The philistines in the Treasury presumably thought the artsy luvvies of British cinema would be a complete pushover when they announced the closure of the UK Film Council against all economic sense. They clearly hadn’t bargained on the involvement of Clint “Dirty Harry” Eastwood, who has sent a letter to George Osborne warning of the potential impact on film making in Britain.

Quotes from the correspondence can be seen here, but Scrapbook would like to think the salutation went along the following lines:

I know what you’re thinking, Osborne. “Have you cut £6bn or only £5bn?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as we’re the creative establishment, one of the most powerful constituencies in the world, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky?

Well, do ya, punk?

Hat-tip: @archy_bold

Share With Friends

What is it about Conservative Party and social media comedy gold? During the election they found their much vaunted Cash Gordon site redirected to pornography by hackers. Having finally got their hands on those red boxes, no sooner had they launched the Spending Challenge website than it became an unmoderated forum for racists to rant about “immergrants” [sic] and tongue in cheek suggestions for “a windfall tax on people called Steve”, “sell the unemployed after six months on benefits” and a very good recipe for beef and vegetable casserole, inter alia.

But the fun doesn’t stop there! To give this whole cuts in public spending thing some down-with-the-kids street cred, Spending Challenge has its own Facebook group which - at the time of writing – has, um, a risible 69 followers. This would be slightly less embarrassing if the page hadn’t been live for several days following its launch with some fanfare, including a video conference between David Cameron and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

The short exchange features an absolutely cringeworthy performance from Dave, who outdoes even his own stellar best on the phoniness front:

Fail.

Share With Friends

Perhaps the answer lies in a video posted today by the The Other TaxPayers’ Alliance.Taken from Adam Curtis’ 1992 documentary Pandora’s Box, Budd outlines his concerns that Thatcherite economic policies were designed to raise levels of unemployment deliberately:

The nightmare I sometimes have about this whole experience runs as follows. I was involved in making a number of proposals which were, partly at least, adopted by the government and put in play by the government. Now my worry is … that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions, or people behind them, or people behind them who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did, however, see that this would be a very, very good way to raise unemployment and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. So what was engineered there, in Marxist terms, was a crisis of capitalism which recreated a reserve army of labour and has allowed the capitalist to make high profits ever since. I’m not saying I believe those stories but when I worry about all this I worry whether that was really what was going on.

Were his experiences in a Conservative HMT giving Alan sleepless nights again?

Share With Friends

George Osborne’s much-vaunted Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was supposedly set up to guarantee the “independence and integrity” of growth and borrowing figures which, he claimed, had been subject to “fiddling” under Labour.

Revelations that the OBR is is staffed by exactly the same Treasury economists that produced data slammed by Osborne have only strengthened claims that the whole thing is a cheap gimmick. Others have poured scorn on the OBR’s independent credentials, contrasting its vague legal status with that of bodies such as the National Audit Office and Office of National Statistics, which are truly independent through their accountability to parliament rather than the executive.

With Whitehall whisperings that the OBR came under pressure to overstate the problems facing the economy, how is the coalition spinning the composition of this body? Its official website states that OBR chief Sir Alan Budd is:

“… supported by a small secretariat of economists and public finance experts redeployed from within HM Treasury”

Well it seems they didn’t feel the need to “redeploy” them very far! -

As these exclusive images show, the former section for Macroeconomic and Fiscal Policy (MFP) was magically transformed into the Office for Budget Responsibility by … sticking a piece of paper over the old sign!

So the new “independent” OBR is not only staffed by the same economists but is located in exactly the same room – all within Osborne’s department.

At least they can’t use A4 paper to conceal their cuts.

UPDATE: The excellent Other TaxPayers’ Alliance have just tweeted their proposed re-brand!

Share With Friends

Peek-a-boo! Cameron is seated directly behind Gideon and – crucially – out of the way of the troublesome dispatch box camera used for 95% of news packages:

So, where are prime ministers supposed to sit during difficult budgets? Here’s a clue:

Front benchers are acutely aware of the (usually positive) impact of proximity to the speaking member.

The seating arrangement obscuring Cameron is no accident.

Share With Friends

Writing on Comment Is Free this weekend, Blanchflower repeated that these cuts are “dogma over common sense”. Slamming the axing of the Future Jobs Fund and guarantees of work or training for the long-term unemployed, he said:

It is quite clear the vulnerable are going to pay for this government’s incompetence. Nick Clegg and his lot have sold their souls for power, and this is not what they stood for at the election.

This budget won’t be one for the squeamish (or Simon Hughes).

Share With Friends

Reductions in public spending have never been so amusing.

Share With Friends

One foreign holiday per year? Luxury!

Share With Friends

An organisation set up by the shadow defence secretary Liam Fox and linked to a string of other Conservative front benchers is under investigation by US tax authorities, Scrapbook can reveal. Atlantic Bridge, whose political activities have been subject to an official probe in the UK since October 2009, has been referred to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Charity Commission. The investigation comes as an embarrassment to members of its advisory council, which include George Osborne, Michael Gove, William Hague and Chris Grayling.

The sham charity was set up with the ‘simple aim of “Strengthening the Special Relationship” exemplified by the Reagan-Thatcher partnership of the 1980s’ despite regulation clearly prohibiting party political activity. Hosting a book launch for William Hague and providing a $2,500 hotel room for a visiting US senator number amongst controversial activities which have drawn the attention of regulators on both sides of the pond.

The ruse used by Atlantic Bridge to fend off the authorities is to configure itself as two separate charities: one in the US and one in the UK, which was previously registered at Portcullis House. Problems in the UK are referred to the US jurisdiction and vice-versa despite accounts indicating that ”the two entities have been set up to mutually support each others aims”. The organisations are referred to by executives as a single entity and have executive and advisory councils and an honorary patron (Margaret Thatcher) in common.

It seems a recent press release and an article by the Atlantic Bridge CEO backing David Cameron was the last straw for the Charity Commission.  Correspondence between blogger Stephen Newton and the UK regulator seen by Scrapbook indicates Atlantic Bridge is now under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service:

As you will appreciate the Atlantic Bridge Inc is registered in the United States as a 501(c)(3) organisation with the IRS and therefore does not fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction. We have therefore notified the IRS of this information* – Charity Commission

As a 501(c)(3) organisation, the US-arm, Atlantic Bridge Inc, is “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office”. One can only look askance at the following statement:

“Americans should look forward to May 6, after which Cameron and his government will likely assume power.   He will be good for America and better for the Special Relationship.” – Atlantic Bridge CEO Amanda Bowman

For Conservative shadow cabinet ministers, sitting on the management structures of an organisation responsible for rubbishing the NHS in US healthcare debates is reckless enough. It is apparently the case, however, that this body is also responsible for flying senior Conservatives and their US friends across the Atlantic at the expense of the British Treasury and UK taxpayers. As Newton (whose excellent articles on Atlantic Bridge are available available on his blog) writes:

As a higher rate taxpayer, a £1,000 trip to see comedian James Hirsen in LA, for example, would be covered by a £600 donation. The remaining £400 would then be claimed from British taxpayers. It sounds like an invitation to take part in well planned, systematic corruption.

The taxes this organisation has avoided paying could have been used to fund schools and hospitals. Perhaps hacks following Messrs Fox, Osborne, Hague and Grayling on the campaign trail should pose the following question:

How much tax has your organisation dodged?

*IRS analysts are currently acting on this communication and a complaint from Stephen Newton.

UPDATE 18:15 So, as Guido observes, the press release is a bit suspect. But the article is genuine and Bowman is clearly a shill for David Cameron during an election.

Share With Friends

This blogger hasn’t been sued (yet):

The characters depicted in this blog post are fictional. Any resemblance to real shadow chancellors is purely coincidental.

Share With Friends