Armchair Psephology
May 5th, 2008 at 23:51

Does anyone else feel sorry for the government? They were mauled in the local elections, given a figurative kick in the face in London and to top things off, all of the pollsters are predicting a gigantic Conservative majority after the next general election which as it hasn’t happened yet, is pretty much akin to claiming that “my dad could beat up your dad”.

But I can sympathise it’s not nice to think that everyone hates you. You’d have to be dead inside if you wouldn’t give Ken Livingstone with his peg-nosed voice a hug after seeing him getting beaten by a bumbling toff who doesn’t seem capable of organising his hair, let alone a major global city.

I feel sorry for Gordon Brown as well. He spent ten long years wanting his job, looking on enviously as Tony got all of the glory and the women (well, Carole Caplin), only to find that when he finally got it he was rubbish at it. And those bullies in the media, the opposition and even some of his friends aren’t letting him forget that either.

Things are apparently so disastrous for the government that there must surely be another explanation. I mean, surely they’d do something if they were really worried? This is why I think that this could be a bluff, and all part of an elaborate plan. I think the government are actually being horrendously clever, and are adopting an underdog strategy.

After all, everyone likes supporting an underdog - both in the literal sense (the tramp in Lady and the Tramp) and the figurative sense - if these were Biblical times, everyone would be routing for David against Goliath, and even in modern times, underdogs are still pretty popular. The Iraqi insurgents aren’t exactly anywhere on the “likeability” spectrum, yet quite inexplicably, they’re still going strong against the combined might of the British and American armed forces, so there must be some people who still likes them.

Maybe appearing as the underdog is the government strategy - if they can get their poll ratings as low as possible, they can call a general election, and the theory will be that people will go to the voting booth, and see the new Labour logo, which is a picture of Gordon Brown with puppy-dog eyes, and they’ll be a mass-outbreak of sympathy for the government, so everyone will vote them back in.

Sure, getting their rating any lower for this plan to work is going to be pretty difficult for them - getting rid of the lower starting rate of income tax, resulting in the poorest people being taxed even more was a pretty spectacular move, so it is going to be difficult to top.

Maybe they could start another hideously unpopular war by picking on a country that everyone likes? What about Scotland? The PM isn’t exactly Alex Salmond’s biggest fan, and there are stacks of evidence that suggest Scotland has nuclear weapons. Admittedly, they’re our nuclear weapons, but that reasoning didn’t stop the Americans going into Iraq.

So sorry if I’ve rumbled your plan, government, but in a perverse way that might actually help you - as it’ll mean you’re in even deeper trouble.

Comments(0)

London Election Gerrymandering
April 9th, 2008 at 23:24

One of the big considerations in a democratic society is how to make that democracy representative, and make sure everyone’s votes count. There’s no one way of doing it - there’s all sorts of variations of democratic government, all of which have various mechanisms built in to try and involve as many people in the political process as possible.

The thing is though, some people are still going to feel disenfranchised. In fact, the thing that’s motivated me to write this is that I feel disenfranchised.

That’s right, I, a white male, someone in the demographic that always wins, am disenfranchised.

Y’see, I really, really want to vote in the London Mayoral Election. It isn’t fair. I’m being denied the vote just because I don’t live in London. Its a textbook case of gerrymandering: they’ve drawn up the boundaries specifically to deny people who don’t live in London a vote on who gets to be Mayor of London.

Its annoying too that the vote is in early May, as I have every intention of moving to London before the end of the year - and if I do, I could potentially be stuck in a city ruled by Boris Johnson, a man who can’t even run a quiz show properly, let alone a major world city.

I wouldn’t mind if I had the opportunity to vote, then I can at least say I tried to keep the Tories out, but as it is, its totally out of my hands.

And besides, I deserve a vote. Maybe even two or three votes. I should be made an honorary Londoner. I love London, I think its excellent. I’ve been there loads of times - I even enjoy travelling on public transport and being surrounded by thousands of people at tourist attractions. I have a big tube map on my wall to delude myself into thinking that I live in London - and I’m even a big enough London nerd to know that it’s out of date, and am able to explain how.

As a politics junkie too, it bothers me that I don’t get to vote - its a fascinating election as its the third biggest direct mandate vote in Europe (after Presidents of France and Portugal), and the personalities involved make it the closest Britain is ever going to get to an American-Presidential-style election.

So please, if you’re reading electoral commission, please can I have a vote? I’ve got an Oyster card and know London secrets like that the Bank/Monument interchange isn’t actually entirely closed. I’m asking nicely: please!

Comments(0)

If a job’s worth doing…
April 4th, 2008 at 18:18

I’m a perfectionist at heart, and if there’s one thing I hate more than tyranny and oppression, its tyranny and oppression done badly.

Robert Mugabe has made a right hash of rigging the elections in Zimbabwe. For someone who’s been in charge for twenty years, you’d think he’d have been better equipped to rig an election successfully.

The very fact that an election happened is bad enough. I’ve no respect for the sort of despot who tries to maintain the illusion of democracy, like Musharraf in Pakistan, as that’s like admitting you’re being a bit of a twat, and there’s no dignity in getting your cronies to tell bare-faced lies to the press about the election being free and fair. I much prefer the sort of international bastard who acknowledges that he’s a dictator and will wave his middle fingers at the international community. At least there’s some honesty there.

If I were a despot, whenever I met other world leaders at summits, or the UN or wherever, if they were to complain to me about the lack of democracy, I’d tell them I’d write myself a note, and reach to get a pen from my pocket. Then I’d produce a clenched fist from my pocket, and use my other hand to mime “winding up” my middle finger.

But Mugabe has messed up. Zimbabwe is still in the news, what… six days after Sunday’s elections? How is he supposed to retain any credibility after that? A professional, like Putin, could rig an election, declare a fraudulent result and be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the international community in a weekend. Although to be fair, Putin is genuinely popular amongst Russians.

What Mugabe is doing by faffing about letting the opposition have a majority in Parliament, and stalling for time on the Presidential result is like beheading your opponents with a bread knife. Rather than a clean slice with a sword, like granting yourself emergency powers and declaring yourself President for Life would be, Mugabe is hacking away at the neck, getting blood everywhere and causing a horrible mess.

The latest news is that Mugabe will apparently contest a run-off election against Morgan Tsvangirai - this means that there’s going to be all of the administrative hassle of setting up the polling booths again, checking registered voters and doing loads of counting… all because he wanted to maintain the illusion of democracy.

Next time round he should do his homework.

Rejected Satirical Spin On This Story: “Robot Mugabe”

Comments(0)

Terrorvision
April 1st, 2008 at 21:25

I realised the other day that I haven’t seen a new Bin Laden video in some time. Its not something I look out for, and set the Sky Plus box to record, you understand, but I’ve always assumed they keep making them, even if I’ve got no desire to watch - a bit like Last of the Summer Wine.

Its understandable if the terrorists have stopped making videos, I guess. I mean, it can’t be easy putting yourself in the public eye, if everyone hates you. I’m sure Bin Laden would claim he plays up to his panto-villain demeanour, a bit like Wolf from Gladiators used to, but I bet underneath having thousands of people booing you makes you feel unloved and vulnerable.

Although for all I know, maybe they are making new videos and I’m just living in a world of ignorance? That wouldn’t be unchartered mental territory for me after all. Maybe its the TV channels who are deliberately not showing them? They have to be careful with terrorist videos as it is, just in case they contain any secret messages or codes for Bin Laden’s crackpot followers - “LOW BATTERY” flashing in the bottom left corner could be a rallying call for terrorists for all we know.

Or maybe there’s a much simpler explanation: maybe nobody cares any more? Thanks to the internet and YouTube, just about anyone can create a grainy video of themselves full of uninformed whining about politics and complaining about their problems, and they can broadcast it to millions of people. Bin Laden is essentially an emo kid.

Actually, the similarities don’t end there - Bin Laden was a privileged middle class kid, he’s been ostracised by his community is a menace to society too, just like emo kids tend to be. I apologise to any emo kids and dangerous terrorists reading, who may not appreciate this comparison.

The problem with Bin Laden is that he has no credibility - you wouldn’t listen to his opinions without first telling your brain that whatever he says is distorted, wrong and awful. I apply the same filter whenever I read anything Melanie Phillips has written. The only way he’s going to regain any credibility is by upgrading the Al Qaeda television studios - maybe if his broadcasts were in 1080p HDTV with Dolby 5.1 surround sound, with photo-realistic 3D graphics swooshing around the screen, we’d take him more seriously? Content-wise too, simply having a bit of a rant at the west isn’t very appealing, if he wants mass appeal then he needs to employ some more gimmicks - he could have a phone-vote to decide what to name the Al Qaeda cat, for instance. If he doesn’t like the outcome, I hardly think its beyond him to rig a simple phone vote, as he must be a least 10 times more evil than Blue Peter, so could easily get away with it.

If worst comes to the worst, and he’s really desperate for some exposure, he could always send his videos in to You’ve Been Framed - he’d just have to make sure he has a clip of a granny falling over at a wedding at the end of all his videos. They might even pay him £250 to broadcast it.

Comments(1)

Chimera Hysteria
March 26th, 2008 at 01:49

There’s a big debate at the moment about allowing scientists to create hybrid animal/human embryos – the apparent implication being that if we allow it, we’ll eventually become infested with soulless half-man-half-monkey chimeras, sort of a race of Wayne Rooneys and George Bushes (which is a horrifying thought), who opponents fear will overthrow us and force regular humans into servitude, in a Planet of the Apes style scenario.

Fortunately, this isn’t the case – they only want to use the embryos for research, and to help cure diseases and that sort of thing, and they’ll have to destroy them all after two weeks, as legally they can’t keep them any longer, so there’s no chance of monsters. Yet.

I think humanity is going to have a problem though, when the scientists are successful in using these hybrids to cure all diseases – they’ll have nothing to do. So I think we should head off the challenge of thousands of scientists queuing up to cash their giros now, by empowering them to create and breed full human/animal hybrids.

Sure, you could complain that it’s “not natural”, but neither is wearing clothes, using technology or going on Trisha to resolve personal family problems, in most species at least. Besides, isn’t turning the future into something akin to the X-Men a cool idea? Think about it – people will have ‘powers’. Well, sort of.

Super-humans, fused with elephant DNA whilst in the womb would grow up to have enormous brains, and would presumably never forget anything. Taking the black and white striped pattern from zebra DNA will enable humans to evade any predators – simply by standing in a crowd of zebras.

Customising the human genome for specific jobs could be useful too – give our soldiers the anal scent glands of skunks, and they’d be a formidable fighting force – no one would want to go near them.

Teachers have always tried to control kids by claiming to have eyes in the backs of their heads- geneticists could have the power to make this a literal reality by giving them bulging frog-like eyes that can see in multiple directions. And who would complain if we had teaching chimeras that improve discipline in schools? I mean, as long as nobody was stupid enough to name the chimera Muhammad.

If scientists could engineer some real life centaurs too, we’d be the best in the world at athletics – and our footwear industry would double in size with twice the number of feet to cater for.

From a purely creative point of view, this is the only way we’re going to keep humans interesting. We’ve beaten evolution – we’ve invented technology that helps people survive and reproduce much quicker than natural selection can weed out the weak. Artificially designing improvements to our genetic make-up using our own intelligence is the only way we’re going to improve – if we’re not careful, if we stay the way we are for a few million years, other animals might evolve and usurp our position as top of the food chain! Consider this a warning.

Comments(0)

Shaving
March 17th, 2008 at 16:32

As if further evidence were needed that we are the cumulative product of millions of random mutations and not created perfect in the image of an almighty creator, I think I can manage to articulate another reason: shaving is a pain in the arse, eh?

I try to shave as little as possible, as it is literally one of the most tedious routine activities imaginable. How scraping naturally occurring hair off of one’s face every day ever caught on, I don’t know. The number of hours, days, weeks in one’s lifetime wasted by this activity must be mind-boggling. Think of all of the extra progress humankind could have made if we didn’t waste our time. Is it any wonder that some of the most influential people in history, such as Marx, Darwin, and Plato all had such impressive beards? They didn’t waste their time staring in the bathroom mirror.

I quite like having a straggly little beard myself - I think it makes me look well ‘ard. As it turns out, I’m actually a massive wimp - I couldn’t beat up a woman wearing glasses or a small child, let alone the sort of nutters that you get hanging around outside of railway stations who try to mug you. Having some facial hair, especially when it’s messy and uncontrolled like mine is, it gives me that sort of vagranty look, without actually having to go to the trouble of frequenting crack houses or buying a dog and a piece of string to tie around its neck. I like to think that potential adversaries will look at me and think “I better not mess with him, his facial hair makes him look too tough for me to fight”.

So I’ll only shave whenever I really have to, like if I need to impress someone for a job interview or whatever. Its a shame that we’ve been socially conditioned to think that “cleanly shaven” is facial-hair-code for “organised and professional” - all it says to me is “spent five minutes vainly worrying about their appearance instead of curing diseases or wiping out poverty”.

There is a downside to not shaving though. When I literally have to, because I’m out of practice, I’m not very good at it.

The trickiest part is my sideburns. Last time, upon realising that one was longer than the other, I shaved the longer one - of course, this then led to the other one now being too long, so I shaved the other side too. This happened a few times, so things became a bit tense as I realised that I was gradually working my way up the side of my head, and sooner or later they’d be no ‘burn left to even out, and I’d be dealing with genuine legitimate hair. It was horrible knowing that if I continued to mess up, the outcome would get worse and worse.

In the end, I got them almost right, but just to be on the safe side, I’ve made a point of never looking anyone face to face, and remaining in profile so that they can only see one side of my head - so they can’t see my asymmetrical face and judge me.

Comments(0)

EU don’t get a vote
March 9th, 2008 at 02:08

Parliament had a vote last week to decide whether or not there will be a referendum on whether we ratify the thrilling new European Reform Treaty. The parties all had their positions cler - Labour didn’t want a referendum, the Tories did, and the LibDems got the wrong end of the stick entirely, and thought they were discussing whether to actually be in the EU or not. Idiots.

Nick Clegg really has baffled me with his party’s ridiculous stance: “forget the treaty, lets have a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not”… which is mental. Its like the LibDems have seen the polls and have thought “the public want to vote on something… so lets give them a poll on any old question, just not the important one”. It’s a bit odd to say the least, as no one (apart from some crackpots on the lunatic fringe) have actually said that being in the EU in general is a bad idea… its like two people arguing over whether they prefer Adam Hart Davis’s science programmes or his history programmes, only for a third person to suggest that rather than pick science or history, everyone decide whether they like Adam Hart-Davis in the first place or not… which is stupid, because that’s not up for discussion, as it goes without saying that everyone thinks he’s great.

I’m quite pleased with the result though - I don’t think there should be a referendum. I hate to agree with Ken Clarke because agreeing with a Tory is like intellectual self-harm, but having actually watched a bit of the debate-on-whether-to-have-a-referendum on BBC Parliament (because I was trying to do literally the most boring thing I could have been doing at that time), he said that people elect politicians to make the important decisions for them*, because lets face it… why should we listen to the man on the street? What does the Sun reading white-van driver know about the finer points and technicalities of managing European integration? If the man on the street was in charge, we’d have bought back the death penalty and would have constructed a giant wall around Britain with robotic lasers that automatically target immigrants. The general public are idiots.

I can, however, sympathise, with the crackpots who think more highly of the general public than I do, and think that the ignorant masses should get a say, as that’s what democracy is all about, isn’t it? If I was deciding whether we should have a referendum or not then, I’d have a caveat that the public should be informed. And if they want the public to be informed, then the general public must be engaged and interested. Which is more difficult than it sounds.

European-level politics are supremely tedious to all but the most enthusiastic technocrats. What do the public care about? The Common Agricultural Policy? Nah. Trade tariffs? Nah. Representation and democratic deficits? Not even that. There’s literally nothing in the new treaty that is even slightly interesting. Being partially colour-blind and only able to see beige and being partially deaf and only being able to hear Heart FM are the only things analogous to the contents of the treaty.

Hell, I’m a politics student and I haven’t read the new treaty, nor really know what it contains, because its so supremely dull, and I imagine I’m in the tiny minority who might stand a chance of being interested in this sort of thing.

I think if they want a referendum, they need to change the treaty to engage the people and reflect things they’re actually interested in. Which is why I think if there is going to be a referendum, the treaty needs to have provisions for reforming the Eurovision voting system**. Fuck qualified majority voting thresholds, that’s what the general public really care about.

Lets face it - the only European political issue that can really get people worked up is the annual outrage over the political voting during the Eurovision Song Contest - when Cyprus always give Greece 12 points, and the ethnic mish-mash of former-Yugoslavia all voting for their respective mother countries, and the Balkan bloc-vote, and so on. This is obviously in greater need of reform than the European Parliament, because how can it be fair that Malta, population approximately 4, have the same voting weight as Germany, population 82 million? Especially on an issue as important as who has the best song.

If the government wanted a referendum on the treaty that they’d be guaranteed to win, all they have to do is get into the treaty a clause weighting each country’s voting weight to be relative to their populations make up 75% of the points, and then satisfy the small countries by making the final 25% of the points awarded come from an equal number from each individual state - pretty much the same system as you have in the US government, with the House of Representatives having congressmen from each state relative to their respective populations and then the Senate having two senators from each state.

This could be a revolution in European politics as what goes on Brussels will become relevant to the people of Europe - come May 2009 they’ll be a tangible event that people can associate with an EU decision. So who’s with me?

(* Chomsky, in the introduction to Media Control, also gives barring the public from managing their own affairs as a definition of the concept of democracy… which makes me feel a bit better about things)

(** I know Eurovision has nothing to do with the EU, but the EU should take it on board as a core competency)

Comments(2)

Milking the celebrity cow
March 4th, 2008 at 23:21

If you missed the rather oblique hints I’ve been posting over the past week, you may be surprised to learn that I was on the Weakest Link on Monday. And even more remarkably, I actually won.

It’s fairly probable that a couple of million people saw my glorious victory on the telly – on (almost) primetime BBC One. I’m not going to delude myself though. The grandeur, the celebrity, the immense wealth… are all factors I’m going to have to cope with in my new role as a prominent figure in the public consciousness.

Obviously, despite being a quiz show champion and presumably able to take my seat next to Judith Keppel and Kevin Ashman on the Eggheads team at my own discretion, I should probably resign myself to the fact that at best I’m going to be a rather low-rent celebrity now, rather than face the crushing disappointment later. I don’t want my pursuit of fame to lead me to milling around the town centre in the same brown shirt I wore on the programme, pen in hand ready to sign autographs, approaching people and saying “You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye”, in a desperate attempt to be recognised. I don’t want to slowly die a little inside every time someone looks at me and raises my hopes, only for them then to cross the road to avoid me.

This said, I fully intend to take my duties as a low-rent celebrity seriously. Without people like me, the trashier end of the gossip magazine market would crumble, and the general public would have nothing to read in waiting rooms the world over.

In fact, I’ve already started phoning up the gossip magazines and newspapers to report “wicked whispers” of myself, just so that I remain in the public eye. It can’t belong until “Psst… which Weak Link was spotted filling his car up with petrol last Tuesday?” or something equally inane appears inset in a box on the 3am Girls page.

My concern at this time though is prolonging my fame – I imagine its going to be pretty fleeting. I’m already bored of talking about the programme, so my legions of fans probably are too, so I’m going to have to try and reinvent myself. It’s going to be difficult, but as this is the entertainment industry we’re talking about, luckily a lack of talent isn’t actually a barrier to remaining famous. The fact I can namedrop Kerry Katona or Richard Blackwood and you know who I’m talking about illustrates this nicely.

So I’m thinking there are two routes I could go down. I could take up drugs and have myself referred to as “the troubled star, James O’Malley” whenever I’m mentioned, or slightly less self-destructively, acquire myself an equally low-rent celebrity girlfriend – say, a former Eggheads contestant, or someone who once appeared in the background of an outside broadcast on the regional news – that’s the sort of level of celebrity we’re talking about. Interest in me would be revived as the press would, for some reason, care about the ups and downs of our relationship, as if it somehow makes a difference to… well, anything.

Obviously after the difficult and highly public split I’ll have another short lived career revival as everyone wants to see what I do next.

I think this is starting to sound like a plan. Sure, there’s at least a case for bowing out of the public eye gracefully instead and not perpetuating our societal addiction to the cult of celebrity… but where’s the fun in that? If anyone needs me, I’ll be in Britain’s crowded shopping centres and precincts, waiting for someone to recognise me from off the telly.

Comments(1)

How to win at quiz shows
February 26th, 2008 at 01:24

Being a cold-hearted rationalist, I’m unable to appreciate the abstract concepts of “luck”, “faith”, “hope”, and useless words that essentially mean “spurious assertion based on nothing” – this means that I have a habit of approaching everything rationally, with a sort of “risk assessment” and mentally judging the probabilities of things happening.

I could apply these skills that I assume I have to a career as say, a health and safety executive – or a spoilsport as they’re colloquially known. As it happens though, I instead devote this part of my brain to something far less useful: figuring out which television game shows it would be best to appear on to win some money.

I reckon if you can win pretty big on maybe three or four game shows a year, you may never need to get a proper job, and can sit at home with a self-satisfied grin on your face, like CJ and Daphne from Eggheads.

This may sound pretty silly – and twenty years ago, it might have done. Back in the olden days, before Chris [Tarrant] (BC), quiz shows never really gave away much money, and it was all about the prizes. It would have been all well and good appearing on The Price is Right or Bullseye or whatever it was people watched prior to my birth, but having watched years of repeats on Challenge TV on Sky of all sorts of crappy quiz shows, unless you can live in a speedboat, and eat chequebooks and pens for lunch, then living entirely off of the proceeds from quiz show winnings would have been impossible.

Thankfully now though, TV seems to chuck money at whoever can bark the answers to a handful of stupid questions, and thanks to satellite TV, there’s now enough channels with enough time-filling cheapo quizzes on to make this possible.

So what quiz show is it easiest to win big money on? There’s a couple of factors involved, I rationally think – the amount of prize money and the contestant turnover. Its all well and good going on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, but they only have more or less one contestant a week (or at least did back in 1999 when people actually watched it) – but chances are, even if you make it on to the programme, you’re going to end up sat in the audience watching someone else walk away with £32,000. Similarly, going on Mastermind is great if you can handle the questions, and they have four people a week on… but is it really worth all of that effort for a trophy and bragging rights?

If you’re after some cold, hard, cash, then I think the game show that is best to go on is The Weakest Link. Sure, you only know how it works because you used to watch the last round after switching over from Neighbours, waiting for The Simpsons, but its almost the easiest quiz to get on: they have nine contestants every episode, and its on practically all year round, so they must need a lot of contestants – which increases your chances of being on. The prize money is good too – its nearly always over a thousand pounds – which really isn’t bad for a day’s work. And the best thing? You don’t even have to be clever or intelligent. The trick to winning is being the second cleverest, or good at pretending to be clever – as they’ll always vote out the strongest link in the penultimate round.

So that’s my advice – if you want to win money on the telly, go on the Weakest Link.

Incidentally, you might want to watch the Weakest Link on Monday…

Comments(1)

Monetary Fallacy
February 18th, 2008 at 23:02

Economics is a hard subject, and I imagine that working in the world of finance is difficult business. You need lots of highly specialised skills if you want to work in the city – like the ability to use two phones at once, and being able to wear braces without looking like you’ve just stepped out of the nineteenth century.

In these turbulent economic times, we have to put our faith in these people, so we have to assume they know what they’re doing. Most economic concepts are simply too abstract for us to grasp – understanding what bonds, futures and dead cat bounces are is almost as complex as understanding quantum physics, or what would possess someone to actually buy Kerry Katona’s autobiography.

So the question arises, how can we sort out these problems? The national debt is apparently £1.3 trillion – which is pretty big. The Chancellor taking out another high-APR credit card and paying off the national debt with that probably isn’t going to sort this out, it will merely delay it – and its not like we can call in the loans that we’ve given the developing world over the years – the “Make Poverty History” campaign showed how mean that is… and besides, even if we sent the toughest, burliest looking men to the developing world to act as loan sharks it would be futile. Sure, they might come back with their video recorders, but we couldn’t sell them on to, say, America, because they have different sockets in the back of their TVs to us.

So dealing with the forthcoming economic problems looks tricky, and has economists and the general public alike scratching their heads, furrowing their brows and chewing pen lids to pieces. Does anyone know what to do?

Ignorance has never stopped me from commenting on a topic before, so I’ve come up with a solution that thinks outside the box a little bit: tax the poor more.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating a Thatcherite policy that relies on giving rich people loads of money and hoping it’ll filter down to the poor people, as that obviously doesn’t work – what I’m suggesting is a little ruse that we can use to exploit the goodwill of the rest of the world. So make sure you don’t tell anyone foreign about my brilliant plan or this might not work.

If we tax the poor 100% of their income they will be left with nothing – and our poor people will be living on significantly less than a dollar a day (in fact, exactly one dollar less than a dollar a day), and thus qualify as living in absolute poverty. All we have to do then is give Bono and Bob Geldof a ring, and before we know it, they’ll be benefit concerts around the world to raise money for us.

“Just £14 a month is enough to give a family of four a subscription to Sky Sports”, concerned celebrities will say on adverts shown around the world, “and just £6 will pay for three hours in a multi-storey car park”. Then all we have to do is wrack up the desperation by explaining that some of the most rural British people have to drive up to maybe ten miles a week to reach a supermarket to get food and bottled water and the money will come flooding in.

Sure, some may claim that we’re essentially “sponging off benefits”, but we should be able to take that, as it’s not like our right wing press have never accused foreigners of doing that before.

Comments(0)