Where's Darling?

I was surprised to learn from Sky News this morning that the latest general election economics debate, if I heard right, will be between George Osborne, Vince Cable and...er...Peter Mandelson.

Hang on a minute, do they mean Lord Peter "We're all fighting to get re-elected" Mandelson, Business Secretary (among many other hats)? He's not Chancellor of the Exchequer as well these days is he? That's Alistair Darling, isn't it?

Have I missed something? Has Darling come down with an inexplicable stomach complaint (soon after having tea and crumpets with the Evil One yesterday afternoon, no doubt)?

If I haven't missed something, however, but there's no highly suspicious sudden sickness involved (it'd have to be a pretty serious affliction to force you to miss your own debate seven days before the election, wouldn't it?), then we are all entitled to ask a grave question about this very fishy affair: where the hell is Ali?

I think we should be told.

PS: If someone knows, by the way, why Darling has been elbowed, do let me know in the comments.

I wonder if George knows...

==Update==

Not entirely my fault because this wasn't made clear on the news - or I was half asleep - but the three mentioned above are all giving speeches to the Institute of Directors today, not debating, according to Sky.com.

Even so, the question remains: where's Darling!

Or, looking at it another way, why not send Clarke into bat against Mandelson instead of Osborne whose eyes, let's face it, are probably still watering after being on the receiving end of a couple of severe spankings in the past administered with thinly disguised fetishistic relish by the Lord of the Lies.

Ken Clarke, in contrast, owns Mandy's ass.

Darling-Osborne Debate Limber-Up

If Osborne sticks to these home truths, and really nails Darling for his own, rather softer brand of mendacious tribalism, then he really could move the Tory argument and campaign forward tonight. Let's hope he's up to it. I think he is - but not everyone does. He's still got a lot to prove to a lot of people, unfairly I feel, especially after his tour de force showing with his plans to scrap Labour's economically suicidal tax-on-jobs NI hike.

Plenty of things to make it decent viewing, then.

Hat tip: the increasingly substantial, Guy News roving reporter and top blue blogger,Tory Bear - who delivered a pretty solid performance of his own on Sky a few moments ago ;)

Finally, Some Real Perspective On Darling's Larceny Budget

Jeff Randall, as usual, has said precisely what needed to be said (ie: the truth) about the implications of Labour's latest act of political violence against the country we somehow collectively permitted it to ruin once again. Now don't get me wrong. I'm a grown-up (sort of) so I can take a bunch of socialist tax rises and spending lunacy on the chin. I'd expect nothing less from these power-hungry economic illiterates.

What I will not tolerate, at all, however, is the prospect of future generations having to pick up the bill for their rank electioneering and amoral, scorched earth economic blitz. Randall explains how and why this is precisely what will happen if the current voting generation really is stupid enough to allow the Labour fraud to work come the general election.

I'm no longer in the habit of lifting whole pieces from other sites (it breaks one of the ten blogging commandments that I take pretty seriously these days), but there are exceptions. This is most certainly one of them, because it's too important to ignore:

If you want to know what would become of Britain were Labour to win another five years in power, turn to page 189 of the Treasury's Budget book. Before you do so, however, slip into a straitjacket and gulp down an elephant tranquilliser. Prepare to feel like Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as he was administered huge electric shocks.

In Table C3 – Current and Capital Budgets – there's a line showing Public Sector Net Debt, ie how much we, as a country, will owe our creditors (not including personal borrowings). Now, cast your eyes over the column
"2014-15". Pow! I bet that hurt. Have another go: it's not a printing error.

Yes, according to the Treasury's forecasts, the United Kingdom will nearly double its indebtedness from £776 billion (in 2009-10) to £1.4 trillion. Even in Gordon Brown's devalued, debased and degraded system of accounting, that is still a poleaxing sum, equal to about one year's national output.

It gets worse, because this unprecedented and unimaginable debt projection is based on Alistair Darling's optimistic assumption that, from 2010-11, the UK's economic growth will bounce back to 3-3.5 per cent, well above long-term trend. If you are feeling confused, don't worry, you are meant to be.

Listen to the assurances of Mr Brown – that his ministers are acting to "halve the deficit" – and you might be forgiven for thinking that there's a credible plan to reduce our national debt. In fact, the very opposite is true.

Labour's plan, if one can so dignify it, involves a viral proliferation of state borrowing. In effect, the Government has turned the country into a home-owner whose mortgage is too onerous. Interest obligations are increasing faster than our ability to repay. Money goes out of the national account every month, but the capital owed is ballooning.

Consider this: the UK's deficit (annual shortfall) is scheduled to drop over the course of the next five years to £163 billion, £131 billion, £110 billion, £89 billion and £74 billion. But total state debt in the same period will rise to £952 billion, £1,095 billion, £1,218 billion, £1,320 billion and £1,406 billion. At that point, the Treasury's Debt Management Office will be humming like a Guangdong sweatshop.

In his Budget speech, the Chancellor was reserved, cautioning that there is nothing "pre-ordained" about our exit from recession and "there are still uncertainties". But when it comes to inventing numbers to suit his political agenda, the calculations are sexed up with a Panglossian twist.

It makes no sense to warn that Britain's fragile recovery could not possibly withstand the rigours of the Conservatives' tough love, while at the same time attaching to it an assumption of turbo-boosted expansion for next year and the one after. As Ed Balls would not say, this a non-sequitur.

Never mind, let's for argument's sake accept that Mr Darling's wonderland becomes reality and everything in the Treasury's crystal ball turns out to be true. How much will we, Britain's taxpaying classes, have to fork out annually for the pleasure of holding £1.4 trillion of debt? Go on, have a guess.

Well, next year the bill will be £43 billion on £952 billion of debt, an implied interest rate of 4.5 per cent. Apply that to £1.4 trillion and by 2014-5 those who contribute to the Chancellor's coffers will be forking out £63 billion a year in interest. That's 150 per cent of our current defence budget and three times what we will spend next year on industry, agriculture and employment.

Time for another happy pill, because the real outcome will almost certainly be more painful than that. For a start, the OECD rejects Mr Darling's growth prediction, insisting that Britain's economy will expand next year by only 2.2 per cent. Without a drastic slowing of Labour's spending binge, weaker growth will inevitably necessitate even higher levels of state borrowing.

Then there's the cost of servicing that debt mountain. Today's rock-bottom interest rates are unlikely to be on offer come 2014-5. Add these factors together and it is not unreasonable to conclude that Britain's annual interest bill could be approaching £100 billion five years hence.

This is legalised theft, a national disgrace. Under the bogus banner of "fairness", the Government is stealing from our children's tomorrow in order to buy votes today. It's bad enough that the current generation of university students – including those at third-rate former technical colleges – will emerge with an average debt of £23,500 (see last year's survey on push.co.uk), but they will also have to compensate for their forefathers' profligacy.

When he was in opposition, Mr Brown lambasted John Major's government for "the costs of failure", by which he meant the bills for unemployment and debt interest. He was right to do so. Unfortunately, on this Prime Minister's watch, those very same costs are rocketing out of control. His steadfast refusal to contemplate affordable spending has created an island of debt junkies: economic vandalism.

And for what? Clearly much of that extra funding for education – lots of nice teaching assistants – isn't working, otherwise Mr Brown's little helper, Mr Balls, would not be so angered by the success of grammar and private schools. Next year, the Government will spend £89 billion on education (an 80 per cent increase in 10 years) and yet our best universities are being strong-armed into accepting comprehensive-school pupils with sub-standard A-levels, in order to make up for a state system that is failing the poor.

If we are to extricate ourselves from this dung hill of Labour's making, Britain has three choices. We can default, an option not even Mr Darling favours. We can raise taxes, and that is already happening. But to knock a hole in that £1.4 trillion, punitive taxation would need to extend so far down the food chain that even dinner ladies would be heading for Zurich.

That leaves fiscal responsibility. We can stop pretending that the state is a machine for ever-increasing mass entitlement and, instead, align public-sector spending with our ability to pay.

The trouble is, while Mr Brown remains in charge – and the latest poll in the marginal constituencies suggests he may yet survive – this will never happen. He will always use the public purse as a tool for his party's advantage.

Professor Philip Booth of Cass Business School sums up the problem: "Almost every Budget measure [on Wednesday] involved a spending favour for some small group or other, or some tax relief for a group that the Government hopes to sway behind the Labour Party at the election."

Thanks to Channel 4's Dispatches, we learned this week that the daily rate for former Labour ministers "on the make" is £5,000. Perhaps we should pay the entire Cabinet that rate to clear off for good and save ourselves a fortune.

Five more years of Labour? Over my dead body.

So When's The Real Budget?

From what I've read so far, 'trivial tinkering' is about as generous a term I could think of to describe what is, beyond all question, the most inept and irresponsible response to Britain's debt crisis that Labour could have managed, desperate as they are not to confront the consequences of Gordon Brown's economic car crash before the general election. We got the usual cowardly hammering of harmless drinkers and smokers, the usual mindless fuel duty increases (staggered, as if that matters during a devaluation) and the usual (from Labour, especially under Brown, but now under Darling) stealth tax increases, which are being deciphered from the small print by various sifters and sleuth bloggers as we speak.

The giveaways were pathetic too. Raising the stamp duty threshold to encourage first time buyers will have no such effect. It is, when put into perspective, a tiny tax break. Not being able to get a mortgage on decent terms, or a mortgage that any first time buyer with half a brain will know would become an unaffordable millstone with the first interest rate hike are the real problems. So, no help there. As for the attempt to woo the grey vote once more, well, it's nice for my folks to look forward to a winter fuel allowance again. But now that the worst of this winter is just about over, I can't see them being overly impressed with this straightforward bribe. They'll still have to stump up £2000+ a year for gas and electricity, a constant struggle for pensioners - who are hardly excessive users. See? Pathetic. And where were the cuts? Inadequate and slipped in under the radar.

In reality, therefore, this was a white noise budget with no clear purpose and no clear goal. I note with great pleasure that Cameron was especially thorough in his demolition of it, of Labour's latest ruin of Britain and of the man responsible for it all, James Gordon Brown. Five more years of this? You need your head examined if you seriously want that.

But if you really are as determined as I am to see the end of Brown and his ultra-corrupt government, but can't vote for Cameron for whatever petty reason, then just remember: If you do that then you will split the vote and you will get five more years of Brown. And you'll only have yourself to blame. Putting prejudice before country is as sure a way of letting these useless wreckers back in by default as actually voting for them.

I would have thought this burnt-out budget of a burnt-out government would have provided reason enough to wake up, smell the coffee, vote Tory and finally get them out.

Then, fifty days after that happy day, we'll have the real budget. You know, a Conservative budget that will begin the process of reversing the catastrophic damage long years of a Labour government has caused to the United Kingdom. Again.

Budget Bluster

What a load of laughable lightweight rhetoric. "I believe that government can make a difference," whimpers Darling. Yes, mate. But not this one. Not your bust government.

The whole tone of the thing makes me think that he's decided to vote Tory himself, actually (on the sly), because then, in his confused mind, at least he could guarantee the "big changes" he thinks we so desperately need - without Gordon there to wreck them, that is. Well, at least that's two things we can agree on then: the need for big changes and the necessity to vote Conservative to get them.

Peter Hoskin was a little less (a very little less) scathing about this pre-budget manure. He also thinks it's a signal that Darling's nicked another Tory policy and is going to cut business tax. I doubt it will be handled competently even if he does, however, given this nightmare government's record when it comes to the private, productive heart of the British economy. What's more, you can guarantee that it will be paid for not with vital cuts in government debt and overspending, but with tax hikes everywhere. Prepare to become a lot poorer after tomorrow, everyone.

Epic, unravelling fail, 24 hours before it's even happened.

New UK Petrol Spike Just Getting Started

If any further evidence of the pain being caused by the inexorable slide in the value of the pound, and the subsequent inflation an import-addicted economy is suffering, were needed, the latest reports about rocketing petrol prices provide it.

The Independent, for instance, tells us that pump prices have risen by well over a fifth in the past 12 months, although it omits to mention that they were pretty stable for most of that period. It's been the last three months or so that have seen the bulk of the spike - so far. And there is far worse to come. If you drew a graph of petrol price rises over the past 12 months, the line would roughly trace a parabola. My own local Texaco has pushed its prices up five times in the last five weeks alone - to an eye-watering 117ppl, and perilously close to the record of 119ppl, which happened when oil prices had ballooned to $147/barrel, just before the crash.

Today, as of 5.38pm GMT, the NIMEX crude oil price stands at around $81 a barrel and falling (itself an inflated price caused by artificially created conditions of scarcity by OPEC output cuts) as bad consumer spending data in the US causes further jitters on their markets. That's a full $66 a barrel less than the previous spike - or 44%. Even taking into account Darling's many tax rises that have since boosted that price (by about 7ppl since 2009), your pound is worth at least 35% less than it was before the crash came. The economic damage this is causing is unknown as yet, but it will be serious. Indeed, the Chancellor's plan to slap another inflation+1p hike on the price in the budget is, quite simply, economically suicidal.

The whole mess smacks of chaos, incompetence and desperation at the heart of a government hell-bent on pursuing a scorched earth economic policy, where they continue to mask the real horror of the current state of the British economy by creating yet more debt in an attempt to delay reality till after the election. But it's a spiral, with increased debt leading to further currency devaluations, followed by higher inflation, higher prices, especially on imports (like oil) - all paid for by us out of salaries that remain stubbornly flat - and then all that's followed by even higher (stealthy) taxes, and the cycle is complete.

I just hope people remember whose ineptitude is responsible for this renewed impoverishment (Brown et al) - and punish them accordingly, ie: severely. Otherwise, as I've said before, what comes next will make March 2010 seem like the good old days. At this rate, for instance, the two-pound litre will be with us just in time for the General Election and whoever wins will send a signal to the markets, who will then determine in which direction prices will move after that. If it's Labour, then the only way is up - for the petrol price, of course, but also for debt, the acceleration of devaluation, inflation, tax and pain.

For Britain, the only way would be down. Down and out.

Randall On Darling

Jeff Randall has done it again. In his latest piece for the Telegraph, he considers his recent, possibly game-changing interview with Alistair Darling, which produced arguably one of the most memorable quotes of the Brown years. You know, the one about the 'forces of hell' being 'unleashed' - by, er, the son of the manse himself. Randall is at his sparkling best in this piece, as this hefty taste will, I hope, demonstrate:

Renewed allegations about Mr Brown’s bullying had surfaced at the weekend, when The Observer published extracts from Andrew Rawnsley’s new book, The End of the Party. The Chancellor knew that he would be facing a few bouncers on the subject, almost certainly on the way that Number 10 had tried to intimidate him in the past, especially after he had predicted in the summer of 2008 that Britain’s downturn would be the worst for 60 years.

Mr Darling was not caught off guard by me. He and his adviser, Catherine Macleod, had had plenty of time to formulate an appropriate response to the issue of Mr Brown’s bad temper. In the event, they went deliberately for the explosive option, a decision that would have been endorsed by the delightful Maggie Darling, the Chancellor’s bubbly but determined other half.

This was revenge at its most delicious: a platter of cryogenically modified resentment. From now until the election, and almost certainly beyond, Mr Brown’s cabal of slime merchants will be branded as the doers of the devil’s work: Forces of Hell, the Inferno’s Enforcers, Satan’s Storm troopers. The son of a preacher man has, it seems, been employing the wrong crowd.

After the interview, Mr Darling and his Treasury team accepted my offer to stay on for a few drinks. Over a glass of chablis and a bowl of Doritos, he chatted confidently about the task of reducing the United Kingdom’s unprecedented deficit. As we discussed the choice between lower spending and higher taxes, Miss Macleod’s BlackBerry was glowing like Chernobyl. The fallout had begun, yet the Chancellor seemed entirely unbothered.

I inferred from Mr Darling’s equanimity that he has accepted his fate. For him, the Downing Street game is nearly over. Even if Labour were to pull off a remarkable election victory, securing another overall majority, the chances of him being invited to remain as Chancellor are slimmer than a collection of Mr Brown’s witticisms. In the unlikely event that the Prime Minister finds himself back in charge, you can be sure that only loyal Yes Persons will be rehired.

Thus, Mr Darling has nothing to lose. He is unsackable before the election but, in political terms, unemployable after it.

This is why I like Randall so much, not just because he is always clear, illuminating and knows his own mind (a mind I more often than not totally agree with), but because he is fair, tough-but-amiable and, above all, lays almost 100% of the blame for grinding the British economy into the ground squarely at the door of the self-aggrandising weirdo wrecker, Gordon Brown. And rightly so.

Anyway, I won't go on - read it for yourself; it's certainly worth it. But be warned, Randall ends the piece on an ominous note about the true state of the public finances and the real scale of the Brown catastrophe that awaits the next government:

When near-bankrupt companies are taken over at the 11th hour by fresh management, it is often the case that their numbers are far worse than we had been led to understand. In desperation, dodgy directors try to hide the full extent of the horror in the vain hope of bluffing their way through. That is what Labour is doing to UK plc - and very soon its bluff will be called.

So don't believe the hype anybody (not that you do, of course). Whoever wins, things can only get tougher.

Darling Puts The Boot In

This pretty strange report in tomorrow's Telegraph, about an interview with Alistair Darling in which he claims that "Brown unleashed the forces of hell" on him for predicting the recession, suggests that at the very least, as Iain Dale says, he's just signed his own "political death warrant".

In an frank interview, the Chancellor said that people working for Mr Brown tried to damage him because he told the truth about the economy.

His remarks follow reports in a new book by Andrew Rawnsley that Mr Brown’s aides tried to undermine Mr Darling after the Chancellor forecast the worse economic downturn for 60 years.

In a Sky News interview, Mr Darling confirmed that No 10 worked against him. Mr Darling made his 60-year prediction in an interview in Scotland in the summer of 2008. Afterwards, No 10 aides briefed journalists that he had harmed the economy and should be sacked.

“Nobody likes the sort of briefing that goes on,” Mr Darling said, “the forces of hell were unleashed”.

It might sound like Darling is getting his own back for Brown's desperate disloyalty when the bust came, which he knew was all his fault and not Darling's, but I'm not so sure. If past experience is anything to go on, Darling, if challenged, will simply issue another humiliating "clarification" tomorrow and say that Brown has his "full support" and always has, clearly total rubbish though that now certainly is. But there was more in the report about Brown's henchmen, one of whom is still in business, bankrolling the Labour Party with the membership funds of the union he's been given to play with (Charlie Whelan):

Asked if he believed Mr McBride and Mr Whelan had briefed against him, Mr Darling said: “Of course you have people saying things.”

In a reference to Mr McBride’s resignation last year, the Chancellor added: “My best answer for them was: I’m still here and at least one of them is not.”

During the summer of 2009, Mr Brown planned to remove Mr Darling from the Treasury and replace him with Ed Balls, a long-standing ally.

The plan to oust the Chancellor brought a new confrontation between the two men.

But, as I said, I think Iain Dale is right, this could well be a step out of line too far given the current coverage Brown is (quite deservedly) receiving, clarifications or no clarifications. However, for the time being, I suspect it will be business as usual in the bunker, at least superficially, mainly because Darling, for all his genuine niceness, is as much of a politically self-interested jellyfish as any other Labour MP or minister.

But, in putting the boot in to Brown, Darling was not trying to perform some sort of a public service (perish the thought!). He was indulging a minor act of political revenge that merely provides us with further proof of the factionalism and mutual loathing that's always existed at the rotten heart of this Labour government, but especially so under the utterly disloyal political thug that is Gordon Brown. Darling offers conclusive proof - as if we needed it - of two things. One, that the facade of government unity under Brown, peddled by the likes of the slimeball Mandelson (et al), for reasons of personal aggrandisement and vanity, has always been just that, a complete myth. Brown's government is one of the most factional and dysfunctional of all time. Second, that working under Brown is hell.

Given that the future of the country is (or "was" - it might well be too late) at stake, this calamitous state of affairs at the top of the government is a lot more serious than a mere case of bullying. This is a major case of a man promoted way beyond his abilities (Brown or Darling - you pick). What's crystal clear is that when Brown is finally ousted, the kind of revelations that come out about his behaviour while in politics, let alone while in charge, will ensure that his historical reputation will lie in total ruins. Couldn't happen to nicer man.

No wonder he's so desperate to cling on - preferably, no doubt, without the inconvenience of the democratic process.

Billy Bragg Mashed

I thought the Daily Mash's reporting of Billy Bragg's principled hypocritical tax protest and celebtivist posturing was rather bloody funny.

DEFICIT REDUCTION WAS BASED ON SALES OF 'BETWEEN THE WARS', ADMITS DARLING

19-01-10

CHANCELLOR Alistair Darling has been forced to scrap his deficit reduction plan, admitting it was based entirely on sales of Billy Bragg's Between the Wars EP. Bragg says some RBS executives can now afford to buy a house as big as his Britain's 14th biggest pop-folk shouter is withholding his income tax in protest at Royal Bank of Scotland's continued insistence on being a bank. Bragg said: "The RBS bonuses echo the kind of backstage rider demands I never get to make at the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival. I just hope I can make a difference before the Murdoch press hires someone to assassinate me." But the Treasury warned it will be forced to make even deeper cuts in public services, including those council-sponsored equality and diversity festivals where Bragg turns up and makes BMW-owning management consultants feel like students again for 20 minutes. Tom Logan, chief economist at Madeley-Finnegan, said: "This is potentially very serious. Five year gilts are currently being sold on the basis of guaranteed revenue streams from William Bloke and the ones he did with Wilco. "We don't want to have to use up the tax revenues from the Kirsty MacColl version of New England. We need that in case we go to war with China." Other left-wing musicians have supported Bragg's stance, with Paul Weller only declaring income from his last three solo albums and all that Style Council rubbish. Weller added: "But not Stanley Road or All Mod Cons. I'm not some fucking mug." A spokesman for the Inland Revenue said: "I've actually got a copy ofTalking With the Taxman About Poetry. Maybe he should do a new album called Talking With the Taxman About Spending 18 Months in Jail for Being a Marxist Twat." Meanwhile Bragg demanded that all banks should be run like the Co-operative with its green investment policy, fair trade mortgage refusals and the ethical way it charges you thirty quid whenever you go 1p over your limit.

You can read Billy Bragg's pile of disingenuous horse manure here, if you really want to. Some of the comments underneath it might make it worthwhile, I suppose. Like this one from 'unionjackjackson':

I similarly am withholding my tax from HRMC until we have a tory government and my money will be spent wisely.

unlike these labour tossers pissing it away.

Or this excellent one from the multi-posting Lefty-basher 'stevehill':

I'll visit you in prison Billy. Maybe.

Starving schools, hospitals, pensioners, benefit claimants etc of funds to make a protest is a particularly infantile form of toy throwing.Most bank staff are on or below the national average wage, their bonuses will be in the order of £1,000 or so, and they depend on this to pay their bills. The bank's assets - which you and I own - are essentially its people. They walk out of the door every night. You seem to accept that you can't veto HSBC or Barclays or Goldman Sachs bonuses. So how do you plan to stop the best people at RBS joining their rivals, causing the bankruptcy of RBS, the loss of 141,000 jobs, and a total write-off of the taxpayers' investment?

No, you're not an anarchist. But you're not being very smart.

Perhaps there is hope for Britain after all - so long as we all club together now to ensure that Bragg and his ilk never have any influence on the running and the future of our country again!

Then we can deal with the bankers properly. They'll keep.

Eyes Right

Official Government spending for 2008-9. Pdf here.









Guido, while analysing the impact of Darling/Mandelson's outflanking of Brown and neutering of Balls, reaches some very interesting conclusions about the implications for Cameron.

"Peter Mandelson’s speech on Wednesday was overshadowed by events, parts of it sounded more right-wing than anything Cameron has said in years...Mandelson sounded positively Thatcherite. Can you imagine Cameron delivering a speech written by Steve Hilton which souonded like that? Cameron’s opening speech of the year promised a new high-speed rail network and the creation of 100,000 apprenticeships. Dave sounded more like Gordon Brown than Maggie."

Ouch!

The fact is that now Brown is a lame duck Prime Minister, and Labour's left wing has effectively been silenced, Cameron has the wriggle room to turn right - at least on the economy. He can keep his guarantee on the NHS (though not without powerful caveats about massive savings through restructuring and the complete abolition of trainwreck IT, PFI disasters, for instance). But he can now launch an all-out assault on Social Security (which last year cost the UK taxpayer £136Bn [it'll be much worse this year - ed]) and public sector employment, especially in local government and NHS (mis)management.

Both of these have spiralled out of control under Labour. In these areas, the areas that really do count when it comes to saving the British economy from collapse, he can now be bold - but he must also be imaginative and make sure the banks are not let off the hook, too. Treasury expenditure has trebled since the bank bailouts and useless Brownite 'stimulus' packages. That can't go on.

The point is, now that the Labour government is being run by a Darling/Mandelson axis, I think Cameron will be bolder - and good luck to him. Maybe it'll get he likes of Fraser Nelson off his back (although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one - Nelson appears to have gone bonkers).

Lame Duck Brown

Brown: Game Over

Now we know the price for Brown of Wednesday's attempt to oust him. According to this morning's Times exclusive, Alistair Darling, in cahoots with Mandelson (naturally), has announced to the country, laughably, that we face "the toughest cuts for 20 years if Labour continues in office". Conclusive proof that Brown has lost the policy argument, but not to Darling and co, though, who went along with him for so long, but to the Conservatives. But Brown's lost a lot more besides.

The article says, tellingly:

The remarks suggest a big victory for Mr Darling and Lord Mandelson after the attempt to bring down the Prime Minister. Gordon Brown has apparently been dissuaded by two of his most powerful Cabinet colleagues from adopting a simplistic “investment versus cuts” election campaign associated with his close adviser Ed Balls.

Brown is a lame duck now, a prisoner in his own party who must ask permission of his Chancellor and Mandelson before he can do anything. Any speech he makes, any interview he gives and any Cabinet meeting he chairs will have to be given the green light by these two before they happen.

In other words, Operation Hoon was a 90% success; all but the last bridge fell: Brown's forced resignation. Why they didn't go the whole way and get rid of him was initially beyond me. That they kept him on as a puppet PM, as a hollowed-out figurehead, spoke to their bad judgment - and to their cowardice. They're all desperate not to be tainted with almost certain defeat. And then the penny dropped. That's why they kept Brown in place, neutered but responsible, so that he can carry the can and then disappear into US speaker-circuit obscurity. Silly me.

And clear proof of how low Labour has sunk. Pathetic.

And what of the lame duck? Well, Darling's words in particular will sting Brown most:

The next spending review will be the toughest we have had for 20 years . . . to me, cutting the borrowing was never negotiable. Gordon accepts that, he knows that.

Game, set and match, Mandelson/Darling. The coup was a success after all. Brown is no longer Prime Minister in anything other than unearned, undeserved title.

A momentous revelation, indeed. Not least because Labour, their depthless, delusional arrogance in thinking the country will stomach this finally emerging in stark relief, have just signed their own general election death warrant.

The one thing people like less than a divided party is a divided party without a real leader. Oh, and Mandelson is Prime Minister now, unofficially. This totally unelected serial liar is in absolute command of Britain for up to six months.

Dear God.

UK Debt Downgrade "80% Certain"

Tomorrow's DT will make further horrible reading for Brown and Darling (I dearly hope). According to one of their economics journos, Ed Conway, the head of one of Britain's leading fund managers, Neil Woodford, Darling's and Brown's inability to face up to the unsustainable scale of their spending and consequently gigantic debt levels - at least in peacetime - is now virtually certain to lead to a credit rating downgrade and, far worse, a subsequent debt spiral. Woodford is quoted as saying:

I would argue that there is a high probability... a decent chance that we will be downgraded, and it is a near certainty if we do not, in the wake of the next election, properly deal with the deficit. There are some major challenges here. If we do not take the medicine, there will inevitably be a downgrade. If we do, we have a chance of escaping a downgrade.

After the PIMCO shock, where their experts determined that there was an 80% probability of a downgrade from AAA and acted accordingly by dumping UK gilts, it seems this gathering economic storm is going to make the current arctic weather and subsequent national chaos look like a soft, Barbados beach on a warm day.

And the only party with a plan for getting us out of it with a coherent fiscal policy, designed to allow monetary policy to remain loose by avoiding the downgrade and subsequent, devastating interest rate rises and inflation, thus enabling a strengthening in any recovery, is the Conservative party. Philip Hammond proved that yesterday.

No wonder the Tories want an election right away. They're not bluffing - it's vital that we have a change of government because it really is the 11th hour for Britain's finances and economy.

Action must be taken - now!

By the way, well done Gordon. Well done Darling. Britain really is nearly bankrupt, thanks to you. Marvellous.

Pump Price Dislocation

I've been watching the oil price with some interest over the past few weeks, not least because there has been some speculation that it is entering a very bearish period - for traders, that is, not for consumers - due to oversupply (Iraq is coming back into the equation, for instance, combined with the fact that many companies 'parked' huge quantities of crude offshore in tankers to keep the price artificially high during 2009 and that has added to the glut now, especially in the US where demand is still relatively weak). The NYMEX price fell for the eighth consecutive day today to hit $69.63 - and the trend is still downward, not least because of a stronger dollar.

Now, I fully appreciate that the pound's relatively weaker value on the foreign exchanges and other factors, like the delay between the commodity's price fluctuations and price movements at the pump is normally around three weeks, but this does not explain why I am still being forced to fork out anything between 108 and 114 pence per litre today, given the significant recent falls in the price of the black gold. Those are $110 a barrel levels. By my back-of-an-envelope reckoning, even taking into account pricing delays and currency devaluations, I should not be paying much more than 98p per litre, perhaps even less. So what the hell is going on?

There seems to be a serious dislocation here - and we are being hammered because of it. Why? No idea, but it's inevitably not going to be a good reason in ripoff Britain, although I'm sure Treasury ministers and their oil company chums will have some patronising, soundbite excuse. So I expect any falls, which are long overdue anyway but might not be coming at all, to be swallowed up by the return to the very expensively, temporarily suspended 17.5% VAT rate. If the falls don't come in the next couple of weeks, why then, in January (unless oil prices fall substantially further, which is unlikely), we in Britain will have to cope with further forecourt price rises. Unbelievable!

I'm sure it'll make the watermelons happy but, Brown and Darling, this is no way to start an economic recovery. Idiots.

I wish we didn't sometimes act in this country like so many sheeple - me included.

Indefensible

HMS QE: casualty of Labour incompetence

Iain Dale had the story earlier this evening, but now that it has been confirmed on the Channel 4 news website, one can only say that this is the most extraordinarily shocking news yet about this wicked government's handling of a financial and economic disaster largely of its own making. Defence is to face Labour cuts of beyond 16% at a time when Britain is at war. On a day when Brown announced at the Copenhagen junket he was happy to waste a whopping (and borrowed) £1.5Bn of British taxpayers' money on other countries' infrastructure, we discover, via some sort of leak to a journalist, that billions are to be stripped out of the defence budget, including, potentially, the cancellation of two major capital projects (the two supercarriers and the A400 transport aircraft). Why? Well, on the face of it as a seriously belated reaction to the MoD's huge procurement mismanagement and overspend during Labour's disastrous period in office, but in reality because Labour cynically imagines that defence is not a priority for them because it does not appeal to its core vote or clientele. Perhaps that's why there was no mention of it in the PBR, another bit of brazen dishonesty beneath contempt on the part of Brown and his ventriloquist's dummy, Darling.

Meanwhile, our troops continue bravely to struggle through in Afghanistan, undermanned, underequipped and under-represented in Westminster. If you have found it difficult to contemplate the depth of the cynicism of this regime up to this point, this latest betrayal of our armed forces, already cut to the bone after 13 years of Labour hell, should leave no further room for doubt: the only thing they care about is saving their own skin. And that is indefensible.

My God, this stupifyingly duplicitous bunch of dangerous political whores calling itself a 'government' needs to be wiped out at the general election, or else they will truly annihilate Britain. They should be hammered into the dust, if not for these devastating cuts, for which there might have been an argument had they been but one component of a coherent, across-the-board emergency plan for tackling Labour's (and consequently our) deficit and debt crises, then for the abject dishonesty which this latest scandal once more exposes. This Labour government can't be straight with anyone, because it is, as a body of people, starting with its unelected liar-in-chief, Brown, a total stranger to the truth. It's habitual and they should be made to pay for that habit by being annihilated themselves - at the ballot box.

Labour's Cold Equation

Martin Bright, a journo for whom I find I have increasing respect - I like someone who doesn't seem to let his personal political proclivities get in the way of journalistic professionalism (hey, I'm not a professional journalist) - pointed out today that a leadership challenge to Brown might still be on the cards, unbelievable as though that might sound after all the epic cowardice on the part of PLPists everywhere to date. It seems the cold political equation is finally getting through the numb skulls of senior Labour MPs. Keep Brown, and you're out for far, far longer than if you dump him, even this late in the game.

Rachel Sylvester's column today provides more than the usual share of insight and high-level gossip -- what more do you want from a political columnist?

The following paragraph is devastating about the Prime Minister's handling of the Megrahi affair:

"Even members of the Cabinet who remain publicly loyal are privately scathing about Mr Brown’s performance in recent days. “We can’t go on like this,” says one minister. “It’s beyond difficult — it’s farcical. We’re going from one fiasco to another and Government by fiasco doesn’t work. I’ve never been a plotter but I feel total exasperation."

Rachel is right to say that this is the Labour Party's Groundhog Day. As we enter the conference season all talk is of plots, conspiracies and coups. The difference compared with last year is that there is no obvious "Prince-in-Waiting" whose ambitions need to be crushed and no "Prince-of-Darkness" to ride to the rescue.

Jackie Ashley wrote yesterday of Labour "semi-stunned amble to the slaughterhouse". Today Polly Toynbee suggests a programme of political boldness, but drips with pessimism about the outcome:

There is nothing left to lose. High risks, high principles and high ideals might just save them now -- and certainly preserve enough respect to live to fight another day. What's the alternative? Quarrelling dishonestly into the salami-slicer over which party will cut what most, each pretending we can have it all when everyone knows its a lie?"

The left is in almost complete disarray. This is why the intervention of Jon Cruddas this week is so significant. As The Observer reported at the weekend, Cruddas is now taking on "the leadership" of the party directly. His Compass speech today could be seen as something of a watershed, if, as I suspect, it is the beginning of a Cruddas/Compass move for control of the soul of the party.

Cruddas's argument is clear and appeals directly to the party's grassroots. The Conservatives have revealed themselves over the summer as the Thatcherites they always really were, but the Labour government has failed to capitalise on this, he argues.

The Labour Party still has the ability to win the election, but it needs to get its message right or it will deserve to go down to a catastrophic defeat. This is as close as Cruddas has yet come to throwing down of the gauntlet. Now that would be an interesting challenge -- and not as easy to put down as David Miliband or even Alan Johnson.

It's Bright's clear-headed and consistent, erudite and honest views on the Megrahi debacle that have warmed me to him - as a journalist. Here we see some pretty good stuff on something people outside the World of Labour have known for quite a long time now, that Brown, simply, is "the problem".

From Bright's post you get the distinct impression that possibly, finally, improbably and unlike the last time(s) around, the Brown side of the cold equation seems to be understood by those that seriously needed to understand it. (The other side of the equation is the general election). The solution, for them at least, will be found by determining the right person to replace him. That's the distinct impression I get from Bright's, and other left-of-centre writers', opinions. My answer to the puzzle is rather different from most of theirs, but it should be an obvious one: Alistair Darling.

I think people actually trust him. He would sort of be Labour's Major in '92 (sort of). He is also the one, if I were a Cameroon, that I would be genuinely worried about. All the rest are so contaminated they would be almost as much of a liability as Brown so definitely is. All the economic calamities that have befallen Britain under Labour are associated, rightly, with Brown, not Darling. The latter still enjoys some credibility and no small amount of sympathy even among Right-thinkers in the general public, who see Brown's treatment of him as shabby in the extreme. Darling appears to have remained loyal throughout his trials, it seems. Not even when slimy Balls was maneuvering himself into the belly of Number 11 did Darling lose his poise. People like poise. Brown doesn't have any. Balls wouldn't understand poise if his poise teacher was Darcey Bussell.

Labour might still lose with Darling. But they would not lose as badly as they will with Brown. Hell, they might even win!

God help us all if it really has finally dawned on them that the equation is very real - and that the only solution to it that makes any logical sense is, astonishingly, Darling.

Bet you any money it hasn't...

Darling Flexes Muscles He Never Knew He Had

Darling: just window dressing?

Though flabby and out of condition, Alistair Darling is flexing his newly-found political muscle, it seems. I wondered whether he would actually try to run his own department at some stage, especially now that his position is basically unassailable after he gave his former friend and boss, Brown, an ultimatum about Balls' attempts to steal his job.

However, due to the fact that this Labour government is so extraordinarily directionless, talentless and rotten to the core, the instant consequence of Darling's inevitable move to reverse the ridiculous VAT cut - the most ineffective and expensive tax break in history - is to split the cabinet, or so the ST has just said. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Here are the key bits:

His comments [about reversing the VAT cut] come just two days after Harriet Harman said the planned rise from 15 per cent to 17.5 per cent on January 1 was "under review".

Ms Harman, speaking in the wake of the Daily Telegraph's campaign to postpone the increase, said the Government would be flexible about VAT – a move that was welcomed by business groups.

Leading figures in the retail and hospitality industry, including Sir Philip Green and Sir Stuart Rose, have argued it will be an "administrative nightmare" to implement the change not only on a Bank Holiday, but also at the busiest time of the year for restaurants, hotels and shops.

However, Mr Darling publicly "slapped her down", according to a Treasury source, after he made clear the reverse in the temporary cut was still set for the New Year.

Talking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, he said it would "definitely" return to its original higher level of 17.5 per cent in January

"...when you consider that it costs almost about a billion pounds a month, I was quite clear at the budget and clear when I announced this last November that the VAT rate would return to the 17.5 per cent at the end of this year. Now that remains the case," the Chancellor said.

It is understood that he was upset that Ms Harman, deputising for the Prime Minister, who in on holiday, spoke on tax matters.

In the Marr interview this morning, Darling also tried to shift the blame for the government's mishandling of the economy back onto banks that are still not lending to businesses, despite Labour assurances last year that this would not happen. Given that the Treasury's own new rules for the banks, which demand that they have double the capitalisation that they could work with previously, and mean they have no option but to hoard QE and bailout cash, it seems rather dishonest of Darling, muscular or otherwise, to try to offload responsibility for his and his governments' hopeless incompetence over loan guarantees onto bank boards hand-picked by him! No more than we've come to expect, though, I suppose. Meanwhile, through all the lies and bluster, thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost in what is a truly horrific downturn - and which could be rapidly turning into a full-blown depression.

While that might be another story, it's all part of the same problem: bad government. The fresh split and the "bad" bank behaviour provides further evidence, as if more were needed, that this government, with its constant infighting and loser leader is completely paralysed. The country needs a united government with a proper mandate to act. It needs a general election far more now than at any time in the post-war era.

You see, Darling might have muscle now, but he has no authority. No-one in this government has - and none moreso than G. Brown, who, laughably, remains our Prime Minister. This really is a crisis, even if it might not feel like one. Remember, though: it never does until it's too late. The clock is ticking on the timebomb that is a sudden and huge acceleration in unemployment, which is where all this is heading.

It's 1978 all over again, folks (or worse). Gawd 'elp us all.

Farewell Darling: A Tribute In Toons

In no particular order of fun:



























































































































































And meet your ultra house-flipping, tax evading, smearing, backstabbing, Brownite lickspittle new 'Chancellor', Head Balls.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

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.

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.

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.