Skip to main content

Expect the unexpected

Today is budget day - expect the unexpected! Much of what will be in the budget has already been trailed in the media, but there will most likely be a rabbit of some sort that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pull out of the hat. There is an election next year - indeed there are elections this year too. There will be the waving of order papers and cheering from the coalition back benches.

I will not and cannot speculate on what the rabbit will be. It will be some kind of give-away that will please the bulk of middle Britain and appease disgruntled Tory backbenchers.

There will be lots of talking about how solid the recovery is and what kind of recovery. Unemployment is tumbling and growth is strong - and there are more clear skies. Spring is bursting out all over. People will begin to feel better, and the Scots are more likely than not to vote to stay as part of the United Kingdom. That will make people feel better - won't it?

The coalition - or at least Cameron, Clegg and Osborne - are making plans for life after the election. The Guardian newspaper will no doubt once again find some reason to urge its readers to vote Liberal Democrat - oh yes, I think it will. They will put it together in some neatly considered editorial all about how 'on balance' - nice phrase, neat phrase, useful phrase - the coalition has been a success.  There has been no change of substance in the way we elect our representatives - hardly mentioned now by the Liberal Democrats, neatly forgotten - and no reform of the House of Lords. So we meander on as we did before.

Postscript

So what was the unexpected? It was the fundamental changes in the rules governing what you can and can't do with pension pots.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau