Enough said: George Wilkinson’s blog

Darling’s first budget has left me cold. Smug (see Oliver Hartwich’s post on Coffee House) and do-nothing (but see Tim Harford’s Undercover Economist blog on FT.com). I have been far more struck today by the statistic told me at supper this evening by my wife. There is apparently £2.5 billion of pension credit unclaimed. Why? Because the system is so complex people cannot understand it, even if they know about it (and many don’t); they cannot fill in the forms; many simply do not know they are entitled and there remains if not the stigma of welfare, the feeling that they have never claimed, they are able to do without it and are not going to start now. This is a truly appalling fact, and epitomises all that is wrong with this government.

Show me the sophisticated client, and I’ll show you the opportunity to make some more money. As I wasn’t there, perhaps it is unfair to criticise, but I remain unhappy at the continuing pressure to widen the conflict rules, ostensibly to allow the sophisticated client to make the choice to instruct the lawyer who would otherwise be conflicted. Thus, from The Lawyer.com today

Clifford Chance general counsel and chairman of the City of London Law Society rules and regulation committee Chris Perrin has called for significant widening of client conflict rules at The Lawyer’s Strategic Risk Management Conference. The City of London Law Society has made proposals, which would effectively allow clients to consent to all conflicts of interest. Perrin said: “We’ve been talking about this possible change for some time. It gives sophisticated clients who know what they’re doing freedom.”

Ethics are ethics: except it seems when money is involved. It is a slippery slope.

Another win for Obama, this time in Mississippi, but the real news is the increasing bitterness in the contest for the nomination. In a year when there is everything to play for, and a great deal to lose, the Democrats seem hell bent on tearing themselves apart. An excellent analysis of the current stae of play in Economist.com, looking at why the scrap is getting uglier, and what the future may hold,

A campaign that degenerates into name-calling and mud-slinging will hurt Mr Obama more than it does Mrs Clinton. He has campaigned on messages of “change” and “hope” so he faces an unenviable choice in the long run-up to Pennsylvania. If he lets the Clinton team fling the brickbats without retaliation she may set the tone of the campaign. But respond in kind and his message of a new politics is tarnished. Even though he is behind there in the polls, Pennsylvania cannot come soon enough for Mr Obama.

For Clinton, what is at stake is no less than the redemption of Bill’s presidency, and her campaign is his by proxy. In part this is why Obama is so attractive, as he offers a real break from the tarnished past. All this however is mere gaming; the real battle will be with McCain.