Something I found today that is great, and needs to be watched.

Two out of four predictions right on the snooker. Selby was robbed (by the unfair process of winning less frames). My semifinal predictions are unlikely to be correct, given I didn't even get the possible matches right. It's been a ridiculously good tournament.

I really wish people would stop supporting Ronnie O'Sullivan. Sure, he can be exicting to watch. But he's a child, who loves attention, and is equally happy to get in the arena or away from it. Then maybe he'll quit, like he always promises to do because this sport, which he is so naturally gifted at, makes him so miserable.

My predictions go: Day beats Allen, Selby (COME ON MARK) beats Higgins, Robertson beats Maguire, Murphy beats Hendry. Then, Robertson beats Selby, Murphy beats Day, Murphy takes the final? Odd, because saying Murphy beats Hendy is the only one I'm not sure about. But if he does, I'd fancy him for the title (to be shared in the divorce?). You may be surprised to find I'm behind Selby.

COME ON MARK.

I'd never want to sound crazy like Olbermann, but I think I've there's a new Worst Person in the World.

By request, some thoughts on today's Budget.

The three big headline issues are the tax increase, the debt and the forecasts. On the first point, I don't disagree with various commentators who point out this is mainly a political move - the revenues raised will contribute only a portion of those needed to tighten the fiscal position. However, it will (and has) created headlines, and shifts the focus towards a different economic debate - one which Labour must be gambling will appeal to the public and push the Tories into either a weak non-position or an unpopular one. Anti-rich (or at least, anti-rich-bankers) sentiments are prevalent at the moment. We could, of course debate for hours on the merits of redistributive tax policy (actually, I'd get bored in ten minutes), so let's leave that aside.

I heard the Budget, especially the tax rise, described as smoke and mirrors, and to the extent that it appears to be a more significant policy for revenue raising than it actually is, this is valid. That said, overall, I'm not sure it's an entirely fair assessment - the government has taken a number of important counter-cyclical positions since last Summer. They are criticised for not doing enough and for doing too much.

That brings us to the second issue - that national debt will increase to nearly 80% of GDP - raises a number of worrying possibilities. Spain recently had its credit rating dropped on the basis that its debt would rise to 70% of GDP with counter-cyclical fiscal policies. Britain has a stronger economy than Spain, but even so such a high level of debt could cause agencies to regrade Britain's AAA rating, as more borrowing increases the possibility of default. Clearly, that possibility would remain low. But a slight increase in that possibility is enough to increase the cost of borrowing, and impose and even greater burden on future tax revenues.

How much is too much? There isn't one answer to this - providing it can be serviced, and provided the market is willing to provide the finance, then the large numbers may be scarier than they actually are. Of course, last month an auction failed to place 100% of new gilts, though this doesn't necessarily indicate that investors are running out of demand for government debt.

My biggest issue is the continual conflation of the issues of private and public debt by the Opposition. Excessive private borrowing has and will continue to cause problems during this recession - it should have been better regulated in the past and should be curbed in future. Public debt is a result of a government's fiscal position, so it is entirely right that it increases during a recession, as tax revenues fall and government spending increases. It, in itself, isn't reckless - the flip-side is that debt should be paid back during good times, which would have prevented such staggering public debt figures today. However you may judge the borrowing for public service investment after 2001 (and with the benefit of hindsight, it is safe to say that the government could have done more to reduce borrowing when the economy was booming), their action now is fundamentally correct.

Which doesn't stop the Tories scoring points on misinformation. They keep mentioning reckless borrowing referring to both public debt and private debt, and that will resonate. It is a lot more complicated to explain to the public that excessive household borrowing is bad, while huge government borrowing is OK (they could link to this blog post, but that probably isn't going to do it)

Finally, the forecasts need to be mentioned. The general consensus is that Darling's predictions lie at the upper end of forecast distribution, even after revising downwards his November predictions, and I have no reason to disagree with the consensus. He needs to be right. Otherwise, borrowing will end up exceeding what has been predicted, and the deficits won't be reduced is anything like the timeframe indicated. Most importantly, the predicted growth is the engine that quietly reduces defecits and borrowing requirements while the 50% tax policy will take the political credit. The question is really can the government afford to revise forecasts downward again - are they myopic enough that the short term gain of playing down the real size of the recession exceeds the long term blow to their already weak credibility. They might, if an election comes in between the realisation of the former and the latter.

Final thought: I wonder if they realised that the car scrapping proposal would open themselves up to Cameron's best line?

In recent years, I have fallen victim to a number of April Fool's Day hoaxes. After having my belief in miracles shattered one to many times, I have approached today with a militant scepticism. And it is fortunate that I did, because there are hundreds of fake stories out there. Well, I will not be deceived.

For example, there is the story of a severed head being found in a field in Leicestershire. Right, of course, how very believable that someone could cut the head off of another person. That would kill a man. And look at the photo - 'dozens of officers are reported to be at the scene'. Oh yeah? Well how come I can only see three. A complete giveaway.

Then there's this story about how a businessman has failed to win an appeal against his divorce settlement after his assets shrunk in value leaving him with hardly anything. Thankfully, that's just another joke. There would obviously never need to be a court hearing on this - it's his money and if he wants some of it back, who could stop him? His wife? Is she really going to risk meeting the back of his hand again?

Across the newspapers websites too, there's half-baked stories of helicopter crashes, legalised rape and female imprisonment laws and anti-capitalist riots (as in, opposed to capitalism. Ha). It such a tiring experience trying to work out what's utter rubbish that you can almost miss some genuinely exciting breakthroughs - like this new car. I really, REALLY want one.

"What do you call a Pakistani cloakroom attendant? Mahatma coat."

So said Sir David Jason on a radio broadcast on Tuesday, sparking no complaints and a media outrage. I would have thought that accusations of racism would require, at the very least, something racist to have been said. Mentioning race is not the same thing. The idea that this portrays Pakistanis as cloakroom assistants, a sentence I struggle to believe I have just typed, is sort of ridiculous. This accusation was made Mr Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, a man who is in a position to help everyone understand better the delicate issues surrounding our multicutural society, should be ashamed for coming out with such mindless nonsense.

Now, if the joke had been, "What do you call a cloakroom attendant? Mahatma coat," then we'd be getting closer (similar alternatives would have included "What do you call a cloakroom attendant? A Pakistani"). I will concede that this joke does portray Pakistanis as being called Mahatma. This is obviously not true, and should be addressed. I know one called Rinchan.

But here is the best bit - "We consider the views of our listeners to be very important and have received no complaints about these comments. Christian O'Connell will issue an on-air apology in tomorrow's breakfast show." So important are the views of these listeners to Absolute Radio, that they have decided to ignore the sentiments they have conveyed, and do exactly what they want anyway. When dealing with something as complicated and nuanced as race relations, I find its always better to respond with crude, blunt jabs of blanket denial and patronising posturing. Everyone out of the pool, please - last one in is a racist.

God, I love Stewart Lee. I will refuse to accept that there is a better comedian on the planet today. There may be funnier comedians, measured by a crude laughs-elicited-per-half-hour metric, but no-one crafts jokes like Lee. No-one has the same gift for language, for hypnotic delivery, and no-one is as relentless as he is in picking a target and demolishing it. His new show is on iPlayer now, and on Mondays at 10pm on BBC2 for the next four weeks.

On another note, the BBC had a piece today about why RPI inflation had fallen to zero, but CPI inflation had surprisingly risen. Both measure the cost of living and the change in prices for a "basket" of goods. However, the composition of the RPI basket includes housing cost, including mortgage repayments, which have obviously shrunk in recent months as interest rates have plummeted. The thing that amused me was the top three reasons for rising prices in the CPI:

1. Falling exchange rates making imported food and other products more expensive.

2. Shops reverting back prices prior to VAT rate decrease last December.

3. Poor harvest in Spain leading to increase in cucumber and courgette prices.

Wait, did we shift to a salad vegetable based economy whilst I wasn't looking? Are there people struggling with energy bills this month because their courgette expenses have rocketed? Maybe I'll just have a zucchini instead. But wait - it's the SAME THING! There's no way out!

Away for a few days from tomorrow, as we (me and Cath and Cath's mum and Cath's dad) are heading to Ghent, Bruges and Antwerp. Will be nice.

Interesting stuff on homophobia on TV and its increasing (or perhaps continual) acceptibility, after two sketches on Al Murray's and Horne and Corden's new shows. I watched the latter - it's not good, but the panning it received this morning was a bit much. It's no worse than most tepid TV comedy, and James Corden did do a pretty decent Ricky Gervais/David Brent impression in Karate Kid 14.

In the aftermath of Sunday's performance of Correctness, I've been thinking (and Andy and I have been discussing) what happens next. I like sketch, and it is pretty much my ideal medium, so it's interesting to see what opportunities there would be. Sketch nights in London and festivals - though sadly not Edinburgh, this year - are on the radar.

In that vein, two articles, published independently but about the same topic, appeared in the Guardian and the Independent today. Interesting, the former seems to believe sketch shows no longer have any appeal, while the latter seems really excited about the blossoming live sketch scene in London. Let's assume the latter is true.

Anyway, I started having a look at some of the sketches and sketch groups who are on Youtube, and while there are a great many that I liked, here's my favourite: Women, by Idiots of Ants.

Painfully funny, from the Daily Show last week.

Now, of course, I deeply want to see this play. I am often quite cynical of the "offensive comedy is satire" defence, because it's used so often, for things with no satirical target or purpose other than to shock. However, when done well (Chris Morris, Bill Hicks) it is also the most rewarding form of comedy - the ability to entertain while at the same time provoking actual thoughts about the attitudes you have and the undiscovered hypocrisies you carry around is an impressive skill.

But I'm inclined to give this play the benefit of the doubt, if only because this part of the linked news piece annoyed me:

"The play has received a mixed response from critics.

The Sunday Times found it "a seriously hilarious play", "provocative, swaggering, humane and edgy".

Shadow Children's Secretary Michael Gove said he was surprised the "dramatically appalling" work could be staged in the National Theatre.

"I thought that the humour was vulgar, raucous, obvious. It made Alf Garnett seem sophisticated," he told BBC Two's Newsnight Review."

Firstly, the positive opinion was from a critic. The negative opinion was from a politician. A politician has politicised public opinions. The reason for that is that the headline 'Top Tory supports racist play" carries more weight than whatever well thought out argument that led to it. Quite why we expect our politicians to have opinions on culture issues and celebrity news is beyond me. Maybe we don't. Maybe it's a media construction. But Gordon Brown volunteered his thoughts on Jade Goody's cancer. Why? Who knows. As prime minister, he should have no opinion on any one cancer patient. As a human being he should and likely does, but he only has a voice as a public figure, so it's entirely irrelevant what he thinks.

Secondly, Alf Garnett WAS sophisticated, and the fact that people continue to miss that fact is a constant source of upset. I had a conversation with my Dad recently about 1970s TV, and he said that there's no way Alf Garnett would be allowed on TV today. But of course it could, because it was sending up bigotry, rather than expressing bigoted views in a heartfelt way. Do try to pay attention.

I had three years at a Catholic school, and I scored three on this quiz. Have a go, tell me how you get on.

Eddie Izzard is touring in the winter, which I think is the first time he's doing so since around 2003. I know it's not 1997 anymore, but I figure it's still got to be a good night out.

I posted some unused material from the show over on Project Brainstorm. I think, actually, it works much better written down than performed.

Imps show tonight - 7.45pm at the Wheatsheaf. Time to see if I can still do comedy without writing it down first.

Cath and I went to the Vineyard at Stockcross yesterday and last night. We were upgraded on arrival to a larger, nicer suite (and the basic suite I'd ordered wasn't all that dilapidated to start with), because it was for Cath's birthday. We spent the afternoon in the spa, and ate at the restaurant in the evening. I don't write often about food, but the meal we had last night was spectacular (as you would expect at a 2 Michelin . Started with scallops, which were served with with an artichoke puree, watercress and hazelnuts - but the really amazing part was a chicken skin crisp that is one of the cleverest ideas I've ever had on a plate. Then I had turbot with pork belly and a langoustine (and other little bits like lemongrass puree and a ginger foam), which was similarly excellent, and proved conclusively that fish and pig co-exist. The desert was called a hazulnut sponge, but it was actually three small squares of sponge, with a chocolate and hazelnut ice cream topping, and two strips of caramel.

I record all this now, because it will be good to look back, in a couple years, on the exact day when food stopped being satisfying, by comparison. Damn you, Executive Chef John Campbell. DAMN YOU.

Speaking of Mr Campbell, Cath bumped into him on the way out of the restaurant, looking for the ladies room. He came across, said hello and took her on a tour of the kitchens. All the while, I sat in the bar, with a drink, wondering what was taking so long. Please see aforementioned damnation.