Debunking the myths of "Inequality Briefing"

I was shown today Inequality Briefing's videos on wealth and income inequality, and I found myself smashing my head on the desk within seconds of them. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Wealth inequality's myths have already been debunked by a contributor to Forbes, describing it as "brain-curdling nonsense", but as far as I know, income inequality has not yet been disproved. 

"Brenda is an experienced nurse; [...] Brian is the boss of one of Britain's biggest companies."

We've not even got a fact yet and it's already ridiculous. In the United Kingdom, inequality is always going to arise due to the fact that the UK is a mixed economy: it is reasonable to presume that Brenda is a public sector worker, as 94% of all NHS operations are public sector, and Brenda apparently works at "one of Britain's busiest hospitals". The public sector is nationalised (by definition), and everyone knows that nationalisation does not work. It is extremely inefficient, thanks to hopeless central planning, and therefore a lack of market pressures upon wages (in either direction). By contrast, the private sector is free from government interference. Therefore, wages are free to go up or down to meet the demand of the market - according to the Independent, private sector wages are growing three times as fast as public sector ones. The private sector is, loosely speaking, meritocratic. The inefficient public sector is not. Therefore, we shouldn't even be comparing an NHS worker to a CEO.

"Wages for average earners like Brenda have hardly changed in a decade, whilst food prices are going up, and gas and electricity bills are rising."

Let's divide this one into three - "wages [...] have hardly changed in a decade" apparently. No, they haven't. If we take "a decade" to mean the period of 2004 - 2014, wage growth rose in real terms every single year until the "great recession" in 2008, and have done so again since 2014. "Food prices are going up", apparently, and "gas and electricity bills are rising". Now, seeing as I am unable to find tabulated data for gas and electricity for me to create my own graph, we'll just have to use one from one of the UK's major energy suppliers to retailers, which tracks retail pricing. But yes, as for wages and food, it's time for one of Benjamin's Blog's own graphs (because I know you love them really). According to the data at Trading Economics, we are now going to draw a line graph with two lines on it - average wage growth and food prices since January 2014 (thus keeping the video relevant, as it was produced in 2014). Are you ready? 

So energy prices are falling, food prices are falling, and wages are rising. Indeed, since January 2014, food prices have only risen in real terms in two out of 23 months (for which data exists). Forbes are right - inequality briefing, so far, is nothing but a bunch of brain-curdling nonsense. And we're still not even a third of the way through...

"Most people in poverty in the UK are actually in work."

This is referring to relative poverty, and therefore is not a sufficient measure. Living standards have, as we've seen above, been rising since January of 2014.

"As people on average incomes are increasingly squeezed, less money is spent on our high streets."

Even though we've already disputed the first clause of this statement above here, this statement nonetheless is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc - if two things occur at the same time and one assumes that one causes the other absurdly, this is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Why is this particular statement a case of the above? High street spending fell thanks to the recession, but it has been growing since 2013, and internet sales have increased all throughout this period. The Portas Review, released in 2011, and available here (don't read this from cover to cover, it's very boring), estimates that internet sales accounted for 50% of the growth of the retail sector between 2003 and 2010. The same report also predicts internet sales to rise substantially by 2015 - a prediction that was borne out to be true.

[Goes on to argue for redistributive taxation]

In terms of pre-taxation, the British Gini coefficient is actually one of the most equal countries in the world pre-taxation and transfers, according to the OECD. This means that the wage distribution in itself is actually what some people might describe as "fair". Even when you apply the taxation laws, our Gini coefficient drops further, and the amount of people in relative poverty in the UK is extremely small. So why do some countries drop further than others? Simple - it's the negative effects that redistribute taxation have. You can't stifle wealth creation at the top, otherwise they'll pack up and leave to other countries. And then there won't be any wealth. The businesses owned by the super-rich that others depend on will therefore close down too, as they can't afford to operate with these levels of taxation in the UK. Oh, oops, it's an essential service and a natural monopoly. Ah. That means that the people can't actually use the service at all now. That means that with redistribute taxation, we are all worse off. But still, for the people who have had their brains curdled, it doesn't matter that the poor are poorer, because we're more equal and the rich are less rich.

In any case, INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IS FALLING. Don't believe me? Well, have a look at perhaps maybe the graph on the right, with data according to the World Bank? Still don't believe me? How about we try that Left-wing rag, colloquially referred to as "The Gruniad", thanks to its colossal backlog of spelling errors in the 1970s? Surely if this admits that anything other than a Labour government are reducing inequality, it must be true. It would be like the Daily Mail praising Jeremy Corbyn. And what's that, Gruniad? Income inequality in the UK is actually falling? Surely there's no disputing it now. Even in the global economy, income inequality is falling according to this article.

So, if you're from Inequality Briefing, stop scaremongering, and actually #ShareTheFacts.

Rant over.

Majorism

I'm currently in my final year of school. For six hours per week, I have Politics, whereupon my teacher and I often have a fascinating discussion on a three-letter suffix, and where it can be applied: "-ism".

Socialism exists as an ideology, so does Liberalism, and Conservativism. Within these, you have your "sub-ideologies": socialism can be broken down into Marxism (original and orthodox), social democratism, and Blairism; Liberalism can be broken down into Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism, as well as neo-Liberalism; Conservativism can be broken down into Traditional Conservativism, One Nation Conservativism, and Thatcherism (or "New Rightism").

Not one person, Left, Right, or centre, would deny that "Thatcherism" is a distinct political ideology, not dissimilar to monetarism. So why doesn't John Major's government get the same treatment? I've only ever seen the term "Majorism" used once by the media, in 2011. However, as I shall now demonstrate, Majorism is clearly a distinct politico-economic ideology. Do I follow it? Not really, I'm more of a Thatcherite.

ECONOMICS

Whilst continuing some Thatcherite economic policies, such as privatisation (such as the 1993 privatisation of the rail network), Major had a economic ideology largely very different to Thatcher, contrary to popular belief.

1 - DEVALUATION

In the aftermath of "Black Wednesday" in 1992, the pound crashed against the Deutschmark, to which it was being pegged after Lawson and Howe bullied Thatcher into going into it in 1989. The Government were forced to take it out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), as it had dropped below its lower limit.

Such a "flash crash" would, surely, cause the pound to go back up soon-ish? No - and with Lamont out of the door, Major decides to adopt an economic policy that is more different than Thatcher's. The pound is kept at a deliberately 'weak' level. What does a weak pound cause? An emphasis - and increases the value of - exports, with the drawback that imports are more expensive. Hence, people stopped importing goods, start exporting them, and we end up with export-led growth. 

2 - SMALL GOVERNMENT

Another key factor of Majorism is to do with budget responsibility. Thatcher did not tend to operate a budget surplus - but after the introduction of Majorism in 1992, the budget deficit does not rise once. With New Labour pledging in 1997 (but not 2001) to stick to the Conservatives' spending plans in this department (and they do stick to their word until the second term), we can attribute the fiscal period of 1993 - 2001 as Majorist economic budget responsibility. The budget deficit does not rise once - by 1998, this even hits a surplus.

By 2001, government spending as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest level since records began - and even the current Conservative government will not get this low (they were on course to, but minor changes to the economic forecast in the March 2015 budget means that they are no longer on course to "beat the record"). Thatcher didn't really decrease government spending as a percentage of GDP in this way. 

3 - UNEMPLOYMENT

Thatcher believed in the notion that controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Whatever your views on this statement, during the Majorism period of 1993 - 2001, save for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in 1998, unemployment falls at a steady and constant rate. After Chancellor Gordon Brown is no longer bound by the New Labour manifesto to stick to Majorism in 2001, unemployment flattens out. He does this by increasing job opportunities for those out of work - one of the founding principles of the "back to basics" campaign of 1992. 

4 - INTEREST RATES

This is difficult to attribute all the way through the 1993 - 2001 period, as the Bank of England became responsible for setting monetary policy in 1997. But even looking between 1993 and 1997, when monetary policy was still within the government's control, the government had more control of interest rates after "Black Wednesday" than it did between 1989 and 1992. Interest rates hit a 20-year low under Majorism, as unlike Thatcher, inflation was not seen as a huge problem. Indeed, from a historical perspective, according to the BBC's "Back In Time For Dinner", the sheer amount of products available in the early 1990s, with a tin of beans being able to be purchased for just 3p, for example, meant that controlling inflation harshly, as had been done right up until 1992, was no longer necessary. Despite this, inflation continued to fall.

Whilst being slightly speculatory, it can be argued that the Bank of England adopted Majorism until 2001, too: the range interest rates were in in this period were where they were between 1994 and 1997. Lo and behold: post-2001, they're dropped below their Majorite trough of 5%, and inflation starts rising.

SOFT EUROSCEPTICISM

With the thorny issue of the European Union ripping the Conservative Party to shreds in the late 1980s (taking Thatcher along with it) and early 1990s, John Major attempted to balance the extreme views on both sides of his party by adopting a policy of soft Euroscepticism.

1 - OPT-OUT ON THE SINGLE CURRENCY

John Major was caught between a rock and a hard place when it came to the thorny issue of the Euro; on the one hand, he had Ken Clarke et al - those who wish for full European integration, including the adoption of the single currency, and the Europhiles responsible for driving out Thatcher. On the other hand, he had John Redwood et al - the hard Eurosceptics who didn't want us to go into the single currency, or any single market at all. So when John Major went to Maastricht in 1992 to negotiate and sign the Treaty on the European Union, he declared the opt-out he'd secured on the Euro "game, set, and match for Britain".

2 - VETO

This turned out to be a case of "out of the frying pan, and into the fire", but at the time, he was praised by the Eurosceptics of his party for doing so. After the hated Jacques Delors (who Thatcher repeatedly mocked during her final years) was to be replaced as President of the European Commission, Major vetoed the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene, who wanted a European super-state. He was praised for this - but the "out of the frying pan, and into the fire" came when he found out they'd ended up with a clone of him instead, Jacques Santer.

3 - BACK TO THE PARTY

Tony Blair was always very good at being able to turn a soundbite. In 1997, one memorable edition of Prime Minister's Questions featured the quotation of Blair calling Major "weak, weak, weak" on the issue of Europe. But if one watches the full eight minutes, Major easily wins on substance, and says that he will ask his PPCs what the position on the EU should be, unlike Tony Blair, who told his PPCs what to think regarding Europe. Before the "referendum craze" of New Labour, this was as close as it got to the people having a direct say.

FOREIGN POLICY

There's not really a sub-heading I can use here, as it's very easily summarised: not attempting to take sides in conflicts where Britain is not directly threatened. For example, John Major oversaw the war occurring after the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991, culminating in the war in Bosnia & Herzegovina in 1993. Major and his cabinet did not wish to get actively involved in it.

COMPARISONS WITH THE CAMERON GOVERNMENT

1 - ECONOMICS

Many people associate the current Conservative front bench with being Thatcherites - when Majorites is a better description of them economically:

- A weaker pound in order to promote export-led growth;

- Driving down the deficit and getting into a budget surplus;

- Driving down unemployment through the Work Programme;

- Record low interest rates alongside low inflation.

2 - EUROPE

David Cameron is a pure Majorite when it comes to Europe:

- Secured an cut in the EU budget in 2012 in real terms;

- Vetoed a treaty that was against the UK's national interest;

- Given a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

3 - FOREIGN POLICY

Cameron's foreign policy is more interventionist than Major's, but less so than Blair's.

_______________________________________________________________________

It is unambiguously clear to me that Majorism, as a distinct political ideology, exists. There are distinct policy ideas when it comes to Politics and Economics - although one does have to attribute that it is hard for him to make sweeping changes, considering he was continuing from a previous Conservative government.

I would argue that David Cameron's Conservative government is a Majorite government, not a Thatcherite one, as I have indicated above. (I may go into further detail on this in a later blog post, but I won't promise anything.)

Cricket and Terrestrial Television

It's Monday 6 July 2015, and in two days' time, another Ashes series is about to begin. It will be another Ashes series - and another test series - that I am unable to see in full, as it is being broadcast live on Sky Sports. I am not the billpayer in my household and so getting this (legally, at least) is out of my hands. Thankfully, I've timed my holidays by renting out some lovely cottages 'up naaaarth' which do possess this facility.

The final ever ball of live cricket on terrestrial TV.

Not a single ball of live cricket has been broadcast on terrestrial television since 1 June 2014, when the Kolkata Knight Riders defeated the Kings XI Punjab by three wickets in the Indian Premier League final, live on ITV4. As someone who hates the IPL, with its "leg side wides" and the improper shots (show Don Bradman the 'back away and swing' and he'd go absolutely ape), does this really count in any case? The final ball was bowled by a player I've never heard of to a batsman I've never heard of, who hit it for four over backward point.

The final ball of live test cricket was a big anticlimax, and this one I remember distinctly. On Monday 12 September 2005, Steve Harmison bowled a ball in the dark to Justin Langer, which glanced off his pads, beat Geraint Jones, and went for four leg byes. Australia now needed 338 runs to win with 14.2 overs left in the game, and Justin Langer called Matthew Hayden, Rudi Koertzen, and Billy Bowden together, and they all agreed that the light was too bad. The match was drawn, and England regained the Ashes. Unsurprisingly, this has never found its way onto the internet.

The BBC hasn't broadcast a single ball in highlights form (excluding news reports) since the 2006-07 Ashes series, when England were trounced 5-0. The last ball in highlights form was Matthew Hayden hitting the winning runs at Sydney. Their last live ball was in 1998. 

Is there actually an appetite for terrestrial broadcasters to broadcast cricket? The answer is a resounding no. According to a 2015 BBC report, Sky are shelling out £65m (per year, presumably) for the rights to every single ball - live - faced by the England cricket team. Consider the fact that Channel 4, between 2002 and 2005, shelled out £150m, it's very rare for rights costs to go down for any sport. Sky would only have been able to get a reduction if no one else was willing to pay for the rights. Certainly, the furore over the 2013-14 Ashes highlights definitely shows that no one wants to broadcast cricket on terrestrial television. If you're unaware what happened, the BBC and ITV both pulled out at the last minute, causing Sky to take it upon themselves and put highlights on Pick TV, their Free-To-Air channel. It was such a last minute decision that it even ended with "next on Sky Sports 2...", until David Gower provided some "top and tail" to the programmes after Adelaide. 

The BBC are shelling out £60m for the flailing "Match Of The Day", £70m per year for Wimbledon, £15m for shared (and poor) F1 coverage (according to the F1 Broadcasting Blog), and suddenly, it all adds up. Put that money on the table to the ECB, and with the allure, and the inspiration, no doubt, that comes with terrestrial television, and the ECB may just go with the BBC. Consider that the BBC may be paying for the Radio rights as it is (although I doubt it), there's more money that could be saved if the BBC took a Radio + TV deal as one, rather than two deals. 

One of England's best batting performances ever, stuck
behind a £40 paywall.

I don't wish to take away anything from the excellent Sky coverage, which has broadcast every English overseas test live since 1990 (which I don't think had been done before), and continues to go from strength to strength. The trouble is that no one watches cricket any more. Even with pay-per-view TV, cricket is still higher in the ratings than it was for the 2001 Ashes series, live on Channel 4, but it is nowhere near the viewing figures for 2005 (Channel 4) or indeed, 2009 (Sky). 

Even if it was highlights, everyone remembers Kolo
Touré's own goal against Fulham. But how many people
remember Channel 5's commentary of the 2009 Ashes?

But why do so many more people watch - and are interested in - football than they are cricket, when 10 years ago, the opposite was true? Neither have the main event broadcast live on terrestrial television (the Premier League vs English tests). So where does the blame lie for the failure of cricket in the last 10 years? The England team for not doing well enough? No, they were world #1 in 2011. What about the other side of the coin? What has football done right that cricket hasn't? The BBC haven't made a mess of their highlights show in the same way Channel 5 have. "Cricket on Five" is terrible and is ridiculously poor, and is basically the very worst of Channel 4's coverage over the years. Limiting itself to just Mark Nicholas, Geoffrey Boycott, Simon Hughes, Michael Vaughan since 2011, and occasionally a few others, it's nowhere near the better Match Of The Day. So what Channel 5 must do is have a complete rethink. For starters, don't put ODI highlights on at 1am... 

I've just written a lengthy piece and I haven't come to any conclusion. What can be done? The BBC don't want it and ITV gave it all up. It's quite cheap in relation to other sports. Sky is the only reasonable option. Sky really should put the Ashes live on Pick, but that ruins their business model. Until the BBC stump up the courage to dump some of its ENDLESS Wimbledon coverage, we're stuck without cricket for a long time.

My Countdown Experience

Countdown. Thrills me to bits, with its hundreds of letters. Well, 26. There's a few VCRs of Countdown recordings I still have somewhere, and there's a photo album, featuring a photo of myself and the similarly-aged son of a friend of my father's (blimey, what a mouthful) watching a Richard Whiteley Countdown in 2004. I followed Countdown religiously when I was young. We'd done our own job of creating a homemade letters stack (easier said than done) and then I saved up and bought a proper board game from Hamley's in London. £20 was a lot in 2005 for a six-year-old!

When Richard Whiteley died I apparently balled my eyes out (I was only 6!!). Des Lynam took over, and apart from his monotonous voice, the only thing I remember about him was that he always seemed to be very quick to start the clock, too much so, he'd punched the button before he'd finished saying "start the clock!". This gave rise to a lasting memory of Carol Vorderman reading out viewers' criticisms ("Digital Des", "Lightning Lynam"). Series 54, Conor Travers' series, I was hooked (Conor Travers was just awesome) and the Championship of Champions in 2006 that followed was fantastic. Apparently I shed a tear or two when Conor was knocked out of that (sorry, Paul!). I didn't watch Series 55 through to the very end of Series 61 (and I don't remember why I gave it up).

In December 2009, I'm channel-hopping with a friend of friend when I see the clock and it all comes flooding back. It turns out to be the third half of the epic Innis Carson/Chris Davies semi final, and Innis pulls away with SOLENOID, before Chris aces a numbers game and unscrambles EPITUSSLE on 25 seconds. I was hooked again.

During Series 62 in 2010, I combined the internet and Countdown - and that's when I discovered the various websites out there. In late 2010, I even tagged along to a meeting of contestants and fans to play Countdown. I finished stone dead last. I did this again the following year at the same location. I was getting CAT whilst they were getting CATACLYSM. At this stage, the wonderful Jeff Stelling left the show, to be replaced with Nick Hewer. I didn't take to Nick at first, but he grew on me by 2013. Just as well, as 2013 was the 30th Birthday Championship. The final was fantastic. The first "ambulance" in history, three nines in a row, and the joint highest ever score... from Conor Travers. December 2013 gave us the Series 69 finals, with Dylan Taylor taking on Callum Todd in the final, with Todd prevailing on a tie-break conundrum. That was very good.

I filled out the form as soon as I could. My 16th birthday meant I was now eligible to appear on Countdown (due to some annoying regulations). A life ambition for me, although perhaps not as good as some of the players in and around my ability. I send the form off in September 2014.

Fast forward to November and I get a phone audition. I spotted ESSENTIAL in one of the rounds and that pretty much cracked it. It takes the team four months to give me a date, and then I get 37 pages of notes in the post, looking for that date... there it is. Sunday 19 April 2015.

I don't remember much about the train journey up there except for me struggling with modern technology, trying to listen to Blackpool vs the mighty Fulham, then trying to watch qualifying for the Bahrain Grand Prix on 3G. There was a hotel laid on for us by Channel 4 and my father and I got there in time to watch Adam Federici make the costly error that dumped Reading out of the FA Cup. I can't remember the rest of Saturday very well.

The schedule for Sunday was an odd one. I was show one but that wasn't until 12:30 anyway. So a big breakfast (something I don't usually have) and I was up to the studios.

My first opponent was the carryover champion from Series 72, James Judge, having been stopped by the finals, and this was the very first programme of the new series. The wonderful Colin Murray was in Dictionary Corner, and he came in to make-up and spoke to us all before going down.

I remember make-up quite well. Once James, myself, and the players for shows two and three had turned up for the "morning" session, we were all taken upstairs by Lucy, whose job title I can't remember. A young man informed us that "Rachel's been shopping", and I saw Rachel eyeing up the brilliant (and the not-so-brilliant) dresses on the rack. Anyway, I ended up conversing for a while in make-up with Susie Dent. She's very different off-camera. It strikes me that she still looks nervous on camera 23 years after her debut, as she was very talkative backstage (and indeed, when the cameras weren't recording on the set).

So after being pampered (thinking "this won't stay on"), James and I finally got into the studio. We sat down, and in what proved to be a recurring theme, the floor manager tried (and failed) to mic me up. Finally, we got underway. I refused myself SOUPIER early on and although it made no difference at the time, by round four James had spotted FANCIEST to take the lead, before I struck back with MUTATED in round five. I then mistranscribed my solution to Round 6 (I wanted to say 100 + 50 + 9, but forgot the + 9), meaning I again trailed by 8. James got another eight onto his lead and I felt resigned, trailing by 16. I refused myself OUTRANGE in round eight as James also had seven. But in round nine I hit back with an exact solution. It was 49 - 43 going into the third half and I was the 43. Things got worse thereafter, when I had CAPITAS and PACIEST written down. I went for CAPITAS. PACIEST was in and CAPITAS wasn't. The gap was 13 with five to go. I then took six off that with TANNOY, before we both got sixes in rounds 12 and 13. 7 gap, 2 to go. I then managed to get one away on a 4 large so difficult Rachel couldn't get it... James was eight away. So it was 68 and 68 going into the conundrum. BOLDPAPER came up. The clock ran out and DROPPABLE was revealed. Difficult. Filming was stopped for a second conundrum, at which point I said to Colin that "we could be here all night!!" Conundrum #2. HONEYPLOX. Again, no answers. XYLOPHONE the solution. Susie then pointed out that OXYPHENOL was also a solution, so here we go again for conundrum #2 #2. GADWINNER. I immediately saw REWARDING, before spotting the extra N. I buzzed on 4 seconds to say "WANDERING" - and I made it. I still feel very sorry for James. He played very, very, well, and I was lucky to win in all honesty.

But for program two I was up against one of those people who was doing the game show circuit, Michael Stokes. He'd been on 15 to 1 in 2014 (as had James Judge in the William G Stewart era), so immediately I was nervous. Nick dubbed this "performers' edition", as I had sung Dead Or Alive whilst Michael had appeared on stage with Diana Ross. But I always think the key to this game is to get a lead early on. And I did so, memorably declaring GONADS in round one (prompting Nick to ask Susie if she had any GONADS in the corner). We tied rounds two and three and so I led 22 - 16 going into the break. Golden gonads was doing the trick for me. We tied round four, but a horrible set in round five allowed me to get FINER whilst Michael could only get RAIN. I then hit the numbers game on the head, giving me a 21-point advantage at what I consider to be the halfway stage (although it technically isn't). Round 7 was two 7s, before Michael played PLANING in round eight whilst I stuck with PLAIN (although Rachel misspelt this on the board as PLANE), but Michael had used a phantom N, so this gave me a bigger advantage. We then both got the third numbers, and then I made the biggest mistake of all: Michael declared four in round 10, I had a six and a seven. Feeling a little complacent with a 26-point lead, I went for the invalid COZIEST. We then tied the next two letters rounds before I pulled out another seven in the last letters game with IMPALED. I then hit the numbers game on the head, giving me a chance to get 100, something I've not done online often. I couldn't see the answer to LONGTULIP, mind you, and it finished 92 - 63.

My third opponent was one amazing woman who's lived a full-on life. There is so much she has done it would easily be a post in itself. Maxine Jones was, amazingly, 60. She looked very good for 60. In round one, I spotted OUTLINES to take an eight-point lead, before we both hit a seven in round two and got the numbers game in round three. 25 - 17. I pulled out another seven in round four, and although we couldn't get past five in round five, I hit the numbers in round six splendidly, to lead by 25 points. I then extended my lead further in round seven, but Maxine struck back with HAREMS in round eight. I then hit round nine on the nose and I had a 36-point lead going into part three. We tied rounds 10 and 11, before Maxine, trailing by 36 with four to go, gambled on SONDAGE, but this was disallowed, and I now had a 42-point lead with three to go. I then took my foot off the gas a little, and missed the darrenic seven in round 13, did something completely stupid in round 14 (if you're going to declare not written down, make sure you can remember your method), and missed MULTICONS (which Rachel got). Maxes in those three rounds would have given me 108, but as it was I only got 81. Maxine got 53, but I think she deserved more than that, the scoreline didn't fully tell the story.

The next two contestants arrived at the studios and I was immediately worried as one was a university student and one looked serious and focused. I fell behind to the University student, Abby Fawkes, early on, when she found CRAWLED in round two. I managed to get two away on the numbers game to draw level. But in round four I fell behind again when Abby declared POLITE and to add insult to injury, my five was disallowed. Meanwhile, DC suffered from PENILE dysfunction. My plight got worse in round seven when I had PAILED disallowed, giving me a 12-point deficit. I declared LAUNDER in round eight to get this back to five, before we both failed to get the target on round nine, and I pointed out to Rachel that Nick read out the same clue to Teaser #2 as Teaser #1. I wrote this piece before transmission, so I don't know how they rectified this. [Ed - it turns out they didn't] But in round 10 all thoughts of double teasers were behind me now, and I spotted RADIOS whilst STAIRS was disallowed as Abby had spotted a phantom S, giving me a one-point lead. I then hit the darrenic seven before round 12 produced one of the crappiest letters selections in the history of Countdown. Abby had a 3. I had a 4. DC had eight. No, literally, they had EIGHT for five. I was now 12 ahead but not 100% home and dry yet. I pulled out further in round 13, and with 19 points the gap Abby picked two large on the final numbers game. I got it and she didn't, giving me a 29-point cushion. On the conundrum I could hear Colin scribbling away frantically on my right, knowing that he'd probably got it. The scramble was BLEAKRAJI and I could see JAIL-, but I rather stupidly was looking at the -ER route so declared JAILBAKER on 26 seconds. Abby hit the buzzer on 29.75 and declared JAILBREAK. I was annoyed with myself (although I didn't say this on camera when asked!). The final score was 78 - 59.

Opponent five looked difficult. Olly Hall had a beard (which automatically makes men look 100% more serious). I fell 10 points behind early on when I missed an easy numbers game, but closed this down in round four - even though I refused myself DOSAGES, I declared a six when Olly declared five. SOAKED was my word. We then tied every round up until round eight, when I took the lead by virtue of having PUNNET versus the invalid PINCE. In round nine I got the numbers game with four away (and during the break, Rachel, Colin, and I were all trying to crack 807 without success). With my appalling conundrum record (17% at that point) then I knew 9 points wouldn't be enough of a lead, and so by spotting AIRPORT at the very last second in round 12, I pulled out to 16. I then achieved my second ambition on Countdown (to get a "very, very good" and a "he knows his Countdown words" from Susie) when I declared ATOMISER. During a filming break, Susie asked me about the invalid nine MORTALISE, as she thought it was in (but was promptly disappointed). I replied that I knew it wasn't in as I'd seen it come up before and be disallowed. Conundrum cock-up #2 followed, when I really should have got RESPONDED, but stuck the R and E in the wrong place and rang in with SPONDERED... Olly did something similar and rang in with DESPONDER, before an audience member (who ended up starting a fan club for me afterwards, even stalking me when I went for dinner) answered with RESPONDED. End of day one and I was the returning champion.

At the time, I was glad to get to the overnight halt. Poor Nick looked absolutely knackered at this point. But I just couldn't sleep during the night and I felt even more nervous when I returned. In a sense, you're most nervous for show one, but when you start picking wins up, you lose nerves. But when you start getting a lot of wins, you end up knowing there's a finals place at stake.

I went to the green room on day two to meet the next three contestants: a serious quizzer, an apterite, and one very shy man. Beat these three and I'll be an octochamp. Show six would be against an Irishman, Pat Lonegan, the "Brain Of Kildare", which sounded ominous.

Now, I was 110% sure that ELATIONS was in, so much so that I was fishing for it; missing OUTLINES (which I had played yesterday) completely. I immediately went seven behind, and in round two I struck back with the darrenic TADPOLE, before a stupidly easy numbers game gave Pat and I 17 each into the break. I refused myself INROAD in round four, keeping the game deadlocked, before falling behind when Pat had PALLID to my POLLS. Another easy numbers game, and I started to panic. But in round seven I thought I'd get the lead back when I spotted QUIETER... only for Pat to say "ESQUIRE" and keep his six-point lead. I then missed the niner TRAPEZIUM in round eight. Thankfully, so did Pat, and everyone in the studio in the next break had to inform Nick what one was, much to Rachel's dismay. Then I picked four large on the numbers, and was so engrossed in finding 832 via the 937.5 rule that I'd completely missed the easy way to 831. I was now 13 behind. We tied round 10 before I missed ANCHOR in round 11 and I was now 19 behind, probably chasing a lost cause. But spotting ATTAINS in round 12 got the gap back to 12... we tied round 13... come on... please deliver a hard one, CECIL... Oh. We got to 536 two different ways but that was that. I had my hopes up during the clock as Pat was still scribbling away, only for him to put his pen down on 20 seconds. I knew he'd got it. He then solved VENUSCOLD to win 76 - 98.

I stayed behind to watch Pat play the next show against apterite Rob Maxwell and take a few snaps with Rachel and Nick (but not Joe "Macclederry", as Nick would say). Then I had to run off to catch the train back to London, and all of a sudden my life was back to normal.

At the time of writing, I don't know if I'm going to be in the finals or not. It's very difficult to guess, certainly. Are 5 wins and 494 points going to be enough? I'm now hoping that we don't get lots of 6+ winners (although Jonathan Wynn and Thomas Carey, two apterites I know, might fancy their chances). I don't know how the rest of that day's filming went, so we'll see.

2015 General Election - Who's Going To Win - And How Many Votes Will They Need?

Election 2015 is nearly upon us, which will mean hectic campaigning, and by 7 May, for me, shattered legs and knees from walking up hills and steps in Harrow West. But when the voting stops, the counting begins, and the results are declared, who's going to win?

LABOUR - WHAT DO THEY NEED?

According to the Electoral Calculus, the Conservatives' unpopularity can't get them to win. Yes, governments tend to become more popular as the election nears, but the predictions are firmly in the "red zone" of a Labour majority in 2013. With only the economy to boast about, the Electoral Calculus argues a lack of policy. Thinking about it in terms of data, between the last two years before the election (for example, 1981-1983, 2008-2010, 2013-2015), the government tends to rise by an average of 2.2% since 1981-3, whereas the opposition falls by a whopping 6.3% since 1981-3. The Liberal Democrats/Alliance have an average rise of 2.3%. Applying this to the 2013 values on the Electoral Calculus and you get the Conservatives on 32.5%, Labour on 31.9%, and the Liberal Democrats on 12.5%. Uniform swings produce the following: Labour short by 14 on the Electoral Calculus; Labour short by 18 on UK Polling Report; Labour short by 24 on the swingometer. With the Conservatives 0.6% ahead in the votes, this result would open up questions about the voting system.

EC: LAB 312, CON 280, LD 30, OTH 28 - Labour short by 14

UKPR: LAB 308, CON 281, LD 31, OTH 29 - Labour short by 18

SWINGO: LAB 302, CON 261, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 24

Using a poll released on the day I am writing this, which has Labour on 34%, the Conservatives on 33%, UKIP on 14%, and the Liberal Democrats on 7%, applying this uniformly gives the following: Labour majority of 6 on the Electoral Calculus; Labour short by 1 on UK Polling Report; Labour short by 20 on the swingometer. Adjusting the swingometer for the Liberal Democrat losses that the Electoral Calculus predicts, the swingometer argues that Labour would be short by 2. 

EC: LAB 328, CON 280, OTH 27, LD 15, UKIP 0 - Labour Majority of 6

UKPR: LAB 325, CON 281, OTH 27, LD 16 - Labour short by 1

SWINGO: LAB 306, CON 257, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 20

ADJUSTED SWINGO: LAB 324, CON 284, LD 15, OTH 30 - Labour short by 2

From this we can determine that Labour need about 35% (just to be sure) with a two point lead over the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on about 7-9% to win the election. 

CONSERVATIVES - CAN DAVID CAMERON BE REELECTED?

Can the Conservatives win? According to Peter Kellner, President of YouGov, they can. All they need to do is to attract the Liberal Democrat voters, whose vote share is 8% in one poll at the moment. If that were to happen at the election in May, then 16% of the vote needs to be redistributed. An 8%/8% increase for Labour and the Conservatives will give the Conservatives will end up with an overall majority assuming that the Conservative, Labour, and UKIP voters vote the same way they did in 2010. The Electoral Calculus predicts a Conservative majority of 38; UK Polling Report predict a majority of 36; the basic swingometer that I composed predicts a hung Parliament, with the Conservatives short by 20. A swingometer only accounts for a two-party system, mind you, so this can be discounted. The reason is that both Labour and the Conservatives will pick up the seats they're fighting against with the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives have more potential in this area, winning the South West of England and picking up four extra seats in Scotland whilst holding the one they already have.

EC: CON 344, LAB 277, OTH 25, LD 4, UKIP 0 - Conservative Majority of 38

UKPR: CON 343, LAB 277, OTH 25, LD 4 - Conservative Majority of 36

SWINGO: CON 306, LAB 258, LD 57, OTH 30 - Conservatives short by 20

We therefore know that a seven point lead would win the Conservatives the election if they attract Liberal voters. We'll try looking at the height of the Conservatives' polling within the last month, which was a two-point lead with them on 36%. This has the Conservatives on 36%, Labour on 34%, UKIP on 13%, and the Liberal Democrats on 7%. Would a two-point lead be enough to win them the election? No. They wouldn't even be the largest party in a hung Parliament, according to both the Electoral Calculus and UK Polling Report: Labour short by 13 and 16 respectively. The swingometer paints a slightly better picture for the Conservatives with Labour short by 31 - which is one of the most equal states possible.

EC: LAB 313, CON 299, OTH 27, LD 11, UKIP 0 - Labour short by 13

UKPR: LAB 310, CON 302, OTH 27, LD 10 - Labour short by 16

SWINGO: LAB 285, CON 278, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 31

The problem with the predicted average change in the polls is that the 2013 averages are unfairly skewed by a huge double-figure lead Labour possessed throughout the first few months of 2013 (with voters still feeling the effects of Osborne's so-called "omnishambles" budget in 2012). The Conservatives' best poll in Q4 of 2013, therefore, had the Conservatives and Labour tied on 35%, with UKIP on 10% and the Lib Dems on 9%. UKIP are not included in the averages, so apply the averages to this (to no decimal places) and you end up with the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 29%, and the Liberal Democrats on 11%. This would be enough for the Conservatives to win: Conservative majority of 22 on the Electoral Calculus, Conservative majority of 16 on UK Polling Report. The swingometer gives the Conservatives short by 17, but accounting for Liberal losses according to the Electoral Calculus gives an extra 11 seats to Labour and 25 extra seats to the Conservatives, more than enough, ending up with a majority of 18.

EC: CON 336, LAB 266, OTH 29, LD 19 - Conservative Majority of 22

UKPR: CON 333, LAB 263, OTH 28, LD 25 - Conservative Majority of 16

SWINGO: CON 309, LAB 254, LD 57, OTH 30 - Conservatives short by 17

ADJUSTED SWINGO: CON 334, LAB 265, OTH 30, LD 21 - Conservative Majority of 18.

The Conservatives therefore still would rely on the Lib Dem collapse more than anything else, as their lead of 7% at the last election is difficult to expand, otherwise we'd be getting into, as Jeremy Paxman once put it, "Michael Foot territory" - and this is where the swingometer comes in handy. If the Liberal Democrats do not collapse, we predict at Benjamin's Blog the Conservatives will need an 11% lead over Labour - a 2% swing. With the Conservatives on 39% and Labour on 28%, there's a clear winner, but what happens if both parties start dropping and the Liberal Democrats stay the same? Using UKPR, which is better for this sort of thing when looking at the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems would only need to garner 1% extra in order to force a hung Parliament if the Conservatives win by 11% (CON 38%, LAB 27%, LD 25%, OTH 11%).

Therefore, the very minimum the Conservatives need to win the election will depend on how well or badly the Liberal Democrats do. If the Lib Dem vote doesn't collapse, the Conservatives would need to get 39% to win with Labour on 28%. We estimate that if the Lib Dem vote does collapse to 7% then the Conservatives would only need a 5-6% lead over Labour with the Conservatives on around what they got last time - and could even afford to undercut it - 35% or thereabouts. As a graph, we can think about lead over Labour vs. Lib Dem rating. If the Lib Dems end up somewhere in the middle, say, on 14%, the Conservatives would need an 8% lead.

TO CONCLUDE AS A TABLE

In table form:

Labour and the economy

This week saw the Labour Party conference. A buzz of socialism gathered together in one big hall, used as an attempt to try to promote the Labour Party to voters. However, this week the public saw who the real Labour were.

On day one I received an email from the Conservative Party taken from a survey of those who had attended the Labour Party conference (conducted by Labour). In it, it contained the damning evidence of Labour PPCs up and down the country, almost UKIP-esque in how each candidate gets notoriety:

85% of Labour PPCs said that the last Labour government didn't spend too much.

Ridiculous. According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, "spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997." As Labour poured so much money into public services in their first 10 years from 1997 to 2007, productivity fell. Worse still, the real terms value of the pound fell by even more than productivity in these 10 years. The warning signs were there and Labour had already spent too much. According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, "if the Government had managed to maintain the “bang for each buck” at the level it inherited in 1997, it would have been able to deliver the quantity and quality of public services it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less." £42,500,000,000 of your money. Unnecessarily spent.

10% of Labour PPCs said that the last Labour government should have spent more money.

I'm not having a laugh, I promise. On top of the £42.5bn wasted between 1997 and 2007, the deficit increased from the £29.2bn deficit it inherited to £36.4bn before the recession - another loss of £7.2bn - and when the recession hit, boy, did Labour mess this up. Since 1979, the biggest budget deficit was in 1993 where the government that year, as a consequence of Black Wednesday, ran a budget deficit of £50.9bn. In 2008 Darling smashed that with £69bn. In 2009 he went even better and smashed it up to an incredible £156.3bn. One hundred and fifty six billion and three hundred million pounds was the government black hole. That was bigger than Greece. And at the same time taxes were going up. This wasn't working for Labour. And yet over 60 PPCs say that wasn't enough. They wanted to clog up the toilet with the wasted money being flushed away.

42% of Labour PPCs want to raise direct taxes to reduce the deficit.

Only 18% think we should cut spending.

Wow. Time to get this old poster out again:

And that was in 1992. This time around it's even worse. Labour have an £36bn black hole to fill of unfunded spending commitments, and they want 29.8 million taxpayers to pay for it. That's an extra £1,208.05 per year. An extra £1,200, we'll call it, every year. That's 4.6% of the average national income. According to Guido Fawkes, this tax isn't steeper for the rich. It isn't even flat. It will hit the poorest hardest. Besides, even if you taxed the rich at 98%, as Labour once did, you wouldn't be able to fund it.

So where will you find £1,200? You could cut back by £20 per week on food and groceries.

OK, maybe not. Another way? You could give up the family holiday, that should save £1,200 in one go. That won't go down popularly either.

So let's look at another way. You could sell your car - that's at least £1,200, surely? OK, maybe not. 

All right, you can keep your car, but you'd have to give up your evenings and go minicabbing. Well that's no fun, is it?

You could try striking, but that never works, does it? Strikes go up under Labour, maybe that's why... 

In that case, you'd just have to work overtime. A teacher would have to take classes for an extra few hours. A fireman would have to work a few extra shifts. A farmer would have to sweat in the field.

Judging by their tax bombshell, it's no wonder that

ED MILIBAND DIDN'T MENTION THE ECONOMY ONCE IN HIS SPEECH.

Also, not only did Blair and Brown's government make a mess of the economy, but Wilson and Callaghan made a mess of the economy too...

I shall leave you with the following tweet:

Ed Miliband couldn't run a bath, let alone the economy.

— Rhys Benjamin (@TheotherRB) September 24, 2014

Is Eurovision the answer to the Russia/Ukraine crisis?

Over the last few days, Vladimir Putin has said a lot of things about the current situation there. But with World War Three Four seemingly on the horizon (well, surely World War Three was the Afghan War?), is there a solution from a place you wouldn't expect it?

In the 1976 Olympics, US and USSR athletes were spotted talking to each other. It's little things like this. But my solution is what my major event was designed for.

In 1956, the Eurovision Song Contest was set up to promote peace and unite a war-torn Europe. Surely the Eurovision Song Contest can return to its original values for a few weeks in April and May? It definitely can. This year, it's in the neutral country of Denmark. Because they won last year, if you have read the link before.

Where are we on this? Well, Ukraine have revealed its entry - have a listen here - whilst Russia are revealing theirs in the middle of March. My country, the United Kingdom, has revealed its entry - Molly with "Children Of The Universe". 

Why mention the UK, though? Why didn't I mention something like "Heartbeat" from Ireland? Well, there's two very good reasons for that: the Irish song is rubbish, and the lyrics of the UK entry have a part in this.

Don't believe me? Well, read this extract from the UK entry:

Power to the people, oh, ee ee

Power to the people, oh, oh-oh-oh 

(And no, I'm not advertising a certain mobile phone company. Honest.)

Will Ukraine act on the UK's song? Well, if they speak English, they will. That's what they want, isn't it? Some socialist propaganda according to popular opinion? In reality, it's more Thatcherite propaganda: socialism is the devolution of powers from the individual and to the state. Power from the people, more like.

If the Ukrainian entrant - whose name I can't spell - gets stuck in with the social aspect of the contest - and possibly achieves a good result with "Tick Tock" (which is very good!) then maybe tensions will diffuse? What will the countries give each other, though? Let's bear in mind it is a televote. People have the choice. (OK, 50% of the scores do come from professionals, but it's still a televote mostly, as televote has precedence in a tie-break.)

I don't think Ukraine will win the contest with "Tick Tock". Yes, it's solid, but not as good as the British and Romanian entries in my eyes. And Hungary have finally sent something decent, so should do well. So that may hinder things. But will homophobic Putin watch Eurovision, a telethon synonymous with the LGBT community? I hate to say it, but I think the answer will be no. The organisers of the contest in general, the EBU, and the organisers of this year's contest, DR, are using the slogan #JoinUs, which is a bit unwieldy. I hope Putin reads it - but how do you translate a hashtag into Russian? Anyone?

Of course, Ukraine could, at great expense (the fines are immense!) pull the plug on the contest altogether. The last time a country did that was Armenia in 2012, who were fined a lot of money. Circumstances aren't that bad - the contest was being held in Azerbaijan, which has been at war with Armenia since 1993 - and although both countries wanted Armenia there, Armenia pulled out after there was a shoot-out and a death in the conflict. 

Since Ukraine joined the contest in 2004, Russia have given them points in the final every year, with the exception of 2006. Even so, they don't tend to give them lots of points - mostly 1 or 2. Even in 2013, when Ukraine came third, Russia only awarded one point to the Ukraine, when most countries awarded lots more. So the Russian people will probably give nul points to Ukraine. 

But only time will tell if Eurovision solves this. 

£166bn down the drain? No thanks, Ed...

Ed Balls has been trying to claim that Labour ‘will not duck the hard choices ahead’. They said they were serious about the economy. But now we know that isn't true.

Analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that his plans would allow Labour to borrow and spend billions more.

Official Treasury numbers have shown the full impact of Labour’s plans: a borrowing bombshell adding an additional £166bn to the country's debt in just one parliament, despite what Miliband and Balls will tell you.

Labour’s plan to borrow and spend more is the single biggest risk to our economic recovery. And it’s hardworking people who would pay the price, with higher taxes funding this latest Labour spending spree.

The choice at the next election is now clear: the Conservatives with our long-term economic plan that is building a stronger, more competitive economy, and securing a better future for Britain; the Same Old Labour Party, with no plan, no direction, and no ideas other than more spending, more borrowing and more taxes.

Are you sure you can trust Ed Balls with the economy? After all, Alistair Darling is better than him and look how that ended up. 

A Real Nightmare

If you haven't guessed by now, I am a student. Sadly, I can't change the time settings on this blog: I have no idea what the time is in PST - or whatever the time setting is. But nonetheless, it is my half term break. I use the phrase 'break' very loosely: this has been a break from hell. Ultimately, one can surely understand if I'm having a nightmare. But not one like this.

Well, this half term has been dreadful. As well as the now customary mountain of homework given to me, my father decided that now is the time to redecorate my room. Part of me is glad: I used to have a horrible greeny-yellow wallpaper. But that's OK: the paint just has to be finished now. A colour that Homebase call 'azure' (whatever that is), with 'silk emulsion'. I still have no idea. But that is fine - but this week has been dreadful for the following reasons.

On the evening of Monday 17 February, Microsoft released an update for Windows. The update must have a bug in it, for it broke ALL the computers I have.

Despite technological experts, one is in a state of disrepair. The other one is password-protected due to a fault (we didn't set it to be password-protected but the update has forced it to be so) - and we don't know the password.

Consequently, I'm currently speaking to you from a crummy 7'' tablet my mother owns, whilst listening to 'Diva' by Dana International and watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? on a television channel called Challenge - which is the best thing since sliced bread (it broadcasts game shows!). I haven't got a clue in which US state Saint Augustine is, so I, like this contestant, would gladly take one hundred and twenty five thousand pounds! 

Anyway, I didn't come here to go on and on about US states and female authors and whether the correct term for someone against increasing the powers of the EU is a eurosceptic, a eurostar, a eurotrash, or a eurovision. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. And squeezing this between the mountain of homework given to me...

Anyway, this strange dream I had... where to begin?

As my room is being redecorated, I'm sleeping with my brother (and all of you disgusting perverts can get that thought of your heads NOW), and I have a dream about the next general election.

David Dimbleby introduces the election night, with very badly airbrushed pictures of Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Nigel Farage standing side by side by side by side. Then he introduces Jeremy Vine swinging his swingometer. (I've just thought about using a pun on 'Vine' and 'swinging', but I'm not clever enough to think of one.) Then Andrew Neil and Andrew Marr get shoehorned in, Peter Kellener is added as an afterthought, the Formula One commentator Ben Edwards is also there. I don't know why, the BBC tend to do use gimmicks on election nights: in 2005, they had people spray-painting a map of the UK in the colours won by each constituency. Attempting not to go over the lines on Sunderland South and other extremely urban constituencies was a bit of a disaster. In 2010, they had Andrew Neil interviewing, of all people, Piers Morgan and Bruce Forsyth on a boat next to the London Eye,the latter seeming not to give two hoots about the election. So I have no idea what Ben Edwards is doing there. And then David Dimbleby introduces Emily Maitlis and Nick Robinson, attempting to hide the frustration of a night with Nick Robinson, which would drive anyone mad!

Anyhow, in my version of reality, I am sitting on my sofa with 15 cans of Red Bull and 29 cups of coffee ready to drink in emergency, bearing in mind I hate both of them. Dimbers gives us an exit poll at 22:00 which appears to have gone slightly wrong as it shows UKIP on 631 (+631), Labour on 0 (-258), the Conservatives on 0 (-306), the Liberal Democrats on 0 (-57), and the others on 19 (-10). Nick Robinson dismisses it as rubbish, Jeremy Vine runs out of swing, and Peter Kellener is stunned into silence.

Right then - according to Mr Dimbleby - Houghton and Sunderland South should be first to declare. As always, the swing here will be important, just as it will in the 631 constituencies where the main parties are standing (650 - Speaker's seat - Northern Ireland = 631). 

At 22:41, Houghton and Sunderland South declares with a 7% swing to Labour. UKIP are nowhere. "Well," says Nick Robinson, "What an interesting result. Let's wait and see."

Sunderland Central declares. 7% swing to Labour. UKIP nowhere. This pattern continues for the North East. Result after result goes to Labour. UKIP make gains in the Conservative heartlands. The Liberal Democrats are able to concentrate their votes and monopolise Cornwall and Devon. Making facial gestures at home very similar to those made by defeated Conservative candidates in 1997, I begin to look up one-way plane tickets to Sweden.

It's now, on election night, 4am - and the one result I was desperate to see is coming through. Harrow West. After 17 recounts, this seat finally declares - and Gareth Thomas is ousted after 18 years. Hannah David, a very nice woman comes in. Hannah David wins by just two votes from Gaeth Thomas for the Conservatives. UKIP take third.

But I watch Ed Miliband stumble over his words in Downing Street, with the Ed Balls clown back there - and reading in the papers that he attempted to steal from Buckingham Palace, Ed Miliband walks in to Downing Street - and I wake up. My brother's just switched the lights on. He does this sort of thing. I promptly turn out the lights again. (The political know-alls who read this blog can probably see where this is going.)

Fortunately, you can stop it. By voting for David Cameron at the next general election, you can stop Ed Miliband from winning. A vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Labour. But if Miliband wins, I WILL be getting on that plane to Sweden - and will the last person to leave please turnout the lights?

Labour's (new!) tax bombshell

I had a quick trawl through the Labour Party website, and I could only find the one policy on it, on Ed Miliband's one-off energy price freeze. However, what policies there are on the Labour side, it's obvious as to why they don't want to mention them. Labour have pledged to spend the same pot of money, coming from a bank levy, 13 times over: youth jobs guarantee; lowering VAT; reversing child benefit changes; reversing ALL of Iain Duncan Smith's benefit reforms; more regional growth funding; turning empty shops into community centres; more housing; childcare; cutting the deficit; more spending; more spending on public services.

But hold on, it's not possible to spend more and cut the deficit. It's also not possible to spend the same pot of money 13 times over. So Labour would have to increase taxes. But even if you taxed the rich at 98% (as Labour once did), there aren't enough rich people to pay for it all. So Labour would have to come up with something that hit everybody. The result? Well, look below:

That's £1,250 more tax per year for the typical worker under Ed 'n' Ed - £6,250 more tax over the next five years. Yes, I know I'm recycling old Conservative Party adverts, but it is same old Labour. So where would you save £1,250?

Well, don't worry, Labour would give you a choice:

1. Save £25 per week on weekly shopping. This means giving up chocolate, for starters.
2. Give up the family holiday. This may not prove too popular.
3. Sell your car - that could save you £6,250. But how would you do Britain-wide journeys?
4. Keep your car but take up minicabbing, giving up your evening.
5. Strike - probably explaining why they go up under Labour - but it wouldn't work.
6. Labour more for Labour. Work overtime.

The world recession has made it difficult for all of us, but with taxes down, strikes down, and inflation down, Britain is poised to gain most when the economy REALLY gets going. The last thing we need now is more taxes from Labour.

I was about to finish this blog post at that, and then I re-read it. And I noticed Labour have pledged to turn shops into community centres. Yes, they really are so anti-business they would let that happen. Another £5m down the drain.

What else have Labour pledged? They've pledged to renationalise energy. And EVERYONE knows this doesn't work. Between 1945 and 1987, the British taxpayer wasted £40bn to rescue failed nationalised industries - and that's not including Northern Rock, RBS, and Lloyds. There's only been one case where nationalisation has worked, and that is the NHS. "Oh", say Labour, "but prices are rising! It's the cost of living crisis, it's the end of the world!"

That argument doesn't stack up:

1. Labour's figure of £1,600 does not include tax cuts by this government.
2. We are exactly on the IMF inflation target of 2.0%.
3. One should introduce more competition into markets, not less.

This election will be a two-party election, and, owing to the nature of the British electoral system, a vote for anyone other than the Conservatives will be a vote for Labour. David Cameron isn't the most popular Prime Ministers ever - it will be the least worst candidate who is returned to Downing Street - David Cameron is far better than Ed Miliband.