New Year, New Problems

Hey,

So, the first blog of 2011. Exciting eh? Well, no, not really. I'm writing during the break I have between my two rescheduled exams. This is rubbish for many reasons:

a) they were meant to take place last month
b) I couldn't celebrate my birthday since I was revising for exams. Exams, as it later turned out, were a month away
c) I have two on the same day
d) they are on a Saturday

A mixture of factors, I'm sure you'll agree it is not ideal. But there you go. Anyway, I hope you had a good new year (seems like ages ago now). I'll try and keep the blog going again this year, even if it is just for my own enjoyment. It's nice to look back on too.

Arizona Shooting Thingy
A tragedy? Yes. Preventable? Probably. Sarah Palin's fault? Well...

It isn't really Sarah Palin's fault. She didn't put the bullets in the gun, nor did she tell him to. But her rhetoric throughout the November mid-terms was aggressive and, involved, err, guns. Lots of guns. Shoot 'em down! Don't retreat, reload! Rar! Etc. Of course this sort of military rhetoric is common in the US. British slogans and campaigns can be aggressive, often harsh attacks of character and policy, but not to the extent of across the Atlantic, and not to the same degree as the Tea Party (thank the Lord). We do use war as a metaphor, but only really in sport, or when England play Germany/Argentina at football. It's use in sport is usually to try and paint sportsmen as victorious warriors, bleeding and bruised but defiant. Nothing epitomises this more than the image of Terry Butcher. It sounds like an oxymoron, but we use war imagery in an almost naive way.

My argument about the shootings in Arizona is this; the man who shot the bullets was 22 years old, meaning that he would've been a teenager whilst the scandals of Columbine and teenage suicides were all the rage. He is of a generation that, accused by the right, of being brainwashed and changed by the rhetoric of artists like Marilyn Manson and the like. A decade on, has this generation changed? The words of Palin can be taken on board by vulnerable, sensitive Americans and it could've possibly led him to the actions that he did. Both had an influence on impressionable people, albeit one would argue that Manson's intelligence is superior to that of the potential Republican Presidential candidate for 2012. As I said, this is not Palin or the Tea Party's fault, but maybe she should be more careful with she says next time. The only difference between Palin and Manson is make-up, after all.

The VAT Rise
We are all in this together, but some are in it more than others...

Last week's news I know, but it's impact will last longer the delicious chicken stir fry I had on the same day. It was wonderful. Anyway.

Increasing VAT to 20%, in my opinion, is wrong. Gideon is justifying his actions by saying that the alternative Labour proposed, an increase in contributions through National Insurance, is a "tax on jobs". My argument is, is that such a bad thing?

Say this is a "tax on jobs" as the right proclaim, it is also a tax on people who have jobs, so surely it makes sense for people in employment to pay their way as opposed to people who are not in employment to do so. Of course there are people who abuse the system, but let's be Hobbessian about this - we pay our way so the system works.  I rather live in a society in which those who can afford to pay, do so. The VAT increase may be "fair" in the sense that everyone is effected, but at the same time it is not "fair" since everyone is affected differently. An increase on VAT hits the pocket of the poor harder than the pockets of the rich, as it simply means a higher percent of income, and this will affect the ability to spend. How can we be encouraged to spend and help revive our economy if we have less money? Obviously this would be the same if it were taken from N.I contributions, but the hit would be of a similar level to everyone. As it is, the VAT increase will hurt the poor. Combined with the news that the Conservatives are cutting staff budget by 17% (3000 jobs to you and me) in the next year in Manchester (and similar places in the north such as Middlesbrough and Sunderland) when some of the more genteel, conservative (big C or little c depending on your view) areas are experiencing lighter sanctions when we are all "in this together" just doesn't fair. But fairness is in the eye of the beholder, or the beholder of the Treasury. Whichever you prefer.

 DC
x