Day 4112: Oh Dear Federal Conference Committee

Saturday:



Please, please, please read this GOLDEN posting from Mr Dave and then take the time to write – POLITELY – to the FCC (conferenceinformation@libdems.org.uk) about their BLITHERING proposals to let the POLICE decide who can come to OUR Conference.

Please remind them that we're the Liberal DEMOCRATS and not the "Liberal DO-WHAT-THE-FUZZ-SAYS-OCATS".

Only POLITELY.

Here's what Daddy Richard wrote:

I am distressed to learn from Andrew Wiseman's article for Liberal Democrat Voice of 14th April that once again you are considering conceding to the police the right to conduct checks on which of our members are permitted to attend Federal Conference.

The most important concern is that this is clearly an unwarranted constraint on the right of Party members to attend and participate in conference. The ability of the police to deny access to the democratic process – no matter what safeguards and party committees are required to give their approval – is illiberal.

If the police wish to stop you voting in a General Election, they are required to arrest you, and convict you by presenting evidence to a court. The proposals outlined by Andrew in his piece make no mention of whether the member in question will even be informed that the police have raised an objection, much less afforded the right to make a defence, which is clearly against natural justice.

We should be opposing this, not making it a part of our processes.

Second there is the question of intrusion. It is in the nature of state bureaucracies to gather more data simply because they can. I note, appalled, that it is necessary to "insist" on data being deleted after it is used. The routine assumption being that the police are entitled to keep data on private citizens once they have gathered it, just because! Again, we ought to resist this on principle. And on top of the general point, there are particular issues concerning the privacy of some LGBT+ members that are really not properly addressed by the proposals. As the Party that would like to think of ourselves as the most inclusive and welcoming, are we really happy to be seen closing the door to an important community?

Thirdly, but perhaps most likely to carry you, it seems that this proposal would be expensive and counter-productive, diverting limited police resources into performing background checks and away from measures that might have a measurable effect on the security of the conference. The examples Andrew listed in his piece as given by the police – the Brighton bombing and the Norwegian gunman – were both committed by individuals who were not registered for the conference and would therefore not have been prevented by any background check. Indeed, I should be grateful to know if accreditation has prevented any terrorist attack. Has any terrorist ever registered for the event which they intended to attack? Were they picked up by a review of their past associations?

I am highly concerned that the purpose of accreditation is to give the impression of security while not actually making anyone any safer. And indeed, by diverting resources, actually making the conference less safe.

Fourthly, I am sure that I do not need to remind you that conference passed a motion at Birmingham that specifically said:

"Conference therefore calls upon... The Party President to ensure that conference arrangements respect Article 6 of the federal constitution which provides that Local Parties elect representatives and that no other body within or without the party has the power to exclude in advance their attendance at conference."

(see: HERE {pdf})

To summarise: the proposal for conference accreditation is illiberal, anti-democratic, intrusive, unlikely to deliver any increase in security and quite possibly dangerously wasteful of police time and money and against the Party Constitution and the express will of Federal Conference.

I therefore ask you to please think again.



Yours faithfully,



Richard Flowers
Tower Hamlets Conference Representative

PS:

More on this from Auntie Caron and Uncle Stephen O'the Glenn
.

Day 4119: Shock and Snore – Master Gideon versus the Tax System

Wednesday:



It's all about tax returns, this week.

Apparently, the Treasury HM Revenue&Customs*+* have been SHOCKING Master Gideon with some of the ways that rich people run rings around the taxman.

Plus, we've now gotten infected by the American habit of politicians releasing their tax affairs to prove what good citizens they've been.

First it was the candidates for Mayor of London, sparked off by Mr Ken Newt saying that anyone who avoided tax didn't deserve a vote. Apparently overlooking that this included himself.

Now the contagion seems to have spread to Mr Balloon, Master Gideon and the rest of the Cabinet.

"Hands up who in benefits from the 50p tax cut," demanded Mr Milipede in the Budget debate. Repeatedly*. "Come on come on own up who's been naughty then," he could have added, since he was already behaving like the milk monitor in the reception class.

Of course he was taking advantage of PARLIAMENTARY ETIQUETTE that meant that none of them could reply, knowing that the CAMERAS would show them having to sit there like a bunch of LEMONS.

The simple answer, though, ought to have been: "NONE OF THEM", since the Coalition Cabinet took a pay CUT on entering office so that they, unlike when Mr Milipede was in the Cabinet, do not earn more than £150,000 for their duties. And since Mr Balloon also banned Cabinet ministers from moonlighting that ought to be ALL they earn.

(OK, possibly NOT what with trust funds, investment income, property portfolios and all the other ways for WEALTH to make money...**)

But a somewhat overlooked fact is that Cabinet ministers are actually WORSE OFF because of the changes in allowances and thresholds. Remember that "withdrawal of personal allowance" that Daddy keeps going on about? Well, because they earn more than a hundred thousand squids, that affects the Cabinet. So, they DON'T gain from the increased personal allowance that takes millions out of tax, but they DO have to pay more of their income at the 40% rate because of the reduced 40% threshold.

The changes mean that they will be paying more than a grand MORE in tax next year than they were when the Coalition formed in 2010.

The net effect of the tax changes mean that it's actually people earning more than a hundred and fifty AND eight-and-a-half thousand squids actually get a tax cut.

So you would have to be earning TWENTY-FOUR GRAND ON TOP of your Cabinet salary (not fifteen, as the Grauniad thinks) in order to benefit from the upper rate cut from 50p to 45p.

Yes, I'm SURE that your heart BLEEDS for them; it's not EXACTLY like they'll be short of sticky buns. But it IS worth remembering this whenever Hard Labour are bleating about "Do you benefit personally"; a fair reply would be: "No, and we're paying more than YOU did!"



*Actually, speaking of people who repeat the same line over and over without listening to the reply, Ms Rachel Reeves – robotic Shadow to Mr Danny – likes to bang on over and over that reducing the 50p rate to, er, a higher tax rate than Hard Labour had for all but FOUR of the SIX-HUNDRED and SEVENTY-NINE weeks that they were in government, amounts to an "average tax cut of ten thousand pounds".

How do you get "an average of ten thousand pounds"? Well, there are three hundred thousand people in the 50p-as-was bracket, so you take three billion squids and divide that by three hundred thousand.

Hang on, where did those three billion squids come from? That's half a billion squids MORE than even the two-and-a-half billion that Hard Labour claimed would be raised by the 50p rate. (Or THIRTY times more than the hundred million squids that the figures checked by the Office for Budget Responsibility agree that the upper rate ACTUALLY raised.) How is this MATHEMATICALLY possible?

After all, she could not have just MADE UP a big-sounding number, could she?



**Actually, this manages to get oh so close to an important point while still managing to miss it entirely.

Mind you, Mr Milipede does like to BLUR the difference between BEING a millionaire – which means HAVING a million squids – and EARNING a million pounds a year which makes you a CONSIDERABLY FATTER cat-monster.

(Certainly, we'd none of us say "no" to having a million squids... unless they were ACTUAL squids... ew! But the days when a million pounds could buy you a "millionaire lifestyle" are in the past. You'd be MODESTLY but not LAVISHLY well off for the rest of your life – you don't get much that interest at the moment, but the capital at least would last forty years if you gave yourself the equivalent of the average salary. In fact, thanks to the house price boom, a lot of people, especially in the south-east, are millionaires on paper without having a lot of ready cash for buying champagne and yachts.)

But if you are REALLY WEALTHY then it's quite possible to arrange your affairs so that you only get a SMALL INCOME. If you've got pots of cash, then there are all sorts of SAVINGS you can make – you don't need to pay for a MORTGAGE 'cos you can just buy a house with capital; you don't need to pay into a pension 'cos you've got a tidy pot already; you don't have to pay a fortune for a ticket for your daily commute 'cos you don't actually have to have a job; and so on.

So it's is a whole lot more complicated that JUST knowing what someone's "taxable earnings" are OR knowing that on paper they're worth "a million". To see the WHOLE PICTURE you need to have an idea of their earnings AND their total WEALTH (and probably the WEALTH of their immediate family, like spouses, parents, children, that great aunt of a distant cousin who just happens to let them live in her castle and fly about in her plane etc).

People who are PAID millions of squids are at least DOING SOMETHING (even if you cannot credit that they actually EARN a salary larger than the GDP of a small country***!). People who just SIT on piles of cash are actually WORSE 'cos they're not just not contributing to the country, but their wealth is actually locked away from the economy when it could be being invested.

That is why shifting tax from INCOME to WEALTH actually MAKES SENSE.

Though of course Liberal Democrats prefer to pass the tax cut on to the millions at the bottom end, rather than the Conservatories preference for giving a bung to a few chaps in the city City.



***Actually****, the country with the smallest GDP is Tuvalu, with a GDP of thirty-six million dollars, which is still more than Bingo Bob Diamond of Barclays gets paid. Shush, don't tell him.



****Too many "actuallys".

PS:

*+*Actually, not the Treasury, but Her Maj's Revenue and Customs, thanks to Hon Lady Mark for correction. Arrgh "actually" overload!!!!!
.

Day 4110: Snooper Powers aka This Must Be Stomped On With Giant Fluffy Elephant Feet!

Monday:



Leaks to the press say that the government – NB: authoritarian idiot branch (note to Cap’n Clegg: please ensure this is confined to Conservatory rabble) – are proposing to “maintain” our security forces' ability to fight baddies (or indeed anyone they think is looking at them funny) by MASSIVELY INCREASING the scale and scope of their powers.

Simple solution, Cap’n Clegg NEEDS to make a statement: “This is the Conservatories FLYING A KITE. You know as well as I do that I and my Party aren't going to put up with this sort of STUFF AND NONSENSE. Case closed.”

We are NOT in a competition to see who can be the most “not quite as EVIL as Hard Labour”.

We are the FLUFFING LIBERAL PARTY. We ROLL BACK this kind of thing; we do NOT ROLL OVER for it!

That is all.
.

Day 4103: Cameron Plumbs New Depths

Monday:



What's the difference between the Prime Monster, Mr Balloon, and the man behind that big boat movie (currently being remade for telly as ITV's Drownton Abbey)?

Answer: they're both FISHY stories, but we've yet to hit fluffy bottom in Mr Balloon's latest cash for access scandal.

And, like the big boat in question, Mr Balloon's denials don't cut much ice.

When he says "this is not the way the Conservatories raise money", it stretches credulity un peux since Tory Treasury Mr John "Judge Dredd bad word" Crudd has resigned because you can see him on video doing exactly that.

Saying that the visitors to the upstairs flat are in Mr Balloon's "private time" was never going to wash. It stopped being his private business the moment that a senior Conservatory was on the tellybox saying that "private time" was up for public auction. Nor is the excuse that there would be no proper record of private visitors believable. At very least, they'd need to be on the list of people for the police to LET IN. (Or are we to understand that you can routinely troll up at Downing Street and tell the office on duty: "no, I'm not on the list, I've got some private time with Mr Balloon"?)

And Auntie Maude's appeal on the The Today Programme was also less than convincing: look, he said, everyone knows you can buy access to the Prime Monster. We are completely open and honest about how nakedly venal we are.

That Conservatory menu in full:

• "Treasurer's Club": £100,000 buys you a brief meeting with the Prime Monster
• "Leader's Club": £250,000 and you get an intimate soiree for deux in the Number Ten flat
• "Inner Circle": £500,000 and you can spend the weekend at Chequers and snog SamCam
• "Masonic Rites of Dracula": £25,000,000 and he'll do bad bad BAD with a pig on live national telly.

(Look, Mr Charlie Brooker is not MADE of cash – they had to get an actor.)



It was with something approaching heroic stupidity that Hard Labour fielded Lord Levy on this subject, the man who was cleared of selling peerages by a Metropolitan police commissioner who later received a peerage. No relation. Fortunately it turned out to be a TOTAL COINCIDENCE that every single person to donate one million pounds to Hard Labour received a knighthood or a seat in the House of Lords, or THAT might have been AWKWARD!

Brave, too, of Mr Milipede to demand an inquiry into "Cash for Policymaking" given where that's likely to go in his own Party, and the way that Hard Labour keep on scuppering cross-Party agreement on donations so that the Unions can continue buying access to Hard Labour policymaking, er, I mean making fraternal donations for NO REASON WHATSOEVER and dropping those changes to Hard Labour's constitution last year was ENTIRELY a COINCIDENCE too. HONESTLY.

Another inquiry, though, will get us NOWHERE. We already KNOW what the answer is: limit donations, a proper register of lobby interests and lashings of HUMBLE PIE.

It is EASY to lampoon politicians as in the pocket of SHADY PLUTOCRATS... because they ARE. We ALL get tarred with that particular brush. Protesting that it's "just the Conservatories" will only get us slapped with a "well YOU'RE in bed with them".

Mr Mark Reckons is DEAD RIGHT on this: the Liberal Democrats need to announce an immediate self-denying ordinance of only accepting donations of ten grand or less.

(If nothing else, it would spare us the embarrassment of another Michael Brown fiasco – our one and only big donor in all of history and it was a bad-word up of such, forgive me, Titanic proportions that one suspects he was actually a Conservatory sleeper agent all along, intent on providing that Tory blogger Dale Winton with an "all Parties are corrupt" riposte to be used every single time that his own Party are caught red-fluffy-footed with another brown envelope.)
.

Day 4100: The Shocking Truth – Who is Worse Off under the Granny Tax

Friday:



It warms my fluffy heart to see the great and the good of the left (La Pollyanna Toytown and chums) manning the barricades on behalf of those who don't earn enough to benefit in this week's budget, who face more cuts to welfare and tax credits and who...

Sorry, what's that?

They're ACTUALLY kicking up a fuss about people who ALREADY get extra benefits being told they're getting even more on top?

Riiiiiiiight.

From the HOWLS and CARTOONS you'd think that Gideon was PHYSICALLY removing tenners from old ladies' purses and stuffing them into the thongs of passing Fat-Cat-Monsters.

(And why GRANNIES not GRANDDADDIES, I am not alone in asking. And does this only apply if you have offspring who have offspring?)

The truth is the rather-more-nuanced: "He's not sticking an extra tenner INTO the Grannies' (etc) purses".

(Something that the Hard Labour HYPOCRITES were doing for YEARS on the sly, but when Gideon is naive enough to TELL people what he's doing, they go all SHOCKED MITTENS.)

So who IS going to have to pay MORE because of this "mugging"?

(This is the SCIENCE BIT – you can tune out for the next few paragraphs if you want.)

It's not QUITE nobody.

No one over 65, not one single person, will be worse off because of the changes to personal allowances.

In fact, better-off older people, those earning between thirty and forty thousand pounds (those people still in work or with REALLY good pensions) will be even BETTER off because they don't get the age-related bonus either (one of those iniquitous "withdrawal of personal allowance" stings that we have talked of before), so they WILL benefit from the Liberal Democrat tax cut that raises EVERYONE'S personal allowance.

HOWEVER, in an example of the World's Smallest Inter-generational IniquityTM, people who are sixty-THREE now, would have gained an extra allowance when they turn sixty-five in 2013/14 and they now WON'T get the EXTRA allowance. So if they are earning more than nine grand (and many will be relying on a retirement income that is less than that) then, because they'll be starting to pay tax at the new higher personal allowance of £9,205 instead of the age-related personal allowance of £10,500, they could be paying up to £259 of tax that they would not have had to pay.

People who are sixty-TWO now would have gained the extra allowance in 2014/15. It is a reasonable guess, in fact a near certainty, that the personal allowance will go up to £10,000 in that year (a year faster than planned thanks to Liberal Democrats negotiations over the budget). They will miss out on £500 of bonus personal allowance, so, again if they have enough income, they will pay £100 in tax more than they might have done. Current sixty-three year-olds with similar incomes will also have to pay this £100.

(There is a similar effect on people who are SEVENTY-three, who – if their income is above ten-and-a-half grand – will pay an extra £32 in each year that they would not have done if the system hadn't changed, and people who are SEVENTY-two – likewise, earning more than £10,500 – who will miss out on that £32 tax cut in the second year.)

It looks pretty likely, though, that in 2015/16 the personal allowance will go up to MORE than £10,500... in fact ideally to more than £10,660... and the advantage of the age-related allowance will cease to exist.

(And I appreciate that there is a fairly subtle difference between not getting a benefit that you've never had BUT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD, and not getting a benefit that no one has ever had.

So, current sixty-three-year-olds (who earn between roughly nine thousand pounds and twenty-six thousand pounds) will be worse off by £359 (or less, and most by nothing).

Current sixty-two-year-olds (earning likewise) will be worse off by £100 (or less).

Current seventy-three-year-olds (you get the bit with the earnings by now) will be worse off by £64 (or less).

And current seventy-two-year-olds (earnings blah blah blah) will be worse off by £32 (or less).

And no one else.

No one else will be worse off.

Of course they'll not be BETTER OFF either. But that's because they're BETTER OFF ALREADY, and the effect of these changes mean that everyone else is just CATCHING UP.

All of the wheezing and groaning that we hear on this issue is coming from people who already HAVE more benefits than younger people AND EXPECTED TO GET EVEN MORE ON TOP OF THAT.

The IFS study has shown that actually, pensioners have contributed LEAST to the austerity.

So maybe, just maybe, it is RIGHT to ask them to shoulder a little of the burden too by GETTING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALREADY GET and NOT PAYING MORE.

Which is SO harsh.

The big surprise is that it was the CONSERVATORIES who put this change into the budget mix. The Liberal Democrats' preferred option – as voted at Conference – was to restrict the benefit of paying into pensions for higher rate tax-payers.

You'll not be surprised to hear that Daddy Richard actually PREFERS the Budget's option, because it means that people will pay the tax on their income WHEN THEY GET THE MONEY, rather than when they are putting it into the pension fund.

What you might NOT expect, thought is that, even though pension contributions are NOT to be included in the Tycoon Tax limit of 25% of earnings being put into legitimate tax avoidance, we're not so sure that we would mind if they were!

We've had a LOT of discussion with Count Packula (...and, er, had a chat with Mr Danny... and, er, passed the word to Cap'n Clegg...) about how much paying into a pension is LEGITIMATELY providing for an independent retirement and how much is MANIPULATING the tax system by shifting income to a time when you are in a lower tax bracket. The evidence seems to be that a LOT of people dodged the bullet of the 50p rate by dropping extra income into pensions. It's persuasive that this – like many other tax-advantageous schemes – is being used as a DODGE.

And so we've come to the conclusion that LIMITING how MUCH of your income you can defer like this – and 25% seems like a FAIR amount – is a BETTER way to stop ABUSE than asking people to pay contributions from their taxed income.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there when it comes to THIS budget.

There's still plenty to be OUTRAGED about in the budget...

...although, as with MOST of the WRETCHED COMPROMISES that we have to make in this Coalition, it's possible to feel a bit better about our bits when you've looked at the details – e.g. we may not have got a mansion tax NOW, but that doesn't mean it's off the table; the Conservatories still want to get rid of that 45p rate. Never mind what you hear in the papers about Gideon being in two minds about whether or not they should get rid of the 50p: it was the first thing the Conservatories slapped on the table and their number one red line. They were GAGGING for it! So we've got a LOT of leverage left with the 45p, which will cost more and need a more significant wealth tax to pay for it. HINT HINT.

And the tax incentives for creative industries are very much to be welcomed, as they are in line with Mr Dr Vince's leaked letter about how the Government should have an industrial strategy that supports British winners. A BIG difference between us and the Conservatories is that a Liberal government would INTERVENE to help, as opposed to Conservatory LAISSEZ-FAIRE (or Laissez-FAIL more often than not). We can and must be the Party of the VISION THING!

On the other fluffy foot, Master Gideon talked about taking another ten billion away from welfare. It might not be what he meant, but it's certainly what he SAID. Which is terrifying!

And the politics of the 50p rate remain just AWFUL. And the mathematics looks quite risky. The 50p rate may only have raised around a hundred million because the high-earners avoided the tax (through contributions to pensions and other legitimate schemes and wheezes), but that DOESN'T mean that they won't similarly duck the 45p rate, and we could end up with a substantially larger hole in the finances that Gideon predicts.

And even if he's got his sums right, the effects of the Tycoon Tax and the extra Stamp Duty don't really start to be felt until year THREE of this plan. This year the budget shows what is called a "fiscal tightening" or LESS MONEY IN of nearly two billion pounds, and next year one billion. That's a gap that's got to mean accelerated restraint on the spending side. Or FASTER, DEEPER CUTS.

So get angry, if you have to get angry, but get angry about the RIGHT THINGS.

Get angry that the Liberal Democrats fought their corner WELL and got a tax cut for MILLIONS but still couldn't stop the Conservatories giving a bung to billionaires.

Get angry that there is less for those in poverty, and remember whose FAULT that is.

Get angry about the GREED of the Labour years that RUINED the economy and that the poorest, as always, have to pay for Labour's folly.

But if you REALLY want to get angry, get angry at the FAUX outrage of MILLIONAIRE lefties cynically playing politics with Grannies, scaring them that they'll be taxed into the poorhouse when really they'll pay NOT A PENNY MORE.
.

Day 4098: Oh What A Lovely Budget. Apparently.

Wednesday:



A letter arrives. It's from Captain Clegg! He seems unnaturally happy about Master Gideon's latest budget. I'd better check the POSTMARK – ah yes, he appears to be writing from CLOUD CUCKOO LAND...

Dear Millennium, We can be proud that the biggest tax cuts in today's Budget go to millions of working families.

Well, the most EXPENSIVE tax cuts, perhaps. 'Cos with only 330,000 people paying 50%, it costs LESS OVERALL to give them a bung.

But anyone earning more than £155,000 has had a tax cut of more than £250, and that's MORE than the £220 a basic rate taxpayer will get.

As a result of this Budget, someone working a full week on minimum wage will see their income tax bill cut by over 50% compared to under Labour.

Increasing the personal allowance to £9,205 takes us within touching distance of our number one manifesto pledge – ensuring no one pays any tax on the first £10,000 they earn.

Successfully not benefitting EITHER of my Daddies, because one earns too much and one earns too little. Congratulations to the households of TWO top-end basic rate payers, though. You earn more than both Daddies put together AND get two tax cuts. Plus you keep your Fluffy Child benefit! Hooray!

Thanks to our changes, a basic rate taxpayer will be paying £45 a month less in tax than they would have been under Labour.

Although strictly speaking, that's £45 LESS the extra that they are paying in VAT and duties on fuel, beer and ciggies. And yes, Hard Labour WOULD have put those things up too (especially the VAT) but you're not comparing a fictional Labour budget with Gideon's actual figures – you're comparing the actual tax rates they had in 2010.

We can be proud that we've ensured the richest in our society will be paying more, much more.

The Tycoon Tax, an increase in stamp duty for high value properties and other new taxes on wealth...

Oh please! At Conference you were implying that the Tycoon Tax should be a tax on INCOME, some sort of minimum percentage that billionaires like Mitt Moron ought to pay. Today it's a hike in stamp duty. STAMP DUTY?! This just looks like spin. And not very good spin.

And Stamp Duty is a tax on BUYING property, not on HAVING property – it's not really a wealth tax, more a barrier to entry to the Tory Toff circles.

Or maybe it's just misplaced punctuation!

To be fair, some of the more EGREGIOUS get-out-of-tax-free loopholes have been, well not closed but made considerably more modest and that DOES gain us back a sizeable whack more tax, clawing back about a BILLION quid over five years.

So if you take the Tycoon Tax to mean the capping of some of those tax avoidance schemes PLUS a similar amount from the Stamp Duty then you might get to...

...will raise five times as much as the 50p tax rate. Those with annual incomes of more than £150,000 a year will be paying on average an additional £1,300 a year in tax, as a result of this Budget.

How?

Of course, this is a Coalition Budget and we did not get our own way on everything.

Well, it IS true that the budget has been an obvious case of a Liberal Democrat tax cut at the bottom and a Conservatory tax cut at the top, and that's GOOD, we can work with that. But the question is WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM. And it looks very like it's come from FASTER and DEEPER cuts.

And then we see ANOTHER TEN BILLION off Welfare payments.

Conservative priorities are not ours. But as on so many other issues...

We rolled over and let them have their way?

...we have made sure that there is a real Liberal Democrat stamp on this Budget.

And a real Conservatory kick in the badwords.

Lower taxes for more than 20 million working people; effective new taxes on the rich.

This is a Budget we can be proud of – a Budget for the many, not the few.

Really, Cap'n? Proud?

Thanks for all the support you give to the party. Best wishes,

Well, I support the Party because we're supposed to be BETTER than this. We ACCEPT that we cannot do the ALL things we want to do, nor that we can stop the Conservatories doing many bad things we'd rather that they didn't.

But that DOESN'T mean taking pride in a Budget that basically tickles the Tories' tummies and gives us one concession and sending us off with a pat on the head.

How did we manage to let them NOT put up any serious wealth taxes?

How much* of that ten billion welfare cut goes towards mitigating the cut in BENEFITS for RICH PEOPLE?

And how about we STOP trying to OWN the whole Government, take CREDIT for what we HAVE got (a basic rate tax cut) and ADMIT to where we DIDN'T get our way (oops, no mansion tax!).

I'll be PROUD when we HAVE a Lib Dem budget. Until then, I'll stick with being thankful for small mercies and APOLOGISING for shaf... bad-word-ing the poor. AGAIN!

PS:

*It's about two-thirds of a billion a year, actually. Look, I LIKE universal benefits, they're simple, unbureaucratic and get to the people who need them, but that doesn't mean I'd choose child benefit for duchesses over employment support for the disabled.


.

Day 4096: Ask Not For Whom the Road Toll, it Tolls for You!

Monday:



This is starting to get SILLY. Apparently we're now proposing to privatise the roads.

So buying large public works on the never-never is BAD when it is Hard Labour's crazy PFI schemes but FINE when it's giving the nation's vital road infrastructure over into the fluffy feet of MAMMON, is it?

Because we're all so PLEASED with the way that the OTHER privatised monopolies have worked out.

(So long as by "we" we mean "the foreign companies who now own our utilities".)

It's not QUITE up there with slashing disabled people's benefits, but it is a VERY Conservatory-led policy.

If we want a JOBS and GROWTH strategy, wouldn't it be a BETTER idea to keep the key underpinnings of our civilisation in public ownership?

And for a government that is supposed to be obsessed with NOT lumbering our children with debt the way Hard Labour did, do we really want to be using some of Hard Labour's Enron-style OFF-BALANCE SHEET accounting to spend money now and pay later?
.

Day 4088: NHS – a Typical Liberal Compromise

Sunday:



Just back from the NHS debate and we've succeed in voting for EVERYONE! We agreed with Ms Dame Shirl the Girl that the amended bill was now better, and we agreed with Mr Dr Evan that the Lords can still vote to nuke it anyway!

Many good points were made, about the complexity of the new arrangements and that there is more centralisation going on under cover of devolving some other powers. And of course that none of the doctors, nurses, midwives, surgeons or psi-judges who have looked at the bill actually want it.

BUT, Dame Shirl made the MOST telling point.

Hard Labour's 2006y bill – which we default to if we kill this one – laid the foundation for PRIVATISING the Health Service, with their PFIs and sweetheart deals for private clinics and paying for operations that don't even happen.

OUR bill, now we've amended it, STOPS LABOUR'S PRIVATISATION OF THE NHS.



On the whole, I think that the CORE of this bill is a GOOD IDEA that has been VERY BADLY IMPLEMENTED.

Giving the POWERS and the RESPONSIBILITIES for YOUR care to YOUR doctor is a GOOD THING.

But we should have done it VOLUNTARILY and we should have run LOTS OF TRIALS so that people could SEE if it worked.

And if it DID work, people would have been CALLING for the changes not shouting "traitor" at queues of people that they ought to be persuading. (ACTUALLY HAPPENED – good way to persuade people that!)

And if it DIDN'T we could have agreed to drop it based on the evidence.



Instead we have the mess Mr Landslide and Mr Balloon dropped us in.

"No top down reforms of the NHS" – it's almost like Mr Balloon wasn't paying any attention to what his ministers wanted.

At least the Lib Dems are listening!



PS: Got stuck in the lift with Mr Dr Vince this morning and it carried us away to the fifth floor instead of the ground. Still, if you're going to be trapped with the Business Secretary it's better to on your way to the top!

Day 4083: A Super Tuesday for Dr Vince

Tuesday:



It was a GOOD day to be the President*... of the Board of Trade.

A welcome announcement of much-needed new jobs and investment always puts a spring in the stride of the Business Secretary.

Add to that a subtle hint that we Liberal Democrats might trade off the 50p tax rate that raises millions for a proper wealth tax that raises billions.

And then SOMEONE leaked a letter showing our Vince is the "Man of Vision", with a policy for social market intervention that will make George Osborne's head explode.

(And it's usually Fantastic Doctor Fox who does that!)



Many people with large property portfolios don't even NEED a large income so they don't pay lots of income tax. And with 5% of the population owning more of the wealth than the other 95% put together, it is surely fairer to ask them to contribute a bigger share.

But even before we GET to fairness, there is a good ECONOMIC case for taxing WEALTH. At a time when the economy is crying out for INVESTMENT in jobs and businesses, far too much of the nation's money is being LOCKED AWAY in PROPERTY.

That's a simple consequence of SUPPLY and DEMAND – years of planning restrictions and under-investment in housing stock means that demand for houses outstrips supply, forcing up prices. The Hard Labour Government was more than indulgent of this dangerous house price bubble; in fact, most of their so called economic policy rested on convincing people that the rise in house prices meant that they were getting richer as an excuse to keep on borrowing. Not that the Conservatory government of the Nineties and Eighties was any less guilty of encouraging house price speculation with their selling off council houses on the cheap and nation of homeowners rhetoric.

With governments of both old-Party persuasions tacitly conniving in the housing inflation, property becomes an investment that is, self-evidently, safe as houses. And BANKS prefer to lend mortgages (with a nicely-guaranteed-to-retain-its-value property to secure the loan) than business loans (which are risky in the current post-crash climate).

BUT if people had to spend LESS on just keeping a roof over their heads they would have MORE to put into investments, savings, pensions or just plain old spending – all of which are GOOD for economic growth in a way that makes locking it all away in bricks and mortar look deeply UNHEALTHY.



Now, obviously, there are DECADES of abuse laid up there, and one thing we DO NOT WANT is a property price crash to leave people with NEGATIVE EQUITY. So the government has to tread terribly softly here.

What a MANSION TAX would do is put some GENTLE pressure on house prices at the upper end while at the same time UNLOCKING some of that locked-away capital.

Meanwhile we SHOULD look at the bottom end of the house market too, because the OTHER big contributor to the swelling of the housing bubble has been the indulgent way that Housing Benefit – a benefit that benefits LANDLORDS way more than people in the house – was treated by successive governments. Daddy Alex has – quite rightly – suggested that we should be looking again at proper RENT CONTROLS.

It certainly should not be substantially more expensive to pay the rent than a mortgage on the same property – a practice that leave the HAVES (as in "have the money for a deposit") sitting pretty on their buy-to-let mini empires while trapping the HAVE-NOTS in rental dependency forever.

The best possible outcome would be to engineer STABLE house prices while the rest of the economy GROWS to CATCH UP. If anyone DOES know how to do that, answers on a postcard to Danny Alexander at the Treasury.

In the meantime, probably best just build a lot of new homes.



(*Actually, it was a pretty decent day for Barry O, too, as Mr Mitt Morony continued to play the role of wounded MOOSE, floundering through another set of Primaries, limping to near-victories while the neo-creationist fruitloops continue to bite chunks out of his synthetic credibility.)

Day 4081: Man Who Has Never Seen Snow Demands Right to Define Skiing*

Sunday:



*Well, that's about as silly as a frock-wearing man who has vowed never to marry insisting against all sense and evidence that only he can define marriage.



Look, I'm just THRILLED to learn that the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS has penetrated the previously-entirely-inured-to-new-thinking sanctums of the Eternal Apostolic Catholic Church, prop Mr the Pope, but I think someone needs to inform the Holy Father's representative in Scotland, Mr Cardinal Keith – the aforementioned man in frock – that he can't just go making them up.

That's a little bit NAUGHTY.

Verging on the THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

For starters, it's a lovely idea that everyone has a Human Right to a mummy and a daddy – although I'm not completely sure that Mr the Pope will be okay with Cardinal Keith deciding that the immaculate conception was a breach of Mr Jesus's human rights.

Nor, I'm afraid, does article sixteen define "marriage" as between men and women. What it ACTUALLY says is that "men and women have a human right to marriage". So it does say that men have a right to marriage and women have a right to marriage. But it doesn't say that you need one of each to practise that right. Which is fair enough because some people – including some Christians and some Muslims – have believed in having, for example, more than one woman in a marriage. And we couldn't go condemning people just for their weird religious beliefs, could we!

On the other fluffy foot, I do not think that Cardinal Keith has entirely thought through his insistence that it is not for the State to define marriage. After all, the Vatican is a State.

Day 4078: Why Don't We Just Tax Chutzpah?

Thursday:



Warming up to take a pop at our own tax policy, I'm reassured to see that the Conservatories continue to be driven into conniptions over the 50p tax rate, this week with another group of concerned businesspersons contacting the Hello-o-graph to express their anxiety that rich people contributing to the coffers and not being driven to leave the country is in some way bad.

Still, you've got to be impressed by their CHEEK!

"We believe the richest should help the poorest in society..." they say. Before demanding to help just that little bit less.

Here's a DIFFERENT taxing idea instead: LOWER the threshold of the 50% band to £140,000 as we raise the personal allowance to £10,000 and get rid of the withdrawal of personal allowance – a tax cut for the rich paid for by the richer, and a more HONEST and TRANSPARENT way of raising the tax from the most well off.

Day 4077: True Fact

Wednesday:

From Blogger Pictures

It's been a bit heavy going at work this month – that's Daddy Richard's excuse AGAIN. So, sorry to all my readers for another month of light blogging. Here's some of what we missed...

Day 4073: Workfare? Workfoul?

Saturday:

It's entirely voluntary and the idea is supposed to be to give young people the experience of holding down a job, of getting up in the morning, of working as part of a team and so on. Just without the experience of GETTING PAID FOR IT.

I have listened to the lovely Sarah Teather defending this government scheme, and pointing out that 50% of people who try it out DO go on to get a proper job afterwards. And I've heard that the scheme is terribly popular and that people are desperate to get on it. But with record youth unemployment, YOU'D be desperate for anything that might give you an edge too, wouldn't you. And I just can't get over the NIGGLING feeling that we have MINIMUM WAGE legislation in this country for a REASON.

We already know that the minimum wage is set TOO LOW. Otherwise why do we need to have WORKING TAX CREDITS? Surely we all know that these were not just the moody monomaniac's compulsion to control who is and is not "deserving" but also Mr Frown's ADMISSION that he would rather make other taxpayers subsidise criminally low salaries than force his new chums in big business to pay a living wage. A win-win for the authoritarian friend of the millionaires!

And now we're letting them pay NOTHING and getting people to work for the price of their benefits.

OK, it's not "slave" labour because you can just walk away; but it is a BLEEDIN' LIBERTY!

If a job needs doing – and burgers DO need flipping, shelves DO need stacking – then it ought to be worth PAYING someone to do it. If your company is getting some desperate youth to do it while on the Job Seekers, then that's a PAYING JOB LOST.

Waterstones quits unpaid labour scheme
Matalan quits unpaid labour scheme
Tesco and Argos quit unpaid labour scheme
Greggs the Bakers quit unpaid labour scheme
Burger King quits unpaid labour scheme

Do you see a pattern developing here?

Day 4071: Subsidised Alcohol Leads to Brawl in Bar

Thursday:

Actually, the superficially-hilarious story of a Hard Labour MP going bananas and head-butting a Conservatory and then punching one of his own whips look like it might be a bit of a tragedy.

Mr Eric Joyce, the MP in question, looks like he might have gone off the rails after his wife left him. Or possibly vice versa. Either way, it looks like he could have done with a lot more care and attention from his colleagues before it got to this stage.

And let's not forget that WE didn't necessarily handle Charles Kennedy's drinking problem terribly well either.

So let's show a little compassion.

Ulysses

Day 4069: Greek Tragedy

Tuesday:

The impossible financial situation in Greece rumbled on. On the one fluffy foot, you can UNDERSTAND why the Euro-bankers might want everyone in the Greek Parliament to sign up to the latest rescue plan – with fresh elections on the way, the temptation must be for an opposition party to repudiate the deal and stand on a platform of abandoning the austerity. And they'd probably WIN. The next government will surely be tempted to default, meaning the bankers will lose all the money they're considering loaning to the current government. So OBVIOUSLY they want everyone to be as IMPLICATED as everyone else.

But on the other fluffy foot, the bailout loans are basically by-passing the Greek people and going straight back to the banks that loaned them too much money in the first place.

Anyway, the Greek government managed to pull itself together long enough to even more pain... and then the Euro-bankers kept them waiting another week before grudgingly agreeing to hand over the cash rather than let the mother of democracy go bust. Which was nice.

Lots of people continued to opine that Greece will "obviously" have to leave the Euro, as though this makes any sense at all. ANY new Greek currency will fall through the floor faster than you can say TARTARUS, and leave them with raging hyper-inflation on top of their massive EURO-DENOMINATED debts. The problem for the Eurozone remains, as I've said before, north-European (especially German) reluctance to take some responsibility for the economic disparities and agree to GIVE MONEY to the poorer parts of the continent.

Unsurprisingly, the Greeks responded to this with the now the traditional riots.

2008 Riots
2010 Riots
2011 Riots
2011 Riots again
2012 Riots
2013 Future Riots

Day 4065: Abu Qatada Crisis – Home Secretary Deported By Mistake

Friday:

Confusion still seems to abound concerning why we can't just send a man who has been convicted of no crime to a country where they probably obtained the evidence against him by torturing some other people until they were willing to say anything. I'll spell it out for you: BECAUSE IT IS WRONG!

I'm sure it won't be long before some MORON comes along saying "what about the human rights of our womens and childrens"... oh, look, here comes the egregious Conservatory idiot Mr Peter Bonehead to say "What about the human rights of all our citizens - our men and women and children?"

Listen, numbskull, the thing about Universal Human Rights is that they're either Universal or they're worthless. Once you start making EXCEPTIONS for SPECIAL CASES then you open the door to letting any Tom, Dictator or Harry say that YOUR human rights are a SPECIAL CASE. Immediately before applying the electrodes.

Thankfully we've got a Liberal Democrat like Lord Alec Carlisle to say: "It is extraordinary that this man should remain in the United—" oh for fluff's sake.

Look, I have no doubt that Mr Qatada is a VERY BAD MAN. Which is surely all the more reason to KEEP HIM HERE where we can KEEP AN EYE ON HIM rather than just booting him out of the country and hoping that he'll be somebody else's problem. If he breaks the law, prosecute him and send him to prison. And if he doesn't... then what's the problem?

And now we learn that the government – the first government with PROPER LIBERALS IN for almost a century – wants to tinker with the Human Rights Convention.

Right now, we are begging the Syrian government to stop blowing up their own citizens, and trying to persuade the Chinese to be a bit less brutal, and MPs are going to debate Bad Vlad and the Russians' human rights record. So we WANT these people to look to the human rights court – the court that WE, Great Britain, were PROUD to set up following World War Part Two – and we WANT them to see responsible countries – like, maybe, US – obeying the rulings of the court. Because that way maybe EVERYONE gets a few more human rights. So are we REALLY choosing NOW to start bad-wording about with the court? Please tell me this is a BAD CHEESE DREAM!

Qatada released
May Sent to Jordan
Russian Rights
British Wrongs

Day 4063: Without a Prayer

Wednesday:

Lady Insider Warsi and definitely-not-a-lady Eric Pickled and man-in-a-frock (or is he a lady?) Mr Lord Canary all rush to the defence of the poor Christians who are being oppressed by a court ruling that no they cannot use the council agenda to COMPEL non-Christians to attend prayers. Shockingly, if they want to talk to their invisible friend they are completely free to do so so long as they do it in their own time and don't make other people join in. In her Valentine to Mr the Pope, Lady Warsi said this was up there with the invasion of Poland. Someone should have reminded her to not mention the War.

And THEN Mrs the Queen barrels in, reminding us all how LUCKY we are to have an established Church to defend the rights of anyone who wants to believe in religion. 'Cos I'm SURE that's how it works, and I for one look forward to seeing Brenda standing up for someone's right to conduct a black mass...

Warsi
Pickled
Canary
Council
Queen

From Blogger Pictures

Day 4062: A Negative Outlook

Valentine's Day

I know I'm always on about Mr Bully Balls shooting his mouth off, but this month he really took the biscuit. AGAIN.

When the credit rating agency Moody's put Great Britain on a WARNING that we might be downgraded from our Triple-A risk rating if Master Gideon doesn't stick tight to his austerity programme, the Shadow Chancer took to the airwaves to announce this was a sign that Master Gideon should, er, abandon his austerity plan.

Basically, Moody's said "take one step closer to Mr Balls' position and we shoot you". Which Mr Balls took as an endorsement. And did any of the interviewers ask him about this blatant contradiction? GET A CLUE!

Moody's
Balls

Day 4056: South Atlantic Sabre Rattling

Wednesday:

Apparently sending a PRINCE and a BOAT to the Falklands counts as a "dangerous militarisation". At least that is what the President of Argentina is to complain to the United Nations about. Mind you, according to the BBC's then-and-now comparison, it looks like these days the Falklands would stand a better chance of taking Argentina if the islanders invaded them. Fortunately, the Argentinians have Oscar-winning Sean the Sheep on their side. So that's all right then.

Accusation
Comparison
Actor

Day 4050: A Liberal Woman's Place is… IN THE CABINET!

Thursday:



The Crown Persecution Service have announced that they're to make an announcement about the case of Mr Huhney-Monster, and ALREADY the SPECULATION has started on who's going to succeed him assuming he has to do the walk of SHAME.

We love Mr Ed. We love Mr David Outlaws. But if –I only say IF – this IS the end of the road for the Huhney-Monster, then couldn't we at least PRETEND to consider one of the EXCELLENT candidates of the LADY persuasion?

Sparkling Ms Lynne Featherweight; lovely Sarah Teather; could it even be time for Ms Jo Winsome? (Yes, that's a BIG jump straight to cabinet but, you know… Jo WINSOME!)

Let's be CLEAR: these three are NO ONE's TOKEN woman. Yes, it would be HUGELY helpful to have one (or MORE!) of them in the Cabinet as a role model and to show how SERIOUSLY we take promoting women within the party. BUT by ANYONE'S reckoning, they are ALL among the BEST and BRIGHTEST that the Party has to offer, regardless of whereabouts they keep their reproductive organs!

Ms Lynne, Queen of the Lib Dem Blog-o-sphere, is surely the BEST candidate. She's carved out a HUGE role in the Home Office, demonstrating the ability to drive through the LIBERAL agenda, and even persuading Ms Teresa May-Not of the case for diversity and equality.

Lovely Sarah is the me-sized dynamo who has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to hold her Brent seat against insane odds (up to and including her own sense of humour), who has ALSO been key to delivery of the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge on the PUPIL PREMIUM.

And as for tireless campaigner Jo Winsome… ANYONE who has met her will tell you she's AWESOME, an absolute star, destined for great things, and – so long as Scotland doesn't do anything DAFT like wandering off towards independence – a sure bet for future leadership. She's also a mate of my Daddies, so not at all biased there!

Anyway, they're all TOP MPs.

So COME ON, Cap'n Clegg! Do the RIGHT THING and increase our Cabinet Gender-balance by INFINITY PERCENT!

'Cos sometimes, only a woman will do.
.

Day 4045: Dr Sentimoo's Birthday Message for Daddy!

Saturday:



Welcome to extreme old age, Daddy Richard (he's like four BILLION and one, or something).

And what better way to start a special day than by listening to the news that the Arch-bigot of York [warning: contains Telegraph] is once again trying to IMPOSE his BIBLICAL view on gay daddies getting married.

Putting the DICK into DICTATOR, the purple-frocked DESPOT says: "I don't think it is the role of the state."

So, you'll be giving up that SEAT in the LEGISLATURE then, your worship?

Quick check for the COMPLETELY-DETACHED-FROM-REALITY: WE are behaving like a DICTATORSHIP because the Government ACCEPTS the will of the people and PROTECTS the interests of minorities like gay daddies.

And YOU want people to obey your commands?

There's some old proverb about "sticks" and "eyes", I don't really remember… maybe a biblical scholar like the Arch-bigot could remind me.

(And if it's the BIBLICAL TRADITION he wants, then I'm sure he won't mind standing still while we STONE him for WRITING an ARTICLE on the SABBATH.)



And then we hear, on the radio, the Ever-so-Reverend Richard Communard cooing over atheist philosopher, and designer of the All New Tower of Babel, Mr Alain de Fluffy-Bottom for his new book "All the Good Things you can get out of Religion".

"The thing about religions is that they allow you to organise doing good," suggests Mr de Fluffy-Bottom.

"Ooh," perks up the Reverend Communard, "do you think it's that we're lacking this "organised goodness" that leads to such OUTRAGES like city bankers and their bonuses?"

Because thank HEAVEN we would never get a bunch as CORRUPT and MURDEROUS as the BORGIAs or the MEDICIs creaming off riches at the top of the pile under and organised religion. And thank the LORD that a criminal fraternity like the MAFIA could never arise in a GOD-FEARING country. If only GODLESS Britain could benefit from such a society!

More seriously, it's clear that HUMAN BEANS like to make ORGANISATIONS (whether that is TRIBES or CITIES or CORPORATIONS or complicated belief systems involving INVISIBLE UNICORNS. Or whatever.)

These organisations are ALL in some way "organised goodness" and they are ALL subject to being CORRUPTED by wicked people. This is why Liberals believe in WORKING TOGETHER with others but remain WARY of power structures and favour DISBURSING power to people.

The goodness of religion is that it brings people together, but the DANGER is that it hands the POWER TO BULLY to people like Dr Sentimoo.
.

Day 4044: Duck and Cover! This Asteroid is Close Enough to Land a Lego Man on It!

Friday:



If you're reading this at all, then snappily-named asteroid 2012-BX34 has probably NOT smashed into the Earth obliterating what we laughingly describe as "civilisation".

Or possibly: "hello to our new cockroach overlords!"

Anyway, just time before closest approach / impact at 1600 GMT to congratulate the Canadian students who managed to get a man into space. OK, he was a LEGO man, but you can't not give 'em credit for that!

And while I'm talking SPACE, if you STILL need convincing about a British Space Programme... do you REALLY want the NEO-CONS turning the MOON into a DEATH STAR?!

Run VT!


.

Day 4043: Yes to Help for Low Earners, But We NEED to Help the No-Earners Too!

Thursday:



Today, Cap'n Clegg will be calling on Master Gideon to ACCELERATE the increases in personal allowance, giving lower and medium earners more of their money back SOONER (paid for by taking MORE tax from the better off).

This is a GOOD idea. It's giving money back to the people who are most likely to spend it, and more spending will help with the woes of a shrinking economy and falling high street sales.

But cutting taxes for people IN work DOESN'T help the growing numbers of people OUT of work. People we seem to be ATTACKING rather than HELPING.



Like many of my Liberal Democrat friends, I got an e-mail this morning from Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable, was by way of a TRAILER for Cap'n Clegg's speech, telling me he is PROUD of the Coalition's commitment to increasing the tax allowance to £10,000.

I WISH I could take PRIDE in this Coalition, but I'm afraid the best I can manage is a sort of NUMBING of the GNAWING HORROR that we are barely taking the edge off the Conservatories' aggressive right-wing agenda.

This sort of thing can't convince me we're doing the RIGHT thing; merely that we're trying to do the LEAST WRONG thing.

(Well that and that the ONLY thing WORSE would have been propping up the AUTHORITARIAN LUNACY of a discredited and economically illiterate HARD LABOUR Party!)

So while you are considering Mr Vince's e-mail, can I also direct your attention to THESE THOUGHTS written by our friend Mr Simon.

Now, I confess that my first reaction was DEFENSIVE – a LOT of my first reactions are defensive these days; I wonder if I'm developing STOCKHOLM SYNDROME – responding to a story about bullying Job Centre staff with the thought "well, would that REALLY have been any different under the LAST government?" In fact, I'm sure we can all get out the DVDs that show that this sort of thing has been in currency since the last Conservatory recession. In fact, probably since the one BEFORE THAT!

And with the increasingly CONTROVERSIAL Welfare Bill still actually in Parliament (and hence all over the news), surely we can't be blamed for how the Law stands just YET – this is still HARD LABOUR's law of demanding people get back to work because of Mr Frown's PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, not the Conservatory law of, er, demanding people get back to work because of Mr Iain Drunken-Swerve's VICTORIAN VALUES.

But read on!

Because what Mr Simon has to say about MESSAGE and TONE is frightening and true. The messages that are spilling from the Conservatory part of the Coalition – aided and abetted by the frothing venom of the newspapers – are all about VICTIM BLAMING and a VILIFICATION of the NOT WELL OFF.

And so long as we continue to use the words "hard working families" we're SUPPORTING this TOO and that is WRONG with a capital WRONG.

It does not MATTER that Cap'n Clegg assures us that he means "hard-working" in a BROADER sense; it's still using the word WORKING. It implicitly says "and not working equals BAD".

There are two things to say to this:

FIRST: people who are out of work and looking for work – especially when there is NO WORK – do NOT need the extra grief of getting it in the neck all the time.

SECOND: people who are out of work and not looking for work – good luck to 'em. It is NOT the business of government to MAKE people live their lives any particular way and it is COMPLETELY HYPOCRITICAL of the Conservatories to laud as "bold entrepreneurs" the wunch of bankers who get government support while decrying as "scroungers" the bunch of people getting government support because they're not employed any more.

If you WANT help to get back to work then the government should give it, but if you DON'T and if you can live on sixty-seven squids a week then frankly you deserve a NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS and not more rude words from people who couldn't get elected against the worst Labour government in History!

(And since I've been saying for AGES that I would support a flat Citizen's Income if only I could make the maths add up – the problem remains the disproportional effect of Housing Benefit in a housing market that is still massively over-inflated, which is why that's proving such a botherer in the current debate about a "cap" on benefits – and I would be the hypocrite to say anything else now.)

There is very little fraud in the Benefits system, and I bet that any there is is more than cancelled out by people doing THEMSELVES out of Benefits because the whole business is too darn complicated.

And because of that, the PLAN was a GOOD plan to SIMPLIFY the benefits into one, and to change the way benefits are taken away as you get into paid work, the so-called "taper", so that working does always pay.

But at a time of massive fiscal contraction that was always going to be difficult to do FAIRLY (and I THOUGHT Mr Drunken-Swerve had got extra money from the Treasury to make the transition more PAINLESS) and doing it at the same time as trying to cut projected benefit payments is WILDLY DODGY!

(Even though that's a not-increasing-the-total-payments-by-20%-like -wot-Labour-said-they-were-planning sort of "cut" i.e. a not cutting but not increasing either sort of cut – or a letting INFLATION inflict the PAIN for you sort of cut, if you prefer.)

But we DID win the fight to make Chancer Osborne increase benefits – not just pensions, but ALL the main benefits – in line with the 5.2% Inflation in September this year when he wanted to use a lower number. Which on the one fluffy foot is a GOOD THING because it's hard enough to live on benefits as it is; but on the other fluffy foot focuses the problem on cutting NUMBERS, because you can only cut the OVERALL Benefit bill by cutting the AMOUNT that people get OR the NUMBERS of people getting it.

Which gets us to the aggressive approach to job centre staffing.

The government spends something like three quarters of a TRILLION pounds and about a THIRD of it goes on the NHS and about another third goes on the benefit bill. If you've sworn not to cut the money to the NHS, then there really is NOWHERE ELSE to cut than the benefit bill. And THEN most of the benefits are actually PENSIONS. You can't cut THEM either – even if it weren't political suicide to piss off the "grey vote", EVERYONE hopes they're going to end up a pensioner one day. The great UNSAYABLE of British politics is to suggest a freeze in pensions or freeze of the NHS, 'cos that's where all the money REALLY goes.

But if you CAN'T freeze those, well, you can see how more and more of the cuts get focused on the segment called "in work benefits" which our Conservatory (AND Hard Labour!) masters appear to think should be called "ought to be in work" benefits.

Quite simply, there is NO WAY to make this add to fair treatment.



At the moment there is BIG BLAME BATTLE going on.

Hard Labour, for obviously self-serving reasons, have been pushing HARD – and with some success – the idea that it was gambling by bankers that trashed the economy.

(Though, of course, that's only HALF the story: what the bankers were gambling ON was that millions and millions of ordinary people would carry on borrowing to fund lifestyles in excess of what they were earning, egged on by a government that was borrowing to fund a lifestyle in excess of what the whole economy was earning.)

In return, the Conservatories (and us!) have with even greater success pinned a lot of the blame for the CRASH on Hard Labour. But the blame for the ONGOING pain... that's more difficult to explain.

(Particularly since a LOT of people are feeling the "double whammy" of the economy grinding to a halt at a time when they have huge debts. The answer "well that's your fault" not being very conducive to re-election.)

Inevitably, we turn to the very human way of excusing ourselves for the pain that we are causing. By BLAMING the very people on whom the burden falls heaviest.

And then BOTH sides take a pop at the IMMIGRANTS!

It's got to STOP.



We should make the benefit system simpler, that's a given.

We should make it more generous too, but we can't get the money.

(Sure, we could talk about mansion taxes and no corporation tax cut, but we won't get them past the Conservatories and we can't cut MORE from anywhere else! And borrowing is RIGHT OUT!)

So let's talk about what we CAN do which is change the LANGUAGE.

'Cos no one is a "scrounger". They are all future entrepreneurs. Or future artists. Or future teachers.

Mr Balloon needs reminding that his BIG SOCIETY depends on people who AREN'T GETTING PAID: volunteers, or carers. Or at the root of it, your basic parents.

So as Liberal Democrats let's make it a CAMPAIGN to talk POSITIVELY about the people who aren't working because they haven't got work or aren't able to work. We can start with thinking of better words than "unemployed" or "job seekers". I've come up with the phrase "free sector" (as opposed to the "waged sector"), but you might think of something better.

And perhaps "families doing their best" instead of the wretched "hard-working families".

Yes, it might sound like political correctness, but if political correctness didn't work, we'd still be using the N word and Conservatories wouldn't talk about "death taxes".

In summary: let people get on with rebuilding their lives and they might start to rebuild the economy.


.

Day 4039: If this is an Answer what is the Question?

Sunday:



I see that Auntie Jennie and Mr Steven o' the Glenn have popped "The Question". No, no, no – THIS Question:

"What would you attempt if you knew you could not fail?"

Well, the answer depends on how much MAGIC you're investing into the phrase "could not fail".

Because if it's a what-would-you-do-but-lack-of-confidence-is-holding-you-back kind of "could not fail", then the answer is: "be a best-selling fantasy author".

But if this is a rub-the-lamp-and-get-three-wishes sort of "could not fail" then it's: "design and build a workable, affordable (non-polluting) faster than light space drive and initiate the human exploration of the galaxy".

In all honesty, it would be nice to see one Daddy elected to FPC and one elected to Parliament. Either way around would do.

But getting millions of people to read my writing would, hopefully, get the Liberal message into people's heads and get them THINKING about it better than yet another nice middle-class Daddy in the "Big Shouting Club". Or Parliament, for that matter.

But if we're going to get full on wishes, it's got to be travel to the stars, for exploration and colonisation. There is so much to see out there – you only have to watch Stargazing Live to know there is more to "ooh" and "ahh" at than even Professor Brian Cox can manage in one lifetime. And let's face it, there are practical reasons too. Even if we don't destroy the planet ourselves, the chances of an extinction level even in the next thousand to ten-thousand years are frighteningly high. Moving to first the Moon, and then Mars and maybe Europa (near Jupiter) and then ultimately somewhere Keppler 22-b like… it's the ultimate in NOT keeping all your EGGS in one PLANET.

And if the ROMANCE doesn't convince you and the SELF-PRESERVATION doesn't sell you on space, then let's go all HAN SOLO and think about the MONEY. There is an asteroid up there called Eros containing precious metals to the value of TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS. That's the world economic crisis sorted right there; that's all the banks AND the Euro bailed out tomorrow. And that's just one of the NEARBY ones!

The exploration of space can ENRICH us AND make us RICH at the same time.

So if it couldn't fail, THAT's what I'D do.
.

Day 4035: Bojo May Be Bonkers But At Least He Thinks Big

Wednesday:



Obviously, Great Britain needs an airport in the Thames Estuary like a hole in the wind farm, but you can't deny that it is a BIG IDEA. Stupid, yes, but BIG.

In its way, this is of a piece with the bicycle hire scheme and the new Routemaster buses. Mr Bojo may be CLOWN PRINCE of LONDON, but he's not interested in MANAGERIALISM. He wants to DO things, CREATE things. In the HORRID modern parlance, he's got his eye on the "LEGACY".

And this may be the key to his SUCCESS. Well, that and the "loveable" bumbling buffoon persona!

(Something he has in common with his arch-enemy Mr Livingstone: they're both very clever men who know that people don't VOTE for very clever men, so both have successfully concocted "personalities" to hide how much of a smarty-pants they are.)

The arguments for a new airport for London appear to be of the "you've got to build bypasses" variety that gets Arthur Dent's house knocked down in "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". And, in case you missed the point, then gets the EARTH demolished too.

(One of the OVERLOOKED arguments in favour of the new High Speed rail link being extended to Manchester and Leeds is that it would REDUCE the numbers of environmentally catastrophic short-haul flights around the UK, easing pressure at Heathrow as a lucky consequence.)

But in the middle of all this on-going global economic gloom, a "GRAND PUBLIC WORK", something magnificent and mad and ever-so-slightly-Victorian has the ability to GRAB the public imagination in exactly the way that a shiny new written constitution DIDN'T!

And we need something like that, something so that people will say "oh, THAT'S what the Lib Dems are about".

Would a new Federal Parliament (subject to Mr Salmon losing his referendum) be too much of an indulgence? Yes, I suspect it would… but we could hold a competition for which city would host it. Mr Graham Norton could host "How Do You Solve a Problem Like West Lothian?"

Or perhaps a more local approach, with a free gift to every council for a bit of CIVIC PRIDE, whether it's putting LOOS in all the high streets or refurbishing all the Victorian Spa Baths so everyone has a swimming pool or just BULLDOZING those IDENTIKIT high streets and rebuilding something with character.

Personally, of course, I'm in favour of a BRITISH SPACE PROGRAMME. We're so very keen to encourage our young people into SCIENCE and ENGINEERING and Mr Professor Brian Cox and his Wonders of the Universe and Stargazing Live, space is as popular as it's ever been. A Space Programme would be encouragement and training all in one, with new technology being developed with who-knows-what side benefits.

Plus, I'm sure that the prospect of sending Mr Professor Brian into space so he can "ooh" and "ahh" from orbit is one that would appeal to millions.
.

Day 4034: Mr Holmes, It was the footprint of a GIGANTIC ELEPHANT!

Tuesday:



An update for those people who think the Curse of the BOTYs has got me at last.

Yah boo! Still here!

Daddy Richard has finished writing his book, or at least volume one (the madness never ends!). It is called "Anarchy Rules: Before Dawn". We might have a look at publishing it now. Some cover art would be nice, if anyone has any ideas. Something with chessboards, perhaps. And fractals.

We're also having a look at collecting my "Mysteries of Doctor Who" into a book as well. This involves Daddy writing some linking material, plus THREE bonus, never-before-published Mysteries, including the long-awaited answer to "What Does Timey-Wimey Mean?"

In the meantime, the Mister Moffster has knocked out another series of Sherlock. Like a deep fat fried Mars bar, it is DELICIOUS but you know it is WRONG. Why is it that these days no one seems to notice that the "scandal" in "A Scandal in Bohemia" is how Mr the King of Bohemia is treating Irene Adler and not the other way around! Honestly, it's not like Sherlock doesn't tell his majesty to basically bad-word off at the end!

At least Mr Gatiss's "Hounds of Baskerville" avoided the gender-fail of "A Scandal in Belgravia" by the expeditious method of ditching most of the female characters! (A bit of Pennant Roberts-style gender-reassignment helped cover this – making Dr Stapleton into a woman helped the back end look a bit less all male, although turning Dr Mortimer into a lady shrink barely troubled the scorers.)

Did Mr Steve Thompson's "Reichenbach Fall" redeem his "Blind Banker" from last year? I'll pass on that one. The cleverest bit, I thought, was the revelation that Moriarty WASN'T the "anti-Sherlock" after all, that in fact it was Jim who was the FAKE, using "magic tricks" to pretend that he had done something very clever indeed™ when actually it was just a case of bribing the right people. He used Sherlock's very cleverness – and the hope that he could have an equal – against him, so that too-clever-by-half Sherlock assumed that Moriarty was as brainy as he was and looked for a too-clever-by-half solution.

(Incidentally, did any "Faction Paradox" fans notice that the "key to everything" that turns out to be a canon by Bach is actually the Clockwork Ouroboros from "The Book of the War"? In an episode chock-full of Dr Who references – what, you didn't notice it was more "The Deadly Assassin" than "The Final Problem"? – I certainly didn't expect THAT one!)

And then Mr Moriarty shot himself. Yeah, right.

But speaking of suicides, we also had the spectacle of Hard Labour shooting itself in the head and missing its brain by six feet.

Really, I now have NO IDEA what Hard Labour's economic policy actually is. If it even exists. It seems that Hard Labour do not WANT their cake and are still going to EAT it.

Mr Balls says that he thinks Master Gideon is wrong and that's why he now agrees with him.

(Okay, he actually says he "won't be able" to reverse the cuts – but surely he COULD borrow more to reverse or partly reverse them; that's what he's been saying so far – borrow more, cut less. Now he says he CAN'T do that. This does seem like saying the Coalition were RIGHT but he doesn't want to take the blame.)

Mr Millipede's appearance on the Andy Marrmite show didn't make things any clearer when he seemed to say that he now opposes the cuts but he accepts them. They are wrong but he's not going to reverse them.

Still, if Hard Labour are going to ACCEPT the Conservatories' Cuts, at least the Liberal Democrats are still here to OPPOSE them. And thank goodness we are actually IN Government and able to DO something about it!

(Do you remember those thirteen years when Hard Labour were in Government and DIDN'T do anything about it? No? You may be suffering from "Millipede Syndrome" also known as "a pain in the Ed".)

And at least there are some signs that Captain Clegg IS opposing some of the more EGREGIOUS cuts.

I mean, for FLUFF's sake, what are we DOING supporting cuts to Disability Benefits? Isn't that taking "we're all in this together" to the illogical extreme! Surely a CIVILISED society would say that the very LAST people to lose their protections in a downturn should be the POORLY.

We can cope with cohabiting with PHILISTINES and IGNORAMUSES [warning: Daily Fail], but do we have to come across as SADISTS?!

SOME reforms of the Welfare State are long overdue (helping people INTO work is as important as helping them when they're OUT of work; never forget that IDLENESS was one of Mr Beverage's "Five Giants") but we're supposed to be bringing some COMPASSION to this Coalition.



Finally, it would take a heart of stone etc… on hearing that Monsieur Sarcastic the President of Franceland has had to suffer the indignity of being downgraded from Triple-A. Actually, the real tragedy is the downgrading of nine Eurozone countries, particularly Spain and Portugal, many of whom are working ever so hard to control their deficits, while struggling with spiralling unemployment, particularly among young people. These downgrades are a sign that the markets are increasingly EXPECTING a default, from Greece almost certainly, but probably from other Southern European countries too.

In other news, a huge cruise liner has hit the rocks off the Italian shore. It is difficult not to see this tragedy as a METAPHOR!
.

Day 4011: DOCTOR WHO: Forest Gump

Christmas Day:



And now for a very special sneak preview of NEXT YEAR'S Dr Woo Winterval Special…

"What could be more Christmassy than a James Bond film at Christmas," cackled the Mister Moffster as he penned the title of the 2012 Christmas Special:

"No Doctor You Only Live On Her Majesty's Secret Service From Russia With The Spy Who Loved Me Twice!"

Scene One: "Phew, that was close!" cried THE DOCTOR as the TARDIS flew within a gnat's whisker of the Copyright-Infringement-Lawyer-Bots from the planet Intellectual Property Six…"

Anyway, more of that next Christmas. Here's Daddy's review for this year…

Well, it's always nice to see a new writer and I'm happy that this Stephen Moffatt, author of light, character-driven comedy-drama such as "Press Gang" and "Joking Apart", has been chosen to replace the plot-twist-crazed fanboy farceur Steven Moffat who's been running the show for the past two years, the man behind such "reimaginings" as "Jekyll", "Sherlock" and, er, "Who".

It's hard not to think that there's just a touch of overcompensation, reacting to all the "Amy isn't behaving like a mother" criticism, in this Christmas paean to the power of "mum", which sees plucky Forties mother Madge Arwell seemingly take everything in her stride from the Doctor falling out of orbit into her path to Bill Bailey in a spacesuit melting an alien forest for battery acid.

(Pity he still feels the need to toss in a joke about "women drivers". "I'm respecting you… as a woman." Or possibly not.)

Okay, there are just a couple of dollops of timey-wimey added to the sugary mix.

The first is the Narnia-referencing "time goes faster across the dimensional barrier". Which means Mum coming looking for them doesn't entirely make sense, since if twenty minutes for Cyril in the forest translates to just a few seconds, then with the whole adventure taking less than an hour, Mum should not have had time to notice they were gone. (In fact, I'll see your "time passes differently there" and raise you a "What do they teach in schools these days?".)

The other is the way that Madge manages to create her own problems by retrospectively rescuing her husband from the 19th December which results in the telegram that leads her to believe this is the night he died which in turn leads to her rescuing him from the 19th December in a typical Moffat ontological paradox. (In fact, I'll see your "timey-wimey" and raise you a "just this once, everybody lives".)

But that aside, and it's hardly an original observation, it's surprising how linear this story is. Again, Moffat seems to be kicking against his reputation for convoluted story-telling. Although, I'd argue that this one could have done with just a little bit more non-linearity. For example, the story of Madge and the fallen Doctor could have appeared part way through, maybe told as a story to her children to cheer them up in the middle of the frightening forest. Because we start off knowing she helped him in a moment of need, we know why there's a great big present under the tree. In a story that's supposed to be about the sense of wonder, there's not a lot to wonder about.

In a lot of ways, though, what really undermines this story is the presence of the Doctor in it.

It's ironic, really, because the first fifteen to twenty minutes of the episode are a fantastic, frenetic explosion of joyous fun, relying almost entirely on the enormous talents of Matt Smith.

From the cheeky pre-title sequence (never mind the physics, feel the performance) doing "The Christmas Invasion" in under thirty seconds, to the hilarious backwards spacesuit (we see the back of Matt's hair-do just a beat before "I've gone blind!" – Alex laughed out loud, the first time in ages he's had the simple pleasure of genuinely enjoying current "Who" and so worth a million River Snogs; and when the Doctor checks himself out to see that he's not being put back together "backwards"… well, it's quite rude for Christmas!), to the tour of the house (we're genuinely not sure whether he doesn't understand stairs or he's done something to them that isn't working), right through to that huge present, it's all fast, funny and rather marvellous.

This is "Doctor Who" as sketch show, it's "The League of Gentlemen" without the grotesque, or "The Fast Show" with catchphrases "I've made some repairs" and "it's developed a fault" (where the Doctor clearly believes "I've made some repairs" to be synonymous with "I've made it do something bonkers" while Matt's ability to look puzzled and affronted each time he delivers the "it's developed a fault" line is a particular delight). It's probably the perfect form for Moffat the comedy-drama writer to write.

Where the story falters is when it needs to develop an actual plot.

We are, essentially, in classic children's tea-time serial territory: think "The Box of Delights", "The Phoenix and the Carpet" or, obviously, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" itself. The crucial thing about all these stories is that the protagonists are the children. Adults are either silly, unobservant creatures that blunder about doing "grown-up" things and missing the wonders that the children participate in, or occasionally slightly weird, wise figures who know what's really going on but choose not to interfere except to explain it all at the end.

There's an extent to which the Doctor (or "Caretaker") is being thrust into the latter role, a sort of Professor Digory Kirke (taking over from the absent Uncle Digby, no doubt). But he's too pro-active to accept the role. Of course, he's kind of a big kid himself, playing at being an uncle or a caretaker, but the big kid crowds out the little ones.

In a "proper" version of this story, the children would discover the house for themselves rather than being shown it; the children would both enter the magical wood unaccompanied by anyone to explain it to them; and the children would resolve the problem, rather than waiting for mum.

These stories were always about going out and experiencing; the children learned lessons, but they learned by doing.

In Moffat's version the two kids have very little to do beyond gawp. (Which, I hasten to add, they do very nicely. Both child actors are pretty good, actually, so why not give them something concrete to do?) Cyril "gets into trouble" by exploring the forest ("boy's stuff", watch that, Moffat – though to be fair, Lily was on her way to examine the box when the sound of the sonic distracted her) while Lily mostly gets to hold the Doctor's hand and quiver. (And say "Oh God, Oh God" – both Alex and I wondered whether a nicely brought-up girl from 1941 would blaspheme quite so easily).

The Doctor already has all the answers and babbles them out like Basil Exposition on speed. We've turned the story into one about the passive acceptance of data rather than the learning of stuff by trying.

"In a forest in a box in a sitting room, pay attention!" says the Doctor waspishly when Lily asks where they are, which is either a clever reference to Moffat's own earlier episode "Flesh and Stone" or a summary of everything that he's doing wrong.

Lily's question is not a stupid one, despite the way the Doctor snaps at her, and he's actually going to spend most of the rest of the episode explaining the actual answer.

The weak/strong female/male "mistranslation" is just as blunt and crass. Simply reversing a stupid generalisation does not of necessity make it any less stupid. As certain persons have recently learned. In 1988's "Remembrance of the Daleks", the intergalactic fascist pepperpots want someone imaginative and adaptable to power their battle computer so they use a girl. When the Daleks are doing better gender politics than you, it's time to stop and ask what you're doing wrong.

I can imagine a version of this story with much less Doctor in it. If we started with the evacuation (no need for cute lines about Uncle Digby being in a home – actually, if he is in a "home", why aren't the Arwells living in his house already?). The children explore the house, find weird stuff like the lemonade tap and the Christmas tree and discover the giant present. They both go inside, they each meet the forest people (great wooden statues, pity they didn't do anything, and did I really see the lovely Paul Kasey credited as "wooden queen"?!). Possibly they meet one each, and the King and Queen have conflicting agendas. And we only discover the Doctor near to the end because he's behind it all and probably the captive of one of the forest monarchs.

That's not the Moffat way, though, as he once again bends over backwards to try to write drama without conflict. The principal threat here is not from the impressive statues but from Bill Bailey and friends' intention to burn down the forest with acid rain. There isn't even a suggestion that they are bad for wanting to do this. As Alex puts it: it's OK to kill trees, because if you’re a hippie they’ll turn into stardust, because obviously that’s what trees really want. I'm not totally sure that's how photosynthesis works. (And this in a story where the Doctor has just blown up the Vogons one ship in orbit for merely pointing a gun and a loudhailer at the Earth.) They're just slightly inept, almost a pastiche of a "typical" Doctor Who space crew: "the cold captain", "the psycho security chief" and "the nice one" – think "Colony in Space" or "Kinda" or, gawdelpus, "Terror of the Vervoids". It's Doctor Who as sketch show again.

It's not much of a part, but it's quite nice to see Bill, and he does some great reaction shots. There's not a lot more for Unbound Doctor Arabella Weir to do either (and how's that for respecting her as a woman?), while Paul Bazely gets to mug like crazy and hang a lantern on this week's theme with his "mother issues".

(Oh, and their hand scanners are foiled by Madge's cardigan because it's made of "natural fibres". They're in a forest. I have to ask: do any of their platform's sensors work?)

And they tell us they're from Androzani Major.

Look, I don't have a problem with them being from Androzani Major, that's a nice touch. All too often the Doctor visits planets in one episode that are never heard of before or since; reminding us that this is all one Whoniverse is good, and of a kind with the Sense Sphere/Ood Sphere thing that Russell did.

And I don't mind "Androzani platform" for their vehicle, either. But "Androzani trees"? Given that they're from Androzani Major not on Androzani Major, isn't that a bit like us landing on, say, Beta Caprisis or Draconia Prime and saying "hey, these trees are impressive; let's call them Earth trees"?

(And on the subject of tree-based niggles – if you're CGI'ing a forest, surely you can manage more than one "sweeping over the panoramic vista" shot.)

Anyway, as I'm sure you know, this is a reference to Peter Davison's swansong: "The Cave of Androzani". (And the spacewalking without a spacesuit is a reference to the first story Peter recorded: "Four to Doomsday".)

"Caves" tells us there are five planets in the Sirius System. We're not on Major, nor Minor because we know what that looks like and it can't support forests because of the mudbursts. If you recall even further back, the Pertwee space opera "Frontier in Space" lets us know there are Commissioners from Sirius Four. That doesn't entirely rule out forests on Sirius Four as well, but suggests a terraformed planet rather than a Christmas tree world. Maybe this is Sirius 1 or Sirius 5 then.

I'm not quite sure how to get a handle on the character of Madge Arwell. Claire Skinner plays her as almost "simple", as though she has a wisdom of innocence, except in the "crying is useful" bit when she's suddenly sly. Certainly she pegs the Doctor with a single glance: possibly a spaceman, possibly an angel. The possibility of Doctor as fallen angel has been big this year (and, I'm afraid, not terribly well handled) so thankfully that's about all we get of it here. Instead, he's the Christmas genie, from the (box with a) lamp, granting wishes and not quite getting them right. I guess if you want a woman to play against this hyperactive child persona then the lead from "Outnumbered" is the first one you'd call.

The other guest star is Alexander Armstrong, who got to be slightly wasted in this while his comedy partner Ben Miller got to spend six months in the Caribbean filming "Death in Paradise". Who got the better deal, I wonder?

Matt however remains absolutely the star of this show. The moment when he turns on a sixpence to speak wisely to Madge about why her children should be allowed to be happy is key, as is the reversal at the end where she sends him to be happy with his "children" / "parents-in-law" Rory and Amy.

And the moment at the end, where he discovers he is capable of crying with happiness, for that, for Matt's expression and one gleaming tear, I'll forgive "humany-wumany". Eventually.

I do hope that he'll be staying longer than just one more year – the messages have been somewhat mixed recently, whether he's going to try his luck in Hollywood after another year of the Doctor or whether he's enjoying it just fine. Perhaps because of the interconnectedness of his stories, or because he hasn't had one "great" story yet a la "Human Nature", or possibly because he's only had Amy (with or without Rory) as companion he hardly seems to have been here any time at all. I think the news that Amy and Rory will be leaving in the next season is welcome (inasmuch as we all thought they'd left already!) because a new companion will make the lifespan of the eleventh Doctor feel that bit longer. And maybe persuade him to stay an extra year.

Someone very wise said that the difference between Moffat and Russell is that Moffat writes for his children, but Russell remembers being one. I think that nicely captures both Russell's habit of treating Doctor Who as the "biggest playroom evah" regardless of consequences for plot or character, and Moffat's flaw of – occasionally – writing down to his audience.

When he lets himself have free rein, as in the two episodes of "Sherlock" that he has written, Moffat's writing takes flight, it lifts in song almost, but exposes the deep flaws that he has regarding character, particularly, I'm afraid to say, women. Did he put so much soul into Lynda Day that he just can't do it any more?

"The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe" shows every sign of him making an effort to overcome those flaws, to write against his usual tropes (well, some of them) and produce a simpler, sweeter, kinder piece. That's courageous, even if it's not always completely successful. It starts off as seat-of-the-pants exciting as anything, but the effort to be nice means it rather goes off the boil in the second half. But it made Alex laugh, so top marks for that.

Next Time… Shockingly, not a dickey bird. Not even a title for the next episode! Come on, Moffat! Some of us have a template format to fill in, you know!

.