The Coalition is creating serious problems and distracting you with phantoms


According to the beauty industry, women must now start deodorising under their breasts.

I kid you not – it was in The Guardian.

Columnist Jill Filipovic hit the nail on the head when she wrote: “I can already hear your objections: ‘But the area under my boobs doesn’t stink!’ or ‘What kind of marketing genius not only came up with the term “swoob,” but actually thought half the world’s population might be dumb enough to buy into it?’ or simply, ‘This is a dumb product aimed at inventing an insecurity and then claiming to cure it.’

“You would be correct on all three points.

“In fact, inventing problems with women’s bodies and then offering a cure – if you pay up – is the primary purpose of the multi-billion dollar beauty industry.”

The simple fact is that you don’t really need to worry about smells down there – a good old soapy flannel will cure any such problems.

That’s not the point, though. The aim is to get you thinking about it and devoting your energy to it, rather than to other matters.

Now let’s translate that to politics.

We already know that all the scaremongering about Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants storming the country from January 1 was a crock. That bastion of good statistics, The Now Show, told us last week that the total number of Bulgarian immigrants in the last couple of weeks was “around two dozen so far”, according to their ambassador. In the first three months after our borders were opened to Croatians, 174 turned up.

Yet the government wanted you to believe they would flood our immigration service in their millions, “taking benefits and yet simultaneously also taking all the jobs”.

My use of language such as “storming” and “flood” is not accidental. By far the more serious threat to the UK in the early days of 2014 was the weather – and, guess what, not only was the government unprepared for the ferocity of the storms that swept our islands, the Coalition was in fact in the process of cutting funding for flood defence.

This would have gone unnoticed if the weather had behaved itself, because we would all have been distracted by the single Romanian immigrant who was ensnared by Keith Vaz in a ring of TV cameras at Heathrow Airport.

Now the Tories are telling us that our take-home pay is finally on the rise for all but the top 10 per cent of earners, with the rest of us seeing our wages rise by at least 2.5 per cent.

The government made its claims (up) by taking into account only cuts to income tax and national insurance, using data leading up to April last year, according to the BBC News website.

This kind of nonsense is easily overcome – New Statesman published the above chart, showing the real effect of changes to weekly income for people in various income groups, and also provided the reason for the government’s mistake (if that’s what it was).

“The data used … takes no account of the large benefit cuts introduced by the coalition, such as the real-terms cut in child benefit, the uprating of benefits in line with CPI inflation rather than RPI, and the cuts to tax credits,” writes the Statesman‘s George Eaton.”

He also pointed out that other major cuts such as the bedroom tax, the benefit cap, and the 10 per cent cut in council tax support were introduced after April 2013 and were not included in the Coalition figures.

Once all tax and benefit changes are taken into account, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that almost all families are worse off – and the Coalition also appears to have forgotten the five million low-paid workers who don’t earn enough to benefit from the increase in the personal allowance.

Skills and enterprise minister Matthew Hancock compounded the mistake in an exchange on Twitter with Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). Asked why his analysis “ignores more than four million people in work (the self-employed)”, Mr Hancock tweeted: “Analysis based on ONS ASHE survey of household earnings data”.

Wrong – as Mr Portes was quick to show: “Don’t you know the difference between household and individual earnings?”

Apparently not. ASHE (Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings) is a survey of employed individuals using their National Insurance numbers – not of households or the self-employed.

So the Coalition – and particularly the Tories – were trying to make us all feel good about the amount we earn.

That’s the distraction. What are we supposed to be ignoring?

Would it be David Cameron’s attempt to bribe councils into allowing shale gas companies to frack their land? Councils that back fracking will get to keep all the business rates collected from the schemes – rather than the usual 50 per cent.

He has also claimed that fracking can boost the economy and encourage businesses into the country, in a further bid to talk down dissent.

Or is it the growing threat of a rise in interest rates, which may be triggered when official unemployment figures – which have been fiddled by increased sanctions on jobseekers, rigged reassessments of benefit claimants, a new scheme to increase the number of people and time spent on Workfare, and the fake economic upturn created by George Osborne’s housing bubble – drop to seven per cent?

It seems possible that the government – especially the Tory part of it – would want to keep people from considering the implications of an interest rate rise that is based on false figures.

As Vox Political commenter Jonathan Wilson wrote yesterday: “If the BOE bases its decisions on incorrect manipulated data that presents a false ‘good news’ analysis then potentially it could do something based on it that would have catastrophic consequences.

“For example if its unemployment rate test is reached, and wages were going up by X per cent against a Y per cent inflation rate which predicted that an interest rate rise of Z per cent would have no general effect and not impact on house prices nor significantly increase repossessions (when X per cent is over-inflated by the top 1 per cent of earners, Y per cent is unrealistically low due to, say, the 50 quid green reduction and/or shops massively discounting to inflate purchases/turnover and not profit) and when it does, instead of tapping on the breaks lightly it slams the gears into reverse while still traveling forward… repossessions go up hugely, house prices suffer a major downward re-evaluation (due to tens of thousands of repossessions hitting the auction rooms) debt rates hit the roof, people stop buying white goods and make do with last year’s iPad/phone/tv/sofa, major retail goes tits up, Amazon goes to the wall, the delivery market and post collapses… etc etc.

“And all because the government fiddled the figures.”

Perhaps Mr Cameron doesn’t want us thinking about that when we could be deodorising our breasts instead.

Show your support for Vox Political!
The site needs YOUR help to continue.
You can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book,
Strong Words and Hard Times
in either print or eBook format here:


20 thoughts on “The Coalition is creating serious problems and distracting you with phantoms

  1. Pingback: The Coalition is creating serious problems and ...

  2. Boobygirl

    Mike, I love your blog and read it regularly, but sometimes you do get it wrong 🙂

    I’m a large woman. With large breasts. No matter what type of bra I wear, or how often I wash underneath the boobs, sometimes the sweat there can get smelly (on really bad days it smells like vomit. I kid you not). This is not paranoia, or the media or some evil corporation telling me that as a woman I must stink – this is a genuine unpleasant smell that offends *me* (frankly, f*** what others think of it – but *my* nose is offended by this odour).

    I use ordinary antiperspirant/deodorant to address the problem, well aware that it’s not ideal. I only recently discovered the existence of this breast deodorant and immediately thought what a good idea it is (because of the way it behaves, compared to ordinary deodorant). I hope it’s available in the UK because I fully intend to buy some.

    Sometimes, marketers and entrepreneurs do get it right. They create products that address genuine customer needs, rather than creating phantom customer needs to justify the expense of product development 🙂 I am a marketer and I promise you, we’re not ALL money grabbing twats – some of us do know the meaning of honesty and integrity 🙂

    Anyway. As you were. Some women do genuinely have smelly tits and will be secretly delighted at the emergence of a product that addresses this very unpleasant problem 🙂

    1. Mike Sivier

      In a world as diverse as ours, I suppose this had to be the case.

      What a shame – not only because of the odour problem itself but also because it means an otherwise elegant topical comparison just went tits-up.

      I suppose I could save it by saying that many people will probably end up buying this stuff, even though they don’t need it?

      1. Boobygirl

        Agreed 🙂 We’re all different, some (men as well as women) are easily brainwashed by the media/corporations and will no doubt feel pressured into buying products they don’t need. Some, like me, are not 🙂

        If you read through the comments on the Guardian article it looks like there are quite a few women that have the same problem as me – guess it’s pretty common, so maybe on this occasion the inventors of the product were onto something?

        Otherwise – an excellent article Mike 🙂 As always 🙂 x

      2. Boobygirl

        Case in point – automatic soap dispensers. Because the ordinary plunger-operated ones ‘harbour germs’. Erm… but after touching the plunger you *wash your hands* – so where’s the danger? Invented only to prey on people’s insecurities. That’s the sort of thing I was saying above – phantom customer needs created to justify the product, which is the wrong way round for good, honest entrepreneurship/marketing 🙂

      3. Florence

        Boobygirl, you’re completely normal, most blokes have no idea what our cultures’ obsession with lift up tits, and the tight bras that are needed……odour is likely to be a fungal infection, better treated with any over-the-counter thrush creams and if severe, see your GP, especially if the skin is broken or blistered, which may be a form of psoriasis. . (End of medical off topic comments. Sorry blokes, but you really don’t have the faintest idea…..)

      4. Florence

        PS Mike, great article, and I do think the comparison with marketing of products we never knew we needed is valid. This product is in that category, like many other highly irritant chemicals flogged on the back of such campaigns. So the “men are all idiots” was not meant to be directed at you, and sorry if it sounded such. (But really, men know nothing of the lot women have to put up with, honestly. Perhaps if more of them were like Napoleon these products wouldn’t have the traction.)

  3. jaypot2012

    Reblogged on Jay’s Journal and commented:

    Well I’ll say this, the un-elected coalition need deodorising as they’ve made everything go tits up!

  4. Pingback: The Coalition is creating serious problems and distracting you with phantoms | Jay's Journal

  5. Thomas M

    They even managed to bash (slightly) the pensioners that they’re trying to protect. The sooner they are voted out, the better.

  6. Florence

    They’re just getting started on the pensioners, todays comments are just the teasers. Having completed their demonization of the disabled, they can be confident the same tactics will work on pensioners.

    “Rich” pickings indeed for IDS to raid on behalf of the rest of us as they apparently speak on behalf of all of us (in this together, yeh). “We” apparently want all our older citizens plunged into abject poverty as punishment for not starting a private pension in 1960. Obviously, they should have known the state pension would be withdrawn, and become rich while they had the opportunity, like Cameron’s & Osborne’s families’ did. Duh. (Irony button off now.)

  7. Sean

    In what way would a further economic crash not suit the Tories? As long as they can shift the blame elsewhere, (and given that they share the lions share of the blame for our current problems, yet a huge proportion of the electorate thinks it’s all Labours fault, I think that likely) an economic crash means misery for the little people, profits for the rich, and yet more excuses to reorder Britain in to the Feudal dystopia they desperately long for.

  8. Pingback: The Coalition is creating serious problems and ...

  9. Pingback: Impact of tax and benefit reforms « Stop MP lies & propaganda

Comments are closed.