Lifted shamelessly from the Creative Review blog (well worth bookmarking if you haven't already). Our three & a half year old didn't react quite like this but he did refer to one 'Santa' he saw a couple of weeks ago with a very healthy complexion as a 'boy Santa'...

According to the BBC:

"A tax on bankers' bonuses is expected to form the centrepiece of Alistair Darling's pre-Budget report - the last before the general election. Banks may face a one-off 50% levy on bonuses above a level which could be as low as £10,000, the BBC's business editor Robert Peston understands.

It is intended to deter big bonuses rather than raise revenue, he said"

Rather than 'deter' such bonuses it will, of course, simply defer them. Alternatively, banks & investment houses might look at different remuneration models as a way to retain staff.

The point is, even in the best case scenario the one thing it won't do is make any bl**dy difference to the economy or the deficit one way or another.

I'm cheered to see REFORM challenging the notion - shared by both Labour and the Conservatives - that 'front-line services' are off limits when it comes to spending restraint to tackle the deficit.

It should never be done lightly of course and there are clearly other 'go-to' areas you'd look to first; but the idea that serious deficit reduction can be achieved without impacting those staff is a cruel deceit both parties seem to have signed up to.

A quick thought one on the current class debate and the Tory IHT proposal.

Clem Attlee & Tony Benn went to a public school. Tony Blair went to Fettes, Alasdair Darling went to Loretto and 6 other current Cabinet members also went to public School. None of this matters a hoot, likewise with the educational background of anyone in the Shadow Cabinet. Any election campaign built solely on class would be contemptible – as contemptible in fact as one built on race or sexuality. When the pitch is “They’re not like you, they can’t speak up for you or understand your needs” then those advancing that line have lost the real argument and don’t deserve to hold office.

There is a ‘but’ coming though. Class, like race or sexuality, doesn’t matter because it tells you nothing about what people will do. Policy announcements on the other hand do just that. If, based on a clear policy position, someone suggests a party is giving undue consideration to their own kind then that isn’t a class-based attack. It may be – and in the case of the attacks on the Tory IHT proposals I think it is – a fair line of attack. It’s not about class but about priorities and I think the Tories are weak on it because the policy clearly does absolutely nothing for those most in need or most impacted by the recession. It may be a fairer way to levy taxes on death but it categorically doesn’t do anything for those most in need.

There is still a credible position for the Tories to take here. There’s a strong line of argument against any Inheritance tax at all and the sums involved as so small relative to the wider fiscal problems that you can argue only the super-rich should be taxed in this way – and in many areas of the country a £350k house certainly doesn’t land you in that category.

But let’s not confuse a low class-based attack (wrong & despicable) with a straightforward policy criticism.

Alastair Campbell is angered by the servility and lack of independence of the news media.

I'll go on to explain why in a moment but I just want to let that sentence stand on its own because I'm pretty sure it'll strike many people as strange. Like Davina McColl being angered about trashy TV or Thierre Henry by the lack of honesty & fair play in football. It's just weird.

The specific relates to the virtual news blackout over Matt Driscoll's c.£800k award for damages for bullying when Andy Coulson - now David Cameron's head of communications - was Editor of the NOTW. Alastair is appalled at the complete lack of coverage and suggests editors and broadcasters are intimidated by Coulson and mindful that he's the right hand man of the likely next PM hence the blackout.

On that he's probably right. Who doesn't worry about the media cosying up to politicians in the ascendency? It does undermine the idea of a free & fair press so calling that out isn't strange in itself.

But for Alastair to do it is just bizarre. OK, everyone knows his background is tabloid press or that he too was right-hand-man to a prospective PM in regular contact with News International but does he really think that doesn't matter? Does he really think people trust his objectivity here? As I pointed out in his comments:

"The implication of this post and a few others you've written recently is that the terms of your interaction with the media pre-1997 were materially different from the way Coulson etc. interacts now. Perhaps that's the case but there's no discussion or evidence of that. Is there any evidence that media servility to Cameron now (or hostility to the PM) is materially different to the media environment pre-1997? We know from your diaries the truth is more subtle than the Malcolm Tucker caricature but the point remains managing the news environment and Labour's interaction with it WAS a part of your role and one you did very well.

If there is a material difference that has serious implications for democracy and people from left & right would be very angry about it. But by not actually making that case you risk coming across as simply bitter and resentful that the media focus is not where you want it to be and not surprisingly broadly independent apolitical types (like me) will have little sympathy..."

I actually have a tremendous amount of time for AC. He's flawed like the rest of us of course but, as I hinted in my comment, I think the Malcolm Tucker thing is an overblown TV caricature that does him a diservice and his openness about and support for mental health issues is to his credit. He was also extremely good at his job whatever way you look at it.

I just wish he had a little more self-awareness...

Loving this - Fox fights back against the liberal media elite and their socialized arithmetic...

(h/t Crooked Timber)

Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!
Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But ... you can't HAVE babies!
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

One of my favourite scenes in Monty Python's 'Life Of Brian'. If I recall Michael Palin's character then goes on to point out that while it's nobodys fault that Stan doesn't have a womb ("not even the Romans") they will fight the oppressors for his 'right' to have a baby nonetheless. When challenged why it's suggested that 'it's symbolic of Stan's struggle against oppression'; Cleese points out 'it's symbolic of his struggle against reality'....

It's not unreasonable to assume the President of the National Secular Society is familiar with Life of Brian but quite why he hasn't spotted the similarity between himself and Stan is beyond me. The BBC have rightly rejected calls for Thought for the Day to include non-religious guests and the NSS and British Humanist Association aren't happy. Neither is Norm.

Next stop a campaign to redress the shocking (and arbitrary?) exclusion of golf from Match of the Day, PowerRangers from Newsnight and hardcore porn from the One Show.....

I don’t like the phrase ‘tackling poverty’. I don’t like it because it casts poverty as a football player we need to bring to the ground – a simple action with a simple outcome. If you’re not ‘tackling poverty’ then you’re clearly a callous individual. Or, to stretch and distort the silly metaphor further you’re cheering him on, hoping he avoids all challenges and wins the day. Any politician that goes on and on about ‘tackling poverty’ (which, let’s face it, is all of them these days) should be treated with caution. Instead you should look at three things - how they define poverty, exactly what they propose to do about it and – this bit is crucial for me – to what extent they acknowledge limits to what government can achieve in this area.

First the definition. I’m not going to go into some long-winded debate about %’s of median income, laffer curves etc. There’s lots of that elsewhere. My point on the definition is simply this – if you get bogged down discussing the technical definition or relatively minor statistical movements in either direction then you’re probably not discussing real poverty as most people understand it – you’re justifying your own party’s performance or attacking your opponents. I’m not denying the existence of relative poverty – I’m just pointing out that if the whole debate takes concepts like relative poverty for granted without explaining them or pointing out their subtleties then it’s a pointless debate. Poverty is a commonly understood word and it describes people unable to support themselves & function effectively in the environment they live in. In Britain today that will, of course, be about more than a room and a square meal but it most definitely shouldn’t be driven by (or be statistically contingent on ) whatever heights of wealth exist elsewhere.

When it comes to assessing what politicians can do about poverty you need to be mindful of the definition debate above. Can you have a sensible discussion about poverty that brackets Tax credits (lauded as addressing poverty despite being available to people earning more than twice the national wage) alongside emergency welfare provision and the like? I’d say clearly not. Most government initiatives to ‘address poverty’ are essentially support mechanisms, things the state provide for people because they don’t have the funds to provide them for themselves. This is fine but it contradicts that age old maxim ‘give a man a fish etc.’ – politicians who lean towards solutions which promote autonomy and help those in need better support themselves should, in my view, get more of a hearing than those who simply mitigate poverty via government support and hand outs. Both are always needed of course but after 12 years where the latter has been by far the more common there’s a very strong case for more of the former.

We have a media culture that makes it all but impossible for politicians to acknowledge their impotence in the face of some social problems. Let’s imagine a fictional government programme to, say, improve reading skills for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The pitch would be around how much of a gift the ability to read is and how children who might have an aptitude or interest there shouldn’t suffer just because there might not be a supportive parent at home. All very commendable and hard to argue with. Proponents might offer up stats on, say, take up rates at libraries or even literacy results in early years schooling as ‘evidence’ of the success of such schemes. Others might question aspects of that evidence and point out that in the worst home environments no scheme can properly address issues like this. In the end you get to a place where – and I’ve actually heard this said in defence of some schemes – supporters will say “well, if it helps one little boy or girl develop a love or reading then it’s worth every penny”. I can say this because I’m not seeking public office but the blunt, unfortunate and uncomfortable truth is that no, it’s not worth it. Politicians should have the courage to acknowledge the limits of government and recognise that a noble cause isn’t sufficient justification for spending public money.

Flagged for no other reason than it might be provocative or inflammatory to a few atheist bloggers who I know stop by every now & then:

"A pair of Harvard researchers recently examined 40 years of data from dozens of countries, trying to sort out the economic impact of religious beliefs or practices. They found that religion has a measurable effect on developing economies - and the most powerful influence relates to how strongly people believe in hell....

The two collected data from 59 countries where a majority of the population followed one of the four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They ran this data - which covered slices of years from 1981 to 2000, measuring things like levels of belief in God, afterlife beliefs, and worship attendance - through statistical models. Their results show a strong correlation between economic growth and certain shifts in beliefs, though only in developing countries. Most strikingly, if belief in hell jumps up sharply while actual church attendance stays flat, it correlates with economic growth. Belief in heaven also has a similar effect, though less pronounced. Mere belief in God has no effect one way or the other. Meanwhile, if church attendance actually rises, it slows growth in developing economies"

More here. (h/t Arts & Letters Daily)

Just a short post to bring to your attention the beautiful website vangoghletters.org.

I've been interested in Vincent van Gogh for many, many years now and if all you know about the man relates to Sunflowers, ears and that awfully saccharine Don MacLean song then you should endeavour to learn more.

Vincent was a prolific letter writer and the website is built around those letters, mostly to his brother Theo. They contain everything - politics, sex, religion, gorgeous descriptions of time and place - and reveal Vincent to be more than the mad genius he's so often characterised as.

According to Sting Simon Cowell has:

"no recognisable talent apart from self-promotion."

A little unkind to ignore his business skills or flair for creating immensely successful commercial television but OK, I get his point. But it's not a charge Cowell would dissent from really - he's often challenged over his own musical talents and rightly points out how irrelevant that is to what he does for a living.

Likewise with the claim that X-Factor is cynical TV and has nothing to do with music; that's no more insightful than pointing out when Blind Date topped the Saturday night ratings that the programme did a disservice to dating agencies or Noel's House Party wasn't really the sort of party everyone wanted to go to.

Sting is, of course, is an unquestionably talented musician and songwriter and he's right to point out that lasting fame and creativity such as his own are very unlikely to arise from these formats. But the fact that his best, most relevant and impactful work is now some 25 years behind him makes the spectacle of him attacking the current king of Saturday night TV who's output regularly entertains more than 15m viewers feel more than a little like sour grapes to me.

Perhaps he's just laying the groundwork for his Strictly Come Dancing invite in a few years....

I love that Alastair Campbell has a blog. I know any really powerful insights he might have on how Labour can better their prospects will be on private notes to Downing Street rather than the blog but it’s still fascinating to get his take on things as the election looms.

Alastair has a theme he’s returned to several times over the last few months and while this does his blogging a tremendous disservice I’ll paraphrase it as follows:

1. The PM clearly doesn’t have the presentational panache of Tony Blair or his main opponent David Cameron. That’s an unfortunate truth - nothing more, nothing less. It shouldn’t dominate the debate around how Labour approaches the election and it’s certainly not an insurmountable obstacle to re-election. Changing leaders now would be a stupid mistake.
2. The likely context for the general election is not favourable for Labour – at best we’ll be only just out of recession, unemployment will still be high, cuts in public spending of one shape or another, the expenses scandal will still be around and two unpopular wars claiming the lives of British soldiers abroad.
3. To that you can add a media environment deeply hostile to Labour and relatively timid in terms holding the Conservatives to account (I’m aware that last part can be squabbled over but I think it’s broadly fair.)
4. Despite all of this the Tories polling lead over Labour isn’t as high or consistent as the one Tony Blair enjoyed in 95-97. He also cites reliable polling evidence that public faith in what you might call ‘new Conservatism’ is luke warm at best and that considerable scepticism remains that Cameron has really changed his party. Campbell argues that the pre-1997 Labour party was far more united and comfortable with its rebrand than the Tories are and consequently Cameron would run into problems pretty soon if he was elected.
5. Taken in the round though Campbell exhorts Labour supporters to ditch the fatalism, recognise his more subtle but accurate reflection of the state of play and get out their and make their case and fight for every vote. The fight back should include increased focus on their record, long-term and more recently through the crash, as well as an aggressive attack of this credibility issue for the Tories, why they haven’t ‘changed’ the way Labour did and why their prescriptions for the crash would’ve made things worse.

It’s a succinct and pretty accurate summary of just where we are and demonstration – were it needed – of exactly why Campbell used to do this for a living.

Still, presumptuous though it might be for little old me to try and add to it let me add a few thoughts that don’t fundamentally change his advice to Labour activists but still might be of interest in general.

Firstly it won’t necessarily worry Cameron’s people that the polling patterns don’t mirror those pre-1997. They’d be happier if they did of course and Campbell’s right to flag it as an opportunity for Labour but there isn’t necessarily any broader significance to it. I’m no psephologist but I’m sure the near term polling for every election since universal franchise is quite different for a variety of reasons – in terms of a ‘pep talk’ for Labour Campbell’s absolutely right to raise it but it needn’t be a major concern for the Tories at the moment.

My second observation relates to the premise that the public remain sceptical about Cameron’s rebranded Tories and the likely tensions over Europe or social policy once a Tory government with a healthy majority is in place. I think he’s broadly right but again I’m not sure this will necessarily concern the Tories or that Campbell is reading the public mood accurately. If the wider public believe a less reconstructed, Europhobic slash-and-burn Tory party is just below the surface but are still prepared to vote for them then future Tory success may not be predicated solely on that rebrand exercise. You could make a case that the coherence of that rebrand – and the degree to which the public bought it - was central to Labour’s electoral success since the late 90’s. That the Tories seem on the verge of healthy majority without anything like the same coherence or internal buy-in might actually prove useful for Cameron as PM.

I feel a little sorry for Gordon Brown this morning.

Writing personal, hand-written notes to the families of bereaved servicemen and women must be a very difficult thing to do. It would be hard enough for an ordinary person so it must be particularly emotional for the Prime Minister, knowing as he does it that he has the power to change things. It’s to his credit that he continues to do so.

So the idea that there’s a story in the fact he spelt someones name wrong is far more offensive than his original error. I’m sure someone will twist it into an example of his lack of a ‘personal touch’ and his commitment to the armed services will probably feature somewhere as well. In truth it should’ve been nothing more than a quiet apology from No.10 to the family concerned and a complete non-story for the media.

In his speech on Afghanistan today Gordon Brown drew the familiar distinction between campaigns of necessity and those of choice:

"[J]ust as in the past we learnt of the bravery and sacrifice of British soldiers in the First and Second World Wars; in their fight to protect freedom both in our nation and the world; so our children will learn of the heroism of today's men and women fighting in Afghanistan - protecting our nation and the rest of the world from threat of global terrorism. Fighting there, so that we are safer at home. Joined by countries from all over the world so that terrorism can be combated: a campaign of 43 countries prosecuted out of necessity, not of choice."

I've always been uneasy with that distinction and in a Washington Post piece a few months back Robert Kagan set out his distaste for it as well:

"The fact is, unless the nation is invaded or its very survival is imminently threatened, going to war is always a choice. So what is the point of trying to make this elusive distinction anyway? But there is a deeper reason [....] to claim necessity in Afghanistan. It is part of what increasingly seems to be a striving for moral purity in international affairs by this administration. Obama and his top advisers apologize for America's past sins, implicitly suggesting they will commit no new ones. And that goes for fighting wars. No one can blame you for fighting a war if it is a war of necessity, or so they may believe. All the inevitable ancillary casualties of war -- from civilian deaths to the occasional misbehavior of the troops to the errors of commanders -- are more easily forgiven if one has no choice. The claim of necessity wipes away the moral ambiguities inherent in the exercise of power. And it prevents scrutiny of one's own motives, which in nations, as in individuals, are rarely pure."

Kagan is clearly writing from a US perspective but his general observations on why politicians fall back on that distinction are sound.

Randy Cohen argues we shouldn't strive to get people to vote as an expression of civic virtue:

"it is irresponsible to encourage the unaware to put their ignorance into action so aimlessly. “Just vote” doesn’t express civic virtue; it’s sentimentality. You might as well urge the unpracticed to use power tools or Rollerblade. Simultaneously. At least they’d injure only themselves"

I'm not sure I agree. Non-partisan efforts to increase turnout aren't solely interested in getting the numbers up; they're trying to stimulate interest (maybe even anger or frustration) and then direct those feelings towards the political process. I can't see that as a bad thing.