Where do they go from here?

I was expecting the LibDems to get a shoeing, but I wasn't expecting them to be taken out the back and kicked to within an inch of their lives. I find I'm asking myself the question where do the LibDems go from here? This is a disaster of such magnitude for the party that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Clegg is done, of that there can be no doubt, he had his five minutes in the sun during the TV debates, but it soon clouded over. Chris Huhne has run the most appalling campaign for the yes vote, more of which in a moment, Vince Cable shot his bolt with his quite remarkable declaration of war on Murdoch. Who on earth is capable of stepping up to replace Clegg when the inevitable happens?

The LibDems have conjured up a perfect storm and make no mistake, it is all their own fault, no-one has stabbed themselves in the back here, they've committed ritual suicide infront of an entire nation. They've pulled off a master stroke by being able to alienate their own core support and the support of the non-member voters - they have utterly destroyed their powerbase which was always at the grass roots level.

I think most people who voted LibDem did so because of what they were not, rather than what they were. The most important thing they were not was either of the other two. Then the coalition came and the terrible truth dawned on the public; the LibDems were as grasping, power hungry, unprincipled and opportunistic as Labour and the Conservatives ever were. I said it at the time, the moment they entered into that coalition they had loaded the gun and pressed it to their own temple.

Now they are stuck. They daren't pull out as the Tories would most likely go to the polls, and their destruction would be complete. They have no cards to play, they are completely reliant on their Tory masters for their oxygen, from where I'm sitting it isn't the LibDem MPs keeping a coalition government breathing, it is a Tory party with the power of life and death over their junior, subordinate partners keeping the party breathing. I wonder how long it will be before the Tories start kidding on that they'll pull the plug?

Most of the non-members who voted LibDem did so because they couldn't stomach the other two, and they've now found that they've got exactly what they didn't want.

As for the members, the crushing defeat for the yes campaign is a slap in the face which must sting as much as the results in the locals, Scottish and Welsh polls. The LibDems have been banging on forever about PR, it is the thing their members seemed to desire most, once you factor in the understanding that they'd never get a majority under FPTP in a million years. That was the single biggest thing the LibDems had to bargain with, what their team settled for was the palest of facsimilies that very few people would have backed, it was a complete betrayal of their membership and showed that Clegg and pals would turn their back on their members in an instant for a go on the levers of power. That go on the levers, which cost the goodwill of the membership and the floating voters, has lasted not even a year from the announcement of coalition.

It is a collapse of stunning proportions.

So who are the winners here? Obviously in Scotland it is the SNP, although if they hold a referendum on independence, which they might, at that referendum is defeated, which it will be, one can only ask what the SNP are for, other than not being Labour?

South of the border Labour have made gains, but to be fair they couldn't have lost any more. The votes and seats they've picked up are the least Miliband could have wanted, and the collapse in Scotland shows in England that it is a parade of people from red to blue, blue to red, and so forth. People are voting against what they don't want, rather than what they do, ironically PR could go some way to solving this, but the LibDems caved in. Cheers, Nick.

No, Labour are no winners here.

A couple of months ago I commented that the LibDems were done, and also pointed out that the BBC were at pains not to tell us who the winners were in that by-election. Over the last couple of days we've heard nothing from them at all. They certainly weren't standing in my ward, I don't think they put many candidates up at the local level, although they did have candidates on the regional lists in Jockland.

Who? UKIP, that's who.

This a party that declares itself to be libertarian. Not libertarian enough to satisfy me, but a damn sight more libertarian than any of the other established parties. They are very attractive to frustrated EUro-sceptic Tories, desptie their proclaimed libertariansim, and I'm wondering if the libby tag might prove appealing to the liberal side of the LibDems, despite the obvious anti-EU bias contrasting with the slavish pro-EU stance of the LibDems. But that's just the members.

The public, the floating voters, those who have been using the LibDems as an effective 'none of the above' or 'screw the reds and the blues' vote will now put the LibDems squarely on the same ground as the other two. So when election time comes around again, whether it is the Euros or an early general, who will the floaters be looking at thinking 'I don't want to vote for those three, but who have I heard of?'

I know as the days tick by since the Anna Raccoon - Andrew Withers affair, it's now been almost a month without any word from the investigation, that I find myself looking at UKIP with increased warmth, better to be a libertarian component of a functioning party than an exclusively libertarian party which does not function.

UKIP, (and probably the Greens who I can see harvesting a good portion of the Social Democrat side of the LibDems) are probably sitting down feeling quite pleased this evening.

Stick a fork in them, they're done.

An excellent example of the BBC reporting some of the news this morning. I'll show you what I mean:

Labour have won the Barnsley Central by-election, while the Lib Dems slipped to sixth in the South Yorkshire seat.

Who finished second, then?

UKIP, the Conservatives, the BNP and an independent all finished ahead of the Lib Dems, who had finished second in the seat in 2010's general election.

Blimey, but who finished second?

Lib Dem candidate Dominic Carman said his party had been given "a kicking", while Labour's victorious Dan Jarvis said it was a message to the coalition.

I think it will be the first of a number of protracted and very painful kickings that the LimpDims will get over the next few years, it will culminate in an almighty tonking at the next GE which will probably see them in ICU on life support. Errrrm, who came second?

The contest followed the former Labour MP's resignation over his expenses.

Second place though? Who was it? 

At the general election Eric Illsley had held Barnsley Central with a majority of just over 11,000 and 47% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats in second place.

OK, so who finished second this time?

But the MP resigned his seat after pleading guilty to falsely claiming £14,000 in parliamentary expenses. He was later jailed for a year.

Yes, yes, we know that, but let's get back to last night, you know, the new bit of the news? Who ended up in that position between first and third place?

Labour got 14,724 votes in the by-election, extending their majority slightly to 11,771, but the turnout fell to 36.5%, compared with 56.4% at the last general election.

Yes, come on, come on!

Labour took 60.8% of the vote, UKIP's Jane Collins 12.19%, the Conservatives' James Hockney 8.25%, the BNP's Enis Dalton 6.04%, Independent Tony Devoy 5.23% and the Liberal Democrats' Dominic Carman 4.18%.

Boom! There it is, even if they don't actually say UKIP came second, there it is, in plain sight, UKIP came second. Why did it take them eight paragraphs to actually give us the news?

More to the point, and at the risk of being accused of accusing the BBC of pro-Tory bias, why is there no mention of UKIP seeing off the Tories, their closest (in terms of policy) rivals?

Yes, Labour won and increased their majority, but this is Barnsley, hardly a shock that. The fact that UKIP beat the Tories, by taking getting on to half again what the Tories managed to poll is big, big news. The LibDems? Meh, their goose was cooked the moment they entered into a coalition, because there's a big difference between the voters and the top table; the voters wanted LibDem policy, the top table wanted a go at pressing the buttons, and now Clegg and chums look like the little kids who press the buttons and waggle the joystick on an arcade machine even though no-one has put any money it. They're playing at being in government, bless.

The media, and the BBC particularly, are banging on about a disaster for Clegg, which it is, but it is oh so predictable. The real sit up and take notice headline is UKIP. They were never going to win this seat, not in a million years, but I would expect them to coming in behind the big three by some distance, perhaps even behind the BNP in a Labour seat as well, the question is, how many Tory voters abandoned the ship and plumped for a seat in the anti-EU lifeboat? Their share of the vote went up from 4.7% in May to to 12.1% yesterday, they've almost trebled their share of the take. The Tories have gone from 17.3% to 8.2%, so is it fair to assume that the 8% extra UKIP gained came from the 9% loss suffered by the Tories? I doubt many of them came from the 13% that deserted the LimpDims, who probably account for the biggest portion of voters who stayed at home in a turn out that was significantly less than was seen in May.

It is always difficult to tell in a by-election, but if we see the same in a general election, where the traditional Lib Dem voters decide that they don't want anything to do with the party, (or probably more likely, Clegg, anyone notice how quiet Vince Cable has been recently?), but have no intention of turning out for the other big two, then the next general election, especially if AV is carried in May, could be very interesting indeed.

What I'd really like to see is a by-election in a 'safe' Tory seat, it would be interesting to see how UKIP perform there, and also to see how much the BNP would take from a no-hope Labour candidate.

The coverage, such as it was, of the campaign in Barnsley was dominated with people bemoaning the general crapness of the big three. Change is on the wind, it is only a little breeze at the moment, but it could turn into a gale, given the right conditions, and they are conditions the big three are unwittingly bringing about.

As for the BBC? Of course they're not biased towards the Tories, that is a ridiculous notion. The only thing that trumps their hatred of the Tories is their love of the Euro-project, and so UKIP will get no recognition at all. Indeed even if the totals for Labour and UKIP in this by-election were transposed, the news would still be about the collapse of the LibDems. Yes, it was predictable, but that's news, isn't it? As far as they are concerned we want dog bites man, what happened was man bites dog, and the EU is a big, ugly, mangy dog.

No, we don't need to know about that at all.

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 Wonders What Else They've Got. . .

I like a good conspiracy, and this one is quite entertaining.

The events of the last couple of days about David Laws has left me wondering what else the Torygraph have hidden away. Why Laws and more importantly, why now?

The Telegraph must have realised how damaging this could be to a coalition, especially in these early days. Whilst I have no doubt that the Telegraph and their core readership would much rather have a Tory majority government, surely the ConDem coalition is infinitely preferable to a LibLab coalition or one of them governing in their own right.

To risk bringing down a coalition so soon just doesn't make sense.

So it makes we wonder, what do the Telegraph have on Cameron and Osborne? They could have run this Laws story at any time over the last year. For what it's worth, I have little sympathy for Laws. If his personal life was so important to him, he could have just not claimed the £40k. I mean, if he's living with this bloke, how much is it costing him? How much is it costing his partner to have him there? Is this beyond the normal cost of living borne by millions of others of same and different sex partnerships? This sexuality thing is a smoke screen and I don't buy it. Looks like troughing to me, whether within the rules or not.

God, are we still going on about the rules? I'm not bored of it yet. I get the impression that the politicians were hoping we would be. But this story is here to stay.

I digress.

Cameron has already put noses out of joint with his attempt to immasculate the 1922 Committee and I can see a huge row brewing over the re-ratification of Lisbon. There's a real hunger amongst the membership to give the EU a bloody nose, and Lisbon/EUro Constitution 1.3 is the perfect opportunity.

The Telegraph, who in the main represent the more right wing, Euro-sceptic faction of Conservatism are probably a decent representation of the Tory majority view. So I can't help wondering if the destruction of Laws isn't a warning shot across the bows of Cameron. If he knows they've something on him and/or Osborne then this is a very neat, surgical way of letting him know that if they feel the need, they'll do the same to him. At least with Laws it gives Cameron a bit of a headache, but leaves the Tories unharmed.

Next time the target may be a bit closer to home.

I shall return my tin-foil hat to the kitchen drawer for when I need it next.

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 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 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 Might Have Been Wrong. . .

Now the priest has his body bowed over the death bed of this rotten parliament and is giving the last rites I've been asking myself what the single most important issue surrounding this election is.

For some it will be immigration, for others it will be education, or Europe, or the expenses scandal, or the erosion of civil liberties in the face of an ever more pervasive state. Without doubt these are all hugely important issues, but I think the stand out one for most people will be the economy. It really does all come down to the bottom line, and it was ever thus in the dying days of a Labour administration.

Normally most people will look to the Tories to effect some kind of rescue, and to give the Tories their due, normally they are not afraid to take the action, however unpopular, to remedy the situation. Thatcher is an easy hate figure and is a demonic visage conjured up with alarming regularity by Labour. But she couldn't have been all bad, she did after all win all those elections.

The big difference this time round is that the Tories do not have anyone who embodies her traits. Cameron is as close to being like Thatcher as I am to being like Barbara Cartland. The electorate look at the Tories and do not see any radical difference between Cameron and Blair.

What is beyond doubt is that Brown is despised. A more unpopular leader in the history of this country I struggle to think of. Perhaps King John? I don't know. But it is painfully obvious that the public just have not taken to Cameron. It could be him as a person, it could be his policies, but I think it really boils down to people having no faith that he will be much better than Brown.

I do have faith that Cameron would be better than Brown. But that is akin to selecting death by stoning over death by crucifixion. I'd rather not have either, but if I absolutely have to have one, then let's go with the rocks, eh?

The Lib Dems of course have a complete non-entity at the helm, I'm not convinced even his wife can remember his name. We can discount them getting any serious gains in this election.

Or can we?

I've been very harsh on the Lib Dems. And with good reason. They are neither Liberal nor Democratic and are wrong, wrong, wrong on pretty much every subject you care to name. And they simper. If it is one thing I cannot stand, it is simpering. Wossisname's pep-talk to the troops on Sky News this morning was cringe inducing. He has all the charisma of an over laundered vest.

But the Lib Dems have a significant ace in the hole.

Let's look at the right hand men, shall we? If the election is to be all about the economy, then the guys who have designs on being the Chancellor come May 7th are going to play a huge part in this election.

Darling is done, spent. He and Brown have overseen a disastrous spell in charge of the bank account. Even if you don't trust the Tories, only a madman would consider that Labour have done a good job with the finances.

Osborne, just doesn't have that zing. Labour will play very strongly on the toff angle. It's lazy but I think they're punches that will connect, and to be honest, there is a slight hint of truth about it. Osborne just doesn't seem like the normal bloke on the street. He's another Tory character that it is difficult to warm to. He doesn't inspire confidence, and I think what people expect to hear from the Tories, what they want to hear is that the Tories would stop taking so much of your cash, and stop spending so much of your cash. We ain't going to hear that from this lot. Not this time.

And so we finish with Vince Cable. I don't think he's got a great deal to offer, although it's hard to tell. The Lib Dems specialise in 'blue sky thinking', trotting out plans and policies they know will never come to pass, and so it doesn't really matter, it doesn't have to add up. But, and here's the big but, Vince Cable has a certain cache, he is widely respected by the media and the public. He looks like the sort of person who has a shovel purse. He manages to be avuncular and parsimonius at the same time, the sort of chap who, when his grandson asks him for 50p for sweets, would open his shovel purse, examine the contents, ruffle the youngster's hair and then give him 30p. In short, he projects the sort of image you'd want a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have and his credibility is far, far ahead of Darling and Osborne. I expect him to be very busy indeed over the next month, and the Lib Dems, if they've any sense will give him a lot of airtime flying solo, rather than just standing behind, errrrm, no, his name's gone, that bloke that leads the Lib Dems, his shoulder.

They won't win. They won't even come close. But with a late and well planned attack with Vince at the front, they could actually make some impressive gains as the economy forces its way up the agenda. Quite who will suffer the most damage as a result of this is anyone's guess.

I really think we're in for a very interesting time indeed.

The One That Is Completely Underwhelmed. . .

You've got to hand it to the Lib Dems, they really don't have any interest in government at all. It's obviously much easier to sit on the benches collecting the £60k+ with added expenses and espousing bizarre policies, than it is to actually try to win an election.

'Change That Works For You. Building A Fairer Britain'

What?

So they take the Tory slogan, load it into an old 2CV and then drive that 2CV as fast as they can into the Labour slogan.

In a time when people are crying out for a real alternative to the big two, the third constituent of the big three have made it perfectly clear that they will offer no difference from the other two at all. Or at least, this is what that slogan says to me. It may just as well have been 'Lib Dems, we're the same as the other two.'

I expected no more of them, but even by Limp Dim standards this is really, really feeble. Odds of 200/1 that they'll beat the big two seems very mean to me, there's more chance of me being crowned the next Miss World.

Now be a good prole and run along. Go vote for one of the big three, it doesn't matter which, they're all the same.

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.

The One That Thinks That Was Entirely Predictable. . .

More than one third of British people have not heard of the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, a poll conducted for BBC Newsnight suggests.

Tomorrow night Newsnight will reveal that the Pope has an impressive collection of odd hats, and they have a special report on Thursday night about the distressing increase in the number of bears shitting in the woods.

The One That May Pay A Visit To The Bookies. . .

Interesting to note that on an opinion poll used by Sky News this morning, given the +/- 2% margin of error, Labour could even be in third place as things stand (Con 39, Lab 26, LD 22, Others 13), this equates to around a 100 seat majority for Blue Labour if there were an election tomorrow. Except it wouldn't. With news this morning coming out about Tories claiming for moats, swimming pools, helipads and the like, one can only assume that any polls taken over the next day or two will result in a significant bounce for the Social Democrats who have been untouched as yet. That'll change though, because they are all at it. Even if they're not, that will be the public's view. Look for the 'others' column to increase over the next couple of weeks.

Make no mistake, the Telegraph are saving the best (worst?) for last, and any significant revelations about Labour MP's coming just as we go to the real polls for what promises to be a catastrophic display in the Europeans and locals for Labour could well bring Brown, if not the Government, down. I can't see the Labour membership wearing a third Prime Minister in one Parliamentary term, any such leader would be as effective as a window box on a submarine.

It has been clear for some time that Labour's chances of winning the next General Election are rated between slim and none, but that doesn't mean that Labour will sit back and wait for the welcoming embrace of death, they will do everything they can to make life for a new Tory administration as uncomfortable as possible. Brown isn't so deluded that he thinks he can win, but he can't very well come out and say 'well folks, we're fucked'.

This expenses carry on could actually be quite useful for Labour. Their stock is so damaged that really it can't get any worse, look at those figures again, they are within a whisker of being in third place, factor in votes for the SNP and Plaid Cymru and it is not impossible to imagine them being returned to the House in third place.

Calling an October election would mean that the damage to the Tories over this affair could be maximised. They'd still win, but it would have to have a fairly significant effect on their share of the vote and seats. If the news really got that bad, people would get very angry and make that known at the ballot box.

Here is the bit where Labour could be deluded though, they know that they will lose ground to the BNP and a few to the LibDems, but they don't make the connection. The Tories know that they would lose ground to UKIP, and a few to the LibDems, they too don't make the connection.

The problem with this expenses story is that the main parties will seize upon this as the reason for the expansion of those on the margins, but they'd be wrong. It is certainly a contributory factor, perhaps even the straw that broke the camel's back, but if they think that after one turbulent parliamentary term, that people will just shuffle back to their default positions, they could be in for a shock.

Expect big changes, expect sack cloth and ashes from the MPs representing the established parties, whilst those elected from BNP and UKIP (and I would be astounded if there aren't any) hit them with expenses, expenses, expenses time and time again. Expenses will be the only show in town for some considerable time.

But it isn't the only show, there will be remorse shown and claims of leopards changing their spots, but it won't matter. The established parties will still have this idea that they are the natural party of government, they still won't listen to what the electorate want, they will carry on ruling by dictat, spin and deception. After an October election, called to limit the majority of the incoming government, all three parties will be damaged and the electorate may finally realise the power that little ballot paper holds.

Summer of rage? Forget it. Let's have an Autumn of Revenge instead.

The One That Says Vote For Something, Not Against Something. . .

We're in for a spot of Parliamentary tennis over the next few years.

I believe that the evidence is crystal clear; the New Labour project has crashed and burned. We've had a decade of nothing but spin and parsimonious and controlling legislation. Legislation that cannot effect real change as we are so closely tied to the EU, so just serves to make our lives as difficult as possible with no real end beyond control itself. A decade of personality over policy, of shameless troughing with squeals of rage when they are shown up to be doing it. A decade of cronyism and incompetence, where attempts are made in the party HQ to rig the election of a PPC who is the daughter of a mate. A decade of treating people, even their own members, with contempt, as vassals to do their bidding whether it is what they want or not.

I was never a Labour supporter, but I could weep for the people who have found the party that represented their beliefs (the fact I disagree with those beliefs is irrelevant) has been swept away from underneath them. So desperate were the 'elite' in the Labour party that holding power meant more to them than what the party actually stood for.

The New Labour project has failed so massively that they could find the next election very uncomfortable indeed. I for one will not be voting for them.

But I will be voting for something. I will be voting for the Libertarian Party, if I cannot for the lack of a candidate, I will vote for an independent who actually believes in something strongly enough to put themselves forward. Someone that wants to be in Parliament to make a change, not someone that wants to be in Parliament to be in Parliament.

I think it is important to vote for something though. Don't vote against things. Don't vote Conservative, LimpDem, PC, SNP, Green, UKIP, BNP, Mebyon Kernow or whatever just because they are not the Labour Party. Vote for one of those parties because they best represent what you want and what you believe.

If the Tories get in with a decent majority, and I believe they will, will it be because people believe in what they have to say, or is it to do with the fact that they ain't the other guy? Can David Cameron really stand up on the morning after election day and talk about a mandate from the people? From where I stand his policies are so similar to Labour's it isn't true. Both parties offer toast and jam, it's just that one is strawberry jam and the other is blackcurrant.

There'll be a honeymoon period. It'll be all smiles and renewed energy, change we can believe in, and then after a year or so, people will realise that they've voted for the same again and the howls of frustration and resentment will start to be heard once more. Unless there are major changes, a Tory government is likely to be a one term gig. Perhaps having bounced back to Labour, and maybe even again to the Tories, people may realise that they have to break the cycle if they want things to change.

I'm not going to tell you who to vote for in the election next year, or the Europeans this year, but I will tell you what to vote for:

Vote for what you want, not against what you don't.

The One That Wants To Know What It Is He Is Supposed To Have Done. . .

Reports all over the local media yesterday and this morning that LimpDem Councillor on Canterbury City Council, Roger Matthews has been arrested following an 'anti-corruption probe' by Kent Police and subsequently charged and bailed to appear before Maidstone magistrates on March 26th. I look forward to the outcome with relish, hopefully he'll be remanded in custody before appearing in Crown Court.

The thing is, that neither Pravda nor the local media, actually detail what it is he is supposed to have done. Well why is this? Any other case with local or national interest would carry details of the allegations, so why is it different here?

In this article, he gives a direct quote:

"I cannot see why it would affect my day-to-day council duties.

"I don't see why it should."

And that, dear reader, is what is wrong with the political class in this country. If a policeman were charged with armed robbery, would you expect him to continue in his job whilst awaiting a trial? What if a teacher were accused of doing inappropriate things to his charges, would the line 'I cannot see why it would affect my day-to-day teaching duties' hold any water? I don't think so.

It is all very well Alex 'Porky' Perkins (a worse example of LimpDem simpering, holier-than-thou, preachyness it is hard to imagine) saying that 'we would urge people to remember that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.' But I would expect to be suspended from duty at least if I found myself in this sort of pickle. It would happen in pretty much any other job from brain surgeon to road sweeper, so again, why is it different here?

If the arrogant and (alleged) corrupt old bastard won't do the decent thing and step back until what is bound to be portrayed as an 'honest mistake' or 'a moment of madness/weakness' is cleared up, then his party could at least withdraw the whip. Unfortunatley the anger on the inside in this case is not directed towards Matthews for doing whatever it is he is supposed to have done. Only a slither will be directed at him for getting caught doing whatever it is he is supposed to have done. A little bit more will be directed to the media for reporting it. Most of the anger will be reserved for Joe Soap for daring to ask what is going on here.

As far as they are concerned, they are our masters. I've said it a number of times, don't vote for the Big 3, vote for anyone, anyone other than these people who belittle us, cheat us, lie to us, use us as chattels and serfs, feather their own nests at our expense and show us nothing but total and complete contempt.

Vote Libertarian, vote for the Indie who wants a hedgehog underpass, vote UKIP, vote Natural Law Party, hell even vote BNP if you feel you must. Just make sure that these venal fuckers know that you're screaming 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE.'

The One That Thinks Bob Russell and Julian Lewis had better bloody watch it. . .

So, a small victory for those of us who think that given they are spanking tens of thousands of our cash, MPs perhaps should tell us what they are spending it on.

So we've found out that Tone and Cherie ended up owing the local water company (don't get me started on those bastards) £147 and were on the road to getting cut off. Apparently the letter contained the phrase 'We appreciate you may be experiencing some financial difficulties.' So that explains Cherie's Magnificent Octopus (Blackadder reference). We also know that Tony spent £10k on refurbishing his kitchen in Co. Durham. The mind boggles. Old Two Jags the vomiter also sought guidance on his entitlements on his pad in Admiralty House after 'adverse press coverage.' Perhaps he should have done that before moving in?

Still, Bob Russell, the LimDem member for Colchester has reacted badly to the High Court ruling, tabling a motion that the expenses and home addresses of High Court Judges be released for public scrutiny. What's the matter Bob? As someone who claims to represent the people of your community, don't you think you should account for the cash you get handed? Do we have something to hide? Hmmm?

Julian Lewis, Con MP for New Forest East is equally upset, decrying the release of MPs addresses as 'Barking Mad', it seems he's worried about hate mail (now, why would anyone hate you? What have you been up to?) and 'extremists.'

You'll note an earlier blog entry of mine when I spoke of H&S and 'Security Reasons' being the new totalitarian mantra. The political equivalent of a trump card, the concerns that may never questioned, the most sacred issues.

Here's a newsflash for you chaps, any extremist can get your address off the electoral role. Could it be, just maybe, that you resent the fact that the proles dare ask you to account for yourselves? If the £64k a year you get isn't enough, and you feel you're worth more, why not vote yourself a rise? Oh, the luxury of being able to do that, and still keep the shitloads of wonga you are so obviously deserving of under 'expenses'.

Here's another newsflash, FUCK YOU, fuck you very much, in the ear. If you're taking my cash, you'd better bloody tell me what you're spending it on. Every year we're expected to tell you through the treasury what we're doing with ours, so you can fucking do tell us in return, you grasping, avaricious, arrogant, money grabbing pricks. You know where I live, what I earn, who I call, what internet sites I look at, the list goes on. You want my DNA profile for crying out loud, and you won't even deign to tell us that you've spanked £1500 on kebabs, or whatever.

I hate you, I hate you with a passion you cannot even begin to imagine. If you think for one moment I'm going to go and support your campaign to go and carry on this lifestyle at the next election, you've another thing coming mate. For the cash you're getting, I want to know how often you cut your toenails.

Bastards.