'Genius' George! Stop digging the hole! @ No 10

"Did you hear the noise of digging?!" Arturo asked.

"What are you on about? No one digs up the roads at the weekend!" I replied.

"That's what you think! 'Genius Georgy' Osborne - him next door - is digging a hole large enough to swallow the whole country! Just read these." He indicated a series of articles.

Britain's credit rating downgraded from AAA to Aa1: The Government’s economic strategy has been dealt a serious blow after a leading credit ratings agency downgraded UK debt on its expectation that growth will "remain sluggish over the next few years".

That was one headline in the Telegraph. James Hurley wrote:

Moody’s announced on Friday night that it had cut the Government’s bond rating one notch from ‘Aaa’ – the highest possible level – to ‘Aa1’.

The move is a significant setback for Chancellor George Osborne, who has faced criticism that his strategy for dealing with UK’s huge debt burden is failing to deliver.

Hurley added the following comment:

Mr Osborne responded to the downgrade by insisting he would not change course on the Government’s austerity programme.

He called Moody’s decision a “stark reminder of the debt problems facing our country – and the clearest possible warning to anyone who thinks we can run away from dealing with those problems”.

“Far from weakening our resolve to deliver our economic recovery plan, this decision redoubles it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9889410/Britains-credit-rating-downgraded-from-AAA-to-Aa1.html

Well, well, well!! There's a fine howdy-do! Just think about it, for a minute or two. Imagine a man observing a small hole that has appeared at one corner of his house. He decides to investigate. He digs up the earth in front, then starts digging down and under the wall. "Hey!! Don't do that, the house looks pretty unstable already", someone shouts from behind him. "It's fine", shouts the man, spade in hand. "I know exactly what I'm doing." He continues digging with zest! Crunch - Crunch - Bang! Down falls the side of the house!

That is basically the scenario the Telegraph article has reported. 'Genius Georgy' Osborne saw a hole in the UK economy, so he began digging! Various agencies shouted warnings. He replied he had a 'plan' and would not deviate from it. The hole got bigger - Osborne still stuck to his plan. The walls are now crumbling. Still he is digging!

Patrick Hennessy, also in the Telegraph, wrote:

Mr Osborne insisted that the Coalition will not change course on the economy, saying the downgrade made it all the more important to stick to attempts to cut Britain’s deficit.

He said: "I think we've got a very clear message, a loud and clear message that Britain cannot let up in dealing with its debts, dealing with its problems, cannot let up in making sure that Britain can pay its way in the world.

"Britain's got a debt problem. I agree with that. I've been telling the country for years that we've got a debt problem, we've got to deal with it.

"What do they also say? That if we abandon our commitment to deal with that debt problem, then our situation would get very much worse and I'm absolutely clear that we must not do that."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9889605/George-Osborne-no-let-up-in-plan-to-cut-deficit-after-AAA-downgrade.html

'Genius Georgy' Osborne is in trouble! That is plain for all to see. His Plan A is not working. The walls are really cracking around him. If he doesn't find a Plan A1 or Plan B, then no doubt Moody's will cut their rating still more. The UK will not be AAA or AA1 it will be in free-fall! When you're in a hole, 'Genius George', the sensible thing to do is STOP DIGGING!

Georgy has a Budget coming up! Will he be still digging? Wait for the next exciting instalment, folks!

Meanwhile - Arturo and I are fine dining tonight - left-overs from the caviar tea!

Bye

Where's the beef? @ No. 10

With all the horse-meat kerfuffle going on, Arturo and I have been busy examining every morsel of meat from both the No 11 and No 10 kitchens. Arturo swears he sniffed a whiff of horse-meat from the spaghetti bolognese leftovers put out for me by the cook!! But to cut to the chase, as they say! And I don't mean a steeplechase either! It isn't just beef that's occupied our minds, no siree!

On Valentine's Day, I perused the Guardian and spotted a letter from several academics. They had written about 'Child poverty measures'. What they wrote made both Arturo and me sit up. They wrote:

Tomorrow marks the end of the consultation period for the government's proposals to measure child poverty in a new way. Several of us, fellows of the British Academy, with colleagues, have responded, pointing out the ways in which the proposals are confused and would meet neither the government's objectives nor international standards.

We agree that as well as tracking how many children are in poverty as currently measured, it is helpful to track what is happening to the factors that lead to poverty and the barriers to children's life chances. But it does not make sense to combine all of these into a single measure. To do so would open up the government to the accusation that it aims to dilute the importance of income in monitoring the extent of "poverty" at precisely the time that its policies will be reducing the real incomes of poor families. We call on the government to reconsider its proposals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/14/child-poverty-government-measures

In the same edition of the Guardian, there was an article on the topic written by Amelia Gentleman. She wrote:

A consultation on how to measure child poverty more accurately that was launched last November, seeking input from charities and experts into "better measures of child poverty", comes to an end on Friday. The government believes that a wider definition of what constitutes poverty will give a better picture of what it means to "grow up experiencing deep disadvantage".

She quotes from the academics' letter and then goes on to add:

Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, the lead consultant on the UK's contribution to Unicef's Child Well-Being report, said he believed that the government was "trying to move the goalposts" at a time when child poverty was increasing rapidly.

He described the consultation document as the worst paper setting down government policy direction he had ever read, questioned whether it was written by civil servants and said it read more like it had been "plagiarised from a right-wing thinktank tract".

Further on, in her article, Amelia Gentleman writes:

In a speech to launch the consultation, Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, outlined his theory that other factors aside from money caused poverty, highlighting his concern about children growing up in "dysfunctional families".

He argued: "It cannot be right that experiences so vital to childhood, like seeing a parent go out to work or growing up in a stable family, are not reflected in our understanding of child poverty." He was critical of the Labour government's focus on "income as the significant cause and solution".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/14/child-poverty-ministers-downplaying-importance-income

"Ay! Ay!", Arturo said, "What's old 'Silent Man' Iain Duncan Smith up to? He may pretend he has one - but he's no 'bleeding heart' Tory! He cries crocodile tears!"

Arturo usually knows his onions! So I decided to look into the matter a bit more. I discovered that as far back as November 2012, Amelia Gentleman had been writing about this self-same issue. In the Guardian, at that time, she quoted several experts who had strong misgivings about the proposal to re-define 'child poverty'. She wrote:

Poverty-fighting charities have expressed unease about the government's argument that shortage of money is not the most significant cause of poverty, but the launch of the CSJ's research project is set to bolster the shift in thinking at the heart of government.

... Imran Hussain, head of policy at the Child Poverty Action Group, said he was not convinced that a better understanding of family breakdown was key to understanding poverty. "In other countries where you have less inequality, and decent benefits and good social protection, typically Scandinavian countries, then family breakdown doesn't lead to poverty."

... For Professor John Hills, an inequality expert at the LSE, it is simply a question of balance. "It is not that acute problems of addiction or family disruption are not major problems in people's lives and are not among the causes of people having low incomes; the problem is in suggesting that these are the main drivers."

He wondered if having a debate over poverty definitions would have a muddying effect, at a time when poverty levels are set to rise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/28/child-poverty-debate-conservatives-analysis

Now, we know that the Coalition is not quite as cohesive as it once pretended to be. The LibDems and the Tories are both aching to win the Eastleigh by-election. Maybe, just maybe, the issue of defining child poverty will widen the gap. Who knows? If it doesn't - questions will have to be asked about how effective their 'softening approach' is on the 'hard-hearted' Tories!! Arturo thinks there's more mileage in the topic. I'm sure he's right.

Another little detail has exercised my mind, this week. It's not that I'm jealous, you understand! But - how come that lazy so-and-so upstairs - Larry - was chosen to receive a cuddly toy tiger from the London Zoological Society? And how did I get to hear of it? On Twitter!!!

Photo: Larry the cat's new toy shows he supports the @ZSLLondonZoo campaign to support Sumatran tiger conservation http://ow.ly/hKPyQ

http://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/8475293281/in/set-72157632774162186

Arturo and I are off to sniff out whether it's beef or horse-meat for dinner tonight.

Bye

Debt & Deficit: Ignorance @ No. 10

"What price an Eton education now, mi old pal?" Arturo asked rather too gleefully, I thought. He gestured at a nearby laptop screen. It was 'The Green Benches' blog written by Dr Eoin Clarke. The particular blog post had the headline:

UK Statistics boss slams David Cameron's lies on the National Debt

'Lies'! I don't know whether that was the correct description of the Prime Minister's words. I rather think, as did Arturo, that it was just plain, old-fashioned ignorance! You must decide for yourself which is more apt. Of course, there is also the possibility that it might just be plain old politics!

So how did all this come about, you may ask? Well, Rowena Mason, Political Correspondent, of the Telegraph gave the basic details in an article headed:

David Cameron given a lecture on 'debt' and 'deficit' by top statistics official: David Cameron has been taught the difference between "debt" and "deficit" by Britain's top statistics official, after he was accused of confusing the two economic terms.

It seems that the circumstances were as follows:

The Prime Minister was issued with the explanation by the UK Statistics Authority, after he claimed in a Conservative Party political broadcast that "we are paying down Britain’s debts.”

Oh Dear! After all that expensive education! How the Eton masters must be holding their heads in despair! Won't do the recruitment figures much good, will it? They must be praying that the Eton educated 'Georgy' Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, does know how many pennies make a pound!

Besides the issue of definitions! What about the syntax? 'paying down' is not the sort of phraseology that my old English teacher would have countenanced! What do you think? Do you 'pay down' your debts? I just 'pay' my debts! Possibly, I am missing some fine innuendo here - is there some poetic meaning in 'paying down'?

Rowena Mason went on to elucidate the issue, in her article:

The definitions:

Public sector net debt

A measure of how much the UK public sector owes at a given time.

Public sector net borrowing

The difference between total accrued receipts and total accrued (current and capital) expenditure over a specified period; this measure is frequently used by commentators to summarise the extent of any public sector ‘deficit’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9842553/David-Cameron-given-a-lecture-on-debt-and-deficit-by-top-statistics-official.html

Now that is clear enough isn't it? Perhaps, however, you might like to read the whole letter that Andrew Dilnot, Chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, wrote to Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She had asked him to:

"bring some clarity to the situation and advise on how we can ensure that in the future debate on the national debt is accurate and based on the facts".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9842553/David-Cameron-given-a-lecture-on-debt-and-deficit-by-top-statistics-official.html

The whole letter can be found at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123331735/Dilnot-to-Reeves

In relation to 'Boy David' Cameron's statement that "we are paying down Britain’s debts”, it is worth noting the following graph in the Annex to Mr Dilnot's letter:

:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123331735/Dilnot-to-Reeves

Oh dear! It seems that the idea of 'paying DOWN' has gone somewhat awry! In the circumstances, I do rather like the final line in Mr Dilnot's letter:

I am copying this to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff at 10 Downing Street

A delicate touch, don't you think? Certainly it kept old Arturo cheerful for a whole day! He's been pawing his way through various Dictionaries of Economics with evident gusto!

As for me, I've been scouring round the upstairs kitchen whilst the PM is away in Africa. Came across several dainty morsels of discarded pizza. I hope they're more recent than the rowdy pizza-fest at Davos! Anyway, Arturo and I are going to eat them tonight!

Bye

Progress! Who needs failure? @ No 10

Yesterday on BBC television, commenting on the latest UK borrowing figures, a certain David 'Hairy-Eyebrows' Gauke MP for South West Hertfordshire and Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury spoke out. He said that

"we have made some progress in reducing borrowing but we've still got a long way to go".

http://www.politicshome.com

As I was listening to 'Hairy-Eyebrows' Gauke, Arturo pointed to a Telegraph headline in the Finance section that said:

UK public borrowing rises in December threatening AAA rating: Britain's government borrowed more than expected in December, which could lead to Chancellor George Osborne missing his target set out in the Autumn statement, economists have warned, and threatens the country's AAA rating.

The article continued:

The Office for National Statistics said that public sector net borrowing excluding financial sector interventions -- the government's preferred measure -- rose last month to £15.4bn from £14.8bn a year earlier, as spending grew faster than income in a struggling economy, thwarting efforts to erase a large budget deficit.

Nasty! Very nasty! This Coalition came to power promising to cut the debt first: cut the debt second; and cut the debt third! Yet what do we discover? Halfway through their term in office:

borrowing excluding financial interventions amounted to £106.5bn in the first nine months of financial year 2012/13, which was 7.3pc up from £99.3bn in the corresponding period in 2011/12.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9817511/UK-public-borrowing-rises-in-December-threatening-AAA-rating.html

The BBC News web site had more details on the figures:

The broader public sector net borrowing measure - which includes the cost of bailing out the UK's banks - rose to £13.2bn in December from £12.6bn a year ago.

The UK's total public sector net debt, excluding the cost of bank support, is now £1.11 trillion, or 70.7% of GDP.

All three of the major credit ratings agencies now have the UK's AAA rating on negative outlook, meaning they could downgrade its rating if performance deteriorates.

The news on public sector finances comes days before economic growth (GDP) figures are expected to show the economy contracted in the final three months of 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21141201

Some progress!!! "If this is progress, Butch, mi old pal, who needs failure?" Arturo asked.

Richard Evans in the Telegraph had one final layer of icing for the 'progress' cake made by the Coalition. He wrote:

Government texts to encourage part-timers to work longer hours: Part-time workers could receive regular text messages from the Government telling them how much better off they would be if they worked extra hours.

The article continued :

The idea is one of several being considered by the Government to encourage claimants to work more when the new universal credit is introduced later this year. Others include an online calculator and printed messages on monthly benefit statements.

One union leader called the texting proposal "outrageous".

The universal credit, which will replace six existing benefits, is designed to ensure that work always pays. Under the current system, some low-paid workers can find themselves worse off if they extend their hours.

A Government spokesman was also quoted:

Lord Freud, the minister for welfare reform, said: "Today we are calling on employment experts to work with us to develop and pilot innovative ways for claimants to meet their commitments in return for their benefit.

"Text messaging and access to an online 'better off' calculator are just some of the ideas so far."

Now that is progress!! You couldn't make it up, could you? Talk about Gilbert & Sullivan!!

Richard Evans quoted Len McCluskey:

"We have members who are desperately looking for more work and more hours to fill the gap that stagnating wages and rising prices is pushing on them but they just can't. So to get a text every month from the Government telling you could be working longer hours just adds insult to injury and shows how out of touch the Government actually is on this issue."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/9818209/Universal-jobmatch-Government-texts-to-encourage-part-timers-to-work-longer-hours.html

Arturo and I are sitting patiently - we're waiting for a text message from the kitchen to tell us that the scraps are ready now! Or - perish the thought - we might get a text telling us to catch more mice if we want scraps!! Don't hold your breath!

Bye

Shapps eats his words @ No 10

Arturo was chuckling as he read Twitter. I peered over his shoulder and saw:

DodgeyDog: Shapps doesn't know what he's eating! Osborne can't add up, Cameron can't make up his mind, Clegg can't think straight - Omnishambles!

www.twitter.com

I was surprised to see him reading a dog's tweet and a 'dodgy' one at that. But then, Arturo is eclectic in his reading habits! He looked at me and asked if I'd read the Telegraph article on 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps?

I hadn't! But I soon found it. The article was written by Rosa Silverman under the headline:

Grant Shapps gives confused explanation of which animals we eat The Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps was laughed at on national television after appearing to suggest that horses were carnivores.

As you must know there's been a furore over the contents of beefburgers! It seems beefburgers are not what they seem - at first sight! Or maybe one should say 'first bite'!

The problems for our 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps arose during BBC One’s Question Time. The question about the possibility of eating horse meat as a cheaper option than beef was raised. 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps always eager to answer any question, any time - rushed in with his thoughts. Like the proverbial cow - he ruminated. Whereas the cow just belches in some faraway field - our 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps uttered his thoughts as to:

“why we think some animals are socially acceptable to eat and others are not.”

Not an unreasonable thought, you might say! Most British people would have shuddered at the prospect of eating Desert Orchid or Red Rum though they happily munch on small calves and tiny lambs' livers. There's nought as queer as folk!

So - so far - so good for old Shapps! But then he allowed his uncensored ruminations to overwhelm him. He said:

“I think the answer is we basically eat animals that don’t eat animals. So we eat animals that eat grass and what have you.”

Ummm! Just think about it for a moment! And that, unfortunately for 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps is what some of his fellow panellists did. According to Rosa Silverman:

It was instantly pointed out to him, however, that horses eat grass. But under his theory as we don't eat horses, they would therefore be lumped with carnivores.

Faced with the undeniable facts of nature, Mr Shapps instantly abandoned his theory, replying good-humouredly: “That’s not the answer! I thought I had cracked it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9810181/Grant-Shapps-gives-confused-explanation-of-which-animals-we-eat.html

You have to admit that it was the 'good-humoured' part of his explanation that saved his bacon! Ha Ha!

The worry that both Arturo and I have is that this bloke, Shapps, is in the Coalition Government and a Member of Parliament for Welwyn Hatfield. In addition, he is Chairman of the Conservative Party & Minister without Portfolio.

Here we have a man who ruminates out loud the possibility that a horse eats more than just grass and hay i.e is possibly a carnivore. This is the man who aims to get the Conservative Party into Government after the next election. And this time the aim is not coalition - no siree - it's sole Conservative Party government. All I can say is with a Chairman like this who mistakes his horses for his carnivores - Heaven help the Conservative Party!!

As for me and mi old carnivore pal, Arturo, we're going mousing tonight!

Bye

No 11's Daylight Robbery - @ No 10

"I say, I say, I say! When is an underspend a cut?" Arturo asked.

"Don't know - but I'm sure you're going to tell me."

"When it's daylight robbery!" Arturo chuckled. But, to be honest, I hadn't a clue what he was on about! Then, he pointed to the monitor.

Glancing at the screen, I immediately saw the word 'underspend' in a headline which was worded:

NHS chiefs ordered to explain £3bn underspend

James Illman had written an article in HSJ (Hospital Service Journal). He described how Stephen Dorrell, Chairman of the Health Select Committee, requested details of where the 'underspend' money had come from. Illman wrote:

Committee chair Stephen Dorrell told NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson and his deputy David Flory they would need to elaborate in writing after deeming they had failed to provide a full explanation on the matter at a hearing this morning.

Mr Dorrell told HSJ: “The question is what has happened to the balance and how much of it is still available to the NHS?

“Could some of the £3bn that has gone over to the Treasury come back to the NHS and [if so] over what period?”

I read the screen without much interest - until I came to the £3bn!! £3bn!! I could hardly believe my eyes. I thought that I'd read only the other day that nursing posts were being cut; that certain vital medicines were not being prescribed because they were 'too expensive'! Now here, before my very eyes, was the phrase:

the £3bn that has gone over to the Treasury

How come 'Georgy' Osborne got his little hands on £3bn of NHS underspend? Now I know that the Treasury is desperate to mop up every spare penny it can - but this is daylight robbery, as Arturo had said!!!

James Illman's article continued:

Mr Flory (Deputy NHS chief executive) told the committee that the vast majority of the money was capital spending that came from national programmes such as Connecting for Health.

He added: “A large part of the number was underspend of capital monies associated with particular projects in the department which hadn’t progressed or progressed at the speed that had been anticipated.

“Capital monies in that sense are one-off by their very nature and can only be spent once and couldn’t support on-going investment in staffing”.

http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/nhs-chiefs-ordered-to-explain-3bn-underspend/5051767.article

Maybe, the £3bn could only be spent once! But that's a heck of a lot of spending!! And why, as Dorrell implied, couldn't it have gone back into the NHS pot?

A great deal has been written in various journals, newspapers etc about this anomaly of NHS underspend money going into the coffers of the Treasury. Coalition supporters argue vociferously with Labour front-benchers. Figures go up and figures go down!

However, after nosing about, I came across the website of the Social Policy Digest. Its url is:

http://journals.cambridge.org/spd/action/digest?type=old&category=Health&topic=Funding%20of%20health%20services

The site had several references to NHS spending. In view of the 'underspend' being presented lock-stock-and-barrel into the grasping hands of the Treasury, these were extremely disturbing . The first quotation was:

Financial problems in NHS trusts – report by MPs

A report by a committee of MPs said that an overall surplus of £2.1 billion across all National Health Service bodies in 2011-12 masked the fact that a significant minority were in financial difficulty. Yet the Department of Health could not explain how it would deal with a trust that went bankrupt; nor could it provide reassurance that financial problems would not damage the quality of care or equality of access.

Source: Department of Health: Securing the Future Financial Sustainability of the NHS, Sixteenth Report (Session 2012–13), HC 389, House of Commons Public Accounts Select Committee, TSO

Date: 2012-Oct

Further down the site, there was another quotation:

NHS finances in 2011-12 – audit report

An audit report said that National Health Service finances were healthy overall, but that a growing number of organizations were in deficit. Primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, and NHS trusts reported a combined surplus of £1.6 billion in 2011-12. Most trusts reported an improved financial position. But the number of trusts in deficit increased from 13 in 2010-11 to 31 in 2011-12.

Source: NHS Financial Year 2011/12, Audit Commission

Date: 2012-Sep

Further along still, there were two more quotations of concern:

NHS 'not able to cover soaring social care costs alone'

A briefing paper examined the demographic and financial realities of social care and how these were likely to place additional pressure on the health and care system in the years ahead. In the long term, it was not sustainable to expect the funding shortfall of £2 billion for social care to come from the National Health Service.

Source: Papering over the Cracks: The impact of social care funding on the NHS, NHS Confederation

Date: 2012-Sep

and next:

Mental health spending down for first time in 10 years

Total government expenditure on mental health services fell by 1 per cent in real terms in 2011-12, the first annual reduction since 2001.

Source: Tony Ingham, 2011/12 National Survey of Investment in Adult Mental Health Services, Department of Health | Tony Ingham, 2011/12 National Survey of Investment In Mental Health Services for Older People, Department of Health

Date: 2012-Aug

How can the Treasury justify taking the so-called 'underspend' in the light of :

NHS 'not able to cover soaring social care costs alone'

Mental health spending down for first time in 10 years

We all know that Europe, the USA and the UK are still in trouble as a result of the banking fiasco in 2007 - 2008. However, this Coalition Government cannot justify grabbing the NHS underspend to settle its debts! Bankers did NOT pay back their bonuses! The NHS is struggling! The so-called 'Reforms' have all but crippled it! Now it is suffering from Governmental Daylight Robbery - just as Arturo said!

I'm going to treat Arturo to a slap up meal tonight - I'm going into the kitchens of No 11! No doubt there'll be loadsa caviar lying round the cupboards. After all - what better way to celebrate getting an unexpected £3bn?

Bye

What a difference a year makes @ No 10

Arturo and I looked over last year's news. An appropriate thing to do on New Year's Day, you will agree. How things have changed! Or not!!

At the beginning of 2012, the pamphlet 'The Politics of Optimism' by Antony Seldon was published. In this he wrote:

It is perfectly possible to be happy, indeed happier, with the current or even reduced levels of affluence. It merely requires an adjustment in thinking.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/

"And that, mi old pal," Arturo said, "has been 'Boy David' Cameron's thinking all year. You merely need 'an adjustment in thinking' to see yourself through unemployment; reduction in benefits; an NHS going steadily up-the-creek; your local high street with more empty shops than ever - less money to buy anything, anyway! Some adjustment in thinking!"

Last year, Cameron said in his New Year speech:

I will be bold about working to cure the problems of our society. While a few at the top get rewards that seem to have nothing to do with the risks they take or the effort they put in, many others are stuck on benefits, without hope or responsibility. So we will tackle excess in the City just as we’re reforming welfare to make work pay and support families.

I profoundly believe that we can turn these things around. That’s what I mean by the Big Society. The British people have got what it takes – and the government has got the ideas and policies we need.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/2012-new-year-message-from-david-cameron/

At the time, he knew the British public would be distracted from the plight of the economy by the Jubilee celebrations and the Olympic Games. But as for tackling excess in the City!! And as for curing the problems in UK society - no great shakes there, Davy Boy!! However, what more could you expect from a man who doesn't know the difference between Laugh Out Loud and Lots of Love!! LOL!!

However, it wasn't only 'Boy David' Cameron who has failed to bring home the goods, this year - no siree - his old Etonian pal, 'Georgy' Osborne, has done his own little bit to worsen the situation, as well.

Osborne's real calamity of the year was the much 'leaked' Budget! In the Guardian's News Review of 2012 written by Toby Helm, Vanessa Thorpe, Robin McKie and Peter Beaumont, the following appears about 'Georgy' Osborne:

The decline and fall (almost) of George Osborne Whatever you might have thought of George Osborne a year ago, he began 2012 with a pretty decent reputation in Westminster as a political strategist. Then came his March budget – an "omnishambles" that unravelled day after day and all but destroyed Osborne's career with it. It was the politics, more than the economics, that were awful. The decision to drop the upper (50p) rate of tax in the thick of painful austerity at the same time as imposing taxes on pasties, caravans and even charity donations (the spring from which the "big society" was supposed to be watered) was a catastrophe and a gift for Labour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/30/2012-review-biggest-surprises

Oh dear! To go from a 'pretty decent reputation' to 'omnishambles' to 'catastrophe' - and all in one year! Now that takes some achievement! Almost worthy of an Olympic gold - you might say! The Politics of Optimism surely turned on its head!

We must not forget the third member of the triumvirate who head the Coalition - none other than 'Wailing Lad' Clegg. At the start of 2012, though students were no longer in love with him, he was still the 'almost-darling' of the LibDems. But the Lad's fortunes have sunk lower and lower and lower - gone is the smooth brow of youth to be replaced by lines of misery! No longer the jaunty step and winning smile but now the slouch of care and grimace of woe! What a transformation! Even the kiss-and-make-up with 'Boy David' Cameron in the yard of CNH Tractors in Basildon, Essex, did little to raise his profile. And now - the final ignominy.

The BBC News website has a recent article by Ben Wright & Andrew Fagg . They wrote, quoting Peter Kellner, president of YouGov,

"Nick Clegg is a toxic brand," he argues. "Fewer than 20% think he's doing well as party leader and deputy prime minister.

"Around 70% typically think he's doing badly."

"These are simply terrible figures. I find it hard to see how the Liberal Democrats could recover with him leading the party at the next election."

'Toxic brand', eh! Sounds nasty! No wonder he looks so miserable, I would too!

The BBC News web site concluded with another quotation from Peter Kellner:

"So the Lib Dems' challenge in 2013 is to find that big, deus ex machina, that thing that none of us can quite foresee, which will change people's minds about him. I don't know what it is. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20795452

That deus ex machina - an illusive thing, at the best of times, and 2013 does not promise to be one such year.

According to the 'Lord High Everything' Francis 'Weasel' Maude:

Tories must modernise or face 'oblivion': The Conservatives will be “unelectable” if they do not abandon “backward looking” social attitudes and catch up with modern society

On the last day of 2012, Tim Ross quoted Maude in the 'Telegraph'. The article went on to state about Francis Maude:

But he had changed his views on social questions over the years. “I’ve become more socially liberal. That's where the party has changed the most as well – but it's where British society has changed even more,” he said.

The next decade in politics “will demand even more” reforms, he said.

“As British society continues to evolve so must the Conservative Party, if we are not to face electoral oblivion.

“If we fail to keep pace – fail to understand and influence the spirit of the age – we will be rightly punished by the electorate.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9771950/Francis-Maude-Tories-must-modernise-or-face-oblivion.html

So there you have it - the two parties that make up the Coalition - one has a 'toxic' leader!! The other, unless it wishes to face electoral oblivion, needs to evolve!! Since the Tories are nine-tenths backwoodsmen, evolution seems unlikely!!

Arturo was giggling - I peered over his shoulder and saw he was playing some videos from Mail Online. The headline read:

And these people are running the country...

To see the full farce go to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255293/Best-political-videos-2012-politicians-singing-gaffeing-zip-wiring-bell-ringing-way-12-months.html

Take a look! And they're not even supposed to be comedians! Doesn't fill you with much confidence for 2013!

However, before we disappear to gather the left-overs from today's lunch, Arturo and I wish all of you:

A GREAT 2013

Bye