Dear Ed

I received a nice letter today from the leader of the opposition. It is part of Labour's 'Fresh Ideas' programme. Mr. Miliband is keen, it would appear, to hear what my hopes and concerns are. Unfortunately the box to put your ideas in is a little small, so I'm hoping that he'll get a copy of my open letter below instead.

Dear Ed,


Thanks very much for your letter which was delivered today. I must say how refreshing it is to have a senior politican contact a member of the electorate in this fashion, it has oft been a complaint of mine that politicians are distant figures, detached from reality, surrounded by an army of SpAds and completely disconnected from those they claim to represent.

I sometimes get a little angry when writing about politics, I suppose it is because I become so frustrated and feel so powerless, it is almost as if my opinon and my voice are an irrelevance. I will attempt to keep my temper in this letter, as I figure you are unlikely to pay much attention if I employ one or two of the more colourful metaphors which can be common in the blogosphere.


So, shall we start with my concerns?


I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a little scared, Ed. Actually, I'm quite a lot scared. Not by 'hoodies' or 'yobs' roaming the streets, not by the threat of 'cuts' to 'front-line' services, nor by the prospect of a 'privatised' NHS. What scares me is what little voice I do have is being ever more marginalised. I hear talk of a 'post-democratic' age, and it chills me to the bone. It is easy, perhaps even lazy, to draw comparisons with the European dictators of the mid-twentieth century, but I understand why these comparisons are drawn. I'm talking about the European Union, of course. I'm not going to stamp my feet and make demands, but I must point out that we were never really given the option to vote on this political union.


It may be fair to say that this was clear when the referendum on the common market was held, after all, how much more explicit can 'ever closer union' be? But it was hidden in plain sight, there were weasel words used, perhaps the politicians at the time were not being entirely open with us. I'm not demanding we leave the EU, but I think it fair and proper that the electorate be given one last chance to pass judgement on this project once and for all. The Lisbon treaty is the vital link between a trading block and a federal European state.


Now Mr. Cameron gave me, us, a cast-iron promise to give us a referendum on Lisbon. He lied to us, Ed. He looked us square in the eye and lied to us. I will never, ever, trust the Conservative party again. You really could show that you stand for democracy and the sovereignty of the British public and parliament, by allowing us an in-or-out vote, once and for all to decide our fate.


I am also concerned about the levels of spending and debt which has been, is, and will continue to be wildly more than we can afford. I speak as a public servant who did not go on the march in London the other weekend. Whilst I may sound like a turkey voting for Christmas, I cannot in all good conscience support a programme where we condemn our children to penury just so a section of society can continue living in the manner to which they have become accustomed. It is not fair, and from what I gather, Ed, I understand that fairness is important to you. Is it fair that many people will lose their jobs? No. However, I sumbit that it is less fair to saddle our unborn children with a massive debt so we can remain in clover. I've seen your party speak with great passion and strength of feeling about tuition fees saddling young adults with crippling debts when they graduate from university, so why is it fair to saddle those even younger with a greater debt?

What else concerns me?


I'm concerned at the level of interest that politicians take in every aspect of our lives. We cannot seem to do anything without some restriction, prohibition, regulation or advice or suggestion from politicians or interested professionals. It just isn't warranted, Ed. You and your class have to learn that we do not belong to you, the NHS, the LEA, the State or anyone but ourselves. You simply cannot go around browbeating us like this. If history about these islands of ours tells you anything it is that we do not respond well to being dictated to, just ask King Charlie no-head or Tumbledown Dick, or the poor old Roman chap who was stood on the pallisade at Verulamium as the Iceni came thundering into view. I know it is done with the very best of intentions, but you have to let us make our own mistakes. What would have happened if your mother had prevented you from going to Corpus Christi or the LSE because she didn't think it was good for you?


What do I hope for?


I hope that I can be left to live my life in peace, free from interference, free from registration, regulation, licencing, monitoring, evaluation, means testing, investigation, interference, hectoring, nannying and Bono from U2 (I really hate that guy, and Ed, he, Sting, Lennox, Geldof and Chris Martin don't speak for the youth anymore than that mad fellow with the hook speaks for Muslims).


I hope to be given a say, a proper say, not some half-hearted attempt whenever an election, be it national, local or European, rolls around.


I want to feel valued. But I don't, I feel like a serf, I feel like my sole purpose is to toil in the field to ensure the continued prosperity of the lord of the manor. You can change that, but do you have the cojones, Ed?


I see you want some ideas. OK here's a few:


As mentioned before, give us an in/out referendum on Europe. Watch your popularity sky rocket if you make it a stated policy. Your name will be mud in Brussels, but the people in Brussels don't vote for you. If the referendum says stay in, you can devote us to the project with a new vigourous zeal and the Eurocrats will love you, if it says come out, then their opinion will be of no relevance.


We have to cut jobs in the public sector, it is bitter tasting, but true. Set a 3:1 policy, for every front-line worker sacked in national or local government employ (that is someone with regular public facing duties), three people who do not work on front-line services must go. Hit the managers and hit them hard, they are wasterels on a titanic level.


Stop forcing kids through exams if they don't suit the system. It isn't the kids' fault, it is the system. Three GCSE's should do it, get them trained by proper craftsmen and tradesmen, it is industry that made our country great, it can be again, but you can't have cookie cutter children, let the kids play to their strengths.


Abolish Thursdays, I don't particularly like them - I understand that is tough, so I'm going to cut you some slack.


I hope this has given you food for thought. If you want to chat, drop us an email, or friend request me on Facebook, we can chat in real time there.


All the best,


Wolfers.

P.S. - Don't trust Ed Balls, he's a wrong-un and no mistake. Try that nice Mr. Field in your party. He seems like a good chap.

I'm not holding my breath on a response. But then I understand he's a wedding to sort out, so he might be a bit busy.

Selfishness and self-fulfilling prophecies.

Ever feel like you've been played for a fool?

 

I'm not sure why there's a big banner with Thatcher on it, though. Are these people aware that she left Number 10 over twenty years ago? You may as well march around with a banner proclaiming William I to be a bit of a rotter. Let it go.

I really do have sympathy for those staring down the barrel of the cuts, people are going to lose their jobs and that sucks. There are some who will imply that a large number of the (TUC) estimated 200,000 people are lazy, feckless and incompetent. A number of them will be, but nowhere near as much as some would have you believe. There are some who will imply that an equally large number of those marching will be of the opinion that that it is just and right that money be taken from people to fund their job whether it needs doing or not. Again, a number of them will be, but nowhere near as much as some would have you believe. There are also some who would have you believe that the majority of these people would protest against a Tory government regardless of what policies they put in place. Well, you get where I'm coming from.

What frustrates me are the simple facts that have been ignored and will continue to be ignored by the Unions. Firstly there is the myth that these cuts are savage. They aren't. Not even close. These cuts represent the bare minimum that any government who wants to present even a pretence at cutting the defecit could make. Government spending is increasing, taxation on the public is increasing. This is because of the enormous interest payments we must make. Government borrowing has never been greater.

Many Trade Unionists were howling with rage at Osborne's comments about the 50% income tax band being temporary. These Trade Unionists demand that their livelihoods be protected whilst others have their's ripped from them. They see no irony or disparity in this. The self proclaimed great bastions of equality and solidarity would happily see people left destitute. 'Oh, come on.' I hear you say. 'These people are rich, they can afford it.' Well, yes. But how long will they put up with it? With the sort of cash and skills they have, any country in the world would welcome them with open arms. What happens to the employees when the rich up sticks and move, taking their business with them? What then for the cleaners and clerks? The production line employees and drivers? The shop stewards? What happens when these people lose their jobs? When their tax revenue dries up? You think the cuts are savage now?

The marchers have been whipped up into a state of hysteria by the Trade Unions. It is all very well Brendan Barber, Mark Serwotka and Bob Crow calling for strikes, their very handsome pay packets are not subject to being docked when their members go out on strike. What do they care if someone loses a day's, two day's, a week's wages? Having used their muscle to get their man in the big chair at the Labour party against the wishes of the party membership, they will do anything to destabilise the government and have their puppet put in place, dancing on the end of a string which they hold in their fist. The multitude marching are footsoldiers in this campaign, unquestioningly following the orders handed down to them by their own 50% tax paying overlords. And they are paying for the privilege. I'd be speechless in admiration of the genius if it wasn't so utterly sinister.

We then have the political placemen in councils and government departments all over the country. After thirteeen years of Labour rule, the placemen in government departments accounts for pretty much all the senior managers, Labour ensured this was the case. Before the cuts they warned it was front-line services that would be hit, and by God they've made sure their prophecy has come true. I've seen it in my own department; front line staff being given the elbow whilst the cake eating, tofu promoting, community cohesion diversity outreach social engagement inclusivity officers continue to take home one and a half times the wage of those being given the heave-ho. Is it Cameron and Osborn handing out the P45's? No, it is those people installed by Labour ensuring their prophecies come to pass.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there is no magic money tree. We have spent the last thirteen years spending, spending, spending, spending, spending, borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, taxing, taxing, taxing, taxing. The amount taken from us makes us the most taxed people in the world, the amount raised does not match the amount borrowed, the amount borrowed is less still than the amount spent, the amount that continues to be spent. It is always the result of a Labour government.

For thirteen years the Trade Unions have known about it, and they said nothing. They ceased to be bodies representing their members a long time ago, they are now political entities seeking to impose their view without recourse to anything as grubby as democracy. Their silence over the last thirteen years, when they knew full well that the cuts would come in the end, is a betrayal of their members. Now to further their own ends, they send their troops into battle. Sure some of them will fall, but what does it matter? They still have their £145,000 a year pay packets and now they have the leader of the opposition in their pockets.

This is not some idealogical crusade by the Conservatives, they'd spend like a drunken sailor in port to cement their own position, if they could - the fact is that they've smashed open the piggy bank to find a button, a washer and a startled spider are the contents. There is no money. OK? There is no money. Remember the letter? There is no money. I don't know how much more clearly it can be said. There is no money. There is no money. There is no money.

God help us if we end up in the same position as Greece, Ireland and Portugal, because there will be no bail-out. We'll be on our own. Or worse still, there will be a bail-out, and the strings that come attached do not bear thinking about.

I have a friend due to give birth in June. It will be her first child. I submit that it is the height of selfishness to expect this unborn child to spend their entire life in penury, just so you can continue your lifestyle of new telly, regular clothes purchases, meals out, cinema tickets and two holidays a year.

As a Trade Union member you'll have to accept that if you voted Labour (and you probably did) that you voted for this, you voted for the spending. You believed Gordon when he banged on about prudence and golden rules. When everyone else was warning you about it, you ignored them, because life was so good. It was so easy.

Like I said, it sucks. It is horrible. But like the alcoholic who has just one more drink, the smackhead who needs just one final hit, you've allowed yourself to become addicted to the cash. Well, I'm sorry, you do not have the right to demand money from the unborn. Granted, you didn't spend the cash, but you gave the OK for people to do it for you. You have the right to vote, but all rights come with responsibilities. You exercised your right. It is now time to be responsible.

The really mindblowing thing is that Labour will be back in power again one day. You'll put them there. Despite every lesson of history telling you otherwise, you'll expect a different outcome next time. It is insanity.

It's about courage.

An interesting little article over at Direct Democracy today about how the question of an in/out referendum regarding the EU won't go away, how many Tories are turning to UKIP and the phenomenon of cross bench agreement between Labour and Conservative MPs in their support for such a referendum. It's a rum old do, and I do think the debate about the votes for prisoners was the moment a very large penny dropped.

I remember the days when Labour were EUro-sceptic, well in part at least, there was a very real danger that Labour in opposition in '93 could have wrecked the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Of course they didn't because even then, their top table was completely in hock to the EUro project. I remember being raging at the time as a very naive teenager who was foresquare behind the EU, I've worken up since then. But the world has changed since the early nineties, not least because Labour are starting to lose votes to the BNP. I don't think this is because Labour are propped up by a bunch of horrible racists, Socialists have many ugly facets, but casual racism isn't one of them, it is because so many people are utterly fed up with the EU. Those Labour voters who are fed up with it aren't likely to vote UKIP, because they are at heart Tories. Despite their discomfort about the BNP's agenda, they are the only party offering what they want in a left centric fashion (pay no heed to the hype, there is nothing right wing about the BNP, they are as red as red can be, just as Mussolini was), so they will go there.

For the Tories the argument is simpler, they understand markets and are not burdened by a sense of loyalty - my party right or wrong - as it were. If the party they follow stops offering what they want, they will take their vote elsewhere. Unfortunately for the Tories their top table is also hopelessly, helplessly wedded to le projet. The backbenchers will stamp their feet, and can do it all they like, it will make no difference, the only thing cast iron about Dave and his chums is that he will do everything he can to ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Just like Mubarak in Egypt, Cameron will defy the wishes of the majority to the bitter end, right up until the moment a man with a (metaphorical in i-Dave's case) gun taps him on the shoulder. It is no coincedence that one of Cameron's first gambits was to neuter the 1922 Committee.

Even so, it is easier for the Tories to unseat their leader than it is for Labour. Lest we forget, Labour have never chucked a leader out on his ear, it just doesn't work that way, and the current leader was elected by the internationalist trade unions, not the party membership.

The Labour back benchers could find themselves slapped down in short order.

The Tory backbenchers will be studiously ignored.

The LibDems, well, just look at Nick's history, they talk a brave fight, calling for a full referendum when everyone else was calling for one over Lisbon was one of the more transparent bluffs I've ever seen. They'd run a mile if they thought one was ever on the horizon. They're a blusted flush, anyway. When Farrage talks about UKIP being the proper voice of the opposition right now, I don't think he's too far from the truth.

I've always maintained that Labour sold their heritage down the river when they plumped for Blair and Brown, they abandoned their core constituency because they wanted power. That damage will take years to repair, if it ever is.

The Tories did the same thing when they elected Cameron, they'd rather be in power than have a leader who represented their views. Well, it was your party, your choice.

So, it is all about courage.

Will the MP's have the courage to jeopardise their hands being on the levers of power? Will those who vote for the big two have the courage to vote in a way which means their tribe may not have power?

Do the Labour backbench MPs have the courage to go against their newly imposed leader? Doubt it.

Do the Tory backbench MPs (who at least have two options) have the courage to either defy their leader and try to bring about a leadership challenge, or even more radically try hold him to ransom by threatening to bring the government down by taking the UKIP whip if he doesn't submit to their demands, and do they have the courage to actually do it if he calls their bluff? Doubt that too.

No, the real courage must come from the voters. Do the electorate have the courage to realise that our continued membership of the EU is the biggest issue out there? Make no mistake about it, if you want to be a resident in a territory that is a constituent part of a Federal single European state, then you want to stay in. If you don't then you want to get out. There are, and can be, no half measures here, the stated aim of the EU is clear, if you think it won't end in one bloody great big country stretching from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic, then you're kidding yourself.

Do the electorate have the courage to end their own abusive relationship with their tribal party and vote elsewhere? Is there really a desire to get out of the EU? Do people really care?

Unfortunately I fear not, and this is what the EU, the European Commission and the leaderships of the big three bank on. I'm confident that if a referendum came to pass, that an out vote would win the day, but I don't think the electorate have the gumption to force the issue through the lobby or the ballot box. I think that those who do care can make life uncomfortable for their natural parties, but I don't think they can bring the house down.

So that means it is down to our MPs to do the right thing and give us the chance to have our say, once and for all, whichever way it goes. The prospect of relying on them chills me to the bone.

Duplicity? No. A bloody lie.

Guido has very kindly coralled all the relevants cuttings over at his gaff, so there's little for me to do but to add my own comments.

August 2009:

“Gordon Brown today broke his silence on the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying that the UK government had done no deal with Libya and that he was “angry and repulsed” at the scenes of jubilation in Tripoli.”

September 2009 (Gordon Brown): 

“On our part, there was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double-dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to (Libyan leader) Colonel (Muammar) Gaddafi. We were absolutely clear throughout with the Libyans and everyone else that this was a decision for the Scottish government.”

Today:

“The former Labour Government did “all it could” to help Libya secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Britain’s most senior civil servant is to admit today”

“Policy was, therefore, progressively developed that Her Majesty’s Government should do all it could, while respecting devolved competencies, to facilitate an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi’s release under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) or for release on compassionate grounds. Such an approach was understood across all relevant departments.”

There are serious doubts in my mind as to whether al-Megrahi was the perp here. The public were demanding that someone be locked up for it, it was perhaps politically convenient to both the UK and Libyan governments at the time that al-Megrahi should be that man.

But, for the Prime Minister to wilfully mislead the country and the House is unforgivable. Yes, we all know that politicians lie, but there are lies and there are lies. Bugger an inquest, let's just go straight to the prosecutions, shall we?

I'm no lover of the coalition shouting match we have at the moment, but it will be a long, long time until we see a government as deceitful, arrogant, hubristic and contemptible as the one that was thrown out last year. I hope it is equally as long until anyone from the Labour party gets their hands on the lever of power again, and I wish that the last Labour government is just that, the last one.   

Is it time to leave yet?

2011 has not got off to an auspicious start. The rumblings of discontent are starting to increase in volume. Following on from my previous post, I've seen a Facebook group calling for and supporting fuel protests in the form of refinery blockades, it already has thousands of members, if only 20% of those who support it get involved, there could be sport.

With regard to the VAT increase, Miliband Minority has demonstrated a startling about face in calling the increase 'wrong tax, at the wrong time'. Funny, the ramping up of taxes never seemed to be a problem when his party were in power. To give him his due, he is actually right, it is the wrong tax and it is coming at precisely the wrong time. I've a plan to deal with it, and it is very simple; I'm not going to buy anything unless I absolutely need it. I've learned the lesson about consumerism, if I don't need it, I don't get it. There's a saving of not only VAT but also of the untaxed wafer thin sliver of cash I do have. If I do need it, my first stop will be ebay where I will hopefully be able to find it second hand in decent condition, or from an individual trader who is not VAT registered. If I can't find it there, then I'll have to grit my teeth, but that is only if I absolutely need it.

Of course, Miliband is once again ignoring the elephant in the room. The coagulation will also ignore it, even though this particularly huge pachyderm is their best defence against the VAT rise.

You see when the monocular snot gobbler decreed that VAT would be cut to stimulate the economy, his mouth was writing cheques his arse couldn't cash. EU rules prevent us from cutting VAT, we were merely deferring payment. When VAT went back up, some sort of parity was restored, but the outstanding amount from the period of the VAT deferral was still to be collected. Now Brown's largesse has come home to roost, we have to rake in that defecit, or the EU will point at us and shout 'unfair!'. Of course, once that defecit has been collected, VAT will continue to be collected at the increased rate, because this government, just like every other one that has come before, simply cannot stop themselves from taking our cash under threat of prison and pissing it up the wall like a drunken sailor in a knocking shop.

What Miliband is suggesting is that we should extend the period where the VAT remains uncollected, so that our children and grand-children can be left to pick up the tab. That's fine though, because it allows Miliband to make a point. Fuck 'em, they're only kids.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for the Coagulation to turn around and say 'Sorry, EU rules.' They won't though, that would be unthinkable.

More troubling news from the EU, this time from the current holders of the rotating presidency, Hungary. They've announced some frankly shocking plans about private pensions which probably has Brown banging his head off the table in his psych-ward blaming everybody else for his not having the idea first:

Hungary is giving its citizens an ultimatum: move your private-pension fund assets to the state or lose your state pension.

Economy Minister Gyorgy Matolcsy announced the policy yesterday, escalating a government drive to bring 3 trillion forint ($14.6 billion) of privately managed pension assets under state control to reduce the budget deficit and public debt. Workers who opt against returning to the state system stand to lose 70 percent of their pension claim.

What this means is that the State takes 100% of your pension fund which you surrender 'voluntarily', that money is used immediately to pay off some of the debts, although the Hungarian government, like our own, will also keep spending, spending, spending. Come the time when your pension would have matured, you'll then find yourself on a state pension, which will probably be a pittance, which will have to be paid for by your children and grand-children, who will have the cash taken from them under threat of prison, because the money that was taken 20, 30, 40 years ago is long gone. If you don't pay, then they take 70% off you and then refuse to give that pittance of a State pension which you've been paying for anyway.

Sounds like extortion to me.

Just as Miliband suggests is a good idea, this is spending to ensure that individual politicians remain in clover today whilst condemning the following generations to penury.

Even more disturbingly, there was a little rumbling in the press (not too much though, it would mean pointing out that Elephant again, it must make watching the TV bloody impossible in this room), about Hungary introducing very draconian media regulation and laws on the day they took over the presidency.

The European Union has been thrown into turmoil after Hungary approved a Communist-style media gag just weeks before it assumes the rotating presidency of the 27-nation bloc.

It has left the EU in the unusual position of threatening to blackball the country that is set to inherit the presidency on January 1 for six months.

On Tuesday, Hungary's parliament - led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban - approved a contentious new law that will expand the state's power to monitor and penalize private media.

This is in direct contradiction of the EU's own press freedom laws. The fact that we've heard nothing about the EU nixing this policy in Hungary or pulling Hungary's presidency of the EU can mean only one thing; the EU's laws are important only when they feel like it, and this control and restriction of the press is something the EU supports, or at least will not condemn.

Be very afraid people, the mask is slipping, but still the Elephant remains unindicated by the people who do their very very best to act in our best interests and look after us.

My arse.

Is it time to leave this ridiculous organisation yet, or are we still to believe that we'd be left isolated (the Commonwealth doesn't exist), bankrupt (like Norway and Liechtenstein aren't) and unable to trade (where we export bugger all anyway)?

Confusion or delusion?

I'm a little confused about the election of the work experience boy to the big chair in the Labour party. I guess ageism trumps racism and sexism, eh, Diane?

Anyhow, if Ed is as 'Red' as we're led to believe, and if he lurches to the left, as some have predicted, I can only stand and applaud the wisdom of the trade union members who decided to cast their votes for him. If he's the heir apparent to Michael Foot then Labour really will be unelectable for years to come. Remember Labour have never unseated a leader, it just doesn't happen.

Clegg seems to have divorced himself from the membership of his party, that lot who are neither liberal, nor democratic. I'll hand it to the LimpDim membership though, they do have principles, one of the advantages of never having a decent shout at getting power. Unfortunately for Nick, he seems to have thrown one of the biggest principles (that being an abhorrance of the idea of getting into bed with the Tories) out of the window just so he can have a go at pressing a couple of the buttons that Cameron can't be fagged to press himself.

All we need now is for Cameron to be secretly filmed by the News of the World putting kittens into microwaves and the job will be done.

The Lib Dems will haemorrhage support, they're done before they even start. This coagulation government (as Leg Iron so beautifully puts it) will surely result in the death of the Lib Dems. This is probably not a bad thing, as the Liberals can go back to being liberal (assuming there are some properly liberal people amongst them) while the Social Democrats can go back to. . . well, where?



If Mr. Ed really does want to usher in a new era of swivel eyed socialism, those Social Democrats won't be welcome there. SDP, anyone?


I've always felt quite sorry for Labour members. I thought the way the New Labour agenda was smuggled in without the members' consent was a pretty shitty trick. The euphoria of government after so long out must now be dissipating, and the awful, awful truth dawning. But perhaps I was wrong? Surely if Miliband Minority was the best candidate to reflect what I always thought were the core opinions of the Labour party membership, then the membership would have turned out in their droves for him? They didn't.


Indeed Andy Burnham was probably an even more traditional (?) old (?) new old (?) Labour leadership candidate and he hardly got out of the blocks.


So we now have this odd situation where the person who I thought was the closest to the traditional membership was shunned by the membership and elected by the unions. A fact that I'm sure Woodley, Simpson, Serwotka, Crow, et al will remind him of at every available opportunity. If I heard Boulton on Sky News correctly, turnout amongst the trade union portion of the vote was around 10%. So hardly a ringing endorsement of any of the candidates on offer then.


So it leaves with me four questions:


1. What do the Labour party members want?
2. What are the Labour party for?
3. How does a party abdicate responsibility for their leadership elections to a load of people that don't even care enough about the Labour party to join?
4. Why would anyone vote Labour?


I've been saying for a couple of years that it wasn't the election just gone that was the important one, it'll be the next one. Let's hope that the Lib Dems tear themselves apart, that the Tories disgrace themselves and the coalition falls apart and that Labour go back to their old ways, with the unions cracking the whip. If we can get a snap election in, ooooh, 12 to 18 months, all bets will be off, especially if any AV referendum carries a 'yes' vote.

The One That Is Watching It Fall Apart. . .

So we're what? Two months into the coalition? Looks like we'd better reach for the polyfilla 'cause the cracks are looking quite bad already.

Firstly the Tory media seems to have turned on the new coalition new politics big society government, with the Mail, that normally most reserved and austere publication flying into an uncharacteristic fit of rage. Concerned looks over at Conservative Home.

Then of course we've David Davis' little attack in the FT this morning (I've taken it from the Metro, as the FT is as dull as ditchwater, I'm also unsure if it's part of the whole charging for reading on the intermong thing).

The Tory MP was dining with a group of around a dozen non-politicians at a wine bar in Southwark on Thursday and was unaware that several journalists from the Financial Times were eating at a nearby table.

Of course, of course. He was totally oblivious to the fact that there could have been some reporters from the FT sat in a pub which is as close as next door to their offices as makes no difference.

Despite his back bench status Davis is a 'big beast'. He could perhaps be considered unlucky to lose the leadership election to Cameron. His stand on the 4500 days detention (or however long it was) was a vainglorious shot across the bows of his party leader and there is little doubt that he represents the majority constituency of the Tory party. That majority are now looking at the Blair lite leader they have, his relationship with Clegg, and the fact they're spending a lot of time telling everyone what great mates they are. It does look a little like Blair and Brown, doesn't it?

The difference between Labour and the Tories is that the Tories can get rid of their leader in the time it takes to prepare a bowl of cornflakes.

We've also seen a lot of Douglas Carswell since the election, and I don't think that is any accident either. Davis has been setting his peices up waiting for the right time. And where Carswell is, you can be sure Hannan isn't far behind. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some escape route from Brussels to Westminster set up.

The more Libertarian wing of the Conservative party must be looking with unease at this 'Big Society' plan Cameron has. The way he talks about 'allowing' us to take control. He talks about the importance of voluntary service. The first I take exception to, we don't need his permission. The mark of the 20th century politician, a complete incomprehension of the concept that he is there to do our bidding. We are not there to do his. The second I agree with wholeheartedly. But then we have the mark of the 21st century politician, 'it's voluntary, but if you don't do it voluntarily, we'll make sure you're obliged to do it.' Nice.

There seems to be concern that Cameron is pandering to the 50 or so LimpDim MPs rather than the 200 Tory MPs. Well, what did you expect? Cameron wants Cameron to be in power, not the Tories, they are just a convenient vehicle for this. He's shown his true colours with the immasculation of the 1922 committee and the blocking of the election of Bill Cash to the chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

No, there's very little change here.

But there is an important one. Unlike the Labour party membership, the Tories can remove their leader with great ease, and traditionally will do so with great relish. Not for them the dirty inter-factional infighting we'll see in the run-up to the Labour leadership election. It will be clean and surgical.

Let's hope this coalition breaks up. Let's hope that the LimpDims are hugely damaged. Let's hope that Cameron is left twisting in the wind. Let's hope that Labour have the foresight to elect the ridiculous Abbott or the twisted and poisonous Balls to the leadership, because then we'll have three completely unelectable parties.

I said a couple of years ago that the election after next will be the important one. Well that election will now be the next one. Looks like my predicition could be along the right lines.

The One That Is Finding It Hard. . .

It's odd really. Since the election, and certainly since Dave and Nick did the deed, I've found it hard to get posts up here, I don't know how many I've started and then binned.

For the last thirteen years my daily mantra seems to have been 'oh foR FUCK'S SAKE!' as idiotic policy follows cretinous initiative. I despaired as every day something emerged to further clip our wings, waste our money or engineer our society. But since that bunch of bastards got thrown out, things have been, well, kinda good.

Granted I will not support everything they come up with, a good deal of what they do will make me angry and see me wheel out my mantra again. But it is early days yet, and the work thus far has been, in the main, welcome.

Anger is a good motivator.

There are problems, like a city overtaking by a liberating army, the guerillas will take up position on the hills outside the walls and the old guard in the offices will do their best to resist and frustrate. The civil service is hugely politicised now, believe me, I know, I work there.

So, given the story that Michael Gove has decided to do away with the General Teaching Council because of its abject failure to deliver on its mission, I am not in the least bit surprised to see that the response is thus:

"We are seeking legal advice on our position and will be seeking urgent clarification from ministers and Department for Education officials on the implications of today's announcement for the GTCE's work over the next period and for its staff and members."

So what's that? A government department threatening to sue the government? This is what happens when you give a faceless department effective say over the life and death of people without accountability. The people that have say over their life and death give them a taste of their own medicine, and all of a sudden it is the threat of court. And who's money is going to pay for any legal advice? Yes. Ours.

Game over, sorry.

It's not all sweetness and light. This new administration will be duped or dragged along by some of the old guard, as we've seen in the recent chatter about booze pricing. The ConDems would do well to give Liam Donaldson's acolytes and the fake publicly funded charidees a wide berth. Hopefully they'll learn.

What has been done in the past can be undone now, we've seen proof of that. So perhaps, just perhaps, any decisions over booze made in haste today can be countermanded tomorrow.

All things being considered, I'm happy that we now have a government that says this in light of yesterday's events in Cumbria:

David Cameron has said there should not be a "knee-jerk reaction" to changing the laws on gun ownership after 12 people were shot dead in Cumbria.

The prime minister said everything must be done to make sure it "cannot happen again", but existing controls were among the "toughest" in the world.

When the shadow (and former) Home Secretary is saying this:

After the Home Office revealed that the killer had held a shotgun certificate for 15 years, as well as a rifle licence gained in 2007, former Home Secretary Alan Johnson said a tightening of checks needed to be considered.

Mr Johnson said there might be a case for incorporating mental health checks into the system following claims that it is too easy for rural residents to gain access to firearms.

Knee jerk and quickie legislation, always a recipe for bad law, and one of Labour's hallmarks. Something must be done, this is something, so it must be done. To be seen to do nothing is the worst crime. With Labour it isn't about effectiveness or fairness, but the perception of the party.

The sad thing is for Labour, that even now we (and they) have been rescued from the downward spiral of desperate ideas and legislation, there is still a significant part of the party which cannot help themselves. It's like watching a cat trying to jump through a closed patio window every day. In its heart of hearts it knows what the outcome will be, but it does it because it has no idea what else to do.

Sadly again for Labour, the worst practitioner of this is currently leading the party.

And that is why I'm finding it hard to get motivated at the moment. No longer do we have a government which comes out with utter bottywater like this:

Acting Labour leader Harriet Harman says the party rules should change so half the shadow cabinet are women.

No, you see, Harriet, what we really need is for the cabinet to be 100% staffed by absolutely the best people for the jobs they have, regardless of anything as irrelevant as gender, sexuality, race or preferred method of potato preperation.

Let's hope it will be a long, long time before we see them back.

The One That Is Asking 'Oh, Didn't You Know?'. . .

Labour MP John McDonnell has accused the party of organising a "discredited" leadership contest.

The left-winger said he wanted to stand but would struggle to get the nominations of 33 MPs - required under rules announced on Tuesday - in time.

Now that could suggest that poor old John isn’t very popular. But let’s hear him out.

The Hayes and Harlington MP said this would exclude many "rank and file" Labour members from choosing him and reduce the chances of a "fresh start".

Well I can’t see why. If I were a Labour MP and had the choice of someone from the bunch of bastards that put us on the oppo benches or someone completely different, I’d take someone completely different every time. However. . .

Mr McDonnell, who wanted to stand against Gordon Brown for the leadership in 2007 but failed to receive enough nominations from MPs, said it was wrong to reduce the period for nominations to four days, from 24 to 27 May.

He said this was not enough time for the many newly elected Labour MPs to weigh up the merits of different candidates and for potential contenders to canvass for support - although he said he was still determined to try.

"I think it undermines the democratic process from the outset," he told the BBC News Channel.

"I thought we had learnt those lessons."

They have, John. You can’t just have any old John, Dick or Harry standing for the leadership. What if they got elected? What would Alistair and Peter do then? Besides, it doesn’t undermine the democratic process at all, because there is no democratic process.

Labour have never unseated their leader through a leadership challenge, it’s all a bit messy and tawdry, isn’t it? And weren’t things much nicer when Gordon was given the job on the nod? Don’t want to scare the horses. Blimey, if they start giving the membership a proper say in the leader, they’ll be wanting a say in the formation of policy and everything. No, the membership are best left out of the whole decision making process, leave it to the professionals and the unaccountable. Speaking of which. . .

The new leader will be elected by a ballot of Labour MPs, MEPs, party members and members of affiliated organisations such as trade unions and socialist societies.

Hang on, you mean non-members get to decide on who the Labour is? Really? Wow, that’s an organisation that values its grassroots and trusts their judgement.

Ms Harman has defended the election rules, saying they will lead to a "dynamic" contest, with up to four million people eligible to vote.

Four million? Bloody hell, that’s almost as many people as voted for Labour in the whole of England.

The thing is John, Labour have shown complete disrespect for democracy in 13 years of governmental politics, European politics and internal politics. This is what you need. You need to be steered, informed, educated. What if you make the wrong decision? Hmmmm? What then?

Labour have fed their membership on a strict diet of soundbites and nanny knows best. Now, eat your dinner and be thankful that nanny doesn’t send you to bed without any pudding. Smile, nod, do as you are told. That is your sole reason for existing.

Four legs good, two legs bad.

Besides:

David Miliband has said the era of New Labour is over and the party must look to
the future if it is to recover.

It never happened. It was all a bad dream. David was nothing to do with it. Here was never there, you can’t prove he was there, and anyone who says he was there is a damn liar.

The One That Is Progressive. . .

Charlie 'Mine's a Double' Kennedy has been banging on about it. Some NuLab goon on Sky News this morning used the word about a thousand times in the space of one interview this morning.

It would appear that Labour are progressive. Lib Dems less so and the Conservatives not at all.

Kennedy felt so strongly about progressive wossname that he very nearly summoned the courage to vote against the coalition, but then decided to not vote at all. That'll show 'em.

I've got a question, what the hell does progressive actually mean? Let's have a look at the definition on dictionary.com, shall we?

making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

Well, that clears that up. See you next time.

Oh, no hang on. That doesn't clear it up at all.

Making progress towards better conditions. For whom? In what area? Employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas. Hmmmmm.

It's a bit wishy-washy, a bit vague, isn't it? I suppose I can only approach it from my point of view, you could well have a different perspective on what constitutes better conditions and enlightenment and liberalism.

What would constitute better conditions and enlightenment and liberalism for me?

For a start the rolling back of the interference of the State in my life would be nice. I'd like to see the ID card scheme scrapped and would love to see the database that went with it loaded up onto a rocket and fired into the sun. That would be an improvement in conditions for me and seems a good deal more liberal than that which went before it.

I wonder if we'll ever have a government that will do that? What? We already do? But that can't be true because Kennedy and Labour are telling me that this government is not progressive. My, I'm getting confused.

Have I misunderstood the meaning of the word liberal?

(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

Oh, for crying out loud, we're just going round in circles here. What's this?

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Well, reading the second section of the definition of liberal, it would seem to me that the last Labour government (please, God, let it be the actual last Labour government we ever see) were not at all liberal, not at all progressive. In fact I would state that they were the antithesis of progressive and liberal, they were regressive and illiberal. They took freedoms away from us and subjected us to more control. That's not progressive or liberal at all.

Kennedy says in his Observer article:

Like many others I was keen to explore the possibilities of a so-called "progressive coalition", despite all the obvious difficulties and drawbacks.

Like the complete failure of the Labour party to safeguard our liberties, indeed they attacked them and removed them at every opportunity. I would have thought that what with you being the former leader of a party with the word 'Liberal' in their title that you would have seen them as a anathema to your ideals. Or is that you aren't really that Liberal?

Don't bother answering that one, I know it already. Numerous conversations with Lib Dem members where I tried to work out the common ground between the Libertarians and Lib Dems have shown me that there is precious little common ground. Liberty to them seems to mean liberty to make decisions about what everyone should be doing and how they should do it, with lots of talk about people not getting left behind.

Oh dear, I'm approaching this from the wrong perspective aren't I? The only thing they want to progress to is a situation where they are in charge and telling us what to do, rather than just standing behind the Tories going 'yeah!' when they tell us what to do. That's what they mean by progressive, isn't it? Getting from here to there.

So for the next three, four, five years we're going to have this argument about centre left vs. centre right, and we're going to hear the word 'progressive' spat out from the Labour benches, from the Mirror and the Groan and the left wing blogosphere and twatterfeeds.

Progressive will become the new Nazi-Racist-Bigot, it'll cease to have any meaning as Labour and the Lib Dems strive to show that they are totally different from the Conservatives without actually being significantly different. The Milibands and Balls will claim to be the progressive candidates for the leadership of a progressive party in this new era of progressive politics.

One thing is for sure, they're all the same, they will demand our compelte obedience and adherence to their 'vision' (God I hate that word) and total submission to their will.

The One That Doesn't Hate It. . .

It's a rum old thing, this hung parliament malarkey, and amongst my circle its causing quite a stir.

First there are my Lib Dem friends who obviously believe in their ideals more than they want to be in power. A few of them are very angry that Clegg and co have decided that having a chance to pull the levers and press the buttons is worth a bit of compromise and have resigned their membership. Interestingly, those I have spoken to would have done the same had the 'rainbow alliance' taken shape as well.

A few of my Labour supporting friends are purple with rage. I'm having trouble finding out what it is precisely that has angered them so. They're certainly angry because they lost (and yes, I know nobody won, but that doesn't mean Labour didn't lose), but that anger seems to be divided between Brown, the electorate and the Tories and Lib Dems (the best suggestion I've heard for a collective name is Dem Tories).

Brown because of his performance both as Prime Minister and during the campaign. There seems to be a feeling that he let the side down, but, crucially, that he should still somehow be Prime Minister. Weird.

They're angry at the electorate for voting for the other parties, and this is one of the more telling effects of New Labour's 13 years. There is this disbelief that people would dare to oppose the bright new dawn which has spectacularly failed to break for the last decade. Note, that isn't that people would disagree with it, but that they would have the temerity to actually go out and vote against it. How dare they? Stifling dissent and discourse may work within the party, but you can't control the public, try as you might.

The Lib Dems are now seemingly the class traitors. Setting up camp with the Tories? I can almost hear the phrase 'after everything we did for them' leaving their lips. The high pitched whine of 'it's not fair' will not be far behind. Labour still had stuff to do, visions to wossname and social 'justice' to . . . whatever it is you do with social 'justice', reject it if the election is anything to go by. It's almost as if the Lib Dems have been viewed as the Labour second XI and their cosying up to the Tories is obviously a monumental betrayal.

Most opprobrium has been kept for the Tories. Thatcher. Poll Tax. Fox Hunting. Poshness. Private Schools. The Miners. All that guff. It doesn't matter, in politics it is ancient history, it's akin to refusing to go to Rouen because of the Norman conquest, it's an irrelevance now. What Labour supporters fail to understand is that non-members or supporters don't share their blind, violent hatred of the Tories. From where the average joe is sitting, the Tories are marginally better than Labour because they've not spent the last 13 years fucking about with stuff. If you say 'Conservatives' to Average Joe, he isn't going to spit on the ground, or cross himself, or stand in a circle of salt. His bottom lip isn't going to start trembling and he's not going to wet himself in panic and run off to mummy. Unfortunately for Labour, their whole campaign was based on telling people that the Tories are really nasty. Well, we know that, but you failed to persuade us that you are less nasty. The fact of the matter is that Labour lost the support of the public. It was not taken by the Conservatives, or Rupert Murdoch or climate change deniers or anything else. You simply trod on our toes too many times.

So how do I feel about this coalition?

Well, it's a stitch-up, but that's the reality of the system we have. I don't like it, I'd like it to change, but we are where we are.

What have we lost? Very little as far as I can make out. Mandleson no longer has any power. That is a very good thing. One of the most shambolic and unhinged leaders in this country's history is himself history, another tick in the good column. The most illiberal, paranoid, controlling and devious government we've had has been sent packing. Another good tick.

I'm struggling to think of things to put in the bad column under the heading 'things lost'.

What have we gained?

Not a great deal. I'm hopeful that perhaps the Lib Dems will act as a brake on the Tories more outlandish policies, and vice-versa. A stable government is fine, a strong government is always bad news for people that aren't that government's mates. So a tick in the good column, we've a stable yet weakened government. That'll do for now.

It would also appear that we've gained a Great Repeal Act. ID cards and the odious database that went with it and HIPS seem to be the first things to go. Hopefully the power of the pseudo-plods and inspectors will be next, along with the retention of the DNA of the innocent. Another plus in the good column.

I'll be more than happy to see these nasty, grubby measures gone, but don't expect me to be high fiving Dem Tories, this is not a high virtue, this is doing stuff that I would expect any party (except the BNP and Labour) to remove from the statute as a matter of urgency. The fact they seem to want to do this is pleasing, but I'm not about to give a good deal of credit for something that you should be doing as a matter of course. It would be like giving an OBE to someone because they gave their kids some dinner.

So, early indications are that I can live with this government, I don't hate it. Yet. There's plenty of time and policies to come that can change that though.

The One That Wants Frank . . .

So, the monocular, snot-gobbling, nokia throwing, old lady insulting, macavity impersonating, foaming at the mouth, tantrum expert, denialist supreme, prime mentalist has finally faced up to the inevitable.

But of course this is the Labour party, so it won't happen, can't happen, overnight. It'll drag on until September. In a way this is bad, as this really needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. It is also a good thing, because the scramble to jump into Brown's grave, plus the huge egos of those involved means it will all be conducted very publicly and members and non-members alike will be thoroughly sick of the sight of them all come conference season.

It could actually be very entertaining. No-one bitch fights like a socialist going for the top job. The smears, innuendo and tears will be wonderful.

I am however not without sympathy. And that sympathy is squarely with the long time, traditional membership of the party. Why? Well, let's look at the early runners, shall we?

• Miliband Majority
• Alan 'Postman Pat' Johnson
• Harridan Harperson
• Badger Brows Darling
• Blinky 'Kick Me Inna' Balls
• Miliband Minority
• Andy 'Max Factor' Burnham
• John Cruddas

Cruddas aside, who whilst undoubtedly representing the views of the largest section of the membership has the ability to make people shuffle away from him looking in the opposite direction, none of them are representative of that party's membership.

The Milibands? Really? I mean. . . really? The banana boat captain and the work experience boy?

Alan Johnson? Because? What? He's not quite as bad as the others?

Harman? Imposing an 'equality and diversity' programme at all costs, even to that of her party. Unless of course it's her husband.

Darling? Jesus Christ on a little purple trike.

Balls? Hated now. Would make Brown look popular after six months. Would lose his rag three minutes into his first PMQs. And then there's his wife.

Andy Burnham? Out of his depth in a bird bath.

Really Labour party members, and I say this with real concern for your views and your party, if this is the best your party can muster, then I could weep for you. Your ideals and views have been sold down the river completely. You've been evicted by a family of cuckoos who stole your legacy from you on the promise of a few days in the sun.

Now the sun has gone in, and they will all squabble and fight amongst themselves. Don't worry, you're not expected to do anything. Just smile and nod and elect the person you're told. Just like you did with Blair.

I do not, will not and never have agreed with the Labour party, but at least under Foot they stood for something. At least when The Beast, Skinner, opens his mouth he does it because he cares deeply about those he represents. Sit him on the awkward squad bench. Keep an eye on him. The snakeoil salesmen hate him, and with good reason, he sees them for what they are.

For fuck's sake Labour members, take your party back. Make it speak for what you want, you'll never have a better chance, or a better time.

Jesus, look at that list. Come on! Where's Frank Field? Where's Tom Harris? I don't agree with them that often, but they have substance, they have conviction, as an outsider they sound like you. Come on, apply some pressure, get yourself a leader I can at least respect, someone who holds opinions that don't need to be rejected out of hand.

I want Frank.

The One That Says They Still Don't Get It. . .

If you listen to the mainstream media and the politicians you'd get the impression that the electorate had made a bit of a boo-boo with the way they voted on Thursday and have now presented the politicians with something of a problem. The underlying theme of this whole deal brokering guff is that the politicians have to undo the mess we've made.

This is, of course, bollocks. The mantra of 'strong and stable government' is being trotted out with depressingly predictable regularity. What seems clear to me is that the electorate know that they don't want Labour, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems in power. That, along with a desire to see Brown out, if not Cameron in, are the only messages which are beyond doubt from this election.

So what's going to happen? They're going to do their best to get themselves what they want, power, regardless of the wishes of the electorate. If they can't get it at the ballot box, they'll get it behind closed doors in some meeting room at the Cabinet Office. So much for this new transparent politics they've all been banging on about.

I'm uneasy with the whole thing. Firstly a question to which the answer would seem to be obvious. Why do we need a strong government? Belgium did without for about two years. Strong government sounds like a laudable thing, it's taken in the media as a given that strong government is what is needed. But what does that mean? From where I'm sitting that means either Cameron or Brown, with a little help from their friends, being able to railroad through legislation, regardless of if we want it or not. Strong equals unaccountable in my book.

I think Clegg would do well to stick to his guns on PR, a referendum at least, from whoever he decides to jump into bed with. The Tories have been making noises about the fact that their policy on PR is well known and that people still voted for them, so we obviously don't want it.

I don't know if PR is what the electorate want, I think any referendum would be close as the public in general would be apathetic at best to turning out, whilst Tory supporters would turn out in huge numbers to vote against. But that isn't the point, the point is that we deserve to be asked. The General Election is never about a single issue and to pretend otherwise when it suits you is dishonest.

I've written in the past about the danger to Clegg and the Lib Dems in entering into an understanding/pact/coalition with any party. They'll be the ones who will be damaged when it inevitably all goes wrong. Could it be that Clegg is exploring the possibility of entering into a deal with the others on each side so that he can then turn round in a few days and say 'sorry folks, we tried, but these guys aren't interested in listening to us'? Or is it a case, that I was warned of by a former Lib Dem member a year or so ago, that the Lib Dems would agree to pretty much anything if they got the chance to press the buttons for a few days?

I give qualified support to PR, I think it is certainly more equitable than first past the post, although I do think the link between a constituency and MP that FPTP allows is very important.

Does the end of PR justify the means? I'm not sure, but when you see how OH outlines it, I find it difficult to argue against it, even if it wouldn't taste very nice at the time.

One thing is for sure, having meetings behind closed doors, to build a government based on horse trading where we have no voice is no democracy at all.

The group who demonstrated in support of PR outside the Lib Dem meeting on Saturday have a petition running. Should you find yourself in agreement with your aims, you can sign up to it here.

The One That Thinks It Is Decisive. . .

I went to bed at about 0530 this morning, and I write this at 1030. That five hour nap really didn't make a huge difference, it was a mess when I went to sleep, it is still a mess now that I've woken up.

I'm currently watching Harridan Harperson trying to justify why Brown has the right to form a government, whilst Ed Vaizey is doing a sterling job of whining 'it's not fair, it's our turn'. David Steel is resigned to the fact that the Lib Dems reached saturation point in the 2005 election.

There's arguments over the system of electing people, arguments over the method in which the Prime Minister gets that title, arguments over how a Prime Minister would, could and should form a government.

The fault is not in the system. First Past The Post is always held up as a panacea for electing strong, stable governments, PR is nasty, goes the warning, it ends up with the Nazis in Germany and about 27,000 governments in post-war Italy. The problem is, we are being told, that on this occasion FTP has not delivered a strong, stable government.

This is obviously the fault of the system. At least, it is today. Tomorrow it will be my fault and your fault for not voting properly, we'll be told off for not doing it as we should have done.

Well, mea fucking culpa.

The reason we have the result we have is not because of us cheeky scampish voters playing silly buggers, it is not because the system is corrupt and unrepresentative (which it is), it is because the 3 main political parties have failed. Their policies are hated, their leaders untrusted, their campaigning spiteful and hateful.

This result is a landslide victory for 'fuck you'.

How long will it take for the leaders to realise the problem isn't the electorate or the system, but them and the way they go about doing their job? They'd better figure it out quick, before their membership figure it out on their behalf.

Cameron, Clegg and Brown all stand this morning as discredited figures, unfit to govern their own parties, let alone the nation.

Britain's political parties have failed. They no longer stand for anything, they are not different from each other. This result will be replicated time and time again unless they undergo major internal revolutions.

If I were to put my tin-foil hat on for a moment, I would probably make a point about a tri-party coalition which would render all future elections meaningless and probably declared a waste of time and public money . . .

The One That Has A Video For You. . .

The One That Is Really Quite Sad. . .

Now the initial Schadenfreude has worn off, I’m going to admit to being a little bit saddened at yesterday’s events with Brown.

I’m not saddened because he has shown himself to have scant regard for anyone else’s opinions, or because he has revealed, once again, his bullying blaming nature, or that this shambolic, graceless spectre has brought the name of our once great country and its highest office into disrepute, for the umpteenth time. This is all old news.

Whilst watching the news reports last night, a few seconds of footage I had not seen previously really stuck with me. It was the footage of poor old Gillian Duffy’s reaction as she was played Brown’s comments as he was driven away. There was a proud woman who looked like she’d been kicked in the stomach, I have little doubt that had she not had a TV camera in her face, she would have shed a tear.

It’s very easy to be a worldly cynic sat behind a keyboard throwing bricks at the politicians, and on the odd occasion when a blogger scores a hit, there is much rejoicing, and rightly so. The politicians are used to this, being the attacker and the attacked is their stock in trade. Mrs. Duffy’s position is entirely different.

I don’t want to sound patronising about Mrs. Duffy, nor do I wish to make assumptions about her and her character, but this is what I saw when I looked at her. I saw a long time, loyal supporter of the party. A supporter who over the course of her life has seen the party she supports change beyond recognition, a supporter who was given the opportunity to raise genuine concerns over the policies and performance of HER party.

Before the comments were made it was obvious Brown did not want to talk to her. In part he displayed an insincerity which did him no credit at all, ‘Working with children is SO important, isn’t it?’ Yes, Gordon, I think she knows that. However, despite some remaining concerns the pair shook hands, and as far as she was concerned, the deal was done. The media handlers must have been shouting ‘Win!’ The story would have been that Brown was fronted up by a supporter with concerns and won them round, job’s a good-un.

Of course Brown wasn’t aware his comments were being broadcast, and of course pretty much every other politician has got into their car after being leapt upon in such a fashion and made uncharitable comments about the MOP who has accosted them. But, and it’s a big but here, how many of them would have had the lack of self awareness to realise that the situation went well, that they’d re-assured their support, had scored a goal in the right net, not in their own? How many of them having realised the win would have then lambasted the MOP as they drove off? The comments would have been along the lines of ‘that went well’, ‘we’ve got a vote there’, ‘that’ll look good on the news this evening.’ Only Brown could see a disaster in the victory, in the same way that only Brown sees a victory in the defeat. No other leader of a political party would have so mis-judged that situation.

Furthermore, no other political leader would have been caught so off-guard by a TV camera in a radio studio, and no other leader would have dragged the world’s media and half the town around to the poor woman’s house.

This is not some politician, spin doctor or campaigner, nor is this woman some attention hungry celebrity or media whore, and she found herself under siege for the whole day and night because of some ridiculous comment that need never have been made. Of course Brown thought what he said, like some paranoid and corrupt dictator, he sees plots and smears everywhere, because that is the way he does business. It’s been his MO for the last decade, to have people dismissed with the old nazi-racist-bigot line if they disagree with, or it would seem even question, his decisions.

His ridiculous smile after the almost hour long apology only served to compound the crime, heaping insincerity upon insult, injury and blame.

I suspect that Mrs. Duffy was brought up by her Labour supporting parents to treat people in positions of authority with respect, and to accord people like MPs all the deference that these MPs believed they were due. I suspect that to her, the Prime Minister is someone she would have had a great deal of respect and admiration for. One can only imagine how the adrenaline was roaring through her veins as she spoke with and pressed the flesh of the man she had been brought up to venerate.

It must have made the hurt and distress of hearing his totally unwarranted comments even worse.

I would hope Brown does feel mortified about his performance yesterday, but I doubt his regret is really about Gillian Duffy’s feelings being hurt, it is the fact that he was caught out.

This isn’t about party allegiance, ideology or policy, it is about an individual displaying his contempt for his own supporters, his dismissal of anything which isn’t his idea, and why he is not fit to hold any office.

And Mrs. Duffy, irrespective of her political allegiances did not ask to have the world’s media camped out on her doorstep and did not deserve to have her pride trampled under foot. She deserved a good deal better than what she got, and she stands as an example of millions of British who find themselves bewildered and hurt at the treatment which has been meted out to them by this Prime Monster and his cabal.

The One That Is Disgusted. . .

No long polemic. None of my usual poor analysis.

If you want to watch it, go over to Constantly Furious' place.

I'm talking about Labour's party election broadcast last night.

Yes, that's the one, the one that suggests if you don't vote Labour, you'll die of cancer. It's the leaflets and cards. Again.

I don't believe that Brown is not behind it. He's proved he'll do anything to get power, so it follows logically that he will do anything to hold on to it.

What makes me most angry is that even after pulling a stunt like this, people will still vote for them. Although I'm not sure if that says more about the Tories and Lib Dems, or more about the electorate.

Still a week to go. There's probably more to come. Are they going to accuse Clegg of being a nonce, perhaps?

The One That Thinks He's Playing The Long Game. . .

So perhaps Brown's 'I agree with Nick' mantra hasn't had quite the effect that he thought it would.

It would seem that in the (likely) event of a hung parliament that Clegg has no intention of doing business with Gordon. Assuming that is, that Clegg is telling the truth, never a given when you consider the big three.

Clegg has good reason to distance himself from Brown and Labour. He may be flying high in the polls at the moment, but you can be sure that support will melt away pretty smartish if the media continue to show graphics of the number of Tory seats expected on May 7th against those of Labour when combined with the Lib Dems. Few floating voters are going to vote Lib Dem if they think that vote is going to default to Labour.

So what is a poor Lib Dem boy to do? What is obvious is that the Lib Dems really want power, a prospect that I find slightly more scary than another five years of Labour, to be honest. Many Lib Dems would be bouncing around with anticipation at the idea of one of their's being Home Sec in a coalition, but it's not the same as actually having power. It's like being sat in the front of the car with your dad when he lets you change gear. You're sort of contributing, but your dad still has control of the throttle, brake, clutch and the steering. It's exciting for a little while, but you really want to drive.

In a coalition, the chances of Vince getting the keys to number 11 are slim to none. Blinky Balls bagsied that role a long time ago. Lib Dem Foreign Sec? Unlikely. Home Sec? That's a poisoned chalice, you can bet that Nick would be thrown that particular bone, and it would eventually cause him to choke.

Brown would make grand promises of involvement and electoral reform and this and that, but none of it would come to pass and the Lib Dems would be left looking rather silly and marginalised. When the coalition came apart at the seams (and it would) you can bet that the blame would be dumped squarely in front of the Lib Dem's door. Then there would be the inevitable scrapping between Labour's traditionalists and their Social Democrats, and the scrapping between the Lib Dem's Social Democrats and the traditional Liberals, oh Jeez that would be messy.

If Clegg went in to a coalition with Labour he'd be damaged beyond repair and the Lib Dems wouldn't be much better, endangering their chances of ever picking up a comparitive share of the percentage of the vote they seem to this time, again. The Lib Dems have now only really started to recover from the Jeremy Thorpe affair and a stint as a junior partner in a coalition could set them back another thirty years. Is it really worth five minutes in the sun for that?

This still remains a good election to lose, and I believe a hung parliament really is the best option for the country, and I say this honestly with the best interests of all three main parties in mind. It's best for Labour (if they finish 2nd) because they can then have the civil war that party desperately needs to decide what they are, and where they want to go. It's best for the Conservatives (if they finish 2nd) as they can then dispense with Cameron who simply cannot connect with the public and, if I read the situation right, is at best dischordant with the views of the party membership. It's best for the Lib Dems (if they stay out of any coalition) as they can then use this as a platform for the next election and not be damaged by a collapsing coalition, although their civil war is moving up the agenda as well.

The problem with both Labour and the Lib Dems is that they both have a large section of Social Democrats who are at odds with the rest of their respective parties. This could lead to some very interesting rows, bust-ups, power struggles and general arseing about in the next few years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a party, like ooooooh, perhaps the SDP emerging from the wreckage of Labour and Lib Dem civil wars. There's also a high probability of a night of the long knives in the Tory party between the top table and the membership, I fully expect Boris to be at the helm before long.

I just get the impression that everyone is on their best behaviour, but struggling to keep it together, like an alcoholic parent at a school play. Win, lose or draw, the fall out from this election could prove to be spectacular, I'm looking forward to fireworks after the election more than I'm looking forward to polling day itself.

The One That Can't Wait To Watch It. . .

So agreement has been reached on the televised leaders' debate. It's going to be cracking stuff. News on Sky, BBC and ITV have been talking in evangelical terms about how the JFK/Nixon debate marked the turning point in American presidential election campaigns. Nixon eschewed make-up, blah blah, radio listeners thought Kennedy had lost the debate, yadda yadda.

The media expect that everyone in this country will be sat on the edge of their seats, hanging on every word spoken by the great political titans and that as a result, come polling day, there'll be queues down the street outside the stations. Newsflash; people who don't care (most of the population), won't watch. If you really want to see how important it is, put the broadcasts on instead of Eastenders and Corrie, see what sort of response you get. Even better, preface these broadcasts with 'Tonight's episode of Coronation Street/Eastenders has been replaced with three political non-entities doing nothing but calling the other two cunts. The planned episode will never be shown, ever. Now sit down and listen to what these very important people have to say.'

We now have the bizarre situation where we'll see a televised debate between three party leaders, none of whom have a better than below average chance of actually getting a mandate as Prime Minister of a majority government.

The parties will be hoping that everyone doesn't go out and vote, because if the show that these three twits put on is as bad as I think it's going to be, the Green, UKIP and BNP share of the vote will rocket.

Let's have a look at the candidates shall we?

Gordon Brown - The most unpopular PM in history. A man who, even when scrubbed to with an inch of his life and ladled into his best bib and tucker, would make Gok Wang burst into tears and stomp off screaming 'I can't work under these conditions'. His presentation is awful. He can't talk without fluffing his lines. He cannot answer a question. No point about Labour good will be made, it will all be Tories bad. Everything wrong will be blamed on Thatcher, USA, other cabinet members, the renaming of Jif to Cif, etc. Plus there's that thing where his jaw drops open and then slams shut, like he's trying to stop the evil spirits from escaping. Who is going to vote for that?


Dave Cameron - The man who has lost the PM job before he even got it. Really, how bad do you have to be if you can't beat Brown? This is a man who shares no common policy ground with the membership of his party. It's up to them to follow him. Cripes! As Boris would say. He presents well, but can't evade the toffish air about him. He too will not be able to answer any questions due to his complete lack of policies beyond; 1- Become PM, 2- More of the same. As we see from the opinion polls, no-one fancies that much, either.

Neil Clague (or whatever his name is) - The man who will have to preface every statement with 'Hi, I'm Nigel Cludd (or whatever his name is), leader of the Lib Dems. A man so anonymous that when he calls round to see his old mum, she demands ID before she lets him in the house. He'll spend the whole time avoiding the question about what he'll do in the likely event of a hung parliament. He'll be banging on about change and alternatives whilst providing none whatsoever. Policies? Plenty of them, knowing that he'll never, ever be held to them. Flute lessons for lions? Great idea, write it down. It won't matter. No-one will vote for him, because by the time polling day comes around, they'll have forgotten who he is.

The best the party minders can do is to gaffer tape their charges to a chair and pretend they've pulled a no-show. It will not usher in a golden age of engagement between politician and electorate, it will be yet more proof of how out of touch, inflexible and dogmatic our leaders are. As such it will be a triumph and must go ahead, no matter what. If we're lucky, it'll utterly destroy the three of them.

The One That Is Mightily Impressed. . .

You've got to hand it to Cameron, he certainly doesn't hang about and seems to have a new record. He's lost the job of PM before he's even got the job, if today's polls are to be believed. That must be the shortest government in history.

I'm delighted. I've no desire to see a Labour government returned again, I certainly won't be voting for them in an Obo style, but the idea of a Tory administration doesn't have me wanting to march up and down the street singing 'Happy Days Are Here Again' either.

And either is the important word here. Perhaps people are waking up to the fact that you don't have to have either Labour or Conservative governments. There are alternatives. I don't know how much people know about those alternatives. Perhaps the opinion polls are reflecting the fact that people know who they will not be voting for, not who they will be voting for.

It is interesting to see that throughout all this to-ing and fro-ing that the Limp Dims have still made no headway.

What does this say about the three main parties? People don't want Labour to win, because they are so arse-clenchingly awful, but nor do they want to see a blue or yellow tie sat in the big chair. I'd fancy Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe to give Brown a run for his money at this coming election and yet, amazingly, Call Me Dave and Ned Clarke (or whatever his name is) cannot get the job done.

This is akin to not being able to beat a 4 year old at arm-wrestling. It is pathetic.

No doubt the campaigners are sat around focusing on presentation, spin, media training, focus groups, posters and leafelets, but that's a waste of money. The reason the polls are flat-lining are because there is no significant difference between them. The menu is offering spam and eggs or spam and chips or spam and beans. But we don't like spam, we're going to start ordering off menu.

Let's see if Labour can make a minority government work. That'll be a right giggle. It's not this one coming up that counts, it's the election after. The penny is really starting to drop about the big three.

I think the polls may be slightly misleading on this occasion. Polling day will see fear about daring to vote for the little boys, it's like you're doing something naughty, so conditioned are we to think that to vote other than LibLabCon is a criminal waste, but after a term (and there's no way in the world that a minority government of any colour will last a full term) of disastrous, hubristic, unthinking and uncaring minority rule, that fear will disappear.

The rage isn't coming at the polls this election, it's just slightly miffedness, the real anger will come next when it becomes widely apparent that the big three couldn't give a flying fuck about this country, about me or about you. People are realising that all they want is power, and for you to know your place.