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.

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 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 Agrees With Nick. . .

There, I’ve said it. Still, I suppose with all the stuff that’s being thrown around by these arseclowns at the moment that some of it had to hit the target. Clegg’s done just that.

Just not perhaps in the way he wanted.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has told the BBC it would be "potty" for Labour to keep the keys to No 10 if it secured only the third best vote share at the election.

Speaking of the possibility that Labour could trail in terms of popular support and yet still win the most seats, Clegg told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show: "It is just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in the number of votes, it still has somehow the right to carry on squatting in No 10.

He is of course quite right. A system can hardly claim to be representative when a party securing a third of the votes does not take a third of the seats. The Noble Lord Tebbit touched upon this in his blog yesterday, but I’m afraid to decry PR as something ‘like that which brought Hitler to power in the 1930s’ is like considering taking the ferry to Calais for the day and then abandoning the idea because the boat is similar to the Titanic.

Understandably Clegg is right behind PR, he has the most to gain. Cameron has made it quite clear that he’s not interested, as he has the most to lose. Brown will hitch his wagon to anything which gives him an advantage before dropping it when it isn’t quite so helpful, so Labour interest in PR currently will be around zero.

Make no bones about it, if we were having this election under a PR system then there would be many, many more Lib Dem MPs and a few BNP, UKIP and Green ones as well. Just as the election of two BNP MEP’s to the European ‘Parliament’ did not herald the despatch of Einsatzgruppen to Lancashire, a handful or fewer of BNP MPs would not make any real difference, beyond making it easier for these people to get seats.

It’s an often used argument against PR that the BNP would get seats, well here’s a newsflash, they may under the first past the post system as well. BNP MPs would not be a symptom of the failure of the electoral system, nor of the failure of the electorate to vote in the ‘right way’. It is a failure of the established parties to do the job in a satisfactory manner. It is clear that the current system does not properly represent the views of the electorate, nor does it make the MPs particularly happy, as evidenced by Cameron’s repeated browbeating of the public as the spectre of a hung parliament becomes ever more corporeal. Sorry Dave, threatening us with the nasty man or trying to bully us into voting for you to shoehorn our wishes into this inflexible and unrepresentative system ain’t going to work.

Things have to change. One commentator on the radio this morning expressed the opinion that this particular genie is almost certain to escape the bottle in the next fortnight and once it is out, it will not go back in.

Having waffled away about that, you’d expect me to be all in favour of PR. I’m not. I certainly believe that it is a better system than the one we have at present, but I think there is a better system, one that is more realistic and one that is more in tune with the political climate of the day.

Firstly, I think the big thing in favour of the current system is that on polling day, you and I will go out and will vote for our own MP, or at least the person we want to be our MP the most. Having a named individual from the get go, with no ifs, buts or maybes is a good thing. We know that whoever polls the most votes in Felching-in-the-Woods will go on to be the representative for that constituency. A named individual you can petition, protest against and go to for help. That connection between the MP and the constituency, assuming the MP is a good constituency MP is very important.

It all falls apart when people talk about voting for Brown, Cameron or Clegg. You’re not voting for them unless you happen to be living in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Witney or Sheffield Hallam, and even then, you’re still voting for your constituency MP, not the Prime Minister.

So when Cameron bangs on about ‘It means putting the people in charge, I believe you should be in Number 10 because people have voted for you’ he’s talking a load of old arsegravy. We have no choice in the Prime Minister at all, and that would not change under PR. It would merely mean the membership of whichever party happened to finish top of the tree would be able to put the person they most want into Number 10. Our wishes count for very little.

The advent of the televised debates makes it perfectly clear that we have been drawn inexorably to the age of presidential style elections here in the UK, so let’s take that ball and run with it, shall we?

I propose a directly elected team of a Prime Minister, Chancellor, Home Sec, Justice Sec and Foreign Sec, all on the same ticket with the PM choosing his deputy PM from the other four, to be elected on a fixed term of four years or until two thirds of the House decide that that is quite enough, thank-you. None of these team of five would hold constituency seats and would be elected purely as the executive team. I’ve always thought it unfair that those living in a constituency with a back-bench MP have a good deal more access to their MP than someone who holds high office.

Neither is it fair that we have absolutely no say in the holders of the other big jobs. They make decisions, or at least implement policy, that have a real bearing on each of our lives and can be chopped and changed without our consent. That’s not good enough.

It would also be (slightly less) unfair that those teams who do not get elected will have no constituencies to go to. Well, tough.

This way we can keep the first past the post system as the number of seats held would not decide on who sat in Number 10, it would be a straight vote for the individual to represent your views in Parliament. I would suggest this also ran on a fixed four year term (allowing for resignations, recall from the constituency, death, etc.) running at a two year stagger from the executive team.

Under this model an unpopular executive would not have it all their own way if this mechanism is used by the electorate to give them a bloody nose. This could well be used as an argument against the model, especially as I’ve talked up the opportunity for the MPs to be closer to their constituents. I would say this; someone’s vote is theirs to do with as they please. You can’t start picking and choosing systems because of what you believe people should think their vote is for. That isn’t your decision to make.

Politicians would also complain that by using this model, the turnout for the constituency elections would go through the floor, it would turn the constituency MPs into an irrelevance. My response would be to point out that the style of government in the last 50 years or so has already done that, and it is your job to get people to the polling station, to motivate them, inspire them, to give them something to vote for. It could see a real change in the sort of person who decides to stand for office.

The One That Is Wondering Who Will Be First . . .

How entertaining this volcano story is proving to be. I'll bet the politicians are furious, the cameras should be following them about. We should be seeing them knocking on doors, kissing babies (why the hell do they persist in doing that? If it were my baby, I'd be demanding to see their CRB check results and then screaming 'paedo' at the top of my voice when they didn't have it. Well, if it's good enough for us), and glad handing lines of employees who have all been warned to be on their best behaviour.

Traditional campaigning is an odd dance. The usual activities have no bearing on policy or performance, is anyone going to see Cameron spending ten minutes at a childrens' day care centre reading a story about a fluffy bunny and think 'he's the man for me, Tory all the way'?

Still, this is their time, how are we proles supposed to file obediently into the polling stations if we're not seeing them on TV every minute of every day? Instead what do we see on Sky News? Some bloke outside the terminal building in Calais explaining how there are long queues to check in as foot passengers. What a bloody cheek. They must be livid that something has come along and removed them from the lead story.

This volcano has been a blessed relief and the pictures it has spawned have been much more entertaining than the footage I'm currently watching of Brown stood in front of the production line at the mini plant in Oxford, gurning his way through some bollocks as he flashes his 'and now I'm going to eat you' smile.

What was also revealing was the footage from Barajas airport in Madrid as some poor local bloke was getting a huge amount grief from Brits about the lack of flights. It won't take long for this Dunkirk Spirit to disappear. The cries of something must be done are getting louder. During the war we had a steely resolve, now we've become pampered, entitled little children. There was some silly bat complaining that you've told us nothing, we don't know what's going on, look at my legs, they're all swollen.

A gammy leg? Well sit down then. What do you expect some twenty year old Spanish bloke to do about it? Look, I'll put it simply. Volcano go bang. Bang make ash. Ash go over Britain. Ash dangerous for aeroplanes. Aeroplanes stay on ground. Inspite of the fact that we're told our activities can change the climate of a whole planet, we are as yet unable to stop a volcano erupting. Perhaps some sort of carbon fibre and asbestos plug? You could put it in place with a fleet of helicopters. It wouldn't work, but it'd be a cracking show.

As people get more and more exasperated by the disruption the demands will increase for something to be done. I think back to the recent floods where those who had not taken out insurance were demanding to know who was going to cover their losses.

It's out of anyone's control. But it is election time. I'm wondering who the first party leader to start talking tough over this will be. I'm thinking it's going to be Brown. How long before vague calls for action from the Icelandic government start, how long before a demand for some sort of compensation issues forth from the opportunistic mouths?

The One That Is Asking 'For Whom?'. . .

I've been thinking back to my school days again. When I was doing my GCSE's one of the options I took was meeja studies. I believe the other options in that particular area of the list was dance, agriculture and something equally mindless. One of the modules on the course was a very simplistic overview of how advertising works, and it is something that has stuck with me over the last twenty odd years.

Adverts tend to fall into a number of categories, and one of the most popular is the use of fear. Your chopping board contains more bacteria than your toilet seat. You won't die in an NHS hospital if you buy private medical insurance from us. Your brickwork won't fall apart if you treat it with our chemical. That sort of thing.

What we are seeing now is the most ferocious advertising campaign we'll see for five years. It's all being paid for through your taxes (see the huge tax benefits the big parties can derive from your donations) and licence fee. You are paying for this campaign on your own senses. Neat trick, huh?

So looking back to the lessons I had about advertising, what conclusion can I draw from this?

David Cameron has warned of the dangers of a hung parliament and said only a "decisive" Conservative government would "get the job done".

Hmmm. You see when PharmaCo advertise Klapaway as the only treatment you can buy that won't have the ladies running for the hills next time you get a dose, are they doing it because they really, really care about your venereal health or are they doing it because they really, really want you to buy their product?

The answer is obvious.

So when Cameron says:

A hung parliament would be a bunch of politicians haggling, not deciding.

They would be fighting for their own interests, not fighting for your interests. They would not be making long-term decisions for the country's future, they would be making short-term decisions for their own future.

Are we supposed to believe that he really cares for us or do we suppose that he's trying to make us scared of a hung parliament?

Why should we be scared of a hung parliament? Where is the difference in a hung parliament where politicians would be fighting for their own interests and making short-term decisions for their own future and the majority parliaments where for, as long as I've been alive, politicians have been fighting for their own interests and making short-term decisions for their own future?

It doesn't seem any more scary to me than what we've experienced thus far. Let's face it, the decisions that have been made when there has been no haggling have hardly been excellent, have they? Labour have had a huge majority for the last 13 years, the economic decisions have been poor. At best. Yes, David, I can see you putting your hand up, but your record isn't exactly glowing, is it? ERM ring any bells? Oh? That was the fault of the EU was it? Would this be the same EU you've refused to let us have any say over?

No, when Dave says a hung parliament is dangerous, he means it's dangerous for him. A hung parliament means he's toast if he can't command a minority government or put together a coalition. Given how hard Gordon was tonguing Ned Clark's (or whatever his name is) arsehole on Thursday, I don't fancy Dave's chances of managing the latter.

What is even more dangerous for the Tories is if the Limp Dims have got such a significant bounce from the debate, and continue over the next two, that their share of the vote goes up so much that you can't put a fag paper between the three. They'll be demanding PR then and could hold the balance of power so firmly that any partnering party would have to give in. You wouldn't like that, would you? I've no love for the Limp Dims, but I'm all for PR, mainly because it is more representative than this 'representative democracy'.

No Dave, it ain't dangerous for us, and all the time you bleat on about it, the more you reveal how scared you are, and with good reason, any Tory who can't despatch this hated government and despised PM isn't worth a wet paper bag.

Your turn to be afraid, it doesn't work on me any more.

Post Script

Oh yes, I've just seen ITV's rehash of The Prisoner, and it's rubbish.

The One That Is Thinking About A Bicycle Race. . .

Well, I've been reading and catching up. I've come to the following conclusion:

When I was a kid, I heard a story (probably apocryphal) about a bicycle race at a village fair/fete/carnival in the inter war years. I'm a little sketchy on the details. In essence the story was about a farcical race between the menfolk of the village. There were prizes for first, second and third places, and the second prize of a canteen of cutlery was more attractive (to the wives of the men at least) than whatever it was that was on offer to the victor. As a result the field jockeyed for position right up until the conclusion of the race where everyone did their level best to be second. It was a race where no-one wanted, or perhaps more properly no-one dared, to win.

This to me seems exactly what is going on with the current election campaign.

It is most likely that Gordon will go and see Herself at some point this week and ask for this rotten parliament to be put out of its misery. We will then be without a government. To me this is a thoroughly desirable state of affairs and I see no reason to rush and hold an election after parliament is dissolved.

Everyone is expecting a dirty campaign, but the evidence of the past few days suggests that it will instead be a parade of politicians of all hues taking it in turns to blow their own feet off with ever more powerful firearms. Somewhere around May 4th we may actually see someone launch a tactical nuke against their own foot.

I'm not going to link to many of these stories as they've been covered ad infinitum in places linked to on here, but it really is a most startling display of stupid, wrong and hubristic soundbites and stunts. It really does make me wonder if it is on purpose, because surely no-one can be that stupid, can they? If they can, it doesn't bode well for May 7th.

In no particular order, we have the Labour party who decided that it was a good idea to compare stand-for-nothing, bland as American cheese, plastic man Cameron to Gene Hunt. No, you see, the whole idea of launching poster campaigns featuring your opponents is to make them look bad. Why on earth would you portray them as as cool, entertaining, decisive and admired a character as exists in popular culture today? The reason Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars have been so successful is that the main character is the complete antithesis of the double-speak spouting faceless and charismaless figures we have now. What were you thinking?

Then Mandleson launches a frankly amazing attack on the head of Barclays for his salary and/or bonuses. This is a bank which has remained stable and taken not one penny of public money. In other words, Labour attack one of the few successful financial companies this country has for their very success. What? Still, at least he didn't say something along the lines of 'he's taken 63 million pounds not by building business or adding value or creating long-term economic strength, he has done so by dealmaking and shuffling paper around.'

Oh hang on, that's exactly what he said. Tell me, my noble Lord, how did you make your cash? Hmmmm?

Fuck me.

The BNP, threatening to have a break through election, have now decided that the best way to cement 5th place in the polls is by threatening to kill each other. That's either a PR masterstroke or their levels of swivel eyed lunacy is beyond what I'd thought possible.

Then there's Chris Grayling, shadow Home Sec. He saw fit to get involved in the spat that blew up ages ago about some Christian couple who didn't want two gay men staying in their B&B. For what it's worth, I quite agree with him. It's their bloody house, it's their choice. The fact it marks them up as arseholes is neither here nor there. But really, why is he getting involved in this? It is this sort of thing which is none of government's business whatsoever. Keep your nose out. Private business, which means none of your's. And really Chris, what did you think was going to happen? Of course the Righteous were going to point their fingers and scream and stamp their feet. Witch! Witch! Burrrrrrrrrn him! You'd have been much better keeping your mouth shut there, old chap. Still at least he sort of pointed out the obvious when he revealed 'secret' Labour plans to get shot of front line immigration staff.

Well, colour me surprised. Firstly, the irony of Labour effectively promoting their open door policy as a tool of social engineering coupled with an explosion in the number of staff paid from public funds to errrrm, not control the people coming in. I wrote about the PCS strike recently, and how the compo package for those shown the door had been cut. Of course jobs were next. Really, Tories, if this is a secret to you, you can't have been paying much attention, can you?

Obviously Cameron isn't trusted because as far as I can make out, he isn't being let out to speak, or he's being very clever in realising people just don't really get him and so it is better to let others do the talking.

People like Johnson Beharry who talked about wanting to knock Gordon Brown out. Well, join the queue old chap. The thing being he actually had the chance to do so. If he'd done that, he'd have been odds on favourite to win every election going. Especially leader of the Labour party.

The Limp-Dims have also been strangely quiet. This is a good strategy. Not because it will win them any more votes or seats, it's just best all round if they say nothing. Everything they say is ridiculous, and it seems that they'll be perpetually happy with their 35 to 40 seats, no real power, no real responsibility but their own carriage on the gravy train. Result.

Apparently, a hung parliament would be disastrous for the UK. Really? As opposed to the current situation which is Panglossian in its brilliance. The politicians are being very coy. The truth is, this is an election that anyone with any designs of a long term future would do well to not win. Cameron and Brown will have personal disasters if they lose, but neither can afford to win. If we're lucky, we'll see a cull at the top tables of the Big 2 when the dust settles, and we'll see the parties turn to people like Carswell and Field who are well positioned in hiding behind the barn as the shit starts to fly.

A little bit of destruction is good for the soul, and those who stand to be destroyed deserve it completely.

My prediction? Boris to jump into the first half-way safe Tory seat that comes up at by-election. Whatever the result on May 6th, we're going to see a bigger change in the Tories post-election than we will in Labour, unless the polls are hopelessly wrong and the Tories are heading for a big majority, which I doubt.

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 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 Is Touching On A Couple Of Points. . .

My break continues apace. . .

Errrrm. . .

Right.

OK, a couple of little things that have grabbed my attention over the last few days, all completely unconnected.

Firstly, regarding our (hopefully) soon to be erstwhile Prime Minister.

Grumpy Old Twat has a graph which makes interesting reading. It is entitled 'worrying', and here it is in all its glory:


If that graph follows the trajectories shown thus far, then it would seem that come election o'clock that Broon and Cameroid will not have a (banned in enclosed public spaces) fag paper between them.

Good.

Whilst the instant gratification of seeing loads of Labour MPs getting the gooner would be nice, I think the longer term benefits of seeing an immasculated hung parliament will be better. What we need to do now, I believe, is just stop, let the willy waving pass and then see what is left of the detritus can actually acheive when they have no option but to actually, properly engage with other people.

Of course, things still don't go well for Brown, so I think the graph above says more about people's uncertainty surrounding the plastic man in charge of the Tories than it does about any resurgent support for Brown.

This bullying story simply won't go away. I'm not surprised that Brown appears to be a bully, Rawnsley certainly seems to think so, and Raedwald hits the nail squarely on the head when he says that if it isn't true, then Brown needs to back up his claims of lies with action in the court. I'm not convinced he can, because in my opinion, it is probably true.

Again, this is not a comment on Brown individually, but in order to get to be the leader of a large political party you have to be willing to tread on toes, willing to smear and willing to be not very nice at all. Unfortunately for Brown, he comes across as being charmless and graceless, so this makes it all the easier to believe.

On a different tack completely, one of the less reported, but most revealing stories of the last few days has been the storm about young teenagers/old children being taught to drive.

The immediate response when reading the headline is that idiot parents are taking their progeny out on public roads before their 17th birthdays. But they're not. These are kids being taught on private land and closed tracks.

So where's the problem?

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has warned the courses could make youngsters over confident and more likely to crash.

Well, that's fine. I'll quite accept the position. I don't accept the argument, but RoSPA urge caution when unwrapping a kit-kat, lest the tin foil you hold find its way into a plug socket which you have carelessly left turned on and with no safety child plug in. That's what RoSPA do, it's their job, although so scared are they about everything that I'm surprised they don't all work from bed via telepathy to remove any risk from the day at all. (Hang on, what about bed sores?)

Indeed, let's hope these kids do crash on the closed course, without injury and learn that over confidence is not an aid to driving. The reverse is also true, when learning on public roads, having never sat behind the wheel the problem of timidity and nerves also appears.

I remeber my first time and was not comfortable. You realise that as well as keeping an eye on what you are doing, you must keep an eye out on all the other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc. You encounter other drivers who don't care about the large red L on the rear of the car you drive. You get pressured, tailgated, flashed at, it isn't nice. You wouldn't teach a kid how to make boiled egg in one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants during dinner service, would you?

More illustrating is the quote from the Police Federation of England and Wales.

It's a good-un.

Driving on one of these courses at 11 years old, it's another six years until you can get a driving licence. How does it replicate the real world, the spontaneous incidents?

Well, it doesn't. But then that's not the point, is it? That's like asking how a child's toy kitchen set replicates chip pan fires. It gives the child an understanding of the mechanics of the situation and I should imagine is a good way of improving physical multi-tasking, spacial awareness and hand-eye co-ordination.

But. . .

Are kids mature enough at 11, 12, 13 years old to understand what's happening on the roads, to be able to manage all the demands and pressures?

No, they're not, that's why it isn't done on public roads, but on private, closed courses. That is why a driving licence cannot be obtained until one's 17th birthday. Do you see? Your point is perfectly irrelevant.

The real issue here is that people aren't breaking the law, but are only one step removed from breaking it. Some police officers would just love to wade in and nick them anyway, others just think that as the police are now so politicised that they need to act like politicians (shouldn't) act and tell us what to do.

Uh-huh, WE tell YOU what to do. We make the laws through our elected reps. We pay you to enforce those laws. We do not pay you to enforce laws you want to and ignore those you don't. We do not pay you to make up laws on the spot. We certainly do not pay you to preach to us about what should and should not be allowed.

Wind your bloody necks in.

The One That Is Stealing. . .

That break didn't last long, did it?

This from Old Holborn, I'll be having a copy printed off and ready, just in case, when the campaigning really starts:

Just to remind us what 13 years of power can do (cut out and keep edition):

Ballot Boxes are interfered with

Voting registers go missing

The Police can kill innocent people and get away with it

The state can kill people and get away with it

You can be put in prison for 42 days on pure suspicion

You can be put in prison indefinitely on the word of a politician

The State can torture people

Your children are monitored at School by Political Officers

Their behaviour is logged on a State database for their entire lives

Your innocent fingerprints, iris scans and biometrics are held by the State

You do not have the right to remain silent

You are watched on 4 million CCTV cameras

You may not photograph the Police

The media is controlled by the State

You do not have the right to protest peacefully

Curfews exist for entire communities

Your travel movements are logged and monitored

Who you vote for is logged and monitored

Your shopping habits are studied and logged by the State

Your emails and telephone conversations are recorded by the State

Your passport can be withdrawn at the whim of the State

Government agencies can use lie detector tests on you.

- £22,500 of debt for every child born in Britain

- 111 tax rises from a government that promised no tax rises at all

- The longest national tax code in the world

- 100,000 million pounds drained from British pension funds

- Gun crime up 57%

- Violent crime up 70%

- The highest proportion of children living in workless households anywhere in Europe

- The number of pensioners living in poverty up by 100,000

- The lowest level of social mobility in the developed world

- The only G7 country with no growth this year

- One in six young people neither earning nor learning

- 5 million people on out-of-work benefits

- Missing the target of halving child poverty...

- Child poverty rising in each of the last three years instead

- Cancer survival rates among the worst in Europe

- Hospital-acquired infections killing nearly three times as many people as are killed on the roads

- Falling from 4th to 13th in the world competitiveness league

- Falling from 8th to 24th in the world education rankings in maths

- Falling from 7th to 17th in the rankings in literacy

- The police spending more time on paperwork than on the beat

- Fatal stabbings at an all-time high

- Prisoners released without serving their sentences

- Foreign prisoners released and never deported

- 7 million people without an NHS dentist

- Small business taxes going up

- Business taxes raised from among the lowest to among the highest in Europe

- Tax rises for working people set for after the election

- The 10p tax rate abolished

- The ludicrous promise to have ended boom and bust

- Our gold reserves sold for a quarter of their worth

- Our armed forces overstretched and under-supplied

- Profitable post offices closed against their will

- One of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe

- The ‘Golden Rule’ on borrowing abandoned because it didn’t fit

- Police inspectors in 10 Downing Street

- Dossiers that were dodgy

- Mandelson resigning the first time

- Mandelson resigning the second time

- Mandelson coming back for a third time

- Bad news buried

- Personal details lost

- An election bottled

- A referendum denied

- The removal of the right to trial by jury

Apparently the Labour slogan for the coming election will be 'a future fair for all'. Well, you've had thirteen fucking years, you arsewipes. Now, despite the litany above, you want more time?

Here's Snowolf's election slogans:

BECAUSE YOU'RE STUPID AND NEED TELLING WHAT TO DO.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LABOUR AND IT'S OUR BLOODY TURN.

BECAUSE THE LOOK OF SHEER PANIC IN OUR EYES IF WE GOT THE GIG WOULD BE OFFSET BY OUR COMPLETE CAPITULATION TO BRUSSELS.


BECAUSE WE BELEIVE IN PERSONAL FREEDOM AND SMALL GOVERNMENT, UNLESS IT'S OUR GOVERNMENT.

BECAUSE YOU'VE NOWHERE ELSE TO TURN.

BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BE GUILT RIDDEN, LIVING IN A TREE. BUT WE WON'T BE, WE'VE IMPORTANT WORK TO DO.

The One That Is Asking 'Has It Really Come To This?' . . .

Perhaps I'm cynical.

Scrub that.

I am cynical. Having watched the politicians in action, having seen them lie in their manifesto and then successfully argue in court that an election manifesto does not constitute a promise, having seen them take advantage of an expenses system that they themselves set up to trouser thousands of pounds, having seem them charged with theft as a result and then considering an attempt to exploit parliamentary privilege to get out of it, having seen them spin, lie and steal, I do not take anything they say or do at face value.

Is it any wonder that I look on two news items this morning with a world-weary eye? I wonder who is advising Labour at the moment?

Alastair Campbell has emotionally denied Tony Blair misled MPs or Parliament over the intelligence in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.

Well, he would, wouldn't he?

Mr Campbell had to take a moment to compose himself after being asked the question on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.

He said the subject kept being brought up by those wanting to "settle scores".

Had to take a moment to compose himself? One has to wonder if he's more upset by the idea of Parliament being misled or by the suggestion that his old chum Bliar would do that.

Given the last sentence, it would appear to be the latter. Is it all a nasty playground campaign, Alastair? Tut. Terrible, isn't it? I mean, it isn't as if you've ever employed smear tactics, is it? Listen to the high-pitched whine.

Then there's Piers Morgan's interview with the Prime Mentalist. Morgan's always banging on about what great mates he is with the Browns and what lovely people they are. He's the master of the celeb puff interview which he tries to make look as if it has substance. It's a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Given their great mateship (and Morgan really does seem to appreciate Sarah Brown a little more than is perhaps healthy. Bugger John Terry and Wayne Bridge's missus, Morgan and Sarah Brown, that's a story I'd like to read), this interview was always going to be very sympathetic to Brown and I don't doubt that Morgan bent over backwards to try and make Brown look more human.

Gordon Brown has wept talking about the death of his daughter in a television interview, it has emerged.

Do I have to say it? Oh, go on then. Losing a child, blah blah, tragedy, waffle waffle, no parent should have to deal with, yada yada. But I do not for one moment think this interview has happened now by accident, they could have done this at any point over the last 8 years, now they stare down the barrel of an election where selling Brown will be like selling a bag of dog shit, he is humanising himself.

The message here is vote Brown - his daughter died.

That stinks.

The Prime Minister became upset recalling when he realised baby Jennifer Jane would not survive.

She died after a brain haemorrhage when she was 10 days old in 2002. Mr Brown is believed to have described being with Jennifer in her final moments.

Mr Brown opened up to television host Piers Morgan in front of a studio audience. The interview will be broadcast by ITV next Sunday.

Good Lord, so who is Cameron going to talk to about his family tragedies? If Brown has had an interview like this, CMD will have to have one too. Mustn't be left behind.

The Prime Minister also talked about his three-year-old son Fraser's battle with cystic fibrosis and his hopes for a cure, the Mail on Sunday reports.

Bloody hell. It's like the audition stage of X-Factor. Brown can't sing, but he's had a rough time, and really really wants this, and he'll try, God knows he'll give it his all, if you'd just give him this chance to prove himself and call this premium rate phone number.

[Morgan] The ex spin doctor, who advises the Prime Minister part-time, said [. . .]"I don't believe Gordon went on television with the purpose of crying," he told the BBC.

Then you're either a fool or a liar, Morgan.

Are we now supposed to vote for the candidate with the biggest personal disaster story, or who has the biggest meltdown, or the most entertaining tantrum? What next? Junior ministers throwing themselves on the floor in the confectionary aisle in Tesco and having a paddy because the nasty man won't let them steal taxpayer cash to buy a bag of sweeties?

This really is all Labour have left. They can't campaign on policy, because they've all been shown to be disasters. They can't campaign on unity, because they are firing the first bullets in what is going to be a very messy civil war. They can't campaign on character, as they've been shown to be lying, theiving and probably criminal.

All they have is tears and tantrums and have to hope that like a weak parent, we'll give them what they want for five minute's peace. A parent that gives in to their kid's tantrums will raise a spolit, selfish and dysfunctional child. An electorate that does the same, will experience the same.

The One That Wants Him To Hang On Just One Damn Minute. . .

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has set out eight 'Benchmarks for Britain' by which he says the success of a Conservative government's economic plans should be judged.

They haven't got in yet and I hate them already. Burbling on about environmnetally sustainable economic recovery. Oh God, give me strength.

Look, George, I'll judge your government record, if it happens, by my own criteria, got it?

You don't get to decide how we judge you, I don't accept your criteria, I don't accept your right to set those criteria, I don't want to hear you banging on about these criteria for the next 5 years as if it is the only benchmark by which you can be judged.

Here's Snowolf's eight criteria for judging a Conservative government.

1- I'll make the first one easy, shall I? Call in the civil service heads of department and find out what they actually know about the areas they are responsible for. If they 'errrrm', 'arrrrrr', 'get back to you on that' or 'don't know' then get rid of them. Then get rid of the layer below them, and probably the next 2 layers below that. I know for a fact that higher/middle senior civil service management keep their very high management in the dark, lest they find out the awful truth. The senior managers haven't figured this out yet. Get shot of the lot of them.

2- Destroy the quango's. Lay waste to them. There's a huge saving right there, you needn't touch the police, schools or hospitals and still save shitloads.

3- But do touch the police, schools or hospitals. Waste is endemic. Make them account for every single penny if they value their continued employment. Make them feel that every penny is coming out of their own personal pocket. Forbid them from cutting front line services. In fact, make them expand front line services. If they fail, no pay-off, no pension, just the sack. Make the police arrest proper bad people, no more community this, and outreach that. The police are for catching criminals. Make schools teach pupils, no more social work or community engineering, forget these endless tests, most teachers aren't idiots and know which pupils are outstanding, which pupils aren't so hot and which pupils need a kick up the arse to perform. Let headteachers discipline badly behaved kids, the rights of the kids that want to learn trump those of kids who don't. Let doctors make people better, no smoking or drinking questioning, if they're ill, then cure it. Give Matron control over blocks of four to six wards, make her responsible for the cleaning and bed/theatre management. Matron rocks and knows much better than the Health Secretary, she certainly knows better than the doctors. Give her the staff and authority.

4- Once you've cut the spending, cut the taxes. Bring back the lower band for lower earners. Give people coming off benefits one year tax free to establish themselves. Get them out of that trap. Reward them for getting off their arses, don't reward them for wandering into the labyrinth.

5- Reduce the duty on petrol. It's a fucking joke. You're crippling workers and businesses. Outside the cities, public transport is not up to the job of people moving around. It can get better, but in the short term people need help. This amounts to a tax on going to work. It sucks.

6- Give us the referendum on the Lisbon treaty like you promised. At least. Better still, give us the big one. If the majority of people want to come out of Europe, then accept it. You will be there to represent our wishes, not to impose yours on us. Remember that.

7- If our military really have to play silly buggers over the world. Then give them the kit to do the job. Give them proper healthcare and proper housing. Exempt them from tax. Give them the support to shoot back at people who shoot at them until they are all dead. Give them the power to sink pirates' boats, if the pirates are on those boats at the time, all the better. If they are aboard our boats, then maroon them. Act like a pirate, die like a pirate. Engage in piracy or attack our troops, then it's all good.

8- Get your noses out of our lives. Stop measuring, watching, tracking, investigating, following, recording, monitoring and nannying us. It pisses us off and we've done nothing wrong.

If these 8 benchmarks are not met, I'll consider you a failure.

Please feel free to set your own, by the way. It's your vote, so it's your criteria, never forget that. You set out the rules by which you judge your government, not them.

The One That Is Distracted. . .

I've been temporarily overtaken by events, so will be focusing attention elsewhere for the next couple of days. Normal service will be resumed soon.

One tiny point, I'm delighted to see we have the prospect of a Libertarian candidate in my fair city of Canterbury. Bloody brilliant. Welcome aboard, Alex Ellis Roswell.

The One That Is Off To The Re-Education Camp . . .

Bloody hell, but Labour are a mess. A news story has come out this morning which has got my mind pinging off in a hundred different directions.

Not only have Labour abolished boom and bust (well, the boom bit, certainly), not only have Labour swept away the spectre of child poverty (and how does that work if the child is living with poverty stricken adults? Do the adults not matter?), they have now announced that they've done away with racism.

Being black or Asian in the UK no longer means you will be automatically disadvantaged, Communities Secretary John Denham will say in a speech later.

Mr Denham says the problems of white working class areas must be tackled.

Or to put it in other words;

We've started an election campaign months in advance of the actual date, in the hope that you're all thoroughly sick of it, and come the big day and stay at home, because the more of you that turn out, the bigger the pile of shit we'll find ourselves in come the count. And don't vote BNP, there's no point, we've done away with racism.

A number of things occur to me about this.

Firstly; I will be expecting huge broadsides at the Tories, but occasional bow chasers fired off to send out a subliminal message about the BNP. Defeat to the Tories is all but assured, despite Cameron's best efforts to turn people away from them himself, but what really scares Labour is the BNP. They are petrified of them.

Secondly; If Labour have abolished racism and we have (I'm assuming) also done away with sexism and homophobia, what is Harriet Harman for? Or is this an early shot in the battle for people to take over in a clusterfuck of a leadership election, assuming Brown actually stands down after the election? Are we seeing camps trying to undermine rivals' power bases?

Thirdly; It is typical of Labour hubris to declare that it is they who have sorted this out. They don't realise that society evolves at its own pace, all the legislation in the world makes no difference. As far as they are concerned, it is all down to them and the all powerful state. They have declared it does not exist. Therefore, if you do not believe that, or think you see evidence that it still does, you are in the wrong. This is how re-education camps get set up.

You'll always get individuals who for whatever reason will hate all, some or one of the groups that is different to them, but as a whole British society hasn't had a real racism problem you may find elsewhere for a long, long time. Indeed I would submit that Britain is one of, if not the best, place in the world for race relations. It isn't perfect, but it never will be, nor will anywhere else, however it is testament to the basic decency of the British that racism is not a huge problem in this country. It is not testament to politicians, they can no more legislate to prevent racism than they can to legislate to prevent snowfall. They can legislate to prosecute racism, but that will not stop racists being racist, indeed they will merely see it as an attack on their freedom of expression and what they perceive to be their perfectly legitimate values and will fight against it.

Finally; This isn't all that Labour have done away with. They've also done away with habeas corpus, trial by jury, freedom of association and a whole raft of other things that I would submit are fairly important.

Just in case that anyone thinks I'm being unduly biased against Labour, I will state that I have absolutely no confidence that an incoming Conservative government will change any of this. This is a toybox that they cannot wait to start to playing with.

The One That Is Explaining. . .

I've been having a little chat with a friend of mine. He hates the Tories, really hates them. Mention Thatcher in his presence and he goes all blurry round the edges as he quivers with rage.

The problem he has is that he hates the Labour party as it is. I feel sorry for him, he is a decent chap with strong convictions in a political ideology that he thought could be delivered. He and many others like him must be devastated at how their dreams and aspirations have been sold down the river by the people that claimed to speak for and represent them.

This government has hurt all of us. But for those who had a strong belief in the traditional Labour ways it must be very hard to bear. The fact I disagree with that belief system is neither here nor there, to see people being betrayed and used like that in such a cynical fashion is not a nice thing to see.

Anyhow, my friend has taken some solace from the fact that future don't look so bright for the Tories either, and seemingly has found relief in the Telegraph, of all places, and he pointed out this blog entry from Gerald Warner.

What do I think will happen? I'll tell you the same I told him. Rather than it being bad news, it could be very good, it'll just take a few years to sort out. Let's hope we can do it before the EU sweeps our national parliament away.

It's a truism that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them and there is no way in hell Labour will win. The problem is people don't vote for anything, they vote against the incumbents.

It was obvious in '97 that Blair was a snake-oil salesman, and the Tories were unelectable. Now we have the situation where Labour are unelectable and the Tories aren't even promising snake-oil. For the last 18 months at least Call me Dave has been counselled that all he has to do is keep quiet, I think now he realises he's left it too late to counteract that bad advice. The interesting thing is how with Labour seeing their suppport haemorrhage away, and the Tories seeing their support drain down without even getting anywhere near the levels they would have hoped, the Lib Dems have made no ground whatsoever and indeed has seen a small reduction in their share of the vote.

North of the border, the SNP are a good bet in my book to pretty much wipe Labour off the map, and that is despite them displaying qualities which make them look even more controlling, nannying and dictatorial than Labour. The Scots will never return Tory or Lib Dem MPs in any numbers, so the SNP will win by default. It speaks volumes about the weakness of the established parties in Scotland that the SNP have been able to hold a minority non-coalition government together for so long.

In Wales, Plaid Cymru have very quietly got on with the job and will do similar damage to Brown.

It is obvious that Labour are scared shitless about the BNP in England, and with good cause. It's not because the BNP are evil and racist and all that jazz, it is because Griffin has very skilfully moved them into the ground occupied by Labour when John Smith was leader. Heseltine was right when he said Labour are the BNP without the racism (plus a slavish devotion to the EU), Brown's gulags for slags initiative was straight out of the BNP playbook and is a policy they've promoted for some time. When Harman and her ilk bang on about the dangers of the BNP, the only real danger is posed to the number of Labour MPs in the house. They rend their hair and ask why this is happening and what can be done, like the family in the Cherry Orchard, and don't realise that it is they who have driven their natural constituency to the BNP, it is their policies, and abandonment of the working class, their turning the 'working' class into pets beholden to them whilst the lower middle class are left to foot the bill. I fully expect to see a number of BNP MPs returned in the spring, and it is no-one's fault but Labour's.

All of this should add up to good times for the Tories, but it won't. So obsessed are they with not wanting to upset anyone, not wanting to be branded the nasty party, that they've ended up upsetting almost as many people as Labour - i.e. pretty much everyone. The Tories are a party of wallpaper covering some very deep cracks. Europe being the biggest one, that division has never gone away. Truth be told I think there's an enormous gulf between the parliamentary tory party and the grass roots membership on the subject, and I don't think Cameron's U-turn on the Lisbon Treaty has pleased anyone, nor his lack of guts in calling for the big referendum. Tory voters will turn out in droves for UKIP, a party who are hardly in good condition at the moment anyway.

I'm not sure that Cameron will last even one complete term as PM and we could see both parties descend into civil war very soon. I certainly wouldn't expect to see any incoming Tory government last more than one election.

Still the Lib Dems will not make up ground, mainly because their policies are fantastical nonsence that no-one understands, and the policies that people do understand are completely alien to them.

My prediction? A Tory majority of single figures at best if not a hung parliament, Labour limping in a very battered and bloody second having suffered huge losses in Scotland and Wales and some stinging defeats to the BNP in England and a fag paper between them and the Lib Dems. SNP and PC in Scotland and Wales with a few Lib Dem hangers on and seats for the BNP and UKIP in England.

A hung parliament would be bad, bad news for the Lib Dems. They've made it perfectly clear they don't want to be in coalition, but so desperate are they for a go on the levers of power they'd probably take it in exchange for a couple of the big jobs like Chancellor and Justice and would quietly forget PR which would infuriate their rank and file.

I don't think we're seeing the death of democracy, we're seeing its re-birth. The old buggins rule is on the way out - one more time is all it's got, I reckon. No-one will vote for the government (of whichever colour) because they're shit and no-one will vote for the other lot because we all remember how shit they were last time round. Once people realise that their vote can, does and will make a difference, and that they can vote for something they believe in, rather than against a sitting government they hate, then the sport will really begin.

Of course, the best thing about hung or coalition parliaments is that they can't do much. We've had too much doing over the last twenty years and need some stopping at least and un-doing at best.

I can't wait.

The One That Can't See The Difference. . .

So this is how one brings about the 'post-democratic' age then.

The Electoral Complaints Commission, responsible for overseeing the Presidential election in Afghanistan has thrown out ballots from 210 polling stations after uncovering what it claimed was 'Clear and convincing evidence of fraud'.

I can't say I'm surprised. It was all so predictable. The ballots thrown out now mean that Karzai has only a 48% share of the vote, so a run-off with the imaginatively named Abdullah Abdullah is sure to take place.

You can bet your arse that electoral fraud will be perpetrated again. No doubt the commission will get involved again, no doubt people who have voted properly will get their papers thrown out again, no doubt some kangaroo court in Afghanistan will have its say, no doubt American troops will be stood outside the courthouse as deliberations go on.

To make it even less democratic, these elections are being held with foreign troops running around and people not turning out because some nutjob has threatened to kill them if they do, assuming that is, that the same nutjob hasn't blown up the polling station the night before.

This is hardly a democratic process. It isn't going to work. It was never going to work. It will never work as long as other countries are propping up and dictating to the regime in 'power' and Taleban fighters are running around the country.

'Well, we tried' will be the refrain, if it isn't drowned out by whichever cheating vote rigging bastard happens to do enough to influence the result of this election being held up as a convincingly and resoundingly elected President given a mandate from the masses.

More to the point if this fraud has been carried out by any of the parties and politicians involved, then why the hell aren't they under lock and key, or at least barred from standing for election ever again?

This is ridiculous.

Democracy? Don't make me laugh, it is a pretence, there will never be democracy whilst we are in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) as there will be this mortal fear that people will vote the 'wrong' way, just as the Palestinians did with Hizbollah. You can be certain they wouldn't have won if American or British troops were on the ground there.

The problem being that the people we want them to elect are self-serving, venal, money-grabbing, corrupt toads out to grab what they can with the big boy standing behind them scaring people off if they want to make something of it. Whereas the people they might want to elect are self-serving, venal, money-grabbing, corrupt toads out to grab what they can whilst putting the fear of God into everyone.

Looks like a lose-lose situation to me.

The One That Wonders What You Expected. . .

Sorry folks, but it was all so predicatable. Of course Jacqui Smith did wrong. Of course an investigation would return that verdict. Of course she would be made to show contrition, although how you can show what you do not have is a mystery to me, it's akin to shoving the wierd kid into the stinging nettles at school and being made to say sorry, even when it is obvious that you aren't. It's what nice people do, and we must appear nice, even if we're not.

Of course she wouldn't get punished. It's an inside job.

Of course those with relatively small amounts of moody expenses would be told to pay them back.

Of course they, in the main, know that this will make it all OK. It would happen to you if you 'mis-claimed' benefits. If you paid it back, you'd be fine.




Wouldn't you?

Nothing will change. Oh, the rosettes worn by the people walking into the offices of state will change, but there will be no change.

That's not their fault, it is our fault. We are, as a nation, stupid enough to vote for them time and again, expecting change and then scratching our heads when none comes.

Perhaps the penny will drop, but I doubt it.

I am a Libertarian Party member, and believe that we should effect change via the electoral system. However I also understand that I am in a minority, both in my party membership and in my desire to do things by the book.

Look out for the EDL, look out for the enviromentalists, look out for the BNP, look out for the disapproving groups hurling abuse at returning soldiers.

Every single group has no confidence in those elected to represent them, nor in the system that gives them access to the levers of power. Increasingly desperate stunts will take place. Protests will increase and become increasingly more forceful. Increasingly desperate people will turn to violence. Hatred and resentment at anyone representing authority will grow.

Who is to blame? Well, to borrow a phrase from good old Gordon; we're all in this together. The politicans have abused and taken advantage of us, like an abusive partner. Like a weak, abused partner, incapable of breaking the cycle, we keep letting them back in.

We have no-one to blame but ourselves, and we will reinforce the cycle by returning the same people again.

When will we learn?

Perhaps we already have, perhaps these groups are like the abused partners, smacked in the mouth once too often. Divorce court? Pah! The iron or the frying pan are in easy reach, and they'll resolve the situation much quicker than some avaricious divorce solicitor.

I wouldn't want to win this coming election for all the tea in China.

The One That Bought A Paper. . .

For the first time in a long, long time, I went out and bought one of the national daily papers today. For the first time ever, that paper was The Sun. I just wanted to see with my own eyes that hatchet job on Brown. And it is one hell of a hatchet job (I like the poster especially). It also seems to be railing solidly against Brown rather than Labour as a whole, and I can't help wondering what would happen if he was shown the door before the election.

I think the answer is probably that The Sun's stance would soften slightly, but that Labour would still lose the election. No-one is going to oust Brown now, no-one wants to be the person that took over and the took the party on to an absolute paggering at the polls. They'll all start sidling away during the campaign. Come the inevitable bun-fight in June it will all be, 'Me? No, it was nothing to do with me, I was nowhere near it. Well, I suppose I could have stepped in before Christmas, but the loyalty of the rank and file is paramount, no-one wanted to see Gordon go. The Tories ran a despicable campaign, it hurt Gordon badly, and someone has to step up now he's stood down.'

With some of the squawking in the media you'd have thought that the job of PM is awarded by The Sun. It isn't. The Sun backing Cameroid isn't going to win the Tories the election. One truism that is, errr, true, is that oppositions do not win elections. The Sun isn't telling people how to vote or think, they've known for plenty long-enough that New Labour is done. They've done this now to cause as much damage to Brown as possible.

The Sun hasn't announced its support to influence the outcome, it has done it to sell papers. The Sun was never going to back Labour, because they will lose. It won't want to be seen backing a loser. Can the Sun influence a winning margin? Yes. If they press the right buttons then a lot of those who don't vote may just turn out to put the boot in. The Sun can turn a big victory into a huge victory, but it cannot turn a large defeat into a narrow win. Even if The Sun indulged in the sort of partial pro-Labour reporting that would make the BBC blush, it wouldn't change the result.

On the morning after the election, when The Sun says something along the lines of 'It Was The Sun Wot Won It', that's just to persuade people that it is more influential than it really is.

Brown will be furious, Campbell on Sky News this morning gave the air of a man who was about to stamp his feet and claim that it isn't fair, but it doesn't really matter. The Tories won't win because they're best - I'm expecting a policy free zone at their conference next week, indeed their manifesto may just as well be Cameroid and chums in matching knitwear holding kittens, The Tories won't win because of The Sun. Labour will lose because of their complete contempt and disregard for the public. Labour will lose because they continually nag and mither us, because they insult us, because they take our money and waste it, spend it on themselves, because they are incapable of admitting fault or responsibility, because they make promises they have no intention of keeping, because they snoop upon us and criminalise us for no other reason than they can.

Alternative vote? Give me a break. You would have done that in '97 if it was worthwhile. Now you stare down the barrel of a gun you think that people's second choices are important?

Slut's Huts/Gulags for Slags? Yeah, nice. Bring back homes for fallen women so you can indoctrinate them and their kids. That's the sort of the thing the BNP would do. . . Oh.

Take your ball and fuck off. You've had your chance, and you have squandered it. It's over. Finished. Gone. Your attitude of entitlement to win this time would be truly offensive if watching it wasn't so funny. You make Comical Ali look like an incisive commentator.

I'll leave the last word to 22 year old Keeley from Bromley, who for some reason left the house wearing nothing but a small pair of blue knickers and a pout.

'He [Cameron] can't possibly do this instantly as he will inherit huge, long-term, deep-rooted problems. We need to allow him time to implement fresh ideas and policies that will get the country off its knees.'

Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? When did glamour models become so politically aware?

The One That Is Ordering Up A Big Bag Of Popcorn. . .

James Cleverly reports (via Guido) that former London Dep-Mayor Ian Clements is due up before Westminster Mags on a fraud charge over allegations of fiddling expenses.

Guido is of the opinion that he won't be the last politician to be hauled before the beak.

Wouldn't it be a terrible shame if he were only the first of many? Wouldn't it be an even bigger shame if this was at its height during a General Election campaign?

One thing is for certain, there'll be a number of politicians moaning about how such a situation would be unhelpful and perhaps even against the national interest, especially if they are perched atop a slim majority.

I think it was Harrison Ford playing the President in Air Force One who used the line 'Your turn to be afraid.'

Well folks, payback is a bitch and next May (assuming that is when it finally comes) is going to be so much of an Elephant hunt, that I'll be watching the election night coverage wearing khaki drill and a pith helmet.

Bring it on.

Nihilistic? Me?