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 Can't Be Arsed. . .

I was going to blog about how Prescott is going to be made Lord Prescott of Melton Mowbray or whatever, but to be honest what's the point?

I was going to blog about David Laws' piss taking over expenses and the accompanying sob story about how it isn't his fault, it's because he's gay.

Here's a newsflash David, we don't care if you like to put it up another man's bottom, believe me, it really isn't that important, I get as animated about homosexuality as I do about people who like the novels of Dick Francis or enjoy eating spinach, it's an irrelevance.

I'm guessing that most people who vote Lib-Dem are similarly unconcerned about a bit of bum fun as well.

What I do get animated about is you using your sexuality as an excuse for the way you've claimed these expenses.

I give up, I really do. Of course new politics was bullshit, of course Labour would look after their own (and the Tories, I see Howard is now Count of Transylvania or whatnot). I'm at a loss as to what the solution is.

I'm not even angry to be honest.

What's the fucking point?

The One That Is Shouting 'GOOOOOAAAAAAL!'. . .

Ahhhh, World Cup year. I do love the World Cup. Always have, I have found it enchanting since I was a little boy. I love the way the players’ shirts shimmer in the hot summer sun (although not this year, it’ll be winter in South Africa), the reaction of the players and supporters of the smaller nations when they cause an upset, or even in some cases just score a goal. I love seeing the unbridled joy of one set of players when they score a victory over their bitterest opponents. I love the almost guaranteed emergence of a new star on the world scene and the drama of the penalty shootout (normally in the Quarter-Finals where England will lose). I love tournament football, there really is nothing like it. You can keep your Monaco Grand Prix, your Olympic Games, Six Nations, Wimbledon, Superbowl, hell, even The Ashes (which I also love), they are all fine events, but none of them compare to the World Cup.

I could write a huge missive about what is wrong with the game, and there’s plenty, but once every four years a large proportion of the country is brought together, collectively willing our players not to make an arse of it in the Quarter Finals against Portugal/Germany/Argentina/Brazil again. It is a good thing.

However there are one or two things in a World Cup year which are equally as predictable as England’s Quarter-Final exit. There will be the tut-tutting about working days lost when England are playing. There will be pursing of lips about the promo offers on booze in supermarkets and pubs. There will be children sent home from school because they’ve copied Beckham’s latest fashion statement (this year it’s called the ‘foot cast’) and someone somewhere will be banned from flying the St. George Cross.

Imagine my shame when I realised that is was my own home town.

Taxi drivers in a Kent city are upset after being told they are not allowed to fly flags from their vehicles during the World Cup football tournament.

Canterbury City Council has said attaching England flags to cabs would breach rules on what can be displayed on public service vehicles.

Why? What bloody harm will it do? No. People won’t get offended. It’s the national flag of England, for crying out loud. You wouldn’t see the same about the Saltire on cabs in Elgin or the dragon in Merthyr, would you?

Larissa Laing, from the council, said: "We accept that many taxi drivers want to be patriotic and we have been fully supportive of them wearing England shirts.

Oh, that’s nice. Isn’t that nice? The nice lady from the council will let the people in their own private businesses wear what they want. A big cheer for her.

"However, it is a public service vehicle and as such there are very strict rules and what can and cannot be displayed on a taxi and sadly an England flag, or any flag, cannot be displayed."

The rules ban any signs, letters, motifs, emblems, or marks from taxis.

Yes. But why? This is one of those we just want you to ask our permission so we can hum and har about it before making a great show of very generously granting the request which you so humbly put before us.

Larissa Laing almost won authoritarian fuckwit of the month. Almost.

The thing is, what do they do in places where there’s no World Cup participation? How does one show one’s absolute idiocy and total removal from pragmatism and reality then? Let’s go somewhere where the team didn’t qualify. Let’s go to Northern Ireland.

There was a policeman, sat in his vehicle, having objects thrown at him by a group of youths. What did he do? Did he shoot them? Did he hit them with his asp? Did he run them down? Did he refer them to an inclusivity outreach diversity community cohesion liaison officer? No. He played ice-cream van music over the speakers of his police car.

Young people were throwing bottles at a Land Rover vehicle in Lisburn last Saturday when the officer used the tannoy to play the tunes.

A police spokesperson said an officer had used humour to defuse the situation and the trouble had stopped.

However, senior officers are believed to have spoken to the officer involved.

I’m hoping that when they spoke to him they said. ‘Well done, you showed initiative, guile and humanity. You are a credit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.’ I’m betting they didn’t.

Ah, no, they didn’t.

"The youths stopped throwing the bottles. However, police accept that this was not an appropriate action.

"The officer has been spoken to by a senior officer in order to establish the circumstances of the incident."

Hang on, are you suggesting that you wanted the officer to get out to hand out a kicking, running the risk that he’d get one himself, or to sit waiting for backup to arrive and hand out a kicking, whilst running the risk that they’d get into his car and give him a kicking?

Look, I’ve problems with the way policing is done in this country. I’ve a problem with the way some police officers act. Senior officers will back these horrible little SS wannabes to the hilt. Show me an officer who acts in exactly the way we’d all want an officer to act in a difficult situation and you feed him to the lions. Really? Seriously? WTF? Look, these kids deserved a good, hard kicking, but he was obviously on his tod, what he supposed to do?

So we’ll leave the authoritarian fuckwit of the week award to Cllr Angela Nelson (SF):

Angela Nelson told the Andersonstown News that the officer's actions "beggared belief".

"The PSNI are put on the streets to do a serious job and that is to keep order on the streets and face down anti-social elements. This is like a sick joke.

"It goes against everything we are trying to solve and eradicate in the area."

Now, I’ve no love for either side in Northern Ireland, it’s like Israel vs. Palestine but with wetter weather and better music, they can all go to hell, but people still vote for them, so there you go. Anyhow, I’m betting that the kids were Protestant and the SF lot are disgusted that they didn’t get the kicking they so richly deserved, or the kids were Catholic and the Protestant humiliated them instead of calling for the inclusivity outreach diversity community cohesion liaison officer over his radio.

Jesus Christ in a World Cup Willie costume on a pogo-stick, what is wrong with these people?

The One That Is Marvelling . . .

Election time is over, let the stupidity begin!

Where to start? There really are some idiots out there.

Let's start with the cabin crew at BA, pictured standing outside the High Court singing 'We are the champions' as the injunction on their strike was overturned. I'm very pleased for you. CF has a very eloquent rant on the stupidity of their stance. If they've not driven the final nail into their own coffin, then they've certainly lined it up and whacked their thumb with the hammer.

I went on holiday a couple of months ago and BA were cheaper by about £50 per ticket and the take off and landing times in London were much more convenient for me, but I chose to fly Virgin. Why? Simple, I knew that the Virgin staff would turn up for work. Anyone booking a BA flight at the moment must be doing so with fingers crossed in hope. As CF points out, who is going to trust BA now? The holidaymakers won't, the business men and women won't, who does that leave? No-one. BA will be dead by the time the decade is out, and then where will these cabin crew be? I'll tell you, they'll be whining at the government for not taking our money off us and putting it in their pockets whilst they get paid a shitload more than the staff at Virgin, get free flights and all the other perks.

Tough shit. There's thousands of people who'd love to have your job. I'm sure a long haul flight is hard work, I have no doubt that the travelling public are the biggest collection of idiots and arseholes you'll ever encounter, but really, you've got it very easy and you're throwing it all away. Your loss, not mine, I've plenty of choice, see you later on.

OH then links to more stupid. This time from an article in the Graun.

The poor old MPs are having a tough time of it. They're not being given unfettered access to our money.

Aw, diddums. Here's a point, we've just had an election. If the T&C's of your employment were so onerous, why the bloody hell did you stand? Are you simple? This sort of thing just underlines how little this new politics differs from the old:

We just have to accept this because the public is not with us. It will take something really horrendous, such as a woman MP being stabbed on the streets of London because she is not entitled to take a taxi home late at night, before people wake up and realise how unfair this is.

Really? Has there been some new Act passed which forbids politicians to stand on Whitehall with their hand in the air, hailing a cab, telling the nice man where they want to go and then putting their hand in their own pocket, rather than mine, and paying the fare?

No-one pays for my transport from work to home. I have to pay for that myself. And it's not as if you're having to pay for transport from Penzance or Perth to Westminster, is it? No, you're getting a cab to your second home. A second home paid for by me.

If one of you get stabbed on the street, then perhaps you'll have an understanding of the world the rest of us live in. Now, let's think, who could possibly change that world?

Thirteen years of Labour's entitlement culture, why am I surprised? They've been telling everyone how they are deserving of this and that. Not any more, that ship has sailed.

This new government is ticking some boxes at the moment. The civil liberties thing is going down very well with me. I also enjoyed Sarko's very glum expression when Cameron was talking last night. No doubt the odious little shit was browbeating Dave for our bizarre decision to have stayed out of the Euro thus far, and the even more peverse decision to stay as far away from this phoney currency as we possibly can now. These Greek retirees with their huge state pensions and French farmers being paid an awful lot to produce fuck all aren't going to feed themselves, you know. It's our duty to bankrupt ourselves even further, to take food from our own childrens' mouths just to ensure these lazy, corrupt, grasping arseclowns can continue to be kept in the style to which they have become accustomed.

Sorry Jean-Paul, you're own your own. You spent years trying to block our produce in direct contravention of the free-trade rules and now you come crying to us because you're broke? Three points: 1 - Fuck you. 2 - We're broke too. 3 - Fuck you.

The sooner this corrupt, anti-democratic and protectionist currency and international experiment comes crashing down, the better. Hopefully Cameron digging his heels in will hasten that collapse.

Yes, it's all being going quite nicely from my point of view. Oh, hello? What's this?

The UK's coalition government has pledged to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price in an effort to cut binge drinking in England and Wales.

The plan is likely to ban retailers from running loss leader promotions on lager, wine and alcopops.

The coalition said that it would also review alcohol taxation and pricing and strengthen licensing powers.

You stupid, stupid fucks. Can you not make the connection? Is it so difficult, or are you just so hard of thinking? What is the difference between:

There were some bad apples who did terrible things with their expenses. The system had to change. But decent people in all parties are being treated in an infantile way.

And then bumping up the price of booze because:

Police officers frequently report that some of the young people they deal with arrive in pubs well on the way to being drunk thanks to cheap alcohol bought and consumed earlier in the evening.

Do you see? Do as you would be done by. You've treated us like this for years, and now you're getting some back. Not very nice, is it? Good. I hope it makes you miserable, you arrogant, preaching righteous fucks.

The One That Is Embracing The Change. . .

It is heartening that in these uncertain times some aspects of our concerns about process and propriety are listened to.

For too long we’ve been exposed to the spectre of electoral fraud and the tacit acceptance, perhaps even encouragement, of nakedly tribal and partisan voting.

It seems like for years that the cries and objections over a corrupt, ineffective and unfair voting system have been increasing in volume, and now, finally, it would appear that in the face of insurmountable pressure those in authority have finally given in and at will at least make an effort to look like they are willing to make that vital change.

It is so frustrating to know that your precious vote when cast will not effect the outcome of the contest in any significant way, and if we are to talk about organisations operating in a truly democratic manner, then this anomaly cannot be tolerated.

Thankfully it now looks as if we’ll have real and significant changes in place next time we have the opportunity to make our voices heard. Granted it will not be perfect, there is still scope for a large tribal vote to have a significant say in the outcome, but that is not the fault of the system. You cannot call for an equitable system and then complain when the result you want is not forthcoming. People’s votes are there own to do with as they see fit, but it is important that everyone’s vote carries the same weight. This is something that has been lacking in recent contests.

It is also true that a number of largely unaccountable professional wonks will also have a great bearing in what the final outcome looks like. Whilst far from ideal, it is an improvement on what has gone before, and I’m a believer in evolution being better than revolution.

Yes folks, the changes are coming, and are unlikely to stop at the next time, or the time after that. If we call for it, if we demand it, they will have to give it to us. It is, after all, OUR money backing this show up, money that is taken from us under threat of imprisonment.

So I for one am delighted that the scam of Eurovision voting has been overhauled. This is a critical issue in modern democratic process and is something we’ve needed to address for a long, long time.

You can now vote for your favourite before they’ve even gone on stage to sing ‘Fikk Fakk Fukk’ or their heart-rending ballad about a young Moldovan goat herd being interfered with by his step-father.

Get your tribal votes in early!

Unfortunately the songs will still be shit. Norton will still be annoying and not even half as funny as good ol’ Tel was. The show will overrun by a good 45 mins and be full of saccharine mawkish imagery. But you know that you just won’t be able to help yourself come May 29th, it’s like passing a crash on the opposite carriageway or sitting across from a young child conducting a deep-seam nasal investigation, you just can’t resist.

Uggggh, dirty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I thought we had learnt those lessons."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four legs good, two legs bad.

Besides:

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

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

The One That Is Preparing The Litmus Papers. . .

Right, a week into the gig (almost) and the first test of Cameron's honesty is almost upon us, and the first test of how well those old Major era Europe cracks have healed over.

Eurosceptic MPs will renew calls for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty when it comes up for debate again in parliament in the coming weeks.

Give us the referendum, you bastards.

A new amendment to the treaty - expected to be rubberstamped by EU leaders in June - will require ratification at Westminster.

Well, that bunch of tossers would expect it to be rubberstamped, wouldn't they? If they drew up a treaty dissolving all nations in the EU and a reformation in one giant super-state, the EU leaders would expect all the parliaments to meekly file into the room and to sign themselves out of existence. That is because, and let's be frank here, they are unspeakable power-hungry cunts who make our domestic politicans look like the very model of altruism.

The Foreign Office says it is only a technical adjustment.

Well, Wolfers says the FCO can go fuck itself with a rusty spike.

But some Tories are set to use the process to call for a vote, despite David Cameron already ruling one out.

Well that demonstrates why I'm slightly more sympathetic towards the Tories than I am Labour, although that's like saying I'm slightly more sympathetic towards serial killers than I am serial nonces, at least some of the Tories are prepared to stick their heads above the parapets.

But Cameron has already ruled a refendum out. Well, there's a surprise. New politics? My hairy, worm ridden arse. He's in now, we'd do well to shut the fuck up and do as we're told.

Don't think you can buy me off with the trinkets of ID cards etc, you gave me a promise, a cast iron guarantee, you utter mongtard. You'd better fucking stick to it. Not because I'll come after you, but because the Tory membership have very short tempers and can get rid of a leader before they've finished their cornflakes of a morning, and they really, really want this vote. You'd better stick to it, not because Boris is probably itching for the first halfway safe Tory seat to come up for by-election, but because you've got a hundred new MPs sat in the House, all of whom are aware of what it said in your manifesto about EU treaties and are probably full of zeal and an ideal of what it means to be an MP.

Clock's ticking, David.

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 Has Spotted A Flaw. . .

The first bit of fuckwittery under our new new politics new coalition new government new.

Exchange offices in the UK have stopped selling 500 euro banknotes because of their use by money launderers.

Oh, oh this will be good. Who has demanded this?

The Serious Organised Crime Agency says 90% of the notes sold in the UK are in the hands of organised crime.

Hooray! It's SOCA. One of Labour's crowning glories. It's also the BBC, let's see how long it takes for them to talk down to us. . .

. . . ah, here it is.

There has been mounting international concern over the note, which is worth more than £400, and its use by criminals or tax evaders.

€500 is worth more than £400. Did you know that, prole? Did you? Thank God they are there to tell us this important stuff.

The move means nobody will be able to buy the note in the UK - but travellers will be able to sell them if they enter the UK carrying them from abroad.

Oh that's nice. So you'll still be able to bring the item of perfectly legal tender across most of Europe into the country. For now. How long until someone with a €500 bill gets nicked under sus of being an organised criminal?

Hang on, I've spotted a flaw here. Won't these criminals just use smaller notes? And won't it be a pain the arse for everyone? If Spain sneezes then you'll need a €500 note just to buy a $10 bill.

Why stop there? I'll bet organised criminals will use £50 notes. Ban them. Actually to be on the safe side, better ban the sale of all money. And mobile phones, they use them too. And cars. I'm sure the last person I saw in court accused of being an organised criminal was wearing shoes and trousers. They'll have to be banned too.

Election season is over, normal service has been resumed.

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.