Knave declines tart options

In a surprise move that sent shockwaves through the City of La La Land, it was announced today, contrary to widespread speculation, that the Knave of Hearts had decided not to steal any tarts at all this year, despite having the opportunity to take as many as he wanted. It is believed that the Knave, who is a renowned expert and avid collector of fine tarts from all around the world, had quite enough tarts and other confectionary already and didn't really need any more.

It is thought that pressure had been brought to bear on him by representatives of the Queen, who had gone to considerable effort to bake them, and all on a summer's day, too. She had apparently muttered some rubbish about many of her subjects "barely being able to afford bread." It was feared that the King himself might have beat the knave full sore on noticing them missing.

In other news, it was reported that organised gangs of overweight cats were continuing to remove seemingly endless quantities of cream from the dairy and nobody seemed to be trying to stop them. Each was taking a turn at helping themselves while the others stood by, diligently ensuring that each gets as much as he wants.

 

One was seen playing a fiddle, one disappeared into its own grin and another was last seen sailing away in a luxury yacht described by police spokesman, Officer Dibble, as “beautiful" and "pea-green”. It has not been confirmed as yet whether or not he was in the company of a foreign national known only as The Owl. It is thought that they may be in possession of plently of money, which has been concealed in a large denomination bank note, as well as an undisclosed quantity of honey.

It is not yet understood if these crimes were connected to an incident earlier in the day, when a small dog was heard laughing at a dish, who was reported to have been seen leaving the country in some haste in the company of a spoon. A lawyer for another suspect, a well known cow, said his client was "over the moon".

Later in the day, a number of bears were seen entering a wood, apparently for a picnic. It was not yet clear whether they intended to defecate, but we spoke to an expert in bears who said, "Yeah, well. They're bears, after all. Knowing them, they probably will." 

Cutting benefits of doubt

At first glance, George Osbourne's announcement that Child Benefit will be cut for high earning families may seem eminently sensible and even politically digestible and therefore should be welcomed. Mr Osbourne himself said that he was doing this as a "matter of principle", so we should be grateful at his equanimity and generosity as well as infinitely credulous. This gesture has that lovely tint of redistributivism, of punishing and rewarding, a kind of fiscal S&M. It appears to show the rich taking on a reasonable burden and, by dint of them, for once, not being the ones getting clubbed, the poor seem to be benefiting. We didn't used to be so easily pleased, but we take our pleasure where we can these dark days.


Personally, I have issues with Mr Osbourne's stated political principles, so anything marching under their banner needs frisked before I fall in behind. In the short term, it will get up the noses of many instinctive conservatives, which many of us see as self-evidently a good thing. We will laugh at their hypocrisy when the scream about the injustice of having their benefits cut.

As political stunts go, it takes some beating and came right out of Whitehall's top drawer, with a spin John Major tried and failed to master in Thatcherism 2.0. Judging by the Venus flytrap-like reflexes of our political media, Osbourne seems to have landed triumphantly on his feet. At last, he was seen to be wielding the axe directly at those who could afford it for a change. It's a pity he didn't think of this earlier, but no matter.

His consistency cannot be questioned either. Picking on one easily demonised group is always a winner as by doing so he defines a majority by default. It doesn't matter that it is a completely phony one; by mixing and matching like this, everybody feels both vindicated and under siege. Nearly everybody, anyways. And of course, those who are already sharing far more pain than they can reasonably manage aren't going to shed tears at the plight of Tarquin, 29, and Tabatha,26, design consultants from Islington, for whom child benefit was a fraction of the au pair's spending money.


It is probably precisely because of this that we should be suspicious. George Osbourne's philanthropy has, to date, generally come at a considerable price to those who can least afford it. At least with previous attacks on the common weal he had the decency not to seem too pleased about it. He wasn't actually grinning ear to ear anyway, which is always something. Such modesty seems to have escaped him this time.

The Tories 2012: 7th movement

In her New Year speech, German chancellor, Angela Merkel, warned us that 2012 will be worse than 2011. It is not clear whether this was meant as a warning or a threat. It probably rather depends on to whom the admonishment was addressed. Not all interests coincide and some are mutually exclusive; I've found to my cost that mine, for instance, seem to get a rough ride when those of the banks are given overarching priority and I don't think I'm unique here. However, for the purposes of argument if nothing else, it is probably wise to proceed with her expressed views in mind. Rest assured, the markets are doing just that and, for now, we have little choice but to pay attention even if we don't see any fundamental reason for either the unrestrained avarice that drives them or the misery they aver to be unavoidable and absolutely necessary for - the best bit - the common good.   

Just to ensure individual and collective despair should be unmitigated, Nikolas Sarkozy shrugged his shoulders and reiterated an academically valid but none-the-less largely platitudinous comparison with the 1930s - I'm assuming that no matter how tough it gets, genocidal fascism isn't going to mount a comeback; I have to assume this, otherwise the tenor of the debate changes.

The Tories 2012: 6th movement

It is worth remembering that the royal mint prints currency entirely randomly. Nobody has any idea how much folding stuff is in circulation, but by the officially accepted figures, bank notes account for only 3% of money in the U.K. It is not prosperity and fiscal probity that averted runs on the banks long ago; it is the fact that everybody knows that the system would have run dry ten minutes into the banking day and left the tiny minority who got their money out subject to the wrath of the majority who didn't.

Unlike in a purchase, where existing entities demonstrably change hands, in the money houses, all parties leave with more than they entered with. Their wealth did not exist before the point of transaction. The poor and the struggling keep the economy ticking over through keeping the money flowing and borrowing when it runs dry. Through investing entirely in abstracts, the wealthy cause stagnation. Our economy is predicated on growth in perpetuity that always, if only just, exceeds our steadily rising demands, allowing a lot to be skimmed off by the parasitic wealthy without the rest of us responding with anything other than resigned acceptance and the occasion dubious pie-chart in the tabloids. When growth slips below a threshold considerably higher than anything imaginable today, in order to keep his own take at the level he has become accustomed to, the rentier drags his very own market economy into recession.