the corner office

You wouldn't think it reading the papers, but the imminent 'Socialist' victory in France is a big-S Socialist Party victory, not any meaningful change in how France's economy will be mismanaged. As Daniel Hannan pointed out after round 1:

There was never any doubt that a socialist would win the first round of the French election. This is because, with one partial exception, all ten candidates favoured socialist policies. Sarkozy fought the election promising to make France 'stronger than the markets'. Francois Hollande wanted a top rate tax of 75 per cent and a massive expansion of the state payroll. Marine Le Pen ditched her father's anti-scrounger rhetoric and ran on a platform which, on economics, was well to the Left of Sarko's.

Of the other seven candidates, one positioned himself between Sarko and Hollande, one fought as a Green and no fewer than four stood as Trotskyists. The only candidate who would have been considered Right-of-Centre in another country was the Gaullist Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who secured less than 2 per cent of the vote - and even he freighted his rhetoric with a good deal of protectionism and anti-Americanism.

Enough politics for a while, promise.

I should admit that my previous post was a little tendentious, though the mind will forever boggle that so many people voted for Ken. I also ignored the fact that right now most of the country hates the Tories and the Lib Dems.

And to an extent, rightly so. There are some things they've done which I think are good, but for the most they've been useless and rudderless and as politically and headline-driven as the previous lot; worse, neither party has been able to articulate a good reason to be in charge beyond 'We're Not Labour,' which is a good reason, don't get me wrong, but only gets you so far.

Heady stuff. Back in January Rod Liddle wrote, in a piece entitled Why I reckon Ken will beat Boris:

I do not think that this is a consequence of Boris doing a bad job as mayor, or a sudden disaffection with him...

It is more a case, I reckon, of the London electorate regressing to the mean. That's what I expected would happen. The horrible truth is that Ken is what they are, really - or a large proportion of them.

It looks like Boris will win, but it's not like it will be a landslide victory by any stretch, and that is a sobering thought.

Don't get me wrong - I rather like Boris, but it's not like London was a cesspit of misery and woe before he became mayor. And who knows what scandals may yet break. The best you can say about him is that he's a colourful character who seems less of a sleazeball than his predecessor. Had Labour had the good sense not to pick Ken Livingstone, they might well have won this election. Yet that is by the by; the fact that nearly half of those who bothered to vote will have opted for Ken, despite everything, does not say much about a large chunk of London's inhabitants.

A feature of commuting in London is the array of free papers and magazines, dished out by poor buggers in branded windbreakers. The Evening Standard bloke outside the side stairs to Charing Cross choosing his moment carefully then belting out like it's Armageddon: Final! (is that what he shouts? Is he still there? It's been a while since I've been that way). Styleeeest, Styleeeest! Sport! Sport! Short Leest! Short Leest! Cityaaeeeeem, cityaeeeeem, and the one auntie outside Cannon Street in the morning 'China Daily, China Daily?'. Offers mostly declined by the passing throngs, not always politely, and if not ignored entirely. It must be a bit of a soul-destroying job.

The other morning I walked past one dude outside Bank station dishing out City AMs, and he wasn't even bothering, just kind of moaning. Nggyaaaa, wweeeeeee, hnnnggghnngggg. Hhhhhhrrrr. I don't think he was joking. I think he just didn't care. Or he was nuts. Anyway.

It might rain 73 times in one day, 17 of those times before breakfast, but I am enjoying the weather at the moment. Mostly I like that it's still chilly. As spring progresses you get to that point where it's not warm enough not to wear a jacket but when you do you get to the train station or work all overheated and sweaty, or you end up walking half the way with your jacket over your shoulder. I like that it's cold enough to not have to worry about that, yet.

I also like the fact that all this rain makes it longer before we have to contend with brown, dead, Drought! Afflicted! grass come summer. Right now, the world is crisp, green, and glorious.

and asked me:

Scientists have begun a study to see if it is possible to influence what we dream about.

They have designed a smartphone app which plays sounds such as birds in woodland or waves lapping against the shore.

If that worked I'd be dreaming about snoring family members other than myself and dishwashers. Which I don't. Q.E.D.

You wouldn't know it reading the Guardian or BBC, but Ken Livingstone made a bit of a wally of himself this week. Turns out Mr 'Rich Bastards' was making a tidy sum on the speaking circuit, and instead of coughing up tax on the hundreds of thousands of squids at the top rate, he set up a company to channel the money, pay the missus a salary to spread things out a bit, smooth out dividends to reduce tax, dodge National Insurance, etc. After Boris' huffy aka LiftGate, Ken challenges Boris to reveal his tax details, Boris and the other candidates agree, then when everyone else opens kimono, Ken releases a half-arsed set of numbers doctored to make it look like he's being a good boy. The BBC blindly quotes the numbers and hopes nobody will notice, and the Guardian covered the story with the headline 'Boris earned £1.3 million.' Jesus wept or something.

That, however, is tangential. The problem I have with the whole story is this: Livingstone's tax dodging isn't evil. It's sensible and commendable: the government makes the rules, he's playing by them. His crime isn't dodging tax, it's being a hypocrite, for carrying on about exactly the same thing he was doing himself. I'd prefer it if that was the narrative, rather than the usual 'tax avoidance is evul' nonsense.

(the other crime is his company paying the salaries of people who're working on his election campaign, which falls foul of a few donation rules, and is a bit dodgy from a tax expense deduction perspective, but that's another week's worry, I guess)

Sweet freedom. The cast is off, and the pin/knitting needle is out, a souvenir I managed to save from the 'sharps' bin to scare the grandkids with one day. The hand is crusty, swollen, still bruised and misshapen, with a lovely scar and a nice big blood-stained dressing over the pinhole.

But I can type again with two hands (clumsily, and slightly painfully), and I can visit the mens' room and conduct my affairs using the hand Nature intended. Joy!

For 13 years, Labour got by without a 50p tax rate. The 50p rate was a landmine left behind for the Tories by that likeable fellow Gordon Brown. Now it's this great big rallying cry for people, although if you want to show your egalitarianistimistic cred I have no idea why equally much effort isn't put into arguing for 60p or 70p or higher rates.

Be that as it may, there's actually some economic theory and research about whether the 50p rate is a good rate or not. But nobody argues about it that way, it's all about people getting worked about tax breaks for rich people. Even if it raises less money. But if it raises less money, then doesn't that mean the rest of us are shafted because we have to pay more taxes ourselves, or get fewer public services overall?

So it seems to me that people arguing about the rich 'paying their fair share' as if that's the most important criterion must therefore fall into one of two groups: (a) those who just haven't thought very hard about the issue, and (b) those who, in Margaret Thatcher's words, would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.

Yet given we're talking about the poor being, you know, poorer, that's a pretty lousy view to hold, especially for people who normally like to think of themselves as being the nice guys on the political spectrum.

The moral of the story is this: if you really want to help those most in need, and you really want the rest of us to be as well off as possible, then you should be ignoring whether rich people are getting great big tax cuts or not, no matter how much it grates; the only question which you should be caring about is this: what rate raises the most tax?

Money is just a medium of exchange, an improvement on barter as a way to buy and sell stuff. But apart from the government, who says that medium of exchange has to be the official currency? Why not bottles of say, detergent?

And if bottles of detergent became 'money,' what might you expect to happen?:

Theft of Tide detergent has become so rampant that authorities from New York to Oregon are keeping tabs on the soap spree, and some cities are setting up special task forces to stop it. And retailers like CVS are taking special security precautions to lock down the liquid.

(via)

P.S. Check out the bottom of the article for awesome mugshot of a TIDE FIEND.

P.P.S. Some say the story ain't true, the jury is still out.