Someone emailed me this Sully quote:
[The Tories] raised the retirement age to 66; they plan to reduce the numbers of criminals in prison; they’ve cut police funding; they’ve cut defense by 8 percent; they’ve slashed subsidies to the regions. And remember the British debt is not that much higher than the US debt: Yes, the welfare cuts will hurt the poor, but the biggest hit will come from middle class entitlements. The wealthy, including the Queen, are reeling…
Included in the email was a link to this story:
The Queen has scrapped a Christmas party for her staff because of the “difficult financial circumstances” facing the nation.
Every two years the Queen pays for a celebration at Buckingham Palace for the 600 members of the Royal Household.
Truly a noble sacrifice.
arguingwithsignposts
I wish I could make the kinds of sacrifices the rich are making.
Bulworth
Obviously you fail to appreciate the sacrifice inherent in such sacrifice from the successful.
Persia
@Bulworth: It’s nice of her to pass the cost-cutting on to her employees like that.
Kryptik
The rich here are reeling too, you know! They have to cut back on their housekeeping staff at their Hamptons summer homes now, don’t you see the sacrifice that requires?
morzer
Sullivan is lying through his teeth here. The Tories have very carefully made sure that the poor get screwed here, while cosseting the middle class and making sure that the rich make only token sacrifices. I realize Sullivan will troll anything with the word Cameron in it, but he is being repulsively dishonest here.
CalD
Christmas is humbug anyway. I read it somewhere.
Poopyman
The reel is a very vigorous dance. I’m surprised ol’ Liz is up to reeling.
JGabriel
Sully:
Those COMMIES!
.
ornery curmudgeon
Oh, yeah. Sully said something.
Thanks for the valuable information.
JGabriel
Persia:
It’s not about cost-cutting; it’s about optics. The royal think it might look bad, partying while the nation suffers more drastically than usual.
.
dmsilev
She normally throws a Christmas party every two years? What, are odd-year Christmases less festive than even-year ones?
dms
PeakVT
Reel around the fountain…
ETA: Perhaps it will work out for an external reason, but these cuts are likely to devastate the British economy. As they say, elections have consequences. And in the UK the consequences can last for up to 5 years.
JGabriel
@Kryptik:
They’re not. The DOW has gone from less than 6700 to over 11000 since Obama took office. The rich are making out like bandits — which, of course, they are. They may have made some staffing cuts at the summer homes in 2008-2009, but I assure you they are all fully staffed again now.
.
AnotherBruce
I’m so glad that we fought a revolution to get rid of the blue blooded royalty that scoffs at the working man and ridicules and denigrates those who are less fortunate and impoverished.
Cat Lady
In the same Queenly spirit, I will refrain from all holiday tipping this year since it may make my unemployed and underemployed friends feel bad. Yeah, that’s why/
Jewish Steel
Where’s the vote of no-confidence? I thought that was going to come by fall.
Sometimes I think Labour is letting the Conservatives take the the heat for the shitty economic climate. Good for them.
New Yorker
To his credit, Sully did publish this e-mail, which is 99% of how I feel about this whole “the successful” back-and-forth:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/the-successful-ctd-3.html
Notice that nobody has their rhetorical pitchforks aimed at very successful people like, say, Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Nobody is howling about the money that GM is making again. That’s because GM and Google create jobs and wealth for thousands (if not millions) of people when they do well.
No, as this reader points out, the anger is directed at the class of financial professionals who when they do well, they do really well, and when they fuck up…well, they still do really well, while the rest of the country collapses.
briber
@dmsilev:
It’s not that there less festive, it’s that the even year parties are such blow-outs that there effect lasts through the following season. Obviously.
beltane
It’s one thing for a poor invalid to have his or her disability payments eliminated, but this type of minor inconvenience pales besides the cruel suffering that is endured by stiffing one’s employees at Christmas. Working people with their base appetites simply cannot appreciate the exquisite emotional range of their betters. Because the rich feel more, they also reel more.
Andrew Sullivan is well aware that the word villain originally referred to simple country people who toiled the fields for the betterment of their masters. In his mind, you dirty Labour types are the villains in his pretty little E.M. Forrester vision of England. Why didn’t you bow to him while writing this presumptuous post?
QDC
I will also not be hosting a Christmas party at Buckingham Palace this year. If any of you are not reeling, and could invite me to yours, that would be awesome.
JGabriel
dmsilev:
The Hapsburgs used to entertain in odd years, and no one ever thought to update the calendar.
.
morzer
@beltane:
What did E.M. Forrester ever do to you?
Mnemosyne
@JGabriel:
I think that’s it. It’s not, “oh, the poor Queen can’t afford it.” It’s, “Crap, a lavish party right about now would make us look like assholes. Better cancel it.”
Violet
I love the Queen. I love the idea of a Head of State that isn’t elected. That allows the Prime Minister to do actual governing and policy-making, while leaving the Queen for ceremonial duties and worrying about how people are feeling. Plus the military pledges its loyalty to the Queen, not the Prime Minister, so there isn’t that weird “Is the President tough enough to be Commander in Chief?” dynamic that runs through our politics.
Long live the Queen!
beergoggles
It’s kinda heartening to know that a somewhat more sane population than the US can elect governments that hollow out their country.
beltane
@Jewish Steel: The new Labour Party leader is affectionately known as “Red Ed”. Maybe there is something to your theory.
morzer
@Violet:
Not true, sadly. Blair did his best to play the “scary terrorists” card every year, because he wanted to be perceived as tougher than the Tories. The meme is less prominent, but it is there.
Sentient Puddle
@New Yorker: Now if only Sully could see that this resentment that he’s seeing is aimed squarely and directly at those financial fuck-ups and nobody else, he could begin to understand how he’s sounded completely silly with his barbs.
Superluminar
Well they could always hold the party on the deck of one of our new aircraft carriers. The ones we cant afford any planes for. /headdesk
Emma
Far be it from me to defend the rich, but the Palace budget, which includes the money used for “matters of state” (read dictated by the current government, such a receptions for visiting heads of state or handing out of prizes like the OBEs) is being cut by over six million pounds.
And the Brits have this ridiculous double vision regarding their Royal family: on the one hand they want them to be “Royal” and on the other hand they want them to “be like the rest of us.” Tightening the royal belt is optics, pure and simple. If the newspapers had had photos of them throwing a giant party, the anti-royalists and the general morons would have gone ballistic.
And the Tories are doing what they usually do, only worse, emboldened by the utter failures of “new” Labour to hold them back.
gypsy howell
I suppose the Royal Family’s own Christmas parties will continue as before.
Just don’t entertain the help this year. Yes, that’s the ticket.
Just Some Fuckhead
I thought it was a nice public gesture on the Queen’s part. Royalty is so hundred years ago ya don’t want to accidentally do something to have yer head off.
Violet
@morzer:
Of course there’s some gray area in perception. But ultimately the Queen is the Head of State. It’s a factual distinction, no matter how much Blair or others want to play Commander in Chief.
Southern Beale
I, too, have sacrificed for the cause and opted not to throw a bash for the little people who make my life easier. The people who scrub my toilets and pick the dog turds off my lawn will just have to do without this year. It will be hard for me, personally, to sacrifice in this way. The help I’m sure will appreciate my gesture for what it is in these hard times.
[/sarcasm]
Wonder if Sully is rethinking his “the wealthy worked REALLY HARD FOR THEIR MONEY” position in light of this?
JGabriel
Totally OT, but:
Dear Penthouse Forum,
Bob Guccione is dead.
.
Just Some Fuckhead
@beergoggles:
Britain was co-opted by the worldwide banking conspiracy long before we were. I read it on Stormfront.
Martin
@Violet: So, she’s like our Sarah Palin?
beltane
@morzer: Perhaps I shouldn’t have dragged E.M. Forrester into this. I am fairly certain, however, that Sullivan is nostalgic for that particular era, the twilight of a languid aristocracy lording it over the starving and consumptive masses.
R-Jud
@Violet:
Judging by how long her Mum lasted, she probably will live a while yet.
And yes, these cuts are largely aimed at the poor. There was also a new £2.5 bn levy laid on banks, but seeing as how there’s also going to be a 4% cut in corporation tax, for the bigger banks, it’s kind of a wash, and some may even come out ahead.
Also, about 500,000 civil servants are going to lose their jobs, which, in a country of 60m people, is a pretty substantial drop in employment. I can’t tell, based on what I’ve read, whether the civil servants up for the axe are going to be the middling £25-£50K types or the type of do-nothing consultancy sorts on £100K+ who are always unflatteringly profiled in Private Eye.
But, y’know, I can take a pretty good guess.
JGabriel
Martin:
Rather less embarrassing diction, methinks.
.
morzer
@beltane:
Do you mean EM Forster? Or CS Forester? Who exactly is this purveyor of misty nostalgia?
Violet
@Sentient Puddle:
Exactly. Bill Gates is really rich, but I don’t begrudge him his wealth. He earned it and he worked very hard earning it. Good for him. And these days he’s doing great stuff with his money. That’s a lot different from the smug, entitled Wall St. “master of the universe.”
Martin
@Southern Beale: No. He came around a fair degree on the late-term abortion stories, but those were personal events. There’s no way to tell the income disparity story other than as a policy disagreement, and he’s still too ideological to let that sway him.
When millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans start ransacking the homes of the well-to-do, then it’ll hit home for him. Until then, it’s all abstract.
morzer
@Violet:
It’s a technical distinction, without any purchase politically. If the Queen attempted to over-rule a Prime Minister, the scandal would be immense and bring down the Royals for good. In any case, the British do have the “tough C-in-C” meme, although it’s deployed with a bit more subtlety and reserve.
PaulW
What? The Queen cut back on a party?!
A PARTY?!
You damned heathens! There’s NEVER A GOOD REASON TO CANCEL A PARTY! NOOOOOOOOOO!
Seriously. This is heartbreaking news. If it were me, I’d host a party to the best of my ability to pay for one.
Remember good old Fezziwig?!
Violet
@Martin:
Nope. Not even close. The Queen has actual power. And she hasn’t quit. Sarah Palin’s power is a figment of her, and her teabagging followers’, crazy minds.
Sue
Man, I can’t imagine how much fun an employee party hosted by the Queen would be.
Think outside the box, Liz! How much are your employees willing to pay NOT to party with you? The proceeds will keep you in tacky hats for the rest of your life.
Martin
@JGabriel: Elitist. I bet the Queen doesn’t even write her own notes on her hand. She probably has one of her servants do it for her.
beltane
@morzer: Forster. I am coming down with a cold and just got back from an emotionally draining funeral. Give me a break.
Nick
Yesterday, I saw 2500 people line up before three Feed the Children trucks full of food waiting to eat. I’m sure they’re upset to hear the Queen of England can’t have her Christmas party.
JGabriel
Sue:
Heh. That reminds me of Helen Mirren’s reaction when she was first approached about playing the Queen, something like: “I couldn’t possibly play a woman who dresses like that.”
.
morzer
@beltane:
*rolls eyes*
Martin
@Violet: It’s never been about the rich. Democrats have never said anything about the rich. Everything has been about asking those that have better than good-paying jobs to pay their part.
Bill Gates draws no salary. None of the tax proposals affect him. It’s never been about the rich, it’s never been about class, and the right have been trying to reframe this the whole time – please don’t help them.
It’s about those with jobs and those without jobs. We’re asking those with jobs to sacrifice a bit to help make jobs for those without. The *only* think the left is asking for is the ability to work and get a paycheck.
There’s no welfare being proposed. There’s no wealth taxes being proposed. We need to be consistent on how this is framed.
Trumandem
Good god. There’s a reason we had a revolution getting away from these monarch loving nitwits. The hilarity of it all will be watching the monarchy drop nearly 1% of their GDP on a wedding for that inbred parasite next in line for the throne after daddy parasite, the Chuckster. The jet-setting lap of luxury life styles these aristocratic leeches enjoy at the expense of the tax paying working class without blowback has always eluded me. If I’m Brit I would be parked at the gates of Buckingham palace with a bag of rotten foodstuffs hurling them toward their blue blood asses letting them know what at least one of their subjects thinks of their “special status.”
morzer
@Violet:
No, she doesn’t. She is a purely ceremonial figurehead, who cannot constitutionally intervene in politics, much less over-rule the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Zifnab
I wish we knew how to do that.
What’s 8% on 700 billion dollars? $56 billion? That’s a nice slice of spare change.
Violet
@morzer:
Yeah, but it’s a distinction that is part of British life. I remember trying to explain the “someone you want to have a beer with” concept to my English relatives during the 2000 election. They were utterly baffled by it. Finally when we got down to discussing the difference between the Head of Government and Head of State we determined this was probably part of the issue.
Here in the US there is no other person to fall back on during times of crisis. If a tragedy happens, the President is the only person who can step up and speak to the people. In the UK, the Queen can do it and/or the Prime Minister can do it. It creates a situation where the actual governing ability of the Prime Minister is more of an issue and the need for the Prime Minister to be a strong Head of State is somewhat blunted. They’ve already got a Head of State, so they don’t need the PM to be exceptionally skilled in that area.
Yes, there would be a crisis if the Queen tried to overrule the people or government, but the distinction does allow for some sharing or divvying up of duties that we simply cannot do here in the US.
Zifnab
@Trumandem:
Why? The British Royal Family is wealthy not because of nationwide largess. They’re just some of the biggest land owners in the country. If the Queen owned half the real estate in London and we called her the instead CEO, would you feel any better?
Punchy
Now the British have declared War on Christmas(TM) ?
Martin
@Zifnab:
Republican Ebola is the only thing that comes to mind.
MaryRC
The Queen has 600 servants. 600. Maybe instead of cutting back on parties she could let a few of them go. And I don’t mean the ones who do the actual work, making beds and cooking and cleaning up after the dogs. Half of these 600 are ancient toffs with titles like Master of the Royal Shoelace Drawer and eff-all to do. She could unload these stiffs and never miss them.
Violet
@morzer:
The unwritten constitution? The “unwritten” nature of it is a point of some discussion with the relatives. Some for, some against.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Martin: Add to all that the fact that the free market demands that there be some level of unemployment, those who have really lucrative jobs should be glad that what they are earning doesn’t lose value to inflation due to high demand for labor. Kicking in so the *necessarily unemployed* can live from day to day is not much to ask.
And fuck Sully and his short term versus long term welfare. If the market requires a permanent amount of unemployment, then there better be long term welfare too, you asshole.
Martin
@Zifnab: Well, I think how they came to own that land is deserving of some criticism.
Violet
@Martin:
Bill Gates doesn’t draw a salary now. Didn’t he at some point, while building Microsoft, draw a salary? During that period he would have been subject to increased taxes were his salary above whatever the level is.
Steve
@Mnemosyne:
But it’s a party for the STAFF. My goodness. If the optics of a party are really that appalling, then announce that you’re canceling the party in order to give the staff a bigger Christmas bonus instead.
bkny
perhaps she could auction off her collection of hats or a necklace to two as a gesture of goodwill to her faithful staff…
Violet
@Martin:
But then, how the land that many of us own today came to be available for owning is perhaps also deserving of some criticism.
Bullsmith
Hopefully American billionaires will follow the Queen’s magnanimous example and pass their own sufferings on to their servants.
Sully’s not especially on his game at the moment.
The Other Chuck
Bill Gates rarely ever drew a significant salary. The bulk of his wealth was and still is in Microsoft stock. He’s still the single largest shareholder of Microsoft, holding 620 million shares (the next largest share is an institutional investor holding roughly 350 million)
toujoursdan
@morzer:
The Queen has “reserved powers” which means on paper she can pick any Prime Minister she wants, dissolve Parliament at her whim, give or refuse Royal Assent to any law and write the agenda for Government for the next year.
These “reserved powers” (which also apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, Solomon Islands and other, mostly Caribbean and South Pacific countries) are, by tradition, never exercised. But they are real powers.
Australia went through a serious constitutional crisis in the 1970s when the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General of Australia, exercised his legal authority dissolved parliament after an impasse, instead of waiting for the Government to tell him to do it. I believe this is the last time those powers were actually used.
PeakVT
@Violet: There’s no place for heredity in a modern democracy. It’s easy enough to write a constitution with separate offices for president and prime minister if people want the functions to be separated, so that’s not a good reason to keep the monarchy either.
fasteddie9318
There, are you class warriors all happy now? The queen can’t have her royal party, which means she’s going to have to get blitzed on a case of Miller High Life all by herself and have the gardeners do a male stripper routine for her instead of hiring professionals to do the job properly. I really hope you’re all fucking satisfied. You make Andy and me sick.
Linda Featheringill
[sniff] Such a sad, sad story. I really feel for the Queen at this time of sacrifice. One wonders how she manages to carry on.
Ryan
@Violet:
I will; he got his company into the position he did through back-room dealing and abuse of monopoly power. Hard work had very little to do with it.
Comrade Colette Collaboratrice
Ah, the dear old queen and her biggest fan, the queer old dean. A close shave by le rasoir national would do them both good.
Martin
@Violet: Correct, but my point is that Democrats want to tax income, not wealth. There’s a strong correlation between the two, but they aren’t the same thing.
A rich unemployed person will derive the same tax benefits from the Democrats plan as a poor unemployed person. Clearly it’s not about rich vs poor.
A rich high-earner will be asked to pay no more in taxes than a poor high-earner. Again, clearly not about rich vs poor.
The right has been trying to twist this argument in two ways:
1) by saying that it’s unfair for people earning a million dollars to be taxed if they’re barely getting by (eg, poor). To which we say, tough shit, get your finances in order.
2) by saying that this is a ‘class war’ because Democrats are going after the rich. To which we say, we’re not going after the rich. If high-earners can afford to go galt to avoid taxes, feel free. There’s plenty of qualified and talented people out there to take those jobs and they’d be eager to do so.
Southern Beale
OMG it’s the mother of all fear porn: ABC quoting some book saying Clinton lost the nuclear codes when he was POTUS.
Stefan
Here in the US there is no other person to fall back on during times of crisis. If a tragedy happens, the President is the only person who can step up and speak to the people.
That’s not quite true. We do have Oprah.
maus
Sully’s been forced to cut back to only smoking an ounce of average hydro a day, not the finest prizewinning.
Bulworth
At least someone on the DC busline gave McMegan some love for saving his/her former city.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/we-just-want-to-live-there-too.html
Now, that’s what what the successful need. Someone acknowledging what a gawdawfulmess the locals made of the place before the welltodo came along.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@morzer:
Fixed.
artem1s
In other news, Mr. Scrooge will NOT be giving Bob Cratchit Christmas Day off.
if it wasn’t for those damn taxes on the rich Tiny Tim would still be alive.
JGabriel
@fasteddie9318:
Fix’t.
.
Violet
@PeakVT:
Tell that to the Bush, Gore, Kennedy, etc. families. Sure they may not inherit the office but the family name and contacts gets people a long, long way. And sometimes they do pretty much inherit the office (someone dies, spouse takes over, etc.).
The contrary view is that politicians can be bought, whereas inherited officeholders are perhaps less susceptible to it. The traditional House of Lords was filled with people that were already rich and weren’t as likely to be bought off in the same way. Since they inherited the position, they didn’t have to be exemplary citizens to try to get elected, so you got real people, not the sanitized versions that run for office today.
Every type of government has its good and bad aspects. But the bought-and-paid-for politicians we’ve got in the US today certainly aren’t the ideal we’re striving for. Are they?
Stefan
The Queen has 600 servants. 600. Maybe instead of cutting back on parties she could let a few of them go.
Yes, firing people always does wonders for the economy. Think of how much those 600 could do if they weren’t encumbered by their jobs and salaries!
You do know that when you fire people they don’t magically disappear, right? That when they lose their jobs they either have to (a) find another job, which means more competition for the already jobless, (b) go on public assistance, which means more of a drain on common resources, (c) live off their families, which puts a strain on their budgets, or (d) die in the street.
burnspbesq
@Trumandem:
“The hilarity of it all will be watching the monarchy drop nearly 1% of their GDP on a wedding”
Who is your math teacher, Matt Taibbi?
Warren Terra
I’m curious about the claim that the Tories have slashed subsidies to the regions, because I dont know enough about the UK to know what it means – but I do know that the Tories have no electoral base in Scotland or Wales, nor really in Northern Ireland, which has its own parties (even if the loyalists align with the Tories).
Violet
@Bulworth:
I read this yesterday. She’s channeling her inner Tom Friedman with the “I met someone on the bus yesterday who said…” crap. I guess it was a bus rider instead of a cab driver to give her some street cred. Ugh.
Dennis SGMM
Elizabeth II, if you count the value of her real estate holdings is worth something over half a billion dollars so I doubt that throwing a Christmas party for her staff every two years would force her to dine on mac and cheese every night.
artem1s
@MaryRC:
damn I want that job!
burnspbesq
@toujoursdan:
Wasn’t the Governor-General somehow involved in the proroguing of the Canadian Parliament a couple of years ago? Was she acting solely as Harper’s poodle?
Martin
@Southern Beale: They were pinned to the top of Monica Lewinski’s head. Duh.
PeakVT
@Violet: I’m highly opposed to America’s political dynasties as well. But a hereditary office eliminates all aspects of democracy from that particular role, whereas here in America there is at least the nominal opportunity for citizens to choose the officeholder.
Dennis SGMM
@Stefan:
That seems to be lost both on those businesses who outsource every possible job and on our Congress which not only enacted tax breaks for outsourcing but, now finds itself unable to repeal them.
kommrade reproductive vigor
So we go from:
Directly to this:
That’s a really crappy transition. Did he accidentally leave out detail about how the middle class will be hit the hardest, or is everything he writes now just an excuse to polish a nob’s knob?
(I have The Queen is Dead stuck in my head now. Damn it.)
The Other Chuck
@toujoursdan:
According to Wikipedia, the supreme law of the UK gives Parliament sovereign status, though it also says that the Monarch can, with the consent of the PM, dissolve parliament. It also says that parliament can override any decision of the monarch, so there’s really not much consistency there.
British monarchs are also keenly aware of what happened to the last king that dissolved parliament, and that tends to keep them in line.
The UK is also bound by the EU constitution, which might also have something to say about the power of monarchs.
Mark S.
@Southern Beale:
I’m a little skeptical:
You’d think two guys remembering something that big would come up with the same year.
I think there are a lot urban legends about this shit. I remember reading one where the guy carrying the football supposedly left it in a bar. Somehow, we are supposed to believe he wasn’t fired for that.
walt
I read Sullivan everyday and he’s definitely into a new game – I guess he fears his brand of conservatism has become nearly indistinguishable from mainstream liberalism. The trouble with this game is that it’s desperate to wage a battle on behalf of people who can easily defend themselves. There aren’t many – if any – lefties screaming for their heads. Mostly, our discussions focus on the ordinary back and forth about tax brackets and the various misfeasances that gave birth to this crisis. Sullivan may claim special knowledge about the sorrows of the upper-middle class but he doesn’t appear to know really anything about economics.
Jewish Steel
@beltane:
Ha! Yes, I heard that.
I also heard Ed and David have a third, more musical brother, Glenn Miliband.
Hiyo!
The Other Chuck
The football is handcuffed to the guy carrying it. When he goes off duty, he hands it off to the next guy. Leaving it at a bar seems about as unlikely as forgetting where you parked Air Force One.
R-Jud
You know who’s really happy about the UK cuts? The Dirty Digger himself.
Like the cuts to his main UK rival, the BBC.
Twat.
Tom Levenson
@R-Jud: What you say.
I may get around to blogging this, but the short form is that if you go to the piece to which Sullivan linked in The Daily Telegraph (no commie rag that, trust me), you find that, as you might expect, it is the middle class in Britain that gets whacked the hardest by the cuts. It’s going to get double whacked, of course, as the jobs to be cut from the civil service will (I’m guessing here, but it’s a pretty informed surmise) fall much more on earners in that middle group than the better off.
(I’m not saying rich, as the top fifth referenced in the Telegraph average income comes in at just under £49,000, or roughly $75,000. That’s far from poor, but it’s not quite rich either. Contrast it with the US figures, where the top quintile begins at $88,000 .)
Which is to say that I’m sure that there are plenty in that top fifth who will feel a real impact on their family budgets from the proposed cuts. But it is simply false to suggest, as Sullivan does, that they will feel pain commensurate with that suffered by those further down the income scale. They won’t. Not by a long shot.
And what really gravels me is that Sullivan’s own damn source tells him so — but he is so willfully innumerate that he seems not to be able to read even the simplest number presented to him.
He’s great on torture. This stuff. Not so much.
Svensker
@New Yorker:
This, a thousand fucking times banging my head on the desk, this. If somebody comes up with a great business idea to produce some new kind of widget and works really hard and figures stuff out better than everybody else and makes a whole lotta money doing stuff that people want, that’s great, got no problem with that. Don’t see why that person shouldn’t pay his/her fair share of taxes to support the kind of society that gave him or her the leg up, but I have no animus toward this person. This person is a true “producer” and is necessary for a creative, growing economy.
However, the MBA who is interchangeable with any other MBA who figures out how to write his golden parachute clause in iron clad legal terms while basically not producing anything except big checks for himself (or herself) and his buddies — well, cry me a river if I’m not a huge fan of this person and his/her class. They are necessary parasites, but they are parasites, and when they start sucking too much of their host’s blood… and are getting bailed out by the taxpayers for fucking up big time, then hells yeah, hand me the pitchfork, honey.
Violet
Oh, for crying out loud. WTF is with this story (warning, Politico link).
WTF? I mean, seriously. W. T. F?
There’s even a poll: “Do You Think Bo Obama is a Good Dog?
WTF? What is wrong with these people?
Davis X. Machina
Impact of Osborne budget analyzed by Institute for Fiscal Studies here. (Powerpoint)
Having considered all welfare cuts:
Reforms by 2012–13 are slightly regressive or flat within bottom nine-tenths of households
Reforms by 2014–15 are more clearly regressive within bottom 90%
The regressive impact is the result of reforms announced by the current Government both in the June Budget and in SR
Families with children the biggest losers
HMT said that reforms will not increase relative child poverty over next two years. Maybe, but what about future years?
Of course, this all omits cuts in public services…
Zifnab
@Martin: Yes. But that’s a little outside the scope of the conversation. And besides, given that my current residence likely resides on the Happy Hunting Ground of a deposed and slaughtered people, I’m not in a rush to make that an issue.
Andy
In the UK, the Queen is very useful for the simple reason that it stops prime ministers having delusions of grandeur whilst she herself has no real power. So it stops an all powerful executive.
Nearly all the governing leaders are Oxford / Cambridge educated so are fairly intelligent.
Finally one of the nicest things about the UK is that the MPs in all parties have, what they believe, the best interests of the people of the UK at heart. They may be wrong or misguided but David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband all believe most of what they say and have some principles. Which Republican senators / congressmen can you say the same thing about?
eemom
whew, for a while there I was afraid that all the fuss about Juan Williams was going to displace the All Sully, All The Time meme…..
Punchy
At which point, she’ll dial up Anita Hill and make her apologize for the Boston Tea Party.
Svensker
@Violet:
FYWP wouldn’t let me edit my above comment. But you just said exactly what I meant, only much more succinctly and elegantly.
liberty60
@JGabriel:
Dear Penthouse Letters-
I never thought I would be writing this, but just had to share with you the fact that your magazine provided a valuable source of sex ed to an entire generation of adolescents in the 1970’s.
Even if I never did meet any girl who remotely resembled the ones in the letters. However, the search continues.
RIP, Bob.
Brachiator
I’m pretty sure that Sully is making shit up here. On a BBC broadcast last night, the news presenter said that UK public spending was about 19% of GDP, while US public spending was about 12% of GDP. Given the size of both countries’ economies, this is not a minor difference.
Mark S.
@Violet:
Here’s what Juan Williams said about Bo:
Dork
Unless its a bogey, I’m guessing there’s zero chance they allow the guy with the real codes to take such a device into a bar.
Dennis SGMM
@Punchy:
FTW
HyperIon
@beltane wrote:
Maurice?
great movie BTW
LanceThruster
Unless the Queen herself is short on change, the “difficult financial circumstances” facing the nation would be a reason to hold it as usual.
Paris
The Queen has declared war on Christmas. Alert O’Reilley.
Warren Terra
@Brachiator:
It’s not true, though. IIRC, from the discussion of Paul Ryan’s budget scheme (which used Underpants Gnomes to explain how he could cut taxes yet promise to collect 19% of GDP), we currently collect about 17% of GDP in taxes and run a deficit. No way we’re only spending 12% of GDP unless there’s some sleight of hand, some issue of definitions (maybe those figures omitted the payroll tax, Social Security, and Medicare?).
Linda Featheringill
@Violet:
If Bo and The Prez are happy with the situation, it is nobody’s business. And if they aren’t happy, they can get somebody in to fix the problem.
I think that Cesar is a doll, but I don’t want him to come to my house and judge me and Tulip. We ain’t perfect but we do enjoy the time we have together.
freelancer
@liberty60:
Why on Earth would you do that?!
Blah blah blah,
Name and address NOT withheld!
Bill Hicks! was in that daisy chain.
Bill Hicks! forty girls blew me.
Bill Hicks! Austin, TX.
HyperIon
@Martin wrote:
I don’t know how much national coverage this story has gotten but:
Bill Gates, Senior, is the lead on the initiative here in WA for instituting a state income tax (on high earners).
Which I think is cool. But it appears to be failing. *sigh*
trollhattan
Lordy.
I’mWe are enjoying these comments, terribly. Do please carry on.-HRH
beergoggles
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I’m surprised Sully hasn’t linked to it as a rebuttal then.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Violet: My dog is well trained (graduated summa cum laude in his obedience class) and he still likes to lead. Also, he would eat Cesar Millan.
R-Jud
@Andy:
While I’ll agree with you that David Cameron is more human than, say George W. Bush, and that Michelle Bachman, if she lived here, would be sectioned rather than elected, your line about the MPs is just wrong. Many MPs sit, or have sat, on the boards of corporations, and are just as “bought” as our Congresscritters. And Oxford and Cambridge are top-class institutions, sure, but they’re also infested with rich legacy playboys (Cameron and Boris Johnson, mayor of London, among them), exactly like Yale and Harvard.
As for sticking to their principles– Nick Clegg seems to have abandoned his entirely. I don’t even mention him around my husband, who was formerly a loyal Liberal Democrat. All of the people I know who voted LibDem at the last election have sworn never to vote for them again.
PWL
“Let them eat catfood!”
Carol
@PaulW: I agree heartily. In a year where morale is bound to be low, having a party for the help is even more greatly appreciated. I’d cut back on my own private entertaining before I would do that. What’s one less debutante ball anyway? Perhaps I would have a tea instead of a fancy ball, but there would still be a party anyway.
quaint irene
I think that’s at the heart of it. How would Liz spending some of her own shillings for a staff party impact negatively on the Brit economy? Just the opposite I’d think. Though would she get in outside caterers and servers or use some of her own staff?
It should be a ‘Lord of Misrule’ kind of party. The royals should be passing around the little trays of cannape’s and cocktails.
Brachiator
@Warren Terra:
Good point. I have got a lot on my plate now, and don’t have time to run down the full story. Part of the problem here is what numbers you are looking at to form your basis of comparison. But here is an interesting little nugget from the NY Times:
There is a good discussion of budget details at the BBC site. There is probably something in the Economist, but I haven’t had the time to look into it yet. And there is some good stuff on the details of UK (and US) debt here.
SRW1
@dmsilev:
She normally throws a Christmas party every two years? What, are odd-year Christmases less festive than even-year ones?
No, No, in the odd years she has a festive ‘Happy Holidays’ party.
Martin
@Zifnab: I wasn’t really offering it as a suggestion. It was simply the only solution I could come up with.
I agree it’s a little radical.
hamletta
@PeakVT: It saves them from electing some godawful president, according to Tim Stamper.
valdemar
@Violet:
Well, George Orwell did conceded that a monarchy has its virtues – and he was a socialist. One genuine virtue is a head of state that can’t be a politician, and therefore ‘looms’ over the more ambitious types who get elected. Another is a reassuring sense of historical continuity. I remember my granddad referring to ‘the old king’, meaning the present Queen’s grandfather, George V. But against this there’s the obvious problem of inherited wealth and unearned privilege being central to your society, in theory as well as in practice. On balance, I’d scrap the monarchy but the odds are that – after a brief, unhappy reign of Charles III – I’ll see William V crowned.
JamesHarrison
@toujoursdan:
But on your own showing she would never dare to use said powers. A pistol one cannot fire is merely a small, inadequate club.
MaryRC
@Stefan: Well, here are some of the people whose possible death by starvation you’re wringing your hands over. They’re all members of the Royal Household.
The Grand Carver of England. The current position is held by an earl.
Official Harpist to the Prince of Wales. Apparently this lady has a thriving concert career on the side when she’s not hanging around the palace taking requests.
The Astronomer Royal and the Astronomer Royal for Scotland. The first guy is a Baron. The second guy moonlights as a professor at the University of Glasgow.
Her Majesty’s Representative at Ascot. His job is to admit people into the royal enclosure at Ascot. The current incumbent is named something like Lord Peregrine Huntington.
Marker of the Swans and Warden of the Swans. These two people are present when the Queen’s swans are captured, tagged and released every year. They don’t actually do any of the capturing, tagging or releasing and who can blame them? That’s what the Keeper of the Swans is for.
I guess their being fired could mean more competition among the jobless for all the grand carver and swan marker jobs out there, and I’m willing to bet that the families of some of these old fossils won’t be thrilled to have them living at home. But if they die in the street, it won’t be of starvation.