The Budget: to progressive what Kim Jong-il is to moderate {Carl Packman}

We’ve had the first budget by the new coalition government, called out by a small boy, nervously looking down at his sheet, behind him a Prime Minister with a face so red backbenchers thought it was daytime (it was daytime, but they didn’t know it was daytime by any other measure than David Cameron’s face, which actually isn’t a measure of time at all, allegedly) and two Liberal Democrats, whose party once called the rise in VAT (which was called today, starting in January 2011) the Tories’ ‘secret plot‘.

Though, back then, the plot referred to Tory plans to raise VAT to 19.5%. Judging by the chants of ‘here here’ today by Nick Clegg and Douglas Alexander, either we are to take it that once VAT rises to 20% it stops being a plot, or the Liberal Democrats have their hands tied in this coalition government. All such speculation has been achieved on this subject, and it doesn’t look good for the yellows.

Julian Glover of the Guardian on the day of the budget argued that it was not: “as a Thatcherite one would have done, seek[ing] to divide the nation between winners and losers. It was a one-nation one, albeit produced in desperate circumstances.” Certainly all the talk of “progressive” (that vacuous blanket term for anything not fascistic or carried out by a person over the age of 50 – Ken Clarke beware) provided the cover with which to place over our eyes, while our ears heard insistence from the Treasury that “The top income decile [consult graph 1 here for further explanation] sees the largest absolute losses, while, on average, the bottom three income deciles experience the lowest losses”.

But if the way in which Ozzy Osborne has dealt his number blow is progressives then I might as well sign myself up to that Facebook group supporting Kim Jong-il right now.

VAT always hits the lowest paid in society the hardest, though mostly what George has forgotten is proportion and scale. If figure A earns £200 a week and the government decides to take £10 more of that away, while figure B earns £2000 a week, and the government also decides to take £10, figure A feels more of a pinch in spite of the fact that both have contributed the same.

Now this is not an accurate picture of what the government are doing at the moment, but certainly the illustration holds true, that though the top income decile will see the largest amount of money taken from them on their pay packets, this is because they are earning more. This does not represent an equal distribution of the “pinch” when you consider that those on the bottom end of the income decile, though not contributing as much (as they don’t earn as much as those on the top decile) feel more of a pinch by the raise in VAT, freeze on public sector pay and freeze on benefits.

It doesn’t follow that since figure A has less on his income statement than last year, that figure A is feeling the pinch more than figure B, in fact the opposite is true. This does not represent everyone taking an equal hit. Until this is rectified, the coalition government’s budget plans are to progressive what Girls Aloud were to dignity.

Big Brother and the mask of Domingo Cavallo {Carl Packman}

What did the anonymous spy tell his audience who came to listen to him speak on an unrelated topic?: “I’m a spy”. Now, why on earth would one tell an audience one was a spy, when that is precisely the case, and presumably trying to maintain ones anonymity? Exactly because an audience would not expect a spy to admit one was a spy, and so be fooled by the admission, or at least not register the game at hand at all.

What would you do if you were an Argentine Minister of Economy when you were in the government palace in Buenos Aires, protestors outside wanted to tear your head off for screwing things right up, and you wanted to get out?

Slavoj Zizek reminds us:

A supreme case of such a comedy occurred in December 2001 in Buenos Aires, when Argentinians took to the streets to protest against the current government, and especially against Domingo Cavallo, the Minister of Economy. When the crowd gathered around Cavallo’s building, threatening to storm it, he escaped wearing a mask of himself (sold in disguise shops so that people could mock him by wearing his mask). It thus seems that at least Cavallo did learn something from the widely spread Lacanian (ref: Jacques Lacan, French psychoanalyst and student of Freud) movement in Argentina—the fact that a thing is its own best mask.

This was at a period when Argentine politicians could not even walk around town or be seen in public at all, let alone be seen to buy expensive items from expensive places. The period came to be known as the cooking pot revolution (so called because of the banging of pots in the centre of town by youths and workers dressed in masks).It was in protest at destructive privatisation measures of almost all government owned assets, linking the Argentine peso with the US dollar, lowering import tariffs, and abolishing restrictions on capital flows.

The former president Carlos Menem avoided the capital city altogether, the city mayor Anibal Ibarra shaved off his beard to avoid recognition while Cavallo took to wearing a mask of himself.

Like the spy announcing to a laughing audience that he is a spy, Cavallo took to wearing a mask of his own face (like many other protesters against him) in order to conceal who he really was.

Big Brother, recently, has also learnt that the thing is its own best mask, with the contestant who dressed as a mole, while simultaneously trying to convince other housemates that he wasn’t a mole. And he succeeded. Instead the other housemates voted Yvette, the medical student, who now thinks everyone hates her.

Few of us thought we would see the day when a protest movement in Latin America could be so well imitated, by such popular culture.

Carl on the Israeli – Palestine conflict {Politics}

Surprise of all surprises, there are left wing groups in existence today who are pro-Israel. J-Street is a not for profit advocacy group in the US who campaign for a peaceful two-state solution on the Israel-Palestine conflict, supports refined petroleum sanctions on Iran to curb their achieving nuclear weaponry, encourages border negotiation of Jerusalem, and views illegal Israeli settlements as a constant obstacle to peace.

It’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, recently said on the subject of the blockade: “There wouldn’t have been a flotilla if Gazan children had enough food, had schools and clean water to drink.”

Through the frivolity with which certain neoconservatives and Zionists like to throw around the term anti-Semite (where anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian or pro-two state solution, all different concepts, might have sufficed) the sensible, anti-fascist, left (often, rightly, exemplified in distinction to the socialist workers/Respect party, as mentioned here and here) have to be careful when criticising Israel so as not to be tarred with such a rancorous brush.

Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, was so very far from the point when he mentioned that prejudice against Israel is often a bridge to anti-Semitism, though became closer when he distinguished this from antisemitism as such.

Tariq Ali, historian and political activist, once mentioned that: “the supposed new ‘anti-Semitism’ [in Europe today, is a] “cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians…. Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism.”

I recognise leftist appeals to anti-Semitism, or trace elements of Islamist appeasement in the ranks of so-called left wing movements, preferring victim idolatry to reasoned political standpoint, but I’m still tempted by what Ali recognises that a certain few Israel supporters often obfuscate, with their liberal use of the paranoia sword, what is criticism of the crimes committed by the state of Israel and what crosses the line into anti-Semitic strokes. But to be sure, many people now find it difficult to tell one from the other, and it is a thorn in the side of the left.

The centre-right have an easy time of it though. Just look at our current Foreign Secretary William Hague. He recently condemned what he called Israel’s “unacceptable” blockade around the time of the flotilla deaths, causing little stir, and not much more than the word “astonishing” and “wobble” as criticism, from former speccie editor Matthew d’Ancona.

In 2003 Hague described America’s foreign policy as “bleeding away,”and in 2006 Hague opined that: In some instances, such as attacks on the Lebanese army or on parts of the civil infrastructure, Israeli actions have been disproportionate, and our Foreign Office should not be afraid to say so”.

He is supported by a Prime Minister who chose September 11 of 2006 to announce reservations of the UK-US special relationship, not to mention the untrustworthy characters inside the European Conservatives and Reformists that he defends.

I don’t think Hague is an anti-Semite, but nor do I think a lot of leftists who are branded this are, either. I wonder why Hague is getting let off for his critical eye on Israel and American foreign policy while the left get cuts and bruises for it. Have the dubious voices who wrongly liken left-wing criticism directed at Israel being anti-Semitic won their little battle?

The Perversion of Empire {Carl Packman}

We live in an age of bombast. Anyone who has seen Eddie Izzard’s show Circle will know of the skit he does about the word awesome, used so liberally now that even hot-dogs can be described as awesome, and of course if a hot-dog is considered awesome, what words will be available in our bank to describe the first landing on Mars, or our first sighting of Erkel.

Today the word empire and imperialism are used out of place, obscuring those original meanings. People go forth on these words particularly with regards to US and European ventures in the Middle East.

My own view is that it was unnecessary to be too instrumental in the creation of Afghan and Iraqi governments, not for the oversimplified reason that democracy building equals empire (it doesn’t) but because it was unnecessary in the war on terror (by and large a war against terror cells and factions). Regime change follows stripping the influence and power of those cells and ripping down the cash channels between neighbouring terror cells.

I opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that it was an own goal, and I still do, but the Taliban continues to forge power in northern provinces of Afghanistan and wields power by setting up fake checkpoints and unleashing suicide attacks. Reports back in 2009 suggest that families in Kunduz, a northern city in Afghanistan, and capital of the Kunduz Province, have been sending one son to join the Taliban in case militants take back control of that region again.

Fear pervades that region, and the Western troops ought to play a role in training Afghan forces to take power away from the hands of Taliban forces. Whatever ones view, that venture is not one of empire, and good reason too, because empire is over.

But one man who is not amused by the setting of the sun on the empire is Niall Ferguson – the man Michael Gove jumped up and down to clapping like an inebriated guinea fowl – empire apologist courted by the department of education.

Ferguson has been characterised as the Jamie Oliver of History, but this is not true, because as far as I can tell Oliver can at least tell his mange tout from his lady fingers.

In Ferguson’s opinion history is a discipline that won’t be jeopardised by strong opinion. Barely concealing his apologies for the British Empire, and criticising the American Empire for not being enough like the former, is one thing, but basic knowledge can remind you that history is at least the one subject where a relaxation of emotional attachment to a political ideology is vital.

In fact, the first lesson of relaying the objective facts lent to us by history is to leave agendas aside (they can obscure our understanding, and drag historical literature down to the level of chinese whispers).

Well this simply isn’t on the menu for Ferguson, who will now be in charge of deciding what goes in and what stays out of the curriculum of history for children (perhaps this is why the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority – a non department body – has been scrapped by the new coalition government).

Gove’s reason for allowing this is because he believes in traditional history teaching. We can guess what this means (Tudors, Saxons, Smurfs, Pingu etc) but is Ferguson the architect of traditional history, or is he to history what Mao was to the open society.

Gove uses the word tradition like some talk of empire today; perversely.

Something About Eleanor Rigby {Carl Packman}

Douglas Coupland, the author of Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture and populariser of the word McJob – to mean unskilled work, product of the transformation from industrial to postindustrial labour – suffered loneliness when he was a young man, influencing his later novel Eleanor Rigby.

He once spoke of his lonely experiences in the Melbourne broadsheet The Age:

If they told us in school that there was this weird thing you were going to experience the moment you turn 20, that would have been a great service. It might be just a North American thing but you always have to smile for the camera and give it your best. Negative emotions, or inevitable emotions, never get discussed.

His book, as those of sound musical mind will know, is named after a song by The Beatles about an old woman who dies lonely, and whose funeral is only attended by a priest called Father Mackenzie, who may or may not be based on a real ‘Father’ Tommy Mackenzie.

Oddly enough, Rigby herself existed, and is buried in a graveyard in Liverpool where Lennon and McCartney used to spend their bored days.

The Beatles anthology, the name of a documentary series of three albums and a book about the band, mentions that McCartney ended up not thinking that it was all a coincidence, but rather that Rigby was hanging around in his unconscious.

If the story is to be believed, one day, on his own, at a piano, the first line of the song just came to McCartney:

The first few bars just came to me, and I got this name in my head… ‘Daisy Hawkins picks up the rice in the church’. I don’t know why. I couldn’t think of much more so I put it away for a day.

On Tuesday, the Daily Mail published an article about how children in the age of web 2.0 – the social networking class – “are twice as likely to feel lonely as those over 55.” The article cites the Mental Health Foundation as saying that the modern world is making the young more vulnerable. This quote is not in quotation marks, but a quote by Dr Andrew McCulloch, chief executive of the foundation, is in quotes. He says: ‘The internet is not a root cause of loneliness but it can exacerbate the problem.’

Typical Mail. They provide an analysis of what the foundation have said first which ends up contradicting the quote they use by the chief executive of the foundation.

Dr McCulloch’s point is of course the one to listen to, at least half of his point is; that the internet is not the cause of loneliness, but it might make the problem worse. But then, if you’re lonely, what will help? How can we really tell if the internet is not helping the loneliness of a lonely person? Sounds like guesswork to me.

The internet might not help (Help! I need somebody Help! Not just anybody Help! I need someone Helllllllp! – as John Lennon once said) but what exactly do we have to prove that it might exacerbate the problem? Nothing.

But even so, doesn’t the song Eleanor Rigby teach us something about modern kids and loneliness; namely that when Lennon and McCartney were kids they would hang around graveyards, and become consumed by names on graves who forever more linger in their unconsciousnesses. Lonely or not, kids today ought to count themselves lucky they have internet porn and pac-man to play with rather than creepy, haunted carcass parks.

But also, most importantly, the song Eleanor Rigby was written when McCartney was alone on a piano. To be alone is one of the few pleasures left in the modern world, where hell is other people more than it has ever been.

by Carl Packman

You can read more of Carl’s thoughts and articles on his blog Raincoat Optimism.

Sibling Rivalry {Carl Packman}

On Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman yesterday David Miliband, Labour leadership contender, former foreign secretary and the apple of Hilary Clinton’s eye, slipped a little under the scrutiny, a rare occurrence for him. Paxman wasn’t particularly cutting, simply asked Miliband whether he thought his brother Ed, also running for leader of the former incumbent party, would do a good job of it. “I don’t want to say anything negative here Jeremy,” Miliband the elder uttered, to which Paxman rightly replied “I’m not asking you to”.
Where might this compulsion to state negatives have possibly come from?
Sibling rivalry has always been characterised as a means of grabbing the most parental resources as possible away from the other, to secure your monopoly over the paedocratic (as in paedocracy, regime led by children) kingdom of a Mother’s affection, and it can rear its competitive head in many ways.
One unnamed crackers genetic determinist put it:
Parental resources are finite, and if one brother gets a large proportion of parental time, attention, and money, then this necessarily means that the other brother will be getting less.
Stereotypes abound, the job of competing for the affection of the Miliband boys’ Father, the Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband, author of books such as The State in Capitalist Society, would surely have been met with disdain, particularly with regards to Father Miliband’s political commitment to egalitarianism and equal distribution – the sibling rivalry of the brother’s surely would’ve been seen as nothing short of capitalist doctrine consuming their innocent souls like cows branded for ownership proof.
Other sibling rivals like Christopher and Peter Hitchens do battle with ideas – the former once being famous for his firebrand left wing politics, now shoved to one side for the pursuit of a militant atheism and insistence on the benefits of the Iraq war, while the latter brother sits himself on the right wing politically, born again in his Christianity and fully opposed to military intervention in the Middle East.
David and Ed play the nice game, but the elder brother’s small, but telling, admission with Paxman puts another thorn in the side of those who feel that sibling rivalry is just a load of ol’ poppy.
For those of us who have any optimism for the Labour party, that it should bin its recent past with dignity, doing away with those things to which parallels can be drawn with Shakespeare’s As You Like It – “All the world’s a stage” when it comes to our neo-imperialist adventures, or “too much of a good thing” with the thirteen years of New Labour flirtation with the neo-liberal vacuum – ought to be careful what we wish for the future; might the brother’s Miliband be playing the parts of rival siblings Orlando and Oliver, where jealously prevails over a divisive inheritance?

by Carl Packman

You can read more of Carl’s thoughts and articles on his blog Raincoat Optimism.

Is it Bromance; Carl on the Coalition {Politics}

Since the first press release by Nick Clegg and David Cameron on Wednesday, it has dawned on the media that any coalition conflict in the near future is unlikely to come from these guys, and their so-called ‘love-in‘.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee; Ant and Dec; these are just some of the names to appear on the blogosphere or from the tweets of the twitterati to refer to our Prime Minister and the deputy. The BBC and ITN have taken to showing constant replays of David Cameron calling on Clegg to ‘come back‘ during one of their jokes in the back garden of number 10, and Henry McLeish, Labour’s former first minister in Scotland, even accidentally uttered the name “David Clegg”.

If you think Clegg will be Cameron’s nagging Aunty you can think again.

However that is not to say there will be no conflict within the coalition. On the same day as the press release Vince Cable was awaiting confirmation of the equal patch he will have with George Osborne as chair of the committee in charge of banks, only to find that those were not the plans at all.

Osborne’s sources were quick to brush the incident off by saying there had been some confusion on the matter, but it is clear for anyone to see why Ozzy Osborne wants his fingers on the banks, and not to share with his new pal Cable.

In spite of the fact that Osborne in the past has waxed lyrical about getting tough on the banks, and that the Libservatives have drawn up and agreed on a pledge to curb earth shattering bank bonuses, giving Cable the back seat is indicative that our new Chancellor finds dubious some of Cable’s tough plans for banks, namely the separation of high street and investment banking, and his no nonsense measures for banks’ lending requirements.

Sean O’ Grady of the Independent suspects that the honeymoon period inside the cabinet will be over by the 25th of June – the date of the emergency budget setting out a frame for public finances – when key differences in the party will come to the fore.

Cable has already agreed to back down on his plans for a mansion tax on properties worth over 2m, which would’ve saved money for those on the lower end of the tax scale, and Osborne compromised on raising inheritance tax exemption to 1m. Of those two compromises it is not difficult to see which measure could be for the purpose of softening the blow for the poorest in times of austerity, and which measure is in-built ideology.

If you want to identify where that coalition split will be, don’t look at Clegg and Cameron, who have to wear different coloured ties so we can tell them apart, it’s the economy, stupid.

by Carl Packman

You can read more of Carl’s thoughts and articles on his blog Raincoat Optimism.