Steady she goes

Angela Merkel will host talks with Francois Hollande and other EU leaders today. Credit BBC/AFP

Windy weather boys, stormy weather, boys

When the wind blows we're all together, boys

Blow ye winds westerly, blow ye winds, blow

Jolly sou'wester, boys, steady she goes.

- The Fish Of The Sea

Encouraging news this morning. "German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande have said they are in 'full agreement' on how to handle the fallout from the UK's decision to leave the European Union. Mr Hollande warned that 'separated, we run the risk of divisions, dissension and quarrels'."

Brexit is not about division, it is about government. Our friends in France, Germany and elsewhere in the EU have had similar doubts about the direction the EU is being propelled in by self-perpetuating bureaucrats. They are the problem. Merkel and Hollande know that too.

George Osborne has emerged with more credit than many of the Remainers following his speech designed to calm the markets this morning. It turns out that he had not been keeping his head down. On the contrary he had been doing what Cameron should have been doing, making contact and calming fears.

Steady she goes!

"We are all in this together." (7)

Off Piste!

As the rubbish built up across Great Britain the Chancellor George Osborne left for a £11,000 ski break before welcoming his 'progressive' 20% VAT increase to help get us out of the mess the bankers dropped us in.  

We have yet to hear what the Minister's reaction will be to the Big Society's army of volunteers not having the stomach for stockpiling rotting refuse inside their own homes while he enjoyed the bonus of some fresh air. 

"We are all in this together." (6)

Bonus time!

Britain's poorest households may soon pay a higher tax rate than major banks according to TUC calculations. Chancellor Osborne, the banker's friend, has confirmed that this trend will continue.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Losers

Yesterday evening I struggled through the first live debate between the main party leaders and avoided dropping off by keeping an eye on the ITV1 website watching viewers’ comments and their ever changing score card.

Those who said that David Cameron had most to lose were proved correct. Denied his well rehearsed brief he looked distinctly uncomfortable as he listened to what his opponents had to say. Gordon Brown suffered the ‘Nixon effect’ nervously grinning and laughing uncharacteristically in the wrong places while viewers consistently put Nick Clegg ahead with his assured performance.

More surprising though was the Party reactions afterwards. On the BBC News Vince Cable said it as it had appeared while Alan Johnson gave his considered smart response but the ex-boy-star William Hague actually claimed his man the victor. Back on ITV George Osborne was speaking from the same script, perhaps on the basis that if you say the same thing over and over people will begin to believe it. Not this time. The media have seen to that.

But at the end of the day these ‘X’ factor performances should not be about personalities and their delivery but about policies. One of the ironies following the outcome of the debate is that we should now hear more about them and be better able to make an informed judgement thus making the Great British voter the clear winner.

What people want to hear

Recently the shadow Home Secretary found himself in hot water for his secretly recorded anti-gay comments which were contrary to party policy. Similarly former notables oversold themselves in a Channel 4 Despatches sting while attempting to earn more than a few extra bucks for themselves. It is a tempting device.

The general election campaign provides a golden opportunity for telling people what they want to hear. But can the parties deliver so much? Giving “All things to all men” is an impossible task but no doubt we will be treated as idiots and expected to believe it to be possible. Much sadder though are those who hear only what they want to hear making a complete nonsense of the whole process.

Postscript: Gay “Marriage” (2)

In previous blogs on this subject I have suggested that describing Civil Partnerships as “marriage” struck the wrong note. Whether or not civil partners are ‘joined together’ is not a matter with which others need concern themselves so should not be implied.

However, it appears that following the shadow Home Secretary’s boo boo, the Tories are so desperate not to lose pink votes that they had a meeting with Pulpit-crasher Tatchell: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gjjrw_a-7904Aq0Cy8jE6I2g0xLQ

As Tatchell said afterwards, "The best he [George Osborne] could do on gay marriage was say he would consider it." Not quite what he wanted to hear and certainly not what I wanted to hear but clearly what Osborne thought they wanted to hear.