked by the press officer] later today'. There is no mystery, yet at the same time there has never been more mystery.

I'm never going to like David Cameron, but I'd have a little less disdain and perhaps a little more respect, if he wasn't constantly on the television. I might just be agnostic about the quality of Michael McIntyre's comedy if he wasn't grinning stupidly in a poster at every sodding train station and bus stop. Yes, David Bowie is an artist legend and yes, I'm sure that even if his new single was a reinterpretation of 'My Lovely Horse'  people's heads would still be exploding with excitement. But he's managed to remain relevant and culturally interesting without inviting television cameras into his home or letting 3 million people on Twitter know when he's just had a coffee.

If everyone did what they did best, and didn't try to do everything else. Things could be a whole lot better.

Thanks Nigel, but we're all glad you don't want to be PM

                     
                        

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage realises that this is as good as it gets.

In an interview he gave today to the Grauniad the android faced leader of the UK Independence Party. Plane crash survivor and slightly righter-right winger Nigel Farage confessed that he 'doesn't ever want to to be Prime Minister'. This will come as a relief to some, but only a few. As there can only be a few people who would ever genuinely consider becoming worried about the possibility of a UKIP-led Government. Granted that it is more likely than one led by Nick Clegg. 

That he would consider entering into a coalition with the Tories is no surprise. What would be a surprise would be if it were to actually happen. Those people who paid particular attention to the last General Election in 2010  may recall a brief time when a few of us held out for a Labour-Lib-Small Parties Coalition. It was never going to happen. Unless the Tory and UKIP votes both increase significantly in 2015, they'll both find themselves without a majority. Unless they side with the BNP.

Dear old Dishface put his foot in the racial row back in 2006 by calling UKIP 'closet racists'. They're not racist, just, as the interview demonstrates, overly idealistic about Britain and their hopes for what 'Great Britain' means. That Farage laments not being able to have a drink in the country pub on a Sunday afternoon feels terribly nostalgic. The problem with nostalgia being that it recalls only the best of times. So yes, a Britain with Country Pubs, independence from the EU and all the shops closed on a Sunday would be nice. I'm not so sure about rationing, mainstream fascism, sexism and widespread poverty are quite such appealing aspects of the 20th Century which Farage and pals would like to see return.

I'm not a Royalist, but I don't hate the Queen, I just don't think we should pay for her. I'm a liberal but I don't think that there is a conspiracy of the Right to screw us all out of our Pensions. Nor do I think that Higher Education should necessarily be something paid for entirely by those who don't choose to take that path. I'm what most people call a human being, with opinions just like any other human being and whether or not you agree with me. You don't have any reason to hate me, or call me crazy. 

Nigel Farage isn't bonkers, despite what he says about the kind of people he wants in his party. There are aspects of his views with which I sympathise (hey, in 2001, UKIP campaigned on the basis of keeping the Pound - which in hindsight was a pretty wise move). What I find objectionable about Nigel Farage, I actually find to be a fundamental flaw with politicians as a whole. A tendency to over-zealous rhetoric and the constant quest to give out the right kind of soundbite. 

UKIP are at best the presentable face of reactionary politics - although 99% of political posturing is reactionary as it is. I don't doubt that they have views beyond Britain leaving Europe, an Englishmans right to his pint and an objection to Gay Marriage based on outdated ideological views. 

On that last topic Nigel is actually a good example of the typical psuedo-Anglican who gets enraged about the fact that two people of the same gender can get married in the place where they go for Christmas, Easter, Funerals, Christenings and (straight) Weddings. On the basis of which I should be able to say that all Wetherspoons should serve Michelin Star Food and have table service. I mean, I go there about once every two months (more often that Farage goes to church) so I have the right to make a claim about how the place should be run, despite knowing noting about how to run a budget pub chain. 

In truth, not that many people will care about Farage not gunning for 10 Downing Street. For two reasons; firstly, the chances of him actually getting there are incredibly slim and secondly, he'd have to be tied into a Coalition deal to actually get a foot in the door so it's unlikely that much legislation would ever get through during his time in office. So not that different to the current establishment then.

That said, stranger things have happened. This man is going to run for election again, after getting clear of jail thanks to a piece of legislation which he ensured passed into law:

               

Oh World. You are funny.