History has repeated itself for the beleaguered Chancellor this spring. 2012 marked a low point in the coalition government's fortunes, but a new looming threat is approaching, post-haste.
In a move that pundits were quick to call the "IDS of March" (scraping the barrel, I know), the Cabinet lost its Secretary for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, after 6yrs in the job.
Proposed cuts to disability benefits were eventually scrapped, but the muddle following last Wednesday's Budget prompted ex-Conservative leader IDS to reconsider his role, it's understood.
To avid EU referendum watchers, IDS is one of the most prominent Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party, and so his resignation is undoubtedly being viewed through this lens.
IDS did the rounds of several televised interviews over the weekend, following his decision. The Mail on Sunday reported that Mr Cameron allegedly "exploded with rage" at IDS's news, and it was also alleged he called him "dishonourable", but it remains unclear how this information was ascertained.
In an interview on the Andrew Marr Show, IDS took a swipe at the now-scrapped proposals, branding them "deeply unfair", as well as accusing the government of moving to please Tory-supporters of pensionable age or over, at the expense of the poorest in society.
IDS also insisted his decision was unrelated to the upcoming EU referendum, but his charged language implies some kind of crafty game-plan to potentially shape public opinion, in an atmosphere where the slightest spark could ignite sufficient support for either side of the campaign.
The resignation is perhaps the first outburst of dissent, in a governing party that is on the brink of a major skirmish. The Conservative Party was left scarred in the early 1990s, over the Maastricht Treaty, and suffered something akin to a "lost decade" in the wilderness, before recovering in the run up to the 2010 election.
Just as the Scottish referendum has not healed wounds over the desire for some in Scotland to move towards a more independent nation, the EU referendum is unlikely to heal the Conservative Party's schism. In fact, it might trigger a new leadership election, if reports are to be believed.
The Sunday Times spoke to an un-named minister, who claimed the Prime Minister "wants to fix the problem. He wants to get rid of the t***s who have caused all the problems. There will be a reckoning.”
Only 50 MPs are required to call for a leadership race, and there is a possibility a Brexit candidate might challenge Mr Cameron, and even dismount him, before his second and final term is over. In the run-up to the 2015 election, Mr Cameron had told James Landale from the BBC that "Two are wonderful, three might just be too many".
The March 2016 budge has been and gone. GDP growth forecasts have been downgraded, the deficit will persist longer than the Chancellor expected, and the debt-to-GDP ratio has still not peaked yet.
George Osborne set out as Chancellor all the way back in June 2010's "emergency" budget to rescue the British economy from a Greek-style debt crisis selloff of government bonds.
He set himself three golden rules, for people to judge his performance.
1.) He hoped to cap welfare spending over the 2010-15 Parliament. He failed.
2.) He hoped to get the debt-to-GDP ratio falling. He's still not achieved this yet.
3.) He hoped to achieve a budget surplus by the end of the Parliament. That was supposed to happen in 2015. Now it's been extended out, to the 2019-20 financial year. Let's see how that goes.
As it stands, he hasn't quite lived up to his own standards. If he fails to achieve a budget surplus by 2020, Mr Osborne's alleged aspirations for higher office will be blown out of the water.
There were some rays of sunshine, amidst the rhetoric and barrage of statistics yesterday. The ONS announced that unemployment remained at a 10yr low of 5.1%, whilst average earnings rose to 2.2% in January (well ahead of inflation). The so-called feel-good factor of real wage growth remains in place, for now at least.
Wage growth since the financial crisis. Is the recent recovery too little too late?
Source: ONS/Timetric
If the feel-good factor is supposedly upon us, why was the budget so gloomy?
Simple: the economic growth and productivity gains which the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) pencilled in, back in 2010, failed to materialise. The government's having to cut further into the welfare state to balance the books.
Government ministers are often heard justifying the cuts to public spending, by using the analogy of a spendthrift household. The idea is that you must live within your means, or you max out the credit card, and no one will lend to you.
Except the UK government isn't a household. A household in work can get a rough idea how much it can earn in a year, to keep things running smoothly. The Treasury can only guess at how much tax revenue it can generate.
Spending plans are all very well, but if productivity is weak, wages fail to take off. Wages help fill the coffers, and if they're subdued tax receipts will lower. The cuts will be made, but the tax base will be too low for the cuts to be enough to balance the books.
The gap is forecast to close, but it'll come half a decade late than originally planned
Source: OBR
Speaking to me before Mr Osborne announced the OBR's economic forecasts at the dispatch box, economist David Blanchflower told me he expected growth to be "downgraded but still too optimistic".
As it turned out, economic growth will be fairly steady. We were told to expect average growth of 2.1% a year by 2020. It's slightly below the "long-run" growth rate economists use to talk about, of about 2.7%.
The forecasts predicted that unemployment would bottom out and rise slightly, to 5.3% by 2020. This would imply that the surge in job creation over the last 4yrs will peter out somewhat, despite the steadily-growing economy.
In other words, we are being told to expect future growth to be the result of higher productivity, as opposed to an increase in the supply of labour.
US Federal Reserve and Bank of England refrain from rate hikes
This is news that came in two parts, during the day. The Federal Reserve announced it intended to avoid hiking rates in March. The Fed notoriously hiked rates back in December 2015, and chaos ensued.
Now the Bank of England has announced rates will remain at 7yr lows. The OBR's forecasts implies rates might get cut below 0.5% in the next two years, if conditions continue to deteriorate deteriorate
Japan's central bank cut interests rates into negative territory, and the ECB followed suit. It cut its deposit rate even further into negative territory this month. Global stock markets tumbled earlier this year, over fears negative rates will hit the margins of financial institutions.
The current so-called emerging market crisis is easily explained. When the Fed electronically created billions of Dollars, over three sucessive rounds of QE, they were able to keep a lid on the Dollar. Commodities like Oil, Gold and Silver rocketed until 2011.
When new Fed chair Janet Yellen announced a taper of QE in 2013, emerging market currencies peaked, and began to tumble, and commodities along with them, as the Dollar began to rally.
Even the hint of a rate hike, plus a slowing Chinese economy has sent Oil prices down to 12yr lows.
Project Fear: Downing St pictures presents a campaign of terror unlike anything you've seen before. Quake in fear, as the government tries to persuade you that jobs could be lost, if we leave the EU.
Watch goggle-eyed, cramming popcorn into your mouth hurriedly, as business after business warns about how the Pound might tumble if we decide to go it alone.
Coming to a cinema near you, in June 2016. (Warning: contains scenes of politicians strongly disagreeing and calling each other names)
In the run up to the EU referendum, due to take place on 23rd June, the Out campaign has been trying to forge a coherent us-versus-them narrative, which it hopes will show how nasty the In campaign is. Except the Out campaign is running its own Project Fear.
This article will concern the purely EU-related aspect of the campaign. The Tory infighting aspect, which is a story in and of itself, will be covered in a forthcoming article.
Just two weeks ago, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith or 'IDS', (Welfare and Pensions secretary) claimed that remaining in the EU greatly increased the likelihood of a Paris-style attack.
The comments come at a time when Ipsos Mori reports that terrorism is one the top 10 concerns facing Britons today. IDS is trying to appeal to the general public's fears of a terrorist attack, which hasn't even happened yet.
The argument has a logical gap. Terrorism is the problem, and so he thinks the solution is quitting the EU, above all. It seems like something of a leap, and says more about his personal views, than about how to actually tackle terrorism. IDS needs to elaborate on this further, if it is to be taken seriously.
Michael Gove, another Brexit supporter, is reported as saying that the far right has flared up to levels not seen since the 1930s, and that the dire straits of the economic crisis in Greece have seen "Hitler worshippers" such as Golden Dawn entering the Greek Parliament.
He added: “Our security and sovereignty stand together. I believe that there are better opportunities to keep people safe if we are outside the European Union."
Mr Gove fails to state how a Brexit will actually halt the rise of the far right in places like Greece. His argument also fails to take note of the EU's origins. The European project emerged as an alternative way of conducting affairs in Europe, in reaction to the 1930s wave of fascism and terror.
Mr Gove is also not remembering recent British political history: the referendum is only taking place at all, because another political party, UKIP, were surging in the polls during the last parliament. UKIP is generally seen as a right-wing fringe that just won't sit comfortably within the Conservative benches.
Some might go as far as saying UKIP are far right, but the economic situation in the UK since 2008 has been drastically different to Greece's. Greek GDP has slumped but the UK has shuffled along, with average economic growth since 2010.
The rise of the far right is not EU-centric. The GOP in the US is being crippled by a lurch to the right which has been going on for many decades. This right-wing surge is also a phenomenon that goes far beyond the trivial pro-EU/anti-EU squabbles. Without a doubt, it will remain an issue for many years yet.
We'll never know what would have happened in the event of an EU-less Europe; it's the counter-factual. However, the 1920s and 1930s do serve as an example of how not to allow isolationism and nationalism to prevail following a bloody world war.
Quick fact to remember: the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the whole EU, as a sign of recognition for the achievements of the European project. Below is the Norweigan Nobel Committee's justification: "The Nobel Peace Prize 2012 was awarded to European Union (EU) 'for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe'."
The debate is all very well, but what do the polls say right now? YouGov released a tranche of polls over the past few weeks, the most recent of which show a lead for the In campaign. The betting markets are showing signs that bets are piling behind Britain remaining in the EU.
Based on these two sets of indicators, perhaps the biggest fear is coming from the Out campaign?Maybe they're starting to take notice of the way public opinion is forming, and they're panicking. Just saying that Brexit Britain will become a green and plesant land again isn't enough.
Now the Outers are saying fascism is on the rise, and that terrorism is more likely if we stay, but the causes and solutions aren't really obvious, if we just do a Brexit. They're structural social problems, and will take more than a referendum to fix.
Iain Dale certainly shows signs of referendum fatigue, and it's only March. He made the controversial decision today to compare a Brexit to Britain declaring war on Germany in 1939. Yep. Not the most pleasant juxaposition.
Russian-based international news outlet Russia Today (also known as RT) has been caught omitting key information in a live news broadcast.
In a clip that has since been posted onto RT's Youtube account, anchor Gayane Chichakayan talks of the tensions between the US and Turkey (and they are building) over airstrikes on Kurdish sites, and the clip referenced a press release from France. A snapshot is shown below.
The "..." significant. RT has omitted some words linking the whole quote together
(Source: RT YouTube)
After a short investigation, Left Handed Dude discovered the original source of the French quote, linked here. It is a press release from the official France Diplomatie website, where the French government shows concerns over the continuous bombardment of Syrian people. The piece is quoted as follows:
"France expresses its concern at the continued deterioration of the situation in the region of Aleppo and northern Syria"
Here is the really important bit that RT took the quote from
"It [France] calls for the immediate cessation of the bombing, those of the regime and its allies across the country, and those of Turkey in the Kurdish areas"
RT chose to neglect mentioning the subject the French referred to primarily: Bashar al-Assad and his allies, and their attempts to crush dissent in Syria. Instead, the channel chose to use the French press release to make Turkey the sole focus of attention. Except they haven't gotten away with it.
Maarat al-Numan and Azaz struck
Source: BBC News website
RT's omission comes, just as news has filtered through that 3 Syrian hospitals had been struck yesterday, 2 in Maarat al-Numan, and 1 in Azaz, a town close to the Turkish border, and a Kurdish stronghold.
Azaz is shown here to be under Kurdish control (at least according to this map sourced from the BBC), on the border with Turkey. Maarat al-Numan is not shown but is located in the cream-coloured region beneath Idlib. The cream colour indicates the region is under rebel control.
Maarat al-Numan has been held by the Syrian Free Army, following a lengthy skirmish in 2012-13. The strikes on both hospitals have reportedly killed 22 people, as reported by CNN
Following the hospital attacks, Medecins Sans Frontieres claimed it believed the Syrian regime or the Russians were responsible, as reported here. No independent confirmation has been made yet, the BBC added.
A limited ceasfire is supposed to go into operation on 19th February. Left Handed Dude will keep an eye on developments as they come.
What is RT?
RT celebrated its 10th anniversary in December 2005, and started properly broadcasting to the US in 2009, and then a UK version, RT UK, was launched in 2014.
The British Audience Research Bureau, which compiles UK TV viewing figures, claims that the RT channel had a total quarterly audience reach of 2.57m viewers in the third quarter of 2015, according to its most recent audit (link here).
The Russian government reportedly spent 21bn Rubles to fund it in 2015, but cut that down to 19bn Rubles for 2016. With oil and gas making up a large proportion of Russian government revenues, and the price of oil having crashed over 75% in USD terms, cuts are being made all over the place.
The outlet's YouTube account has been up and running since 2009, when the channel began regularly broadcasting content in the US. Secretary of State John Kerry has called RT a "propaganda bullhorn" and below is evidence of some of RT's kookier material.
RT has come under fire, especially since the start of armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine back in early 2014. The international community considered the events in Crimea as an annexation, but RT refrained from using the term itself.
Ofcom has been frequently warning RT about broadcasting unbalanced news, at least on UK screens. It is doubtful RT is changing its angle anytime soon.
Examples of the anti-Western angle shown by RT are evident, based on the coverage of Russia's sanctions and its economic troubles.
Russia was hit by sanctions, from the EU and the United States following the annexation of Crima but RT spun the sanctions as useless (regular RT guest Gerald Celente called them "toothless" here) and beneficiary to the Russian economy.
This all came, despite the fact that the Ruble has more than halved in value since 2014, the Russian economy has slumped into a recession, and Russian consumers have been stifled by high inflation.
It has been confirmed that the Independent and Independent on Sunday newspapers are to cease printing in March. Launched in 1986, the papers have been owned by Alexander Lebedev since 2010.
It is understood that the Indpendent/IoS are to become the first British national newspapers to become fully digital. This all comes just 5 months after it was reported Independent newspaper increased its cover price by 20p.
The paper's spin-off publication, the i Newspaper is reportedly going to be sold by Mr Lebedev, to Johnston Press, for a deal worth £25m, as reported by the Guardian.
The i newspaper has experienced more fortune than its mother paper. The i was launched in October 2010, as a cut-price alternative to the Independent, known affectionately by its readers as "the Indy".
The i started with a cover price of 20p from Mondays to Fridays, but in recent times, it has extended its print run to Saturdays, and the cover price has risen to 40p for week-day editions.
It's the first major closure of a printed national newspaper, since the complete closure of the News of the World, amidst the phone hacking scandal in July 2011.
An audit by ABC back in June 2015 revealed the possible reason for the 20p cover price hike, and was grim reading. The audit confirmed that the Indy had seen a tumble in print readership.
In the middle of 2015, the audit found that the Indy had readership of approximately 57k readers per issue, compared with over 220k readers for editions of the i newspaper. Some sources have reported that the Indy's readership has fallen by an eye-watering 85% since its peak in 1990.
The move into a wholly-digital format will be a exciting new venture for the Indy, but many have turned to Twitter, to voice their sadness at the shift.
(NOTE: I wrote the bulk of this piece before results were announced for New Hampshire. The article is concluded with info about that too)
The US Presidential election has shifted to the next big battleground state of New Hampshire. As the election gets inexorably closer, things get prickly. To get to the top, politicians require sheer strength of will.
The latest round of debates represent a shift towards a more darker side of politics. Only one of the dozen people currently running is actually going to sit in the Oval Office by this time next year. Let's have a look and see who's come out fighting, and who's struggling to stay afloat.
Democrat debate in New Hampshire
With Martin O'Malley dropping out of the Democrat field following a poor showing in Iowa, it's a two-horse race now. Voters must choose: Feel the Bern, or Vote Hillary.
This time 8 years ago, Mrs Clinton was beginning to struggle against the young and charismatic Barack Obama. During the 2008 primaries, many felt the blows dealt by Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were probably a tad too much.
Some of the biggest zingers in NH this time round were related to Mrs Clinton's perceived closeness to Wall Street. Mr Sanders reached out to viewers with this zinger:
"The Middle Class bailed out Wall Street in their time of need...now it is Wall Street's time to help the Middle Class..."
Mrs Clinton chose to focus on the achievements accrued during the Obama Presidency, when she chose to speak of the Affordable Care Act; the government has intervened, to ensure that a large chunk of the population, who reside on the lower end of the income scale, has access to affordable health care.
"I want to build on it...", said Mrs Clinton. "...Get costs down, get prescription drug costs down. Senator Sanders wants us to start all over again...It is helping people right now".
(Post-caucus update)
Senator Sanders went on to win New Hampshire, with about 60.9% of votes, to Hillary Clinton's 38.2%. Polls in the run-up to the result indicated Mr Sanders would beat Mrs Clinton, but the margin had widened somewhat on the actual night itself.
Current score: Senator Sanders in the lead, with 36 delegates, with Mrs Clinton trailing close behind on 32 delegates.
The GOP corner
Where shall we begin. It was unintentionally funny really. Take a look at this moment of TV gold.
The awkwardness began even before the debate began! It was when the candidates were filing onto the stage during the live broadcast that Ben Carson seemingly panicked. He just stopped in the wings, and refused to come on, even though he had a camera right on him.
But never fear! Donald Trump is here! He got called onto the stage, but noticed this bizarre moment of panic by Mr Carson, and kindly stopped to stand awkwardly with Carson in the wings briefly.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio got called up, and just strolled through the wings, as if nothing was wrong.
It took until Jeb Bush was called onto the stage that it became painfully funny.
He awkwardly had to maneuver past the pair, as if it was a secondary school corridor, and they were the jocks and Mr Bush was the nerdy-stereotype kid, on the way to the next lesson.
The highlight of the Republican debate in NH was the epic fall from grace by Marco Rubio. Watch the horror unfold in the video below.
Admittedly, he didn't have far to fall, given that he has never actually been able to steal the limelight from the Donald during the campaign.
In Iowa, he surprised some by coming third, but the NH debate was a comedown of sorts, or at least an adjustment back to reality, after a bubble, following Iowa.
Mr Rubio answered a direct question with a scripted but typical and easily-forgettable answer. It should have been fine after that:
"And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing, he knows exactly what he's doing" he said.
What happened next was something of a 404 Error/cannot compute moment for Mr Rubio. He somehow ended up saying a rehashed version of the phrase later on. Chris Christie noticed, and ripped him for repeating, and as a result, painted him as a Washington automaton.
All Rubio could do was repeat the assertion another time, but the damage was done. The audience were cheering, and now the "Marco Rubio is a robot" idea has stuck, at least for the time being.
On the caucus night itself, Donald Trump came first with 35.3%. It's Mr Trump's first proper victory over his fellow competitors, and most of the other Republican contenders failed to get into the double digits for a poll share.
Two contenders chose to drop out of the race today, following a dismal showing in both Iowa and NH. At the time of writing, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie have suspended their campaigns.
What's the score now? Trump leads the field with 17 delegates, to Ted Cruz's 11.
Final remarks
NH was a bit of a wacky caucus, in this lengthy race to elect the 45th President of the United States. On the Democrat side, Senator Sanders has shown resilience, despite the assumption by many that establishment candidate Hillary Clinton will sweep him aside.
At this point, let's assume the Clinton campaign will pip Senator Sanders, but by a slim margin. Enough to remind her how close she was to losing it all, for a second time.
The Republican side is a mess. The two frontrunners, Trump and Cruz, are the savage wolves in the sheep farm. They are tearing chunks out of each other, and dirtying the reputation of the GOP as they do it.
All the establisment GOP types can do is sit and watch as the GOP makes itself unelectable for another 8-year cycle. Probably time to get a good long book and set an alarm for 2024 perhaps?
Here in the UK, the Prime Minister is bound a fixed term of five years. When the allotted time runs out, they tend to dissolve Parliament in late March or early April.
The campaign is short and sharp, with the whole charade finished by the first week of May (usually).
The average US Presidential campaign lasts 18 months. In that time, you could gestate an elephant. Hilary Clinton announced her intention to run for President, as a Democrat nominee all the way back in April 2015.
Donald Trump, the scourge of anyone with two brain cells to rub together (and hairstylists for that matter) announced his run at Trump Tower, back in June 2015.
The election is about 9 months away, (enough time to gestate a person) but people are being assaulted by a new tranche of news from across the Atlantic.
In a corner of the United States, called the great state of Iowa, the Presidential nominees are finally submitting themselves to the democratic process.
For the first time in this long-running campaign, Republican and Democratic Party members are holding caucuses to elect their party's main candidate to receive the keys to the White House, from President Obama.
It's not like the UK's election cycle at all. Here, we have our MPs, and the party leader is the MP that has the most support from their peers.
In the US, you have the House of Representatives, and the US Senate. Presidential candidates can come from these two houses, or they can do a Donald Trump, and simply come from the private sector, and put themselves forward.
How did it all pan out this week?
The Democrat caucuses were quite simple. There was the assumed front-runner, Hilary Clinton, facing off against self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, plus the distant third hopeful, Martin O'Malley.
Mrs Clinton is listed as the assumed front-runner, because she really did seem like she would sweep into this race, without any major contenders.
For a time, it seemed unclear whether Elizabeth Warren would run against her, but then she ruled herself out.
Entering into this race, Mrs Clinton was probably thanking her lucky stars that she wasn't facing a youthful, charismatic rival, similar to Barack Obama.
Then Bernie Sanders entered into the race. Slow to catch fire at first, Mr Sanders has now been able to catch up with Mrs Clinton, and the results for the Iowa caucus for the Democrats were much closer than people could have imagined.
Mrs Clinton came first, but secured 49.8%, compared to Mr Sanders, who managed to garner 49.6%. Spare a thought for Martin O'Malley, who secured just 0.6%.
Mr O'Malley quit the race after Iowa, so it's now a two-horse race for the Democrats.
There was a debate between Mrs Clinton and Mr Sanders on MSNBC the other night. Expect to see a post about the debate and its fallout imminently.
What about the Republicans?
This leaves us with the literal elephant in the room: the Republican caucus. What a night that was.
Like the 2011-12 Republican primary campaign, the 2015-16 one has produced a large number of contenders, and they don't seem to be showing much signs of dropping out anytime soon.
You might remember previous Left Handed Dude posts in 2015 about Mr Trump, back when he commanded sizeable leads in opinion polls over his rival contenders.
The Iowa caucus has been something of a brutal wakeup call to Mr Trump. He came second with 24.3% of votes, when all the polls indicated he would win. Pipping him to the post was fellow anti-establishment right-winger Ted Cruz, who won 27.6% of votes.
Coming in third was Marco Rubio at 23.1%, and the other candidates were unable to muster vote shares higher than 10%. They ranged from Ben Carson's 9.3% all the way down to Rick Santorum's measly 1%.
At the time of writing, much hot air has been expended over claims that Ted Cruz's campaign published untrue stories about Mr Carson having quit the race, as the caucus was ongoing.
Here is a clip from MSNBC, which includes an apparent recording of someone announcing the fake story.
If the allegations are true, it will be one of the first incidents during this long campaign, where a sitting candidate will have become victim to dirty tactics.
Mr Trump claimed he felt "honoured", but was also reported to have admitted that skipping the previous televised GOP primary debate might have harmed him in the Iowa caucus.
It's interesting to see that Trump has now confirmed he's chosen to turn up to the next Fox News debate, in March.
Maybe his campaign is more vulnerable than people thought, after the prolonged oxygen of publicity? Maybe it was just built on sand?
.jpg)
