Another Word About Michael Gove

My admiration for the man has, if anything, risen even further after his dignified apology to the House of Commons in a personal statement he made in the past few minutes.

Of course it's a cause for concern that 25 schools were left with the impression they were going to enjoy the post-Labour luxury of refurbishment, at massive cost to the taxpayer, through the astonishingly inefficient Balls Future Schools policy, but after his sincere apology about the inaccuracy of the lists released on Monday, which is ultimately a Civil Service issue for which the education minister is properly taking ministerial responsibility - Labourists take note - Gove's reputation remains intact, if not enhanced.

Compare and contrast the reputations of the screaming Labour benches with their fake anger, wallowing in the deepest of hypocrisy. Compare their behaviour and reach the only conclusion possible: not only are they not fit for government, after the hideous unpleasantness of Tom Watson MP, for example (shrieking baseless accusations and vicious insults directly at Gove), a fair proportion of them aren't fit to be Members of Parliament. That will be crystal clear to any sane person watching the exchanges.

There is one other point that's emerged from this latest parliamentary spat and it concerns Bercow. He seems to think the being "Speaker" means he has to speak all the time. He appears to imagine that not only must he intervene to keep order, he must pass judgment on every point made, especially on the Tory side. He apparently considers his condescending, smug, self-publicising manner is appropriate for the great office of state he's attempting, and failing, to fill. I've seen this odious man in action long enough now to know that he's little more than a catspaw for Labour, no doubt to please his wife. He's got to go before he does any more damage to the proper business of parliament and the reputation of the House of Commons. He's that bad.

So, this procedural storm in a teacup, predictably stirred-up by the malignant, mendacious opposition and, one has to say after his questionable interventions and rulings today, by their tame placeman in the Speaker's chair, Bercow, will soon blow over. But the debris left in its wake will not represent obstacles to Gove's or the coalition's programme of righting Labour wrongs and getting their disastrous, spiralling deficit under control. Far from it. Gove's statement has re-established the principle of ministerial responsibility (I have no doubt he offered his resignation to David Cameron, judging by the depth and sincerity of his apology on behalf of his department) after all those years of abuse by the previous Labour regime. It has also revealed the pettiness and revisionism of a contemptible Labour contingent unable to take any responsibility whatsoever for their role in causing the worst crisis in British public finances for, to quote one of their number, sixty years.

Perhaps that's what Gove was doing: smoking out the dishonest, discredited cabal of ex-ministers and their sweaty-toothed left wing comrades on the backbenches with sincerity. It's possible - he's that clever. However, I prefer to think that he was just doing what he thinks is right - owning-up, taking responsibility and apologising for the error. Insodoing he has left no one in any doubt as to his good faith and decency, and cast massive ones over a large swathe of Labour party members'.

"Good faith and decency"? Thy name is not the oily, weasily Bercow, and certainly not the scrofulous Tom Watson. Thy name is Michael Gove.

He's Almost Gone...

Brown has almost gone and the deal with the Libdems is almost complete, according to Bareknuckle Boulton on Sky.

Me, I have grave misgivings about this whole shoddy arrangement. But at least Cameron will be where he should be, in Number 10 - elected - and at least the cuckoo Brown will finally be out. For good. That'll do for now.

==Update==
Sky has just reported Brown is going to resign tonight. I am very glad I kept that bottle of vintage bubbly on ice. Toasting his exit will be one, sweet moment of gladness.

==Update 2==
Oh dear, the lecturn's out again.

Good grief, do the dignified thing, Brown: just get in the Jag and go to the palace. We really do not want yet another self-justifying, self-pitying speech. We've had thirteen long years of those, all equally as bad, or worse, than the last one.

He shall not be missed.

Con-Lib Back On

According to Sky News sources, the talks between Labour and the Liberals have "failed". After all that, who'd have thought it would be a few Labour MPs - a mixture of Scottish veterans, bitterly opposed to the SNP, and some promising young thrusters, who would inject some reality into Labour's mad ambitions, themselves driven on by the likes of Mandelson (unelected), Alistair Campbell (unelected) and Gordon Brown (unelected - as PM - and now comprehensively defeated - as PM)?

Mind you, after the way the Liberal Left and its old guard have behaved over the past two days, David Cameron would be well within his rights to conclude that a party like Nick Clegg's outfit is unfit for office and declare that for the long term, political good of the country, he's going it alone - and then dare the Lib Dems to side with Labour in bringing down his government. Cameron would be thinking "bring that on" - and the mauling Labour and, especially, the Liberals would receive at the general election that was triggered. The Lib Dems have been that bad over the past few days; they've been that shabby.

Others have already posted this idea for an outcome in the comments on this blog and on their own blogs at one time or another. At first, my own naive good will must have clouded my judgment. However, the veil has been lifted, but not just from my eyes: if the Lib Dems are that treacherous when they're engaging in coalition/cooperation talks, just what would they be like with a bit of power? It doesn't bear thinking about, not least because maybe, after all, such a coalition would be worse than treacherous, it would be futile. It could hardly be the 'stable coalition with a working majority governing in the national interest' now, would it? It would be toxic, and the Tories might actually be mad to contaminate themselves with it just for the sake of a few months of ineffective governing.

Still, having said all that, I certainly don't blame Cameron for any of this, unlike some on the Tory right and a few heavyweights of yesteryear, like Norman Tebbit. Cameron had to try, and he's conducted himself with magnificent integrity all the way through. And people will notice that. They have noticed it. Whatever happens, he is the winner from here on in. And besides, you don't blame the victim for being stabbed in the back, unless you prefer a particularly bloody brand of Machiavellian politics. The perp always takes the wrap (ask Menzies Campbell).

The British people will not be forgiving. They're the real 'victims' of the Liberals' two faced, self-interested double-dealing, and the Labour delusionals who just can't accept that they lost the argument and just can't take 'no thank you' (or words to that effect) for an answer.

So perhaps we will have to ask the question again after all. Well, if so, the sooner the better. So be it.

The Liberal Left Take Over

Having seen Simon Hughes, with all his suspiciously Bennite vocal characteristics (you're telling me they're not related!) on BBC News this morning, talking up the Lib-Lab pact, and then hearing Paddy Ashdown on Radio 4, he of the 'progressive coalition' obsession, talking about 'his' party entering a minority arrangement with Labour - (he had the temerity to say the Tories wouldn't 'dare' vote it down. They wouldn't have to, Paddy. They could leave that to the nationalists - or even the unionists) - having seen and heard all that, one thing is now surely very clear. Nick Clegg has lost control of 'his' party's agenda - if he ever had control over it in the first place, which I doubt.

Whatever the outcomes of this little Lib Dem mini-coup, that party is now in grave danger. It is important to remember that the history of the SDP-Liberal Alliance is a jolly turbulent one. It seems to me to be a party, being, as it is, really two merged though still fairly discrete political identities, that is quite capable of tearing itself apart over this. One of its own supporters seems to think so too. Mike Smithson, of Political Betting, writes:

Could this end up splitting the Lib Dems?

This is my 64th birthday and I’m fearful that it could go down as the day that parts of my own party took decisions that could have a lasting and possibly even destructive effect.

The election arithmetic and the harsh economic reality for the nation leaves the party with one choice - but one that large parts of it appear to be unable to accept.

To be seen to be propping up a government that secured just 29.6% of the vote just five days ago and to reject what appears to be a reasonable deal from the seat and vote winners is taking it into very dangerous territory.

I don’t know where this will end up but passions are running very high and all players have to detach themselves and look at how it appears from the outside.

The events of these few days will define the Lib Dems for generations if it survives that long.

I think it's becoming obvious now that a war is going on inside the Liberal Democrats for what some clearly see as the identity of that party. At the moment, it would appear that the Euro-left of PR-obsessed, Labour-sympathisers are almost certainly winning.

The Tories should walk away from this lot now. It's no good waiting for some sort of childish propaganda victory. The Lib Dems look toxic to me. Better out of it while the election performance, so close to a majority, is still uncontaminated by non-manifesto commitments, never required but made public nonetheless. I could live with AV, burdensome though it would be. But for many Conservatives that was a step too far already. It should really be the dealbreaker, if there is any deal to be broken (which I now doubt).

As for the Lib-Lab coup: huh, let it happen. Let Ashdown's dare be tested. I can guarantee that a Lib-Lab minority pact is truly the lemming option. Never mind that it destroys the idea that the Lib Dems (or Labour - but we already knew about them) are remotely interested in 'stable government in the national interest', it would be extraordinarily bad for the reputation of parliament, too. But hey ho. If Labour really doesn't understand what losing an election, or, at the very least, the authority to govern, means, then they must learn the hard way. And they will, as others have said, at another election - which will happen a lot sooner than even I'd thought - in August of September.

As for the Lib Dems. Well, unless Clegg does something remarkable today and proves that he is in charge of a unified party - 'his' party, not Paddy Ashdown's - then I firmly believe that they are finished. Every hour of secret talks and double dealing that passes, they come off looking worse in the eyes of an impatient nation. What's more, every hour of secret talks and double dealing that passes, the case for proportional representation in a nation with a tradition of and an appetite for strong government looks weaker and weaker.

Why, I wonder, do the Lib Dems think they only ever win 18-24% of the popular vote? Well, if they don't know then I'll happily spell it out: because 60-80% of the electorate doesn't like their policies and never has. The Tories should remember that.

One other thing: so much for Guido's "Change Coalition". Good. One thing I could never have stomached was that slimy toad Chris Huhne in a cabinet post. He sounded far too much like another Hoon to me.

Lib Dems In Process Of Signing Their Own Death Warrant

The Lib Dems have always been a pushmepullyou party with a 'progressive' wing (leftwing, that is), and what I would call a woolly wing of failed Tories like its current leader. Well, while the Clegg end has been talking to David Cameron, we now find that the Simon Hughes end of this most unnatural of animals has been quietly talking to Labour at the same time. And now they've secured a vague promise from the man who lost the general election, Gordon Brown, to stand down - when it suits him, though, naturally not the electorate who just told him to piss off - and in the process, judging by the sudden outpouring of new soundbites from Labour ministers, - who are, incredibly, and thanks to what increasingly looks like a stitch-up - still 'ministers' making policy and spending money but without a mandate to do so - given Labour a sniff of a chance to seize back power.

Well, they're jeopardising any chance of a deal with the Tories, the only legitimate outcome possible save a Conservative minority government. They're also jeopardising economic stability and the legitimacy of this parliament before it's even begun. I'll tell you something else, if they keep on down this path, the Tories will (rightly) just walk away. It's grubby stuff, this. Judging by the comments of Alistair Campbell (yes, old potty mouth is still there, plotting and scheming) which nearly led to a fight on live television between him and Adam Boulton, what we could be seeing here is effectively a slow motion coup and it is impossible to see how it can be stopped.

I feel I'll be getting bloody angry very soon. You should be planning for that possibility too. This can only get worse. For instance, should the defeated Labourists get the backing of the Libdums, by bribing them with whatever they want, they could deliver PR in a shotgun bill, without consulting the electorate. The next election would lead to a permanent Lib-Lab coalition. It would be as though this election had never happened, which is exactly what Brown would love. You can imagine the left salivating away right now with him at the prospect. But not all of them. Tom Harris spoke a lot of sense on Radio 4 this evening, saying that on the Labour side, there are truly 'honourable' members who do not support PR and would not vote for it. He also said a deal with the Yellows would not work. Let's hope he's right on both counts.

For the Liberal Democrats, if they do carry on down this path, they will be signing their own political death warrant. Already, it is crystal clear that there are forces in Clegg's party he can't bring over, and who care far more about their own party than they do for the national interest. But Clegg cannot have his cake and eat it, or he will choke. He has to get tough with the Simon Hugheses and Don Fosters of his party and tell them to shut up - in the national interest. You know what? I don't think he's strong enough after his rubbish general election. So he might not have a choice in the end. But if the left of his party ends up victorious, and installs Brown/Labour in power, and keep the winners of the general election out, they will never be forgiven. There'll be another general election eventually and they will be obliterated.

Last thing, does Gordon Brown actually understand what an election is? All evidence thus indicates a negative answer to that question. Don't trust a word that comes out of his gawping gob. Go in September? You are having a laugh. I told you, he would have to be removed at gunpoint.

We took a step closer to that unthinkable scenario today.

Why A Hung Parliament Would Be Bad, Part 74

A truly excellent, but entirely unnerving, article by retired senior civil servant and Labour Party member, Brian Barder, on the subject of the new procedures drawn up by the Cabinet Secretary, or "rule book", appeared on his blog a couple of days ago, and has just popped up on LabourLost.org. It's a long, comprehensive piece that discusses not only the post-war history of this, as he calls it rather refreshingly, "anomolous" outcome, but also explores several possible what-if scenarios in the event of its happening again, and how the new rules will work.

Simply put, if you are a Conservative supporter, the results would all be bad. The likelihood of Brown resigning as Prime Minister after the election are minimal, even if his party is second biggest in the House of Commons. In attempting to create "stability", these new codifications of previously unwritten constitutional practices have in my opinion severely skewed the system in favour of the incumbent. Simply put, if my understanding of the piece is correct, should a hung parliament of one form or another be the outcome in which Nick Clegg held the balance of power, there would be no legal or even moral obligation for Brown to resign, so Clegg would be forced to bring down the Labour government by refusing to endorse the Queen's Speech. This would trigger another general election which, you have to think, would hardly be in the Liberal Democrat's best interest. The chances are, therefore, that Clegg would do a deal with Brown and Brown would continue as Prime Minister for the time being, despite having a smaller share of the vote than the Conservative Party. As Mr Barder says:

Thus the logic of the situation may virtually force Clegg to accept any offer from Brown either to join a Labour-LibDem coalition, with a few seats in the coalition Cabinet for Clegg, Cable and one or two others, giving them considerable influence on government policy, but with an inescapable obligation to support some Labour-inspired policies that the LibDems would prefer to oppose; or alternatively to give a conditional promise not to vote against the (Labour) Queen’s Speech or against the Labour government in a vote of confidence provided that certain basic conditions were met by Brown. If that happened, there would be no opening for Cameron to be invited to try to form a government since the Brown government would continue in office without interruption. Of course this would mean the LibDems facing a storm of bitter invective for having kept an unpopular Brown administration in office despite Labour having ‘lost’ the election. But the alternative — ejecting a broadly like-minded centre-left government from office and installing a potentially far-right Tory government in its place — might be even more unpalatable for grass-roots LibDem members and supporters.

Of course, this is all moot, (and the description of the Tory Party as "far right" is ridiculous), but the point is, and Barder goes to some lengths to emphasise it, it is a very real possiblity if current polls are to be believed. The chances of Guido's "Change Coalition" ever happening, even it was desirable (which it absolutely isn't), are tiny, because the new written rules just won't allow it. The system, accidentally or otherwise, has been rigged.

My own view is that the polls are wrong and none of this will happen because there won't be a hung parliament. However, if it did happen the consequences for the country would be terrible. We would be in uncharted territory with a storm front of popular unrest and economic disruption on the near horizon (and that's the only message the Tories need send to the electorate on the subject, too).

I'm watching Sky News just now and they are speculating on this very issue, with that most dishonest of privileged socialists, Polly Toynbee, spinning this madly as some sort of political panacea. Tim Montgomerie, by contrast, has countered with the best set of arguments against this disastrous arrangement I've heard from a Tory yet. He says, in summary, that a new government and a fresh start can only be achieved one way, by voting Conservative.

However, what's now clear, at least to me, is that the Labour Party generally, and Brown in particular, think they have found a way out of their appalling political pickle and a way to cling on to power. What is more, it's also now clear beyond any shadow of a doubt, a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Gordon Brown. It's also a vote for PR, a permanent centre-left, vague, ineffectual, corrupt "progressive" coalition, with full EU integration and the Euro coming close on its heals. That would be the price of a LibDems/Labour stitch-up, with five more years of Gordon Brown into the bargain just to complete the hideous, Goya-esque image. It is terrifying.

If you need any further evidence for why a hung parliament would be a very, very bad thing in every way conceivable, then you must be a Lib Dem or a Labourist, in which case you should take a long, hard look in the mirror and wonder whether something as immoral as this is a price worth paying for power. If you think it is, then you're already a lost cause.

If not, then solve the problem before it starts. On Election Day, vote Tory!