Flash Gordon II

Guido has the lowdown on the latest sighting of the Brown Pimpernel. Apparently, like Flash Harry from the St Trinians films, he's taken to wearing a trilby hat low over his eyes and a long coat that makes him look like he's gliding along without any sign of leg movement, slithering from Important Rich Luminary to Important Rich Luminary, touting for a bit of trade. "Inconspicuous" is the watchword.

After some excitement this morning that Gordon Brown might actually be in town to represent his constituents the truth unravels. While he may have put a fleeting five minutes in the chamber, (making the number of days he as been in two out of a possible forty-nine,) King of the Lobby Gary Gibbon has; what he was really down here for. A meeting with a Kennedy, a chat with Sir Tim Berners-Lee about his future employability and a natter with his old cabinet allies.

So it seems the great Brownian contempt for his own constituents, the public purse that provides his unearned salary and his abject lack of contrition for - or even interest in - his role in the debt disaster now confronting Britain thanks to him will just go on and on and on. Until someone in government has the guts to put a stop to it, preferably with legislation on the conduct of sitting MPs.

People should be a lot more angry about this than the painful budget Brown has brought down on our heads thanks to that sponging loser's economic incompetence and political desperation.

As much as it was a Coalition budget, this was Brown's budget. The Tories were right: let no one forget that. Oh, and if we are expected to make sacrifices for the sake of the future security of the nation's finances, then might I suggest that everyone should be forced to pull his or her weight. We're all in this together, after all.

Flash Gordon, that ex-wrecker and now dodgy shirker, would be a top target for me for the chop. Why should I be paying for him not to do his job? Cameron can lead by example, but he can also make them - preferably of the predecessor who is so frightened of facing the music to the extent that he is effectively now on the run.

It's time Brown's past caught up with him.

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.

Hammond Trumps Byrne

Just been watching BBC Parliament (now there's a displacement activity if ever you've heard one).

The debate on the PBR has been no contest, with Philip Hammond, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, delivering a devastating lesson in economics to the entire house, not just the idiots in government who, for instance, don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between monetary and fiscal policy, (a pretty fundamental problem if you're trying to prove to unconvinced bond markets that you're in control of things).

He's damn good. His forensic unpicking of the Brownite, delusional, dangerous PBR is highly damaging to the last traces of Labour's credibility - or would be if anyone was watching it, of course. Even the usually thuggish Liam Byrne looked quietly impressed.

I hope Hammond is given the praise he deserves for this superb parliamentary performance.

I'll put up a link to it later, if I can find one.

==Update==
Well, perhaps predictably, you can watch the PBR debate on iplayer, but only as far as the end of Byrne's woeful and woefully partisan speech. The BBC clearly didn't feel that Hammond's excellent response, during which he not only provided a forensic demolition of Labour's fantasy economics, but also clearly set out some of a future Conservative government's plans for bringing Britain back from the brink of a credit downgrade (and why that is so desperately important), merited the little bit of extra space on their ample servers (that we own).

Bias at the BBC? Never!

==Update 2==
Jonn Ward has kindly provided a link to the transcript of Philip Hammond's PBR speech. You can find it on parliament's website, here.

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.

Not As Bad As We Expected: Far, Far Worse

Darling's Pre-budget nonsense represents the most appalling assault on the middle classes yet, who, as usual, are going to be squeezed dry to pay for useless Labour's economic bust. It also means that Brown Labour has now dropped any pretence that it cares about anything else other than its short term goal of somehow getting itself re-elected. In fact, though, it could be said that this dodgy dossier of Tory-bashing tribalism is so utterly awful that it amounts to a capitulation - at least by the feeble realist arm of Labour, possibly located at the Treasury. They can't win the next election based on an economic record as catastrophically terrible as Brown's, so the story goes, so why not use the remaining months of power to shore up the core vote and the heartlands? Limit the damage and bugger the country.

Benedict Brogan seems to think this - and more. The budget wasn't as bad as we expected, it was far, far worse.

Even before we’ve trawled through the small print on pensions and tax changes, the pre-Budget report has lived up to the billing. Scorched earth, poison pill, you can choose your metaphor but the key point is that this was a political statement designed to protect Labour’s sectional interests, boost its core vote and stuff the Tories at every turn. George Osborne will probably get the prize for offering the pithiest summary in his reply to Alistair Darling: the greatest golden rule of all is that you can’t trust a Labour government with your money.

Every other line in the Chancellor’s statement was shaped to make a political point: ‘unemployment is never a price worth paying’, ‘government action has made a real difference’, ‘those who doubt the effectiveness of tax credits’, ‘when we could have chosen to do nothing’, all direct digs at the Tories. The ship is sinking under him but the captain blames the passengers.

The measures likewise: for example, a whacking great increase in the value of the state pension (2.5pc when inflation is negative?!), ditto other benefits, represents a gratuitous increase in the cost of entitlements, in the knowledge that the Conservatives need to review them downwards. Reckless, unaffordable, yet how can the Tories reasonably be expected to reverse that one? Such is the political craftiness of Gordon Brown. Or take the freezing of the threshold on the 40p rate: all attention is on bankers, but this is where senior nurses, policemen, middle managers will suddenly find themslelves dragged into the higher rate. Then there’s the 0.5pc increase in NICs, and the pension cap on public sector workers. Ditto the tax on bonuses: a paltry £500m in, but how many billions out as confidence ebbs away from the City. And there’s the business about taxing employer pension contributions: it hits those on above £130,000 – wealth creators they may be but how much sympathy will there be for them? Again, crafty.

“We take these decisions from a position of strength,” Mr Darling said, to howls of derision from the Tory side. The economy is crocked, the markets are pulling the plug on UK plc (bookies have just cut the odds on us losing that AAA rating), and those whose efforts are needed to get growth going again are going to have to pay a lot more, so what is he talking about? The strength that comes from being the party in power, free to use the forces of Government to its advantage. It is in office, so it is still strong. It can be outrageous, it can trash the place, it can do what it damn well pleases because it knows that the mess will be for the Tories to clean up. Labour is already waiting to be in Opposition, shrieking at any attempt to undo any of this. The civil service has been muscled aside, its warnings ignored, Labour now at the controls shouting ‘Gordon is great’ as it pushes the throttle down towards the mountain ahead.

Excellent comment and that "you can't trust a Labour government with your money" is not just pithy from Osborne, but oh-so true, too. How much more evidence do people really need that this trainwreck regime is willing to take the entire country over the pricipice (which is what I assume Brogan means by his mountain metaphor) with it? As a reader of this blog said yesterday, this is not just as bad as 1979, it's much worse. At least Callaghan was a decent human being who understood, above and beyond the pettiness of tribal politics, that he and his government (especially Chancellor Denis Healey, but even he eventually put country before party and made, as David Hughes says, the "tough choices") had failed Britain.

Brown actually does know that they have failed Britain too. The difference is, in his arrogant dishonesty and visceral, irrational hatred of the party opposite, he simply doesn't care.

So if you are one of those who think Labour gives two hoots about your country, think again. The only thing that that corrupt, corrupting and bankrupt party cares about is itself, and this is embodied in the blind ambition of Brown, himself the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had inflicted upon it. But he and his party will cripple Britain for a generation before they give up power. It really is finally time for people to wake up to this reality and act accordingly.

Whether you happen to like it or not, the fact remains that the only way to get Brown-Labour out is to vote the Conservatives in. After this latest episode of scorched earth, recession-prolonging, gaga economics from Labour, there is surely now reason enough, if you are otherwise a Tory detractor (unlike me) to hold your nose, bite the bullet and take the plunge.

Never has this country more desperately needed to oust an irrational, wounded and dangerous government and a tainted, failed - and equally dangerous - Prime Minister. So that's the first thing that simply must happen and that means supporting the Tories. All else follows.

Fraser Nelson: "Brown Lied"

Different lie, same liar. Fraser Nelson gives a great account of his brush with that unique personification of absolute dishonesty, our cuckoo PM.

I was at Brown's press conference today and decided to tackle him on the way he spun the last Budget. Off topic on a momentous day like today, I know, but it was towards the end of the conference and the old rogue may be gone within a month. I may never get another chance to tackle him directly on the way he has misled the public over the huge cuts he has planned for us post-election.

It seemed all the more relevant because his theme was that he is an honest chap. “Candid”, he said. He quoted his father telling him "always be honest". And then he claimed that the choice at the next election was between a party of cuts and one of investment. So when my turn came to ask a question, I addressed what is - in my view - one of the worst falsehoods he is peddling.

Labour's planned cuts were so well hidden in the Budget that no Fleet St newspaper either spotted them on the day or spoke about them subsequently. Yet the Institute for Fiscal Studies did pick up on them, and I blogged their discovery at the time. To remind CoffeeHousers: Brown had Darling mislead the House in claiming spending would rise by an average 0.7pc a year in 2011-14. The truth is that it will be cut by an average 2.3pc a year over this period - actual cuts of £22bn a year. Brown has never admitted this, nor have the Tories raised it - fearful of being asked what they would cut. As a result, the public is being kept in the dark about the sharpest spending contraction in UK postwar history.

How do you pose a question like this? If you generalise, you give him a get out clause. So I decided to give it to him in detail, thus:

“Prime Minister, you say you’re being candid with us today. And you are quoting your father saying, 'Always be honest'. Why then haven’t you mentioned the cuts that you plan after the election? The Budget proposed what the Institute for Fiscal Studies claims is 2.3% cuts year after year after year. A cumulative 7% over three years, across government. This is a hugely significant fact that will directly affect public services. All I want to ask you, Prime Minister – and please “always be honest” – is the IFS right? Do you plan 2.3% cuts in public services for three consecutive years?”

"Not at all" he replied, “Public spending is rising every year. Let’s be absolutely clear about that” – and went on about spending today. “And in every year in the future of public spending it will continue to rise." Predictably, he then moved on to those wicked Tory cuts. “And I think you yourself wrote an article only a few days ago saying that if the Conservatives cut public spending their plan was to cut public spending by 10%”.

The sheer scope of Brown’s mendacity can overwhelm a guy. He is attacking his own Budget: Labour plans 7% cuts but because the Tories would spare health (and not spend more than he plans to) they would cut 10%. So I shouted out at him: “Your budget. Your cuts.”

But what No.10 do is to have a chap with a microphone on a rod, who takes it away from you when the Dear Leader has had enough of your question. Only Brown has a mike, so his comments are always heard. He continued, saying that under the "Tory cuts," “schools close, hospitals close”. But this is what would happen under his cuts. If he thinks that the cuts he has proposed in Budget 09 would lead to such closures, it is a matter of national importance.

He then moved to take another question. So I started shouting out again: “No, Prime Minister, this is an important point. It’s in the national interest to discuss it.” He then tried to flag me down. “I know you want a second point like everybody else, but please.” But I was making such noise that the No10 microphone guy came back to me. “You misled us in the first question. This is important to get accurate.” Brown kept trying to shut me up, waving his hand: “Please, please. I’ve said…” Soon enough the mike guy worked out what was going on, and skidaddled. I was mute.

The point I was trying to make is toxic to Brown's election narrative. He wants it to be spending v cuts, whereas the truth is that - going off their current plans - each party would impose identical cuts. The only difference is where in public services the axe falls: debt interest, Brown’s parting gift to this nation, is not discretionary. Brown’s strategy is to hope Tories will be honest about their cuts, while he covers his up.

About five years ago, when I was at The Business, one of Brown's aides told me that no one would take me seriously as a journalist because I was so "off beam" writing about Brown's destructive economic agenda while others were praising him to high heaven. I did feel a bit Speaker's Corner today, shouting out at him over the coming radical spending crunch that is simply not an issue, anywhere, because Brown has done such a good job putting the media off the scent. In fact, I doubt if anyone watching this exchange would have known what I was getting worked up about. So to this extent, my intervention was a failure.

We spend some time here in Coffee House tearing up figures, and exposing Brown's deceptions. Quite a few of you rightly ask, "Why don't you journalists do your job and raise it with him?" Well. all I can say is that today, in what may well have been my last chance, I did try. And I can't say I got very far.

I don't know about that, Mr Nelson. You might not have made him break down in sobs of remorse for his lies and sin, begging all the journalists in the press room for their forgiveness through his snotty wimpers, but you certainly showed everyone in the country the way to penetrate his armour-plated integument of gutless perfidy: with the Hartkernmunition of revealed truth.

Now we know.

Clarke Beasting

Big Beast; Old Bruiser


Clarke is beasting beasted Labour in the BBC Parliament Live Budget Debate.

His counterfactual "what would have happened if I had still been in charge after '97" was devastating.

They shouldn't have made him angry!