Sunday, May 17, 2015

The UKIP Calypso - Part Two

In the UK on the 5th of May
The electorate had their say
UKIP gonna win seats for fun
Started off with two, ended up with one

Now it's time to count the cost
Nigel said he'd quit if he lost
But it turns out he's here to stay
Just like Jesus, within three days

Resignation calypso, resignation calypso
Farage is gone, then he's back
Resignation calypso, resignation calypso
Like haemorrhoids in your crack

O'Flynn says Nigel got a thin skin
And that might be why he didn't win
We need to be grown up and more adult
Calling us something that sounds like cult

Resignation calypso, resignation calypso
UKIP turning into a jokey
Resignation calypso, resignation calypso
In and out like the hokey cokey

Some say we should give Carswell a go
But we asked and he don't want to know
If we carry on in this mess
We'll end up stuck with Mark Reckless

Resignation calypso, resignation calypso
What a farce it turned out to be
Resignation calypso, resignation calypso

We can always blame the BBC

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

New "British Values" curriculum revealed

David Cameron has today announced new lessons in British Values, to be introduced at the start of the next academic year. While details of the lessons have remained a closely guarded secret up to now, we've been able to obtain excerpts from the curriculum. The key areas are as follows:

Tolerance

Pupils should be taught what a tolerant society modern Britain is. Exceptions can be made however for the following groups:

  • Immigrants
  • People who aren't immigrants, but look like they might be
  • Disabled
  • Gays
  • Poor people - teachers to use their judgement here, as this will vary depending on location e.g. poor in Kingston upon Hull may mean unable to afford food, while in Kingston upon Thames it may mean unable to afford a villa in Tuscany

Fairness

In Britain, we have a society built around a basic principle of fairness.

Note: be careful here not to mention the democratic system, which attaches a value to your vote based entirely on how your neighbours vote and a set of boundaries arbitrarily drawn on a map.

Be particularly careful if asked why one party gets 56 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while another one gets 1 MP for five times as many.


Equality

Every citizen in Britain should be entitled to expect equal rights. Particularly the right of the security services to intercept and read their communications without probable cause, irrespective of who they are.

All communications on this topic are to be sent through the usual private servers, as currently.


Diversity

No, not the dancers whose entire act seems to consist of throwing the frizzy-haired dwarf around to music.

Here in Britain, it is part of our traditions to openly mock and ridicule a wide range of different nations, many of whom for some reason chose not to be part of our glorious Empire built on military conquest and slave labour any more. These include, but are not limited to:
  • Australians - for being better than us at sport
  • Americans - over-loud, overweight and over here 
  • Germans - wars and penalty shoot-outs
  • French - see Germans, but without the penalty shoot-outs
  • Muslamics - for picking the wrong Abrahamic religion and dressing funny (note: while mocking the Muslamics is acceptable, no caricaturing of their prophet is allowed)

One Nation

Britain is made up of three constituent parts (we're ignoring the Irish here, as they're not technically British and there's a fairly awkward centenary coming up in 2016 we don't want to talk about).

However we have much in common, for example:
  • Our money (except the Scots and their strange plastic banknotes)
  • Our language (except the Scots, and the Welsh, and the Cornish)
  • Our shared participation in economic recovery (except anyone outside the M25)
Note: some of you in "working class" areas may have these facts challenged by your students. Just a reminder that failing to achieve a 95% pass rate on the British Values exam will lead to a visit from Nicky Morgan, and I'm pretty sure none of you want that now, do you?


Friday, May 08, 2015

The Hangover - Part 2015

So it's Friday May 8th, and Britain peels apart its collective eyelids and pores over the results of the votes it cast yesterday.

What it sees must be coming as something a surprise to it. A result that none of the polls taken in the lead-up to voting could have predicted. The Conservatives edging their way slowly towards an effective - albeit slim - majority.

See that's the thing with the "first past the post" electoral system. It carries the risk of handing 100% of the power to a party which gets 35% of the votes. It's a bit like going to the supermarket and having 65% of your basket chosen by someone else.

Throw in a constituency system which is disproportionately weighted in favour of areas with low population north of the border - the SNP will secure 56 times the number of MPs the Green Party will, but with only 500,000 more votes - and the whole thing becomes even more of a mockery.

Still, it is what it is and we all knew the rules before we put our X in the box. Still, I'd love to know why some people made the choices they did.

Those of you who voted SNP. You do realise that you've traded in a position of zero power in a Labour-led opposition for, well, exactly the same thing but wearing a different colour jacket, right? Your leader talks about "making Scotland's voice heard". It will be, but in the same way that everyone has to hear the drunk on the bus having a loud conversation with himself. Everyone hears, but nobody listens.

Those of you who abandoned the Liberal Democrats and voted Tory. What kind of logic is that? You showed at least an ounce of compassion back in 2010 by voting for someone to keep a rein on the worst of the right-wing's excesses. It may not have worked as well as you hoped, but why go back? It's like asking the person mugging you if they want your house keys and cheque book while they're at it.

Those of you who voted UKIP. Get someone to read this to you. You're a perfect example of why democracy doesn't work.

Those of you who voted Conservative and will always do so irrespective of what damage they do to the country. I would say you better hope you're not poor, or disabled, or sick, or unable to find work, but you're clearly not. Otherwise, why would you do something that puts in jeopardy the lives of every person that falls into one of those categories in exchange for a few quid off stamp duty and a bit less inheritance tax?

Thanks to fixed term parliaments, it's too late to do anything about it now. We had our chance to turn the ship around, but frankly we fucked it up. Don't be surprised if the first thing Captain Cameron does on returning to the helm is ditch many of you overboard and leave you to drown.

You can't say you weren't warned.


Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Disasters Emergency Committee Appeal

This is an urgent DEC appeal on behalf of the East Sussex town of Crowborough.

Heavy winds on the night of March 30th 2015 have left the town devastated, and caused a humanitarian crisis worse than any in living memory.

Homes have been destroyed, businesses ruined and in some cases tens of pounds worth of patio furniture upturned. Eye-witness reports of the carnage are still coming through, but our aid workers have sent back this harrowing scene.



There remains an ongoing risk of disease, and with Ocado vans unable to navigate the tree-strewn driveways the spectre of famine still hangs in the air.

Please, give what you can to help these people who in many cases have lost everything of value.

Just £5 will buy them a Starbucks grande mochaccino and a slice of fruit toast.

Just £10 will provide them with a warm sweater from Primark, which they'll never wear because they simply won't support the exploitation of child workers in Bangladesh darling.

Just £5,000 will enable them to cook a warm meal for themselves, by replacing the Aga.

With your help, we can have these poor people back on the golf course or sipping a nice Malbec in no time.

Thank you for listening.

Sunday, March 08, 2015

Exclusive - New Alan Bennett monologues revealed

Newly leaked excerpts from the Yorkshire-born writer's latest works show he's moved with the times, incorporating a whole new range of cultural references as we can see from the extract below:

"I'd been listening to my Fifty Shades of Grey audio book, when the phone interrupted proceedings. No sooner had I pulled my Spanx up than it stopped, but by then the moment had very much passed.

So I thought, nice cup of tea with a biscuit. That'll take the edge off. Except all I had in the cupboard were wafers, and they're no good for dunking. Lack the structural rigidity of your traditional biscuit, and the crumbs get everywhere.

I was going to have a stroll to the shops, get myself some nice Rich Tea or a Bourbon. You can get your big shop on the internet these days, you know. Mind, I got myself a bunch of bananas last week and they were already on the turn by the time they got here. Brown as him next door's corduroy trousers.

Bananas were still a new thing when I was young. Sometimes we couldn't even get them, so we painted cucumbers yellow and pretended. 

That all seems so long ago. Take him over the road, not been the same since his wife passed away. Just sits and stares out of the front room window, waiting for death like an impatient Ocado shopper who forgot to press check out.

Course it's all social this and network that now. No matter how far away people are, you can always Skip them. Mind you, I'm not the most technical of folk. I'm more pewter paddler than silver surfer.

Marjorie is on Facebook, thanks to one of those Digital Eagles. I've got a budgie that tweets, but I'm pretty sure it's not the same thing. She told me someone poked her the other day. I said she should tell the police, but she seemed to like it. Back to Fifty Shades again, aren't we?"

Sunday, February 22, 2015

A League Of Their Own

The current World Club Series games between Super League and Australian NRL sides have had an intensity to them that is missing from a large number of regular season SL games.

There's little doubt that increasing the intensity of games that English players are involved in will have a knock-on effect on the fortunes of the national team. There have been a number of ways proposed to do this, from getting more English players into the NRL to tinkering with the structure of the Super League to reduce the number of one-sided encounters.

Perhaps the most radical proposal is that of an English based team playing in the NRL itself. So how would it work?

The most obvious issue would be the logistics. A 24-hour flight to the other side of the world and back again every other week simply wouldn't be feasible. An English-based team would have to play its away fixtures in blocks, maybe say six weeks at a time as a mini tour. For Australian teams coming to the UK, the current NRL bye weeks could be used to allow them additional rest after they return. 

The second issue would then be how you build up a player pool for an English side. This is where it would need buy-in from the existing SL clubs, who would need to be convinced to give up some of their existing stars. 

A way to do this may be to run a player draft. The coach of the new side could be restricted to say three English players from each of the twelve SL clubs, plus a handful of England Academy players to pad out the squad and introduce them at an early age to the high standards required.

So how might such a squad look? Arguably, something like this:

Full back: Johnny Lomax, Zak Hardaker
Wings: Ryan Hall, Jermaine McGillivray, Ben Jones-Bishop, Tom Lineham
Centre: Kallum Watkins, Dan Sarginson, Michael Shenton, Chris Bridge
Stand off: Kevin Brown, Stefan Ratchford
Scrum half: Matty Smith, Joe Mellor
Props: Chris Hill, Andy Lynch, Scott Taylor, Kyle Amor
Hooker: James Roby, Shaun Lunt
Second row: Brett Ferres, Joe Westerman, Elliot Whitehead, Liam Farrell
Loose forward: Sean O'Loughlin, Danny Washbrook

The squad could be re-assessed each year, with any players discarded being returned to their home clubs but ensuring no more than three players come from any one club. The likes of James Graham, Mike Cooper and the Burgess twins could be pursued when their current NRL contracts expire.

Not only would it expose the best English players to NRL levels of intensity week-in, week-out, it would also enable them to build up understanding, structures and combinations when they come together for the national team.

While this is currently nothing more than a pipe dream, with the right commitment from all levels on both sides of the world, there's no reason we couldn't be watching an "England Exiles" team playing in the NRL at some point in the future.



Monday, February 09, 2015

Avoidance Of Doubt

Tax avoidance looks like being a hot topic in the upcoming election campaign, with the parties all squabbling (somewhat hypocritically in some cases - Messrs Cameron and Hodge, I'm looking at you here) over the moral high ground to condemn it as a "bad thing".

What might help the debate of course is if some of them understood what it was.

I think we're pretty much all agreed that tax evasion (basically, lying outright to reduce your tax liabilities by hiding income for example) is naughty. It's an offence that you're likely to end up in court for and potentially get a custodial sentence.

Tax avoidance however, is much trickier to define. In its simplest form, it's doing something in a particular way so you pay less tax than you would have done if you had structured it differently. It is planning your tax affairs so more money ends up in your pocket and less in the taxman's. So why has it got such a bad name, given it seems to be just simple common sense? After all, none of us wants to pay more tax than we have to, do we?

The current journey for the Outrage Express seems to have started with the multinationals like Google, Amazon and Starbucks. As is common with the majority of companies, they want to get as much profit as possible so they can pay it to their shareholders. One way to do that is to base yourself somewhere that has a low rate of Corporation Tax. Less tax paid means more money to distribute to your investors.

However, if a company has a permanent establishment in the UK such as Starbucks does, then in short it pays tax in the UK on the profits it makes in the UK. Not a good thing, if the rates of tax here are higher than where your parent company is based. So many companies employ what is known as transfer pricing.

This is where one arm of the company (e.g. Starbucks UK) will buy goods or services from another arm elsewhere (say Starbucks US). The more Starbucks UK pays for these things it buys, the lower the profit it makes and the company it buys it from (usually in a territory with a lower tax rate) makes a higher profit but pays less tax on it.

Transfer pricing is not new. It's been around as long as there have been multinationals. It's also covered by a pretty complex set of rules, and HMRC have a dedicated unit set up to inspect and police transfer pricing transactions. As long as the price Starbucks UK is paying is reasonable however, there's sod all they can do about it. Starbucks UK reduces its profits and pays less UK tax, with that tax being paid elsewhere within the worldwide group instead.

It may not be "fair". It may well be avoidance, but under existing UK and international law it is not illegal.

Neither, for that matter, is going to live somewhere with a lower income tax rate than the UK so you pay less tax on your UK income. Countries have what are known as Double Taxation Agreements which determine who gets first crack at taxing what income, based on where you live. The principle is that nobody should be taxed twice on the same income in different countries, which I think we can all agree is a pretty fair system.

So there will be occasions where someone receives significant income from a UK company but because they are not living in the UK themselves they pay very little UK tax on it. That money will be taxed elsewhere. Again, this may not seem "fair". It may well be avoidance, but under existing UK and international law it is not illegal to arrange your affairs in such a way so you pay less tax.

"What about us poor saps that don't have the money to pay fancy accountants and avoid tax?", I hear you cry. "Why should the super-rich be the ones who get to benefit while we're getting screwed to the floor by HMRC?"

Well for a start, tax avoidance is not purely the playground of the super-rich. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you know someone who runs their business through a limited company, and pays themselves a small salary but then tops it up with dividends out of the profits? They're structuring their affairs in a way that minimises their tax liability. In the broadest definition of the term, they're avoiding tax. 

Ironically, I bet a large number of the MPs and journalists reminding us what a bad thing tax avoidance is have their freelance work go through a personal service company like this.

Do you put your savings in an ISA, rather than in an ordinary bank or building society savings account? You're structuring your affairs in a way that minimises your tax liability. In the broadest definition of the term, you are avoiding tax. 

Have you ever paid a tradesperson in cash, so they don't have to charge you VAT? By the broadest definition of the term, you're complicit in tax evasion - something the likes of Starbucks, Google and Amazon aren't even so low as to stoop to.

A lot is going to be said about tax avoidance over the coming months, much of it clouded in a fog of apoplexy and social responsibility. Before falling for it hook, line and sinking tax liabilities, it might be worth considering what the term actually means and who participates in it.

Wednesday, February 04, 2015

This Is A Party Satirical Broadcast

"Good evening, and welcome to this broadcast on behalf of the Open & Fair Fabulous Society party.

We here at O-FFS have noticed that there are a lot of angry people in Britain at the moment. Many of them seem to be angry about immigration. They believe the country is too full, that there are too many foreign people here and that the tolerant, pleasant British way of life is being eroded.

Frankly, we agree.

That is why O-FFS proposes a policy of enforced deportations. Hopefully, once we've sent these angry people somewhere that best suits their short tempers and bigoted ideas - like Islamic State, for example - the UK can get back to being a better place.

Then there's the economy. A lot of people seem to be upset that the money they pay in tax goes to help provide things for poor folks. So upset, in fact, that they have decided to avoid paying tax altogether just so they don't have to worry about it.

That is why O-FFS proposes that anyone caught avoiding tax have all their assets seized, be given a Santa outfit to wear and left homeless. It seemed to work out fine in the end for Dan Ackroyd in Trading Places, he even got to see Jamie Lee Curtis's tits.

Finally, we would like to address the issue of education. We believe, in the words of that wise educator and fabulous parent Miss Whitney Houston, that the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

That is why O-FFS proposes mandatory testing in basic English, Mathematics and cognitive reasoning skills be applied to all Secretaries of State for Education. Frankly, there are too many Ministers being left behind without the basic skills to function in society. Standards have even managed to decline further after Michael Gove's departure, which is something none of us thought possible.

So remember, Britain. When you set foot into that voting booth in May to choose your new government, scan down that list of names of the ballet paper and remember...

O-FFS."





Wednesday, December 17, 2014

The Brand Backlash (Or How I Learned Never To Criticise The Liberal Elite)

Earlier this week, a freelance IT contractor currently working at RBS published a tongue in cheek "open letter" to Russell Brand on their blog. The recurring comedic theme was that the closure of the building precipitated by Brand and his camera crew's unscheduled visit had resulted in his lunch going cold.

Within the blog, the writer points out that Brand's grandstanding and theatrics were unlikely to achieve anything as he didn't have an appointment, and therefore was never going to get into the building uninvited. It also accuses Brand of being confrontational both with building security and those stranded outside by his antics. It examines the taxpayer investment in the banks during the financial crisis. 

At no point does it attempt to defend RBS or any other bank. It makes clear that the writer is not an employee of RBS, right from the very outset, and that what follows is not intended to be any sort of statement from the bank itself, the banking industry or bankers.

On the whole, it's a pretty well-written, lighthearted piece. You can read it here:

http://blog.squandertwo.net/2014/12/an-open-letter-to-russell-brand.html

After it hit the internet, the blog went viral. Lots of people sharing it online, having a giggle at the concept and the content.

Well today came the backlash.

Driven on by some high-profile Guardianistas - for whom Brand seems to have acquired some sort of Messiah status of late - the writer has been attacked as variously a banker, an employee of RBS and a symptom of all that's wrong with Britain today, the rich complaining about being inconvenienced by those campaigning for social justice.

Accuracy seems to have taken a back seat to the need to protect Brand's reputation as some sort of crusader for the poor. This is a man whose appetite for equality has seemingly enjoyed some kind of Lazarusesque recovery, the kind of man who turns up to a masked protest and takes his mask off so the press can find - and of course, record for posterity - his presence.

He is, what we in sporting circles like to call, a bandwaggoner. The sort of person ripe for a bit of a satirical sideswipe. That his fans/acolytes feel so threatened at any criticism of him that they need to unleash their attack dogs on a blog is in equal part nauseating and bemusing. Whatever they expect to achieve as a result, it only leaves one set of people coming out of this looking like arrogant, petty little crybabies. Them.



Thursday, December 11, 2014

Three Shades of Blue

When I was growing up and starting to become politically active, you had a choice. You could either vote Labour if you had a conscience, vote Conservative if you thought you were alright and didn't give a shit about anyone else, or vote Liberal if you wanted to waste your vote.

That was the way it was. The poor voted Labour, everyone else voted Conservative.

Then it all changed. The Conservatives imploded over just how shitty they could be to the plebs, and left the door open for one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

Blair was never your typical Labour politician. A middle-class kid, with a public school education and an Oxford graduate not shy of discussing his faith, Blair was parachuted into a safe seat in the former coalfield town of Sedgefield.

Under his leadership, Labour shifted away from the left of British politics towards the centre ground. He moved away from the traditional links with the unions, and targeted the middle-class with a social conscience who had become disaffected with the Tories.

Middle England became the battleground on which elections would be fought, and as a result the target audience the political parties needed to appeal to. With their own core support pretty secure in traditional areas and pretty much guaranteed to vote for them, parties could focus their policies on the middle classes.

So you get where we are today. Ed Miliband has announced the headlines of what will form Labour's 2015 election manifesto. In summary, it's pretty much the same as the Tories are doing at the moment, except slightly less of it and not as quickly.

More pay freezes. More cuts to public services. No plans to raise funds through taxing the super-rich. It's a blue budget, dressed up in a red overcoat. Her Majesty's Opposition are now so interchangeable with the government that you could swap them over and nobody would be able to tell the difference.

So there's your choice for 2015. You can have cuts, in some form or another, to public services. You can have more food banks. You can have more of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting screwed. If you're not middle-class, middle-income Middle England, neither the Tories nor Labour care about you. The LibDems are the equivalent of flushing your vote down the toilet, and don't even get me started on the bigotry that is UKIP.

You want my advice? If you're in Scotland, vote SNP. If you're in Wales, vote Plaid Cymru. The rest of you, vote Green. At least that way you'll get someone promoting a genuine alternative to the three shades of blue the major parties are offering.