Reform or Renaissance?

One of the ideas being mooted by the troughers at the top, desperate to save their own hides by deflecting culpability away from themselves and onto 'the system', will have the unfortunate effect of undermining the principles of parliamentary democracy by implicitly disenfranchising vast swathes of the electorate.

An MP, when elected to parliament, represents the constituency and, by implication, everybody in it whether they voted for that MP or not. But if the party to which the MP belongs is somehow empowered (for example, through some sort of 'oversight committee' of the constituency party being set-up) to dismiss the MP for whatever reason, then the electorate in that constituency are no longer represented. The person they thought was their representative in parliament has become no more than a party delegate. This also implies disenfranchisement for those who do not belong to the party. The gravity of this cannot be stressed heavily enough. There is such a thing as totalitarian democracy (one vote for only one party). Quite possibly we would have invented a multi-party version of it! In fact, a similar system was set-up in France after its revolution. It was also, in its way, a form of democracy and it utterly failed.

It's fair to say that we have been brought to this by the operation of the party system within parliament, where MPs are treated by the central party machine not as, primarily, constituency representatives, but as delegates, just like with the style of 'democracy' you would find in a trade union. It has never been worse than under this government, where representative, parliamentary democracy has been systematically undermined by what Hailsham called 'elective dictatorship'. Of course there must be some form of party unity - even some enforcement of that unity - in order to provide strong leadership and stable government.

But who's really in charge of Parliament has been forgotten. The country and Parliament need reminding: through the representatives we elect to speak for us there, we are in charge. In order to protect this crucial principle from governments seeking to rule by decree, I think it's obvious it must now be enshrined in some form of written constitution. But most of the current incumbents in the House of Commons (and the House of Lords), tainted as they are by the rotten stench of mass-sleaze, cannot be trusted either to draft or to implement this new constitution. That is why there must first be an immediate General Election. As only Cameron and Clegg argue, it is the beginning of the process of reform and not a 'cause of chaos' as our implausibly appalling Prime Minister so desperately wishes to have us believe.

A written constitution is not reform, it is affirmation and in any case I believe that "reform" for its own sake is not, technically, what is required. What's required is reassertion of the principle of the independence of MPs within parliament; the recognition in a single document that MPs are elected representatives of their constituency, not the voting fodder of The Party. (A completely new set of MPs would be major step forward to this). What is required is, almost literally, renaissance where the meaning of 'sovereignty' for Britons is clearly defined once and for all.

There are some democratic reforms that can occur during this renaissance, of course. E-democracy, for instance - a form of direct democracy - would be preferable to fudging representative democracy still further and ending-up with the worst of all possible worlds for 'we, the people': even less representation through botched and insincere (fake) reform. E-democracy is also preferable to the current, corrupt arrangements at local level in its own right.

Politicians in their attitude to constitutional reform - or, at least, this crop of particularly awful politicians - are similar to the police force in their attitude to the law: they both crave more and more powers in order to make their lives less and less difficult - and ours impossible. Both are anathema to liberal democracy. Besides, as the great S.E. Finer would remind us were he still alive:

'Politicians are not as clever or as charismatic as you or me,' pause, 'particularly me.'

Of this they should be constantly reminded, especially when they say they want to tinker with a system they themselves have abused. Be suspicious - totally.

Anyway, the upshot of all this is that at least one idea - now being seriously considered by all three parties - that constituency party committees can somehow 'call back' and 'dismiss' MPs is an affront to our democratic rights as well as being constitutionally unsound. It is a poor fudge dreamt-up by stupid and desperate careerists as a distraction for an angry electorate. It must be resisted at all costs. What we need right now is a new Parliament followed by no less than a British renaissance, not more dithering and drifting followed by disingenuous and extremely harmful, destructive 'reform'.

Major-General's Song - Raccoon Style

Lyrics by WS Raccoon.

I am the very model of a modern Parliamentarian,
I’ve nothing but contempt for the humble proletarian
I’m anti- drink, I’m anti-smoke, and I’m chastely ecological,
I quote from Hansard and I’m never logical
I’ve learned to speak at conferences, colloquia and seminars
I’ve even sent impassioned pleas to European commissars
I never miss a photo op because it’s free publicity
I smile, shake hands, kiss babies and praise everyone’s ethnicity.

[Chorus:]
He is the very model of the modern parliamentarian
He’s nothing but contempt for the humble proletarian

There is no universal law, that I must live a life of sleaze
Nor is there proof the world is fair, nor that I should do as you would please
I know the code of Green Book Law and which receipts are optional
I bolster up my claims with fabrications risible
Of moats, and porn, and mortgages invisible
Those claims are valid; the Green Book’s a revelation
It says we can, and there’s no taxation

[Chorus:]
The claims are valid, the Green Book a revelation
It says he can and there’s no taxation

You get nowt from Fees office if you can’t show your claim to it
But we never fear de-selection by our constituencies
We wrote the rules, that’s why they’re lax
And we rely on you to pay the tax
That’s why I think I am invincible
The laws of this great land of ours were written with a lot of thought
So when I violate them, it’s important that I not get caught.

[Chorus:]
The laws of this great land of ours were written with a lot of thought
So when he violates them, it’s important that he not get caught.

My financial pursuits have caused a few to say I’m cynical
I can say I’m not and not be one ounce hypocritical
When wreathes are laid, I cough and clear my phlegm
I’m confident that someone else will pay for them
I serve on 10 committees, none of which do anything
I formulate agendas and debate them with the rest of them
But don’t ask me to implement, I leave that to the rest of them

[Chorus:]
Yes, the Green Book will save this troughing riparian,
He is the very model of a modern parliamentarian

I’ll guard the health of my pension by self-interest most astute:
I realise that you voters find my avarice quite vital
I’ll give back your money if you can prove your title
And spin the tale with arguments convolute
Until my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, ‘Ridiculous!’

[Chorus:]
Until his lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, ‘Ridiculous!’

I love to say at any chance that everything is relative
And prove it with statistics showing nothing is correlative
About this act I haven’t even moments of remorsefulness
I have the utmost confidence in the whips’ resourcefulness
So though we have run quite amok, we readily will go away
If for my worthless time, you were an extra £60,000 to pay.
In short, with economy shrunken and democracy gone,
For all my years of graft, my C.V. is just one line long

He was an MP and now he has gone

[Chorus:]
Oh yes, he has gone, but there’s more of the same on the way,
There’s more of the same on the way.

Brilliant :)

Constitutional Deform

Yours truly has been down the beach enjoying the glorious summer sun all day. Why, then, did El Gordo have to spoil it all by opening his disconnected gob? I avoided Marr's much-trumpeted interview assiduously this morning, knowing full-well that it would contain the kind of platitudinous, backtracking, soundbitten horseshit that is Brown's bankrupt oratorical currency. But I failed. This afternoon I succumbed to curiosity and read the Sunday Times coverage of it. What I found was not pleasant and is lingering in the atmosphere like a disowned fart.

Dan Hannan's deoderising is the best so far, so I'll leave it to him:

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, along comes Gordon Brown with a proposal for statutory regulation of MPs. Prime Minister, it was the "I have acted within the letter of the rules" mentality that brought Parliament to this pass. You cannot compel moral behaviour by legislation; on the contrary, such laws replace a culture of conscience with a culture of compliance.

The PM, in an unwontedly pharisaical aside, said that some recent revelations "offended my Presbyterian conscience". But any good Presbyterian would see that external regulation smothers personal responsibility. (See here for the full case against the Broon's abominable idea.)

Yes, the House of Commons needs an external regulator. Happily, it already has one: the electorate. Have we so little confidence in ourselves as voters that we are content to surrender our right to choose our representatives to a government-appointed quango? Is this what Coke and Hampden and Pym fought for? What fools our fathers were if this be true.

It's a pretty simple point but it's one that liability Brown is incapable of grasping: there was nothing wrong with the expenses 'system'; the problem is the MPs who exploited it. Revealing their utter turpitude through temptation is, in fact, the system's triumph. Then again, with his deflection tactics and mishmash 'reforms' (which, as Hannan implies, will only actually serve to deform our democracy still further), perhaps he knows exactly what he's doing - sort of. He will say, do, destroy, obfuscate, bully, cheat, steal, burn, ruin and annihilate anyone and anything to cling on to power. So wrecking British democracy will be a stroll in the park for this new Caligula.

“We will be the reforming party on the constitution. It’s always where I have wanted to be.”

Priceless. If you're going to be a hypocrite, might as well be a massive one. If you're going to tell a lie, it might as well be an absolute whopper. He's clearly got Balls. People of Britain, deliver the crushing defeat to this tyrant on Thursday that will start the countdown to his demise. It's not just desirable now, it's vital.

Brown Honesty

Remember this? (It's a bit rude):



And he's getting worse.

Darling Down Balls-Up

Meet the new Chancellor

I know it's been up for a while, but it's so fantastically naff that I had to do something on it. The Sunday Times says Gordon Brown wants Ed Balls to replace Alistair Darling. In a scoop sourced to a "top-level leak from Downing Street" [update: Guido thinks it's Mandelson. The farce is complete!] it's revealed that this is some sort of desperate strategy by Brown to reinvigorate his dead government.

...the prime minister wants to make the appointment the centrepiece of a sweeping reshuffle on Friday, after the local and European polls.

With Balls, the schools secretary, one of the most divisive figures in government, the move would be a huge risk, which could trigger a ferocious backlash within the Labour party that could spiral into a leadership challenge.

The Sunday Times understands that Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, has warned Brown of the potential dangers, but is ready to support the move as part of a final attempt to revive the government’s fortunes.

It's difficult to know which part of this to laugh at first: one of the "most divisive figures in government" ousting a man who could well turn into Brown's Geoffrey Howe; Lord Mandelson giving his qualified blessing while warning of the "potential dangers" - something he knows all about; the "dangerous backlash" from supine Labour backbenchers frightened by the prospect of imminent unemployment and losing all those delicious perks. Whichever bit of this hairbrained (and now leaked) scheme unravels first, what's certain is that this is going to be a real blockbuster summer of political bloodshed.

But it gets worse (better, I mean):

Brown’s authority has become so weakened that some ministers are openly defying Downing Street. Insiders claim the most audacious are dodging his calls – deliberately “going to ground” when he tries to phone them.

It's amateur night at Whitehall, folks. Low farce in a paralysed regime. This is your 'government' remember. And people still wonder why we so desperately need a General Election. Well, maybe this part will finally convince them:

According to the well-placed insider, Brown has been working on the scheme to make Balls chancellor since the expenses debacle engulfed Westminster, taking a handful of his closest aides into his confidence.

Brown knows the appointment would be highly controversial and is ruminating over the possible consequences.

"Munch, munch...er...munch." The consequences will be the political equivalent of multi-megaton nuclear devastation for you, Gord - happily.

While few question Balls’s economic competence, many backbenchers remain deeply distrustful of the prime minister’s closest henchman.

Yesterday one senior Blairite figure warned of devastating consequences for the prime minister if he pressed ahead. “If Gordon wants to bring the whole house of cards tumbling down, this is the way to do it. The reaction will be apoplectic,” he said.

See?

A Downing Street spokesman said: “We do not comment on reshuffles.”

That's OK, spokesman geezer, you don't have to. We've got everything we need.

As the Brown slowmotion trainwreck enters its final phase (taking out the station and exploding in flames), one can't help but be curious about how poor old Darling, Brown's loyal retainer for so many years, feels about all this. Howe will he react, I wonder ;)

Boy oh boy, though, watching Brown tear Labour to pieces and probably destroy it for generations as a serious political force over the next few months will be absolutely captivating. If it's allowed to happen, that is.

[Insert Your Caption in the Comments Below]

Sadly, even Labour knows now that Darling or Balls, Harmon or Smith, Blears or any other of their incompetent, sleazy ministers you care to pick are not really the main problem (serious problems though they all are): it's Brown. And they're going to get rid of him - within weeks.

Shame. We won't get to see the show. I'll just have to settle for seeing Brown ousted, then. What a pity.

Lib-Lab Stitch-Up

The Telegraph had it this afternoon and ConHome's Tim Montgomerie talked about it about an hour ago. Is it really possible? Can they be contemplating it? Are they mad - or stupid - enough to imagine this will wash with a body politic already being denied its right to make its voice heard over Europe, the economic crisis and reform of parliament? Do they want armed uprisings? Are they that corrupt and desperate for power? Will they betray everything they stand for - and their own constituents?

Yes, folks, these questions are aimed at Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats. They've just overtaken Labour for the first time in 22 years in an historic opinion poll. Clegg and Cameron have far more in common than Clegg has with Brown - which is significant insofar as Brown is more-or-less a toxic substance these days. Cameron is not. It would therefore be a seriously counter-intuitive move on Clegg's part to court a Labour party on its last legs, run by a man he dislikes and which has a track record of betrayal in such circumstances ('78/'97, eg.).

Well, if the practicalities and calculations are wrong, so is the morality. A pact like this would be the final insult to the electorate; it would be the final act of contempt for a public already suspicious that their 'leaders' are interested only in maintaining the status quo for as long as possible so they can line their own pockets for a few more months - or years if the pact causes effectively a 'rigged' general election where a vote for the LibDems becomes a vote for Labour: a stitch-up.

Not least because the stitch-up won't work, Clegg should take a principled stance, in full public view, and tell Brown to his face 'thanks but no thanks'. It would highlight the Labour leader's hideous cynicism in his desperate desire to cling on to power. By doing the right thing in taking a principled, longer view Clegg could nail Brown and his party so badly, the Liberal Democrats might not even need some unholy alliance with a bankrupt regime, or the PR fiddle, to be part of a government.

In the space of a single parliament, they could well be in a strong enough position to challenge Cameron and form one of their own. That's the real prize and it won't be won by alienating the electorate just when it needs to see some statesmen emerging from the Westminster rubble. If I were Nick Clegg, I would be regarding this as a no-brainer. But if he gets it wrong and goes with Brown, if I were David Cameron I would be tap-dancing with glee.

Vauxhall - The End

This morning's news, even the heavily spun BBC-Mandy version, about the takeover rescue/German-bailout of GM Europe will provide no consolation whatsoever for Vauxhall workers.

Read between the lines of the BBC's Labour-sensitive claptrap. It's not hard to work it out; this one can't be spun very much, but boy, how they have tried:

Lord Mandelson said that [Canadian company] Magna had made it clear that they were committed to continued production in the UK. He added he would be seeking a meeting to "reinforce that commitment".

Talks in Berlin - attended by Chancellor Angela Merkel, other German ministers and officials from the German states that contain GM plants - discussed the offer from Magna.

Magna, backed by a Russian bank and Russian truckmaker GAZ, says it will invest more than 500m euros into Opel.

Merkel was there, chequebook at the ready - flush with the German export-driven budget-surplus real buying money left-wing British popular 'economists' of the UK MSM have been criticising ad nauseum recently - from a position of total ignorance, arrogance and delusion it now seems.

Merkal sweetened the deal with the stuff that talks: real cash. The Russian/Canadian agreement was reached with OPEL, guys. There was no mention of Vauxhall anywhere in it because it wasn't part of the deal. Vauxhall was less than a side-issue: it's regarded as a duplicate operation with a limited (right-hand drive) market. They already think the British operation is literally redundant.

You will have noticed in all this by now: no Gordon Brown present - unlike Merkel, who made a point of it. No Brown, no British money at the table (we don't have any anyway and even he knows that). So Mandelson inevitably, utterly failed - and the slithering, hypocritical mountebank knows that as much as Brown knows he's run out of our money.

He was the poor relation at that meeting and it's vital that that truth breaks through the deep fug of Labour's delusional propaganda. The people of Britain must know just how exposed to calamity Brown and his bunch of idiot acolytes have left our nation.

Bulls**t walks - always. Brown, Mandelson, Labour and, in the eyes of the entire world these days, Britain, are all simply bulls**t. We're a total laughing stock, once more. No one will take us seriously until we take control and kick-out the utter, humiliating liability that is Brown's 'government' - and the rest of the world knows that!

Meanwhile, Vauxhall has six months - tops. Another triumph for Labour.

Cameron Out For Blood

The Daily Sleazygraph has just published a potentially explosive story in which it says Dave Cameron is calling for the phantom mortgage fraudsters to be prosecuted. In an interview with the newspaper he says:

“If people have broken the law in claiming expenses, like mortgage payments for mortgages that don’t exist, should they be subject to the full force of the law? Yes of course they should.

“I’ve said it’s not for me to call in the police but the police know what the law is and if they feel it’s been broken they should be able to look at that without fear or favour.”

He's putting the boot in on the day Elliot Morley was forced to stand down over his fraudulent expenses claims for a phantom mortgage and seems to be upping the ante and inviting open conflict with Brown over their respective parties' handling of the scandal.

Let's hope he's hurt them. Let's hope he finally flushes Brown out and then keeps on kicking. He's done a reasonable job with his wayward troughers; Brown has dodged the issue at every turn and deserves to get hammered for his useless dithering and double standards.

Mr Morley and other MPs with “phantom” mortgages are expected to be the focus of police interest.

It is understood that Sir Paul Stephenson, the Scotland Yard Commissioner, wants detectives to announce as soon as possible whether a criminal investigation will be instigated.

I don't really care who ends-up being sent-down for these frauds - for which us mere mortals could expect to be serving some serious time - but I want an arrest soon, and it might as well be the worst of the worst who have their collars felt first: Morley and Chaytor. That would be a start.

Whatever you might think about him and his party, Cameron is right on this - and he's right to be out for blood. The problem for him is that he's playing a bloody dangerous game here. But hey, isn't that what decent leaders do? Gordon 'Courage' Brown take note.

Grey Gordons

May 8th 2009 - Brown Brownish

As Labour continues to tank in the polls as the expenses scandal begins to catch-up with them to add to their many other self-inflicted woes (Smeargate etc.), spare a thought for poor old Bunker Brown, the architect and the barely-beating heart of the calamity. He's taking an awful battering and the constant stream of terrible news is clearly taking its toll, judging by his hair colour.

May 16th 2009 - Brown-Grey

After the total humiliation he and his party are heading for in the Euro and local elections, one wonders where his hair will go next: even greyer? White? Out? One thing is certain, though, a bottle of Just For Men is not gonna save him now. These are his last weeks in the office he stole. Hooray.

May 26th 2009 - Brown Greyer

Celebs Desert Labour

Rats do the same thing too, or so we're told. They know when the ship is sinking long before the crew. The rats in this case are celebrities; the ship, Brown's government, naturally. The Spectator has the story:

The Independent’s gossip column reports that Labour is having some trouble recruiting celebrity talent to us annual fundraising dinner:

“Party press officers insist that they have a "surprise singing performer" to compound [Eddie Izard’s] credentials. Who could it be? The usual cast of characters (Mick Hucknall, the Bee Gees, Heather Small) refuse to respond to Pandora's advances. Leona Lewis replies (her manager Simon is a good friend of the PM) but only to issue a denial.”

So, who would be the most suitable musical act? I’m thinking Roxette singing ‘It’s over now’. But I’m sure Coffee Housers can come up with a better suggestion. A bottle of the usual champagne for the best one.

Those celebs, eh? Fickle bunch. And light years away from the famous Oasis gig at number 10 in '97. Pathetic, really - all round.

[Something like this maybe?]

Meanwhile, my prophesy as June 1st and GM bankrupcy rapidly approach appears to be coming true. In spite of Mandelson's lies and spin, it seems he/we are powerless to save Vauxhall without it being fully nationalised.

The BBC as one would expect is bigging-up Mandy's role in the takeover of GM Europe by a venture capital group. What it doesn't say is that this takeover in no way secures the British division of the business. If anything, it makes it more likely that Vauxhall will close. It is, after all, merely a duplicate of Opel. If anyone thinks the latter will be sacrificed before the former, or that Labour are in any way capable of stopping it, they need to be reminded of the Rover story (to name but one).

Cashing-In

The Telegraph has launched a fresh attack on yet another Tory MP in the ongoing expenses saga. Right, well, let's just get the details out of the way: Bill Cash, best known for his strong anti-federalist stance on the EU, claimed 15 large for his daughter's flat in London "even though he owned another home near Westminster" in 2005. He named her flat as his second home, although on the 10 o'clock news tonight he explained that not only was this within the rules at the time, he wasn't actually living in the 'other home' in London at the time. He also agreed to repay the money.

OK. He's a trougher who's used taxpayer's hard-earned to take care of his offspring and as such is obviously the epitome of all that is evil in this world of ours. But I'm going to go slightly off message here and pose a couple of questions. First, why has the Telegraph's ongoing coverage of this story focused its biggest headlines on Tory MPs? Are we to believe that Labour, with Blears and Morley and Chaytor and Malik and so on and so on ad infinitum, are somehow immune to the most damning of front page splashes apparently fine for Tories who haven't actually, technically broken any rules? Why are Labour MPs, quite a few of whom have stretched the rules in some cases beyond breaking point in making huge capital gains over the past eight years by doing-up their 'second' homes at taxpayers expense, then flipping it and doing the same thing to what was their main home, and then flipping back and selling the - bear with me - first second home, (now a second home again), at a huge profit (take a breath) not being subjected to the same kind of forensic scrutiny and opprobrium as the Tories? The house-flipping is a scam and Geoff Hoon, to name but one, has made millions out of it. Why isn't he being hounded out of office like Kirkbride or, one assumes in due course, Bill Cash. The question is: does the Sleazygraph have an anti-Tory agenda? Well, who knows. The evidence kind of suggests it might, even if it's only a 'mild' one.

But it remains a bit of a mystery to me, especially when you compare their other revelation inside Friday's paper about Nigel Griffiths, the Labour MP and another member of Brown's untouchable inner circle (you remember, he's the married Edinburgh trougher who was snapped shagging some other woman in his office on Remembrance Sunday and then lied about it). This guy is a real scumbag and, you'd be forgiven for thinking, a walking front page - yet he only bags second or even third spot. Curious.

The second possibility is that Cameron, unlike Brown, is now quite comfortable seeing the old guard fall before the next election and thus isn't making much of a fuss about what might or might not be press bias. Bill Cash would be no great loss for Dave. Winterton wasn't, or Steed or Hogg or Fraser and so on and so forth. But I'm not so sure about this after the Kirkbride case, where the rabid left of the 'Respect' party played a strong part in unseating her. Cameron didn't lift a finger to support her, which could mean that actually he has no control over the course events are taking. In which case, he and the Tories are now at the mercy of the press - and, frankly, the far left.

There's another problem for Cameron, too. The reason Labour are stalling on deselection and the disciplining of its most corrupt Members of Parliament is because of the respective selection systems. Tory MPs are much more vulnerable to deselection than Labour not because they deserve it any more than Labour MPs - they clearly do not - but because the Labour system for deselection/selection is far more corrupt (as we saw with the Georgia Gould fiasco recently) than the Tory system. Labour really thinks they can get away with it - and here's a thought: maybe they can! So the only place left for us to go and where these thieves might, just might, be held accountable for their criminality is the General Election. I just pray people won't get fooled into actually rewarding them by stupidly punishing the Tories. There's an even bigger picture than the expenses scandal, and that's the disaster that is Labour-in-office. They have to be kicked-out at all costs, not least because they deserve to be.

So Bill Cash, old chap, you'd better watch your back mate. And do not expect your daughter to be standing again as a Conservative candidate any time soon. Your boss has opted for an attrition strategy - probably because he had no choice. The Tory casualties will be very heavy before the General Election as a consequence.

But we have to make bloody sure Labour's are much worse after it.

Light Relief

MPs are imploding like mosquitoes on a motorway today - particularly Tory ones. So for a bit of light relief, yours truly has done a bit of trawling around to find some jokes and quotes about our elected lords, ladies, masters and mistresses. Spare a thought for the poor dears, though - they're almost an endangered species now. Diddums.
A few of these are unattributed. If you know who said what when, please let me know. Ta.

"During Britain's "brain drain," not a single politician left the country."

"Crime is merely politics without the excuses."

Statesmen tell you what is true even though it may be unpopular. Politicians will tell you what is popular, even though it may be untrue.

The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites.'
Larry Hardiman

'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realise that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.'
Ronald Reagan

'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it wrongly, and applying unsuitable remedies'.
Sir Earnest Benn

'You can fool all of the people all of the time if the advertising is right and the budget is big enough.'
Joseph Levine

Crime doesn't pay...as well as politics.
Alfred E. Newman

'The House of Commons is the longest running farce in the West End.'
Cyril Smith

'The Green Belt is a Labour initiative and we intend to build on it.'
John Prescott

'Tony Banks described the English fans arrested in Marseilles as brain-dead louts - that goes for me as well.'
Harriet Harman

Gordon Brown is out jogging one morning, notices a little boy on the corner with a box. Curious he runs over to the child and says, 'What's in the box sonny?' To which the little boy says, 'Kittens, They're brand new kittens.'

Gordon Brown laughs and says, 'What kind of kittens are they? 'Socialists', the child says.

'Oh that's lovely, 'Gordon smiles and he runs off.

A couple of days later Gordon is running with his colleague Peter Mandelson and he spies the same boy with his box just ahead. Gordon says to Peter, 'Watch this.' and they both jog over to the boy with the box.

Gordon says, 'Look in the box Peter, isn't that cute? Look at those little kittens. Och aye laddie, tell my friend what kind of kittens they are.'

The boy replies, 'They're Tories.'

'What?' Gordon says, 'I jogged by here the other day and you said they were Socialists. What's changed? 'Well, 'the lad says, 'Their eyes are open now.'

The trouble with political jokes is they get elected.

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense,"

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said.

Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed. The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."

The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep poo."

A fine is a tax for doing something wrong.
A tax is a fine for doing something right.

The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward.
John Maynard Keynes

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.
Doug Larson

The art of Government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of person to give to the other.
Voltaire

Paul Kavanagh:

A man was coming home from work one day along the M25. He noticed that there was a lot more traffic than normal. As he got further up the road all of the traffic had come to a standstill. He saw a policeman coming towards his car, so he asked him what was wrong.
The policeman said, "We are in a crisis situation. Gordon Brown is in the middle of the road and he's very upset. He says he doesn't have the £500 billion needed to fill his black hole, and everyone hates him. He's threatening to douse himself in petrol and set light to it."
The man asked the police officer what he was doing about it.
The copper said, "Ah, well, I'm going from car to car asking for donations."
"Oh, great. How much do you have so far?" the man asked.
The bobby replied, "Oh, well, as of right now about 200 litres - but I've only been collecting for about five minutes."

That'll do.

US Economists: UK Budget Wrong

US financial newsblog, Intermex Power, has published a powerful article this evening by Brian S. Wesbury, chief economist, and Robert Stein senior economist at First Trust Advisors in Wheaton, Ill, who write a weekly column for Forbes. They have described the tax hikes combined with the huge levels of borrowing in the UK budget as a perilous error on the part of the government which will certainly not head off the potential credit downgrade.

...we need only look at the U.K., where the threat of a downgrade comes despite the large tax increases already built into their budget. It offers an example we shouldn't follow.

They warn the US government that to follow Brown's plans to borrow and print more money to finance ballooning levels of public debt would cripple the US economy by hammering the value of the dollar. The Standard and Poor's recent decision to 'review' the UK's AAA credit rating was not only intended to force the government to wake-up to the risks they're taking with unsustainable debt but to warn the US and the world that debt was a major danger. As the authors put it, the review of the UK's AAA status was...

...a shot heard 'round the world [and] happening despite [Gordon Brown's] planned tax hikes, because [the UK's] debt burden was to rise to 100% of gross domestic product.

So much for Brown's great lie, then: his la-la land 'global consensus'. The warning is clear: the government's policies are not only wrong, they are dangerously wrong. As Peter Hoskin of the Spectator noted earlier today

... Professor John Taylor's article for the FT today extrapolates from Standard and Poor's recent assessment of the UK's creditworthiness [and] delivers a warning about the rising national debt in America. This passage jumped out at me: that we are now in totally uncharted territory thanks to the government's mishandling of the economy year after year.

"While there is debate about whether a large deficit today provides economic stimulus, there is no economic theory or evidence that shows that deficits in five or 10 years will help to get us out of this recession. Such thinking is irresponsible. If you believe deficits are good in bad times, then the responsible policy is to try to balance the budget in good times. The CBO projects that the economy will be back to delivering on its potential growth by 2014. A responsible budget would lay out proposals for balancing the budget by then rather than aim for trillion-dollar deficits."

Taylor's point also applies over here. By the Treasury's own (optimistic?) forecasts, we'll still be running a budget deficit of 5.5 percent of GDP in 2014. Going off their current plans, that deficit would be similiar under the Tories. So unless the next government undertakes bolder fiscal consolidation than is currently being mooted, we may again be lamenting a failure to "fix the roof while the sun was shining.

The message for Brown and Darling, coming now from experts all over the world, can't be any more clear: you must cut spending or cause an even deeper crisis for the UK economy. Of course, they will not - but not for economic reasons, for political ones. Launching the essential raft of cuts in public spending would mean they would be unable to attack supposed 'Tory cuts' and thus in their uncomplicated minds lose their 'unique selling point'. As this appears to be the main (only?) plank of their political strategy it would also mean their having to work-out (very quickly) exactly what, if anything, this government is now for. I can provide the answer for them right now: this government is [good] for precisely nothing.

What voters simply must finally realise from all this is that the cynical - and severely flawed - political calculation behind the tax-borrow-and-spend 'policy', and behind triggering an insane debt explosion, is the only motive for Brown's reckless actions. It's the sheer desperation of a man (deservedly) threatened with the end of his political career and willing to devastate the UK economy in a last-ditched and deluded attempt somehow to 'save' himself. He's attempting to trick the electorate into backing him by generating a fake recovery for early 2010 which itself will result in the dreaded 'double dip' recession and then years of stagflation.

This country is currently at the mercy of a very dangerous man. The press better wake up to this fact and help people with a campaign to have him removed - immediately. It's the only option left.

Labour Tax Dodgers Let Off Hook

Just been watching Sky News in disbelief. Downing Street has come out and defended tax dodging ministers, even after the Inland Revenue itself in an unprecedented statement said:

"It’s a general principle of tax law that accountancy fees incurred in connection with the completion of a personal tax return are not deductible. This is because the costs of complying with the law are not an allowable expense against tax. This rule applies across the board."

Instead we get the now-familiar whitewash tactics of Labour: a meeting of party 'officials' (laughably named the 'star chamber') followed by a statement saying something along the lines of "Well, shucks folks, the system is just plain stoopid. But our good 'ol boys - heck, they did nothing wrong - they're the real victims in all this. Would they do anything to hurt you? Now would they? So calm down, shut-up, go home and get ready to vote us in for a Fourth Term. When we decide to let you, that is."

Grrr. The lefty goons seem to think paying an unqualified accountant, and husband of one of your colleagues, taxpayers money to do your personal accounts is just fine and tickedy-boo. But you see, Labour, no it isn't. It's illegal whatever your stupid little green book (that you wrote) says. We have to comply - and so do you!

Compare this with Cameron's ongoing purge of Tory party corruption and you see how utterly feeble this is. Mind you, I suppose it is naive of us to expect the totally corrupt Labour party to investigate their own members and produce any other results. Unbelievable. They are that bad.

Wipe them out in the elections next month, folks. Bring them down. But just remember, that will not be achieved by voting for fringe parties like UKIP.

However distasteful the idea of voting Tory might seem to you just now, it's the only way to give the Labour troughers, fraudsters and total incompetents exactly what they deserve: a bloody good kicking.

The Twilight Zone: Heffer vs Piggy

Sir Alan "Posh Piggy" Haselhurst

Simon Heffer, the Telegraph's pompous voice of the old right and scourge of all things Cameron, all things Left, has now threatened to stand against grandee Tory piggy and front runner for the Speaker's vacant seat, Sir Alan Haselhurst, if the latter fails to pay back £12,ooo-worth of gardening expenses.

This new twist might not have been quite what Dave Cameron had in mind when he threw open the Tory PP candidates list to all-comers: "The Heif" has about as much time for Call-Me-Dave as a cow has for roast beef.

Of posh porker Haselhurst, Heffer said:

“If he does not, between now and the opening of nominations for the general election, admit error, apologise, pay back the £12,000 and promise to behave, I shall stand against him as an independent. If Sir Alan thinks I am joking, I warn him I am not. I have backers and volunteers. I say this more in anger than in sorrow: we are all angry. Doesn’t he get it?”

Haselhurst might not 'get it' but you can bet your most violet wisteria that Cameron does. That money will be paid back instantly - with interest - or Haselhurst will be out before you can say 'large, female cow'.

But this is weird sort of old Tory, country gent, farmyard politics that doesn't really compute for most folk, including me. We're into real Twilight Zone stuff now and as more Z-list celebs and self-important numbskulls put their names forward as independent, 'anti-sleaze' candidates ala total windbad, Martin Bell in 1997 things can only get worse. Esther Rantzen? Robert Harris? David Van Day? David Van Day FFS!! I guess he's standing on the 70s Shitpop Revival ticket. You know, "A Vote For Van Day Is A Vote For Dollar!".

Could get confusing.

Simon Heffer Heifer pictured in 2005 interviewing Ann Widdecombe in the grounds of his country estate

Dying Out

Diplodocus Brown: Extinct

Long has it been known that the Daily Telegraph 'editor-in-chief', relative youngster and Brown sympathiser, Will Lewis' sop to the Left was Mary Riddell. The 'Labour insider' was employed soon after Lewis was installed by the Telegraph's new owners. Since then she (and he) have left regular readers, of whom yours truly once was, apoplectic with fury as inch after inch of Leftist, Brownite horse manure was dumped on them week after week, earning Riddell the richly deserved sobriquet Merry Drivell, at least from me.

You could be fooled into imagining that after Brown's monumental cockups over the economy, the smears campaigns and now the expenses scandal - and just about everything else he's ever touched - that we'd be spared any more of this crap from the Lewis-Drivell axis. Sadly, no. Like Toynbee and Ashley - only moreso even than these two uber-loons - Riddell just keeps on churning out the same old sympathetic, sycophantic, half-baked, often barely readable claptrap about 'what Brown must do next'. There's another dose of dozy Drivell today. Check out some of the diseased sputum she's managed to cough-up this time. It's not her worst effort, but there are some dollops of trademark Merry in it worth repeating:

Mr Miliband's modest wishlist – more power for select committees, Prime Minister's Questions (an ordeal that Mr Brown detests) becoming nicer, and an end to ceremonial garb – will appeal to reformers

Diddums. And Ed Milliband's 'reform programme'? Laugh? I nearly cried. Surely he's too worried about how global warming will affect his wank pimples to be concerned with this.

However he reshuffles his pack, Mr Brown should ignore those urging caution on broader reform. Delivering cleaned-up rules is the easy bit. Promising the changes that will jolt Britain into the 21st century [sic] is his only chance of wrong-footing Mr Cameron.

*wipes eyes* Oh. Dear. I suppose all you can say about this is that Brown ignores everyone else, including an electorate that not only wants him out now, but to see him hanging from the nearest lampost with piano wire - attached to his tongue (metaphorically, of course - I think). So if he ignores the 'more cautious' piggy pocketliners in his shit-awful party, at least he's being consistent. Consistently terrible, that is.

And "jolt Britain into...blah blah...21st Century...wheeze...wrong-footing Cameron...splutter". For God's sake, Brown's a dinosaur, Drivell! He's the thing that most urgently requires abolition, Ridell, to allow Britain to enter the 21st Century.

He's a political Diplodocus: he plods along making lots of loud honking and farting noises but doesn't really-actually do anything except strip the land of vegetation (taxes) and produce about a ton of arse-methane a day (talking). The chances of him 'wrong-footing' the scurrying, warm-blooded, hirsute creature that is Cameron is about the same as it was for those peabrained, doomed megabeasts of yesteryear: the former changed with the climate and inherited the earth while the latter drifted off into extinction, poisoned by its own pollution.

Political paleantologists might be interested in the fossilised remains of Brown's career years from now. But today, the asteroid that is the expenses scandal might be bad news for the Tory rodents, but for Brown and Labour's other terrible lizards it's an Extinction Level Event.

And Mary, no amount of your drivel is going to change that. Fate is fate and Brown's is to go the way of the Dodo. They have a lot in common not least in that regard.

Lies, Darling, Lies

Alistair Darling, charged with managing the nation's finances, has lied about his expenses claims according to the latest DT revelations.

Mr Darling initially attempted to claim yesterday that the expense was justified as it was in relation to the taxation of his office costs. However, receipts submitted by the Chancellor to the parliamentary authorities clearly show the advice is for personal taxation.

According to senior accountants, in itself this is a clear breach of the rules. What makes it worse is that Darling sought to mislead the public initially by suggesting his claims were related purely to his role as an MP and as Chancellor.

Surely there is only one course open to him now: he must resign. He's claimed public money for a private accountant, has lied to the public about it and as the man in charge of tax policy, has exposed himself to a serious conflict of interest. Each one of those reasons represents a strong enough reason for the man to be sacked. Taken together, not only should he be fired as Chancellor, but his future as an MP must also now be in serious doubt.

If useless Brown doesn't act on this, everyone will finally know precisely where they stand with Labour: they will stop at nothing to cling on to power. Not good enough, I'm afraid - and the Opposition parties must make damn sure that message is heard loud and clear by demanding a no confidence debate in the Chancellor and, by implication, the government.

This cannot go on.

Red Alert

Now that North Korea has done exactly what it threatened to do and relaunched its nuclear programme by successfully testing a 20kt nuclear device, it's time for the UN's bureaucrats with their cushy New York City lifestyles to ask themselves some searching questions. Here's some suggestions.

1) Diplomatic failure. How can we galvanise more equivocal nations like China and Russia into putting concerted pressure on NK to disarm immediately or face wide-ranging sanctions and expulsion from the UN? This approach appeared to be working when Bush was around, banging-on about the 'Axis of Evil', so what's changed? Which states have flouted international law by continuing to supply nuclear weapon and missile technology to NK (Iran, Russia, China) and what should be done about them?

2) Doctrine. If NK decides to 'abolish' a city, like Seoul, as a precursor to an invasion, what will the world's response be? Will we carry out President Clniton's 1997 threat to 'wipe North Korea off the face of the earth' during a far less severe crisis? Will we really contemplate using thermonuclear weapons against major North Korean population centres in retaliation at a cost of millions of lives? What is our response doctrine for a limited nuclear attack by a rogue state?

3) Plausible deterrent. Is it time to increase troop strength in South Korea? Shouldn't a fully armoured international peacekeeping force of, say, 20 divisions (100,000+ troops) and armed with nuclear capable cruise missiles be deployed immediately?

4) Aid. What are the implications for the aid programme currently operating in NK? Deadly though it would certainly be for the subjugated population, should the UN's donor states continue to provide succour to a belligerent and now nuclear armed country? Would withdrawal of that aid make matters worse by creating an even deeper, more desperate 'siege mentality'.

This is not merely more bombast from a deeply irrational regime. The reality of a nuclear armed North Korea with a viable delivery system is now here. If the UN fails to find adequate answers to these - and many other - critical questions, the consequences for that region's stability will be dire, with all the attendant, disastrous implications for world peace.

One thing is certain, Iran, among a few others, will be studying the outcomes of this latest international diplomatic fiasco with keen interest. We'd better get it right.

And what does the UK have to offer the international drive for a solution? David Millipede.
God help us all.

Satire 101 II

After this, comes this:


I've got the order backwards, of course, but I really hope this young bloody satirical genius, Michael Gregory (aka: Schmoyoho), can be shanghaied, sedated, brought to Britain and forced to do a keel-hauling Auto-Tune on Brown and his crew of looting cabinet fckuwits.

In the barren wasteland that is British satire in 2009, he would instantly become a life-giving oasis for millions of us poor thirsty suckers.

Someone kidnap the bloke. Please.

Desperation!

Guess who's coming back into government. Yes, the mastermind behind Nannygate himself, Dave Blunkett. Brown's desperation is now total. As the Speccy concludes:

...the overwhelming message that bringing Blunkett back would send would be that Labour is tired and that there is no fresh talent to bring in. There is also a risk to retuning him to the Cabinet at a time when political anger about political sleaze is so high.

No, really? You think?

Simply desperate.

The Radical Fix

'Renegade Economist' Fred Harrison has seldom been wrong about where our governments, particularly this one, utterly failed to 'go right'. Last month I wrote this little piece about his plan for a radical fix. This time, I'll just leave it to him to explain what we have to do as a nation to get ourselves out of the mire - and avoid the Thirties solution, which was World War II.



I don't entirely agree with him on the land tax issue (there are over-population and transition factors he doesn't seem to take into account with any rigour in his daring escape plan), but I totally agree with him on at least one thing: the first step is to cast off this government and force the next one to get it right. I also agree heart and soul that debt is our real enemy, and a powerful one at that. To defeat debt, the radical fix has to begin right away.

PS: And if you really care, read this (even though he's wrong about Thatcher).

Double Dippers

As the Spectator reveals the growing rift between the governor of the Bank of England and Brown, the latter, according to the Financial Times, having been left 'fuming' at the former's 'gloomy' (honest?) predictions for the UK economy, the reality of the deep political cynicism of Labour in their plans to dupe the electorate into a false choice between Labour 'optimism' and Tory 'austerity' begins to sink in.

Given this Government's track record on forecasts, as well as some of the worrying indicators coming out at the moment - not least the Standard & Poor revelation - I don't think it's too unreasonable for King to take a sober view of things. In which case, this becomes a telling sign of how Gordo likes his independent bodies: erm, toeing the Labour party line, and helping in the great struggle against the Tories. And it's rather dispiriting if he's letting these party poltical instincts damage relations with the Bank of England at a time of economic crisis.

So once we strip away Labour's lies and spin, what is the most likely direction of this, the worst recession in British peacetime history? What is it that Brown and his acolytes would like us not to know?

Brief research on some boffin economist websites reveals the most likely outcome in all its stark truth: a so-called double dip recession. Over to them:

Total GDP contraction to date now stands at -4% on a quarter on quarter basis...Whilst a bounce back in the economy is expected going into the 2010 election, however the tax hikes and spending cuts will in all likelihood trigger a double dip recession during 2011 to 2012 as illustrated by the above graph [top of page].

What this means is that there will continue to be a major shortfall in tax revenues and therefore continuing budget deficits and hence deeper public spending cuts and therefore continuing downward pressure on prices and hence inflation may remain subdued even beyond 2010 after a temporary rise inline with the bounce in GDP.

UK Inflation Conclusion - Extreme Deflation as measured by RPI is near an imminent end, forward inflation will remain subdued despite economic recovery into the 2010, election as the risks of a double dip recession remain which would be accompanied by lower inflation.

Economist Robert Shiller, favoured by George Osborne, agrees. The Spectator again:

As for the Tories, their rhetoric may be about to get even more cheerless. One of George Osborne's favourite economists (whom he referenced here) warned today that Britain could face two recessions in quick succession. Seems like gloomy ol' King may be onto something...

It's vitally important that the Tories reveal the extent to which Brown's continued reckless overspending during a severe debt crisis will cause not recovery, but a brief respite in early 2010 - which was always his cynical plan - followed by another serious recession, leaving an entire generation exposed to negative growth and all its attendant personal, social and national pain. The only way to head off this desperate threat is for Brown to be ousted as soon as possible and his appalling, short-sighted and duplicitous, politically motivated programme to be torn-up and replaced with a new one that's genuinely designed to fix the problem now.

The Tories have to be honest with the people of Britain and warn them that Brown's short-termist economic insanity could lead to catastrophe for the British economy. The people must be convinced they cannot believe a word he says and the Tories must seek to force him out, preferably this summer, in the hope that the severe damage he has done can be confined to a single period of recession instead of the dreaded - and now eminently likely - 'double dipper', 'W'-shaped 'lost decade'. It will go much harder for us because in the absence of a Japanese-style manufacturing capacity to prop-up the deficit, the only thing Britain will be producing for the forseeable future is debt. Among OECD nations, that would be historically unprecedented - and utterly humiliating.

If you doubt the dishonesty of Brown and his glovepuppet, Darling, just remember the forecast downgrades (see below) between November 2008 and April 2009. They weren't just 'off-beam', they were lies. They're doing it again with the UK bank stress tests. We can't come through this without facing-up to reality, something the current regime ruining Britain is psychologically and morally incapable of doing. Until we are shot of them, no recovery will be possible and years of pain are almost guaranteed.

Gutless Brown, Follow Cameron's Lead!

Tribute to Jackboot Jacqui, queen of sleaze (warning: not for the faint of heart!):


As Cameron clears out anyone from the Tories who's played fast and loose with the system, I and I suspect a lot of other people want to know: why hasn't this woman been fired? For that matter, why haven't Blears, McNulty, Hoon, Purnell, the pair of Balls and quite a lot of others on the Labour front and back benches?

Perhaps I've answered my own question: Brown's gutless. But the fact remains, unless Brown stops dithering and starts following Cameron's principled lead, then he'll be conclusively proved to be the cowardly liar we've always known he is. Brown: do something or bugger off.

==Update==
Tub of lard Scotch socialist Ian McCartney's comment on announcing he was standing down 'for health reasons':

"This is a system that has put at risk the reputation of dedicated public servants like me."

Novel, I'll give him that. Novel and about as hypocritical as is it's possible to be without actually transforming into a toxic pile of putrefying biohazard. Oh, yeah. He has.

Another One Bites The Dust

Fraser Nelson reports that another Tory grandee is to fall on his sword after making dodgy expense claims.

Only this morning, Andrew MacKay said that he would stand for election again - but after a conversation with David Cameron he has now decided to stand down at the next election. The open meeting he held had several calls for him to go, and there was talk of a petition. The grassroots momentum was significant. This, make no mistake, is a personal loss to David Cameron who relied on MacKay to be his eyes and ears in the backbenches.

It's become pretty obvious that Cameron intends to purge the Tories of all those who have abused a lax system, whether their claims fell within the rules or not. The party faces a torrid time over the next week or so, but one thing is now abundantly clear, whatever you might think about the main parliamentary parties' behaviour generally, the battle between Brown and Cameron on how to deal with the issue is being comprehensively won by Cameron.

As I said a few days ago, thanks to his indecisiveness, mixed messages and perennial favouritism Brown faces the impossible task that is reshuffling a tainted and split cabinet. Another minister broke ranks today providing a front page story for the Times and further evidence of a government in total disarray not just over the expenses fiasco but over the management of the economy and home affairs, too. Caroline Flint, the over-promoted minister of something-or-other in question and friend of chipmunks everywhere apparently

...risks angering Downing Street by saying that Ms Blears had technically done nothing wrong, despite Mr Brown’s branding her behaviour “completely unacceptable” after she failed to pay capital gains tax on the sale of a flat.

Ms Flint says that Ms Blears is “one of the last people who would ever come into politics to gain some kind of financial benefit”.

So, not only wrong but wrong-headed and a thinly-veiled assault on Geoff Hoon, the Lord High Chancellor of Troughers. Combine this backbiting with the brewing tempest over the economic mismanagement apparently exacerbating an already serious situation vis-a-vis the debt crisis, with the UK about to lose its AAA status according to CNBC and you quickly see the Times is way off-beam with its characterisation of the mood within the Parliamentary Labour Party...

In a further sign of the febrile atmosphere at the top of government, some ministers are now speculating that Mr Brown could be persuaded to call an autumn election. They say that, with Labour apparently heading for certain defeat next year, the only way Mr Brown could rescue his party would be to be bold and go to the country...

They shouldn't bother talking to 'some ministers'. There is not one snowball's chance in hell that this outcome is even remotely likely. On the strength of the evidence so far, Brown will either hang on until the last possible minute of this parliament (not a chance) or he will be metaphorically assassinated (probability rising with each passing day) soon after the June 4th wipeout by the growing mass of disaffected Labour MPs faced with unemployment.

Not to see this is not to appreciate the state of panic among Labour's rank and file, or the total lack of leadership or connection from the Prime Menacer. While they are ponderous and slow on the uptake, predictably, they will eventually come to the conclusion that they chose him and they can depose Brown. Whatever they might think of him personally, they will look at David Cameron and see tough, sure, decisive - even brutal - leadership from a fairly normal human being. They will then look at Brown and see a bully who cannot see past the end of his own nose, inconsistency, dithering and, above all, a willingness to burn anyone to save his own bacon.

It will finally dawn on them that he is a liability and has to go.