New Labour Leader: Tory Reaction

Just found a Tory circular in my email putatively from Baroness Warsi. Here's the important bit (my italics):

On behalf of all of us in the Conservative Party, I congratulate Ed Miliband on his election as Leader of the Labour Party.

He will have many challenges ahead in these next few days, but if he wants to be taken seriously, the first thing he's got to do is own up to his role in creating the mess that Britain is in and tell us what he'd do to fix it.

From advising Gordon Brown in the Treasury in the 90s, to serving in his Cabinet in the 2000s, he must recognise his central role in creating the financial mess we're all paying for.

For the past five months, all we've heard from Labour is knee jerk opposition to our plans to tackle the deficit. Now is the time for Mr Miliband to tell us what he'd do instead. He promised us a Labour spending plan before the spending review, now we'd all like to see it.

The new Labour leader now has a clear choice. He can either serve the national interest by joining with us and the Liberal Democrats and set out how he would cut the deficit, or he can stand on the sidelines and refuse to engage with the biggest challenge facing Britain in decades.

The fact that Ed Miliband owes his position to the votes of the unions does not bode well. At the moment this looks like a great leap backwards for the Labour Party.

Spot on. Miliband Minor, the one who sounds like he's underwater when he talks, can't be permitted to wriggle his party out of its responsibility for the massive economic, social and foreign policy calamities its previous leadership and cabinet wrought on this country. Miliband Minor must also be brought to book the instant he caves in to his militant socialist union backers.

Personally, I expect the Coalition to treat this latest Labour clown with the contempt he so richly deserves. I know I will.

Brown Implodes Mandelson's Campaign

Been reading a few hand-wringing blogposts around and about reinforcing the idea that after that truly appalling rant at the weird, "Citizen UK" rally, Brown had somehow found his voice at the eleventh hour. Of course, it's in the nature of the media that these things become self-reinforcing narratives leading, usually at breakneck speed, to some sort of settled view or consensus, however totally detached from the truth - or reality - it might be. In fact, you could argue that the general election battle is a battle not just for a vote, but to influence that mercurial, flowing media narrative and try to alter, if you like, the course of the discourse - so to speak.

So in one sense - this sense - one could say that Brown sort of succeeded. He has shifted the narrative slightly - maybe - with the BBC on this morning's Today programme being willing accomplices, typically, or even the initiators of this latest little change of tack. But we know that the whole narrative, whichever way it is leaning, is generally nonsense anyway; that the reality is rather different, regardless of whether it influences people's minds or not.

The reality is that Brown, with his back against the wall and his campaign leaders pulling in three different directions, telling their own voters to vote for other parties (David Blackburn was pretty amusing on this in the morning), has decided unsurprisingly to get all atavistic on our butts; to go back to the old irrational, deceitful, Tory-hating, prehistoric Balls-Brown fake dividing line that Mandelson and Darling worked so hard to move away from and onto less toxic, less risky ground. They tried to decontaminate brand Brown. It seems they failed.

But they at least could see the bigger picture that concerns the whole future of Labour. I figure they calculated that if they allowed Brown to lie about phantom Tory cuts/ equally phantom Labour spending, won the election and then proceeded to cut everything in sight having been ordered to by the IMF, they would lose the next election (which would probably come soon afterwards anyway) by a country mile, be truly obliterated this time by a livid electorate, and secure 25 years of Tory government into the bargain without David Cameron even having to break sweat.

So, the upshot is that, despite the direction in which the media narrative is currently veering, apparently and irrelevantly, the fact is that Brown has got it disastrously wrong. He's not only reverted to type (who could have doubted that he wouldn't - that's all he is, after all), but he's actually going to lose the election on the back of it too, so we can skip the brief period of the total turmoil of a Labour government winning on a lie and collapsing within months as the economy tears itself apart and move straight onto the Tories.

All in all, the couple of more rational members of the former Labour cabinet must be tearing their collective hair out (that doesn't include Liam Byrne, naturally) gnashing their teeth and generally wailing a lot. Thanks to Gordon Brown, the whole, elegantly triangulated (and exquisitely dishonest rather than brutally deceitful) Mandelsonian election campaign strategy has now totally imploded and will suck the party down with it.

As I've said before, they only have themselves to blame. They could have removed Brown a long time ago. Hell, they never should have taken the piss out of the electorate by giving the auld wrecker a coronation in the first place. But that's all history now, and so is Labour. The one silver lining is that if there is any justice left in this world, or, indeed, sense left in this country, then even if Labour aren't kicked into third place and kicked into touch for a generation - even if they manage by some miracle to keep Cameron down to a minority government - Brown will be gone.

Even I, ever the optimist who still firmly believes in the clear Tory triumph - if by some horrible, perverted twist of fate I'm wrong, even I would happily settle just for the end of Brown if I can't have anything else. That outcome would be by no means satisfying, or even satisfactory, but it'd be one hell of a relief.

Find Foot, Take Aim, FIRE!

See what happens if you're at work and you leave the blogs alone for a couple of hours? You miss something really big.

In this case, the sight of Calamity Gord "loose", as Sir Humphrey might say "in the building" (or, rather, the country) and the subsequent trail of devastation ending in a rail crash that follows soon after.

It's not so much Brown's rudeness and two-faced 'pretending to care' high/heavy handedness with, in this case, an everyday voter just like you or me (well, not like me actually. She is - or maybe come to think of it 'was' - a Labour voter until Brown branded her a 'bigot' behind her back), it's the rock-solid inevitability that if Brown is involved, no matter what it is, wherever it is, something is going to go horribly, horribly wrong.

But this time, Brown has really done it. It's his and his party's whole future that he's finally, permanently sabotaged. Poetic justice that is good for at least one, vital thing: this country's future.

The other parties will be wondering why they've bothered to expend so much time and money on elaborate campaigns and manifestos when all they had to do was sit back and watch the auld wrecker single-handedly alienate nine tenths of the voting public, two thirds of his own party and comprehensively depth charge any hope he might have entertained of becoming a legitimate prime minister. Oh, hang on, I remember why they bothered (especially the Tories) - not because they feel any particular entitlement to power, as with the Labourist Brownite inner circle, but because they genuinely care about righting Brown-Labour's wrongs.

One thing this latest Brown cockup is bad for, though, and extremely irritatingly, is that Brown and his ilk are, as Iain Dale has said, pushing ordinary white working class Labour supporters straight into the arms of the nationalist socialists, the BNP: one final piece of Brownian sabotage for which he should never be forgiven, even in retirement - or death.

It's that serious; he's been that bad.

Bloasis

All this talk of coalitions, especially what I think is the outrageous idea of Lib-Con pact - it's dishonest, stupid and is starting to annoy me. The Tories must aim for outright victory in the general election and nothing else. Entertaining speculation of hung parliaments can lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy. They should leave all that nonsense to the desperate, collapsing Labourists, the fantasist Cleggians and the media, for whom this trope maintains audience interest and nowt else.

On the subject, I thought this Sunday Times leader was rather witty, and pretty telling too, in its own way:

What would coalition government be like in Britain? We’ve had no real experience of so-called unity government since the second world war, so it might help to consider how coalition would work in other areas of British life.
Take Arsenal, facing yet another trophy-free season in the Premier League. Wouldn’t they be so much more successful in coalition with Tottenham, their deadly rivals? Footballers are professionals, or so they always insist. Somehow they’d make Arsenal Hotspur work on the pitch.
As in politics, it’s the grassroots support that’s the problem: like expecting Richard Dawkins and the Pope to collaborate on a revision of the Gospels. Would a merger between Oasis and Blur have produced anything other than a punch-up? Would you watch French & Pace, or would you prefer Hale & Saunders? Get used to it, because this is what we can look forward to in the coming months: the politics of Ant & Stacey. Or Gavin & Dec. Marks & Q, B & Spencer, Morecambe and Fry ...

Do any other unlikely, bizarre or unnatural coalitions spring to anyone's mind? How about cats and dogs. What would that produce? A dot? A dat? A cog??

Point being, Britain can well do without a government of Conservative Democrats, or whatever other mutant, non-viable political organism that might emerge from a split vote and deadlock. If there is no decision on May 6th, the answer is not a coaltion with small parties with small shares of the vote and a small number of seats wielding disproportionate amounts of influence. The answer is another election. We believe in strong, decisive government in this country, not the kind of stitch-up, back room compromises of 1974, that led to stagflation, union militancy, the collapse of the pound, bankruptcy and a humiliating bailout by the IMF.

There's a simple way to skip that false step and miss out those lost years of drifting and decay this time around.

Vote Conservative on May 6th. Simples!

Labour's Latest Campaign Tactic: Just Sick

A lame one liner from Brown in the debate was the first sign that Labour's campaign troglodytes have, quite simply - and completely - lost the plot. I've seen this image on a couple of blogs now this evening. I dismissed it, though, thinking it must be just another Toryish blogger agitprop spoof. Not so. A little trip to Labour.org reveals that, yes, believe it or not (and I still can't believe it), it's for real.

Brown said during the EU bit of the debate: "They'll turn Great Britain into Little Britain". Just another pathetic, throwaway Brownist soundbite and, as always, instantly forgettable. You would think.

But no. Know this: it wasn't just a prepared line for Brown to chuck in. It's part of what looks like a new, concerted campaign tactic, with the diabolically unethical picture below as its visual support:

This was published hours before the debate. Given the hideousness of the image, not least because of Cameron's experience as a father caring for a severely disabled son (now sadly deceased), but also its exploitation generally of disability for cynical political purposes, it's just incomprehensibly sick - and the Labour party must be held to account for it. Severely.

You have to ask, what kind of thought processes are at work in the creation of a thing as brutally horrible as this? Damaged ones, I would say. Very damaged.

Did Brown not know about this either? He said the line in the debate, so one should conclude that, just like with his leaflet smear campaign against the Tories and the SNP, he knew full well about it.

That alone should be enough to bury him in totally justified, universal condemnation.

And I thought we'd seen the worst of him, the lowest.

Not yet, it seems.

=Update=
And...pulled. Don't expect we'll be seeing that particular line of attack again from the corrupt Labourists (a couple of whom were stupid enough to leave comments here). Good, but the harm to what's left of their reputations - and to the disabled - has been done. The grim last gasps of a heartless regime, and party, rotten to the core.

New Day, Same Old Story

Yesterday, we were greeted with the second morning in a row of that nauseating LibDum father and son double act (the Cable and Clegg show) on the BBC. Full coverage of two very dull press conferences. Today, it was the turn of the Marx (as in Karl) brothers: Mandy, Balls & Burnham. The BBC provided them with as much live airtime as they wanted to spread what I can only call, having read (bits of) the Conservative manifesto (it was free!), outright, barefaced, scurrilous, amoral, wickedly misleading lies. From start to finish, you had the three of these strangers to reality, let alone the truth, dishing out scaremongering propaganda that simply wasn't true. None of it. Nada. Not a thing. Labour's dirty tricks are big news for the BBC.

I didn't have time to wait for the Q/A section. Was there one? Or has the BBC finally given up even the pretence of impartiality now and decided to allow any attacks on the Tories, however perfidious and, in this case, outrageously smearing, in some cases personally, to go unchallenged altogether? It's a fair question and the answer to it, if the past two mornings of its coverage are any evidence, is disturbing.

Don't get me started on the Today programme. Suffice to say, its editors appear to be attempting to maintain some kind of 'balance' - by at least allowing a few, you know, Conservatives actually to answer the critics wheeled on, conveyor belt-style to trash policies, especially good ones. But the agenda is crystal clear. Treat the Tories like they've been in power for thirteen years - and treat Labour like the official opposition. Clever. But a nightmare to listen to and watch, a sign of how corrupt and contaminated the BBC really is, and bad news for the Conservative party.

Even I'm beginning to think that the political bias of the BBC, ever-more flagrant, and the hard-nosed commercial agenda of Sky/Murdoch (hung parliaments sell papers and boost viewing figures) is beginning to influence the direction of this general election campaign. If these factors influence the outcome, then the outcome will be meaningless and the country will have been betrayed. That much is at stake so wouldn't it be nice to hear a little more complaining from the big boy bloggers from now on, too? Or don't they care?

If you think I'm exaggerating, just ask yourself this question: where is the BBC's coverage of a Tory press conference? If there isn't any coverage in the next few days, maybe then people will begin to realise what is happening; it's not just tinfoilhattery on my part.

I'm assuming the Tories have planned a few press conferences. They have, haven't they? Well, if they haven't, they damn well should!

"Slave-Grown Bananas"

Not too young, just too stupid

The Spectator earlier added something rather juicy to the moron Labour PPC who's made a total tweeting twat of himself on Twitter.

Gordon Brown is heading to Scotland today and it is hard to see how he can avoid the story of the Labour candidate for Moray and his Tweets. Forget Stuart MacLennan’s foul language, it’s the mindset that his messages reveal that is truly shocking. Take this one from July 8th:“God this fairtrade, organic banana is shit. Can I have a slave-grown, chemically enhanced, genetically modified one please?”

If Labour leave this candidate in place, then they’ll be saying that they think talking about wanting a ‘slave-grown’ banana is acceptable.

This scandal is embarrassing for Labour. A whole slew of senior Labour figures were following MacLennan on Twitter including Sarah Brown, Ed Balls, John Prescott, the Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy and Labour’s Twitter Tsar Kerry McCarthy, although I haven’t been able to establish whether any of them were following MacLennan when the Tweets in question were made.

It most certainly is embarrassing for Twitter-obsessed Labour. And surely it'll make seriously uncomfortable reading for Brown - at least publicly. I strongly suspect this Stuart Maclennan clown is cut from the same cloth as the bullying, smearing, lying Labour leader, however. So in private, no-doubt Brown will wonder what all the fuss is about.

But that won't stop Brown dropping him like a radioactive turd if this gains any more airtime, though.

So bye bye political career before it's started then, Stuart Maclennan. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke. You won't be missed.

Update:
Thanks to Adam Collyer for pointing this out to me: he's gone!

That was fast, as in 'feet don't touch the ground' fast.

The next thing is for the Tories to force Brown to make a statement. I want to know if he made the decision to force the stupid boy to resign, or if he will distance himself from it all, just like he did with Draper/McBride. Slightly different case, I know, but the same kind of amoral mindset at work.

Labour's nasty true colours need to be revealed at every opportunity for all the world to see.

Hero Heckler?

The Spectator is claiming that this, first heckle of the general election campaign made Gordon Brown look absolutely terrible in completely blanking it. It could "reverberate across the campaign" their man says. Of course, I agree. But having looked at the video, I can't help wondering whether it was a setup. It conveniently refers to state school choices, a key Tory policy pledge (and an excellent one).

What do you think?

If genuine, and I hope it is, then it is very damaging for Brown after what has been, so I glean from the blogs, and from what I saw of his last, awful, pmqs, a pretty appalling day for him already. On the other hand, if the heroic heckler is shown to have any links with the Conservative party whatsoever, rather than being purely a parent severely hacked-off with Brown and his disastrous government, then it will backfire badly.

On balance, it probably is an honest and spontaneous outburst (we shall see), in which case the Speccy is right and it provides yet another reason to vote Conservative - to right yet another Labour wrong.

So Cameron has a perfect record today, and is campaigning with furious energy. Well done him. Only 29 more perfect days to go and he's there. Hard work!

Update:
Well, on Ben Butterworth's, (henceforth known as 'The Heckler'), nice blog, he is at pains to point this out: "I'm a floating voter, always have been" and that there's no "political angle".

Good on him, and I apologise for my suspicious mind ;) (His site traffic must have gone through the roof!)

This has been a terrible day for Gordon Brown and Labour. Which means it's been a great day for everyone else! Excellent.

"A Future Vague For All"

I nearly missed this funny Marten Morland cartoon summary of Labour's and Brown's whole campaign strategy from the Sunday Times. Never a truer word, as they say.

At least the Tories are committed to some genuine policies, which will be life-changing (if not life-saving) to thousands of people as they right Labour's wrongs.

Brown plans to "create a million skilled jobs" if the country's stupid enough to give him a mandate, or so he told us this morning. I think that comes under the "raise fuzziness" category. Or is it "build haziness"? It's so difficult to tell with Brown what he or his party really mean.

And there you have the problem in a nutshell. Because they'll say anything to try to woo voters, they end up saying nothing. And we're all left wishing they'd just keep their noiseholes shut, especially the prime movers - you know, dissembling thugs like Whelan and Balls, strangers to the truth both and entirely.

"A future vague for all". Indeed!

Kinnockisms

I thought I'd kick off the election season with some pearls of wisdom from the last Labour loser, Lord Kinnock. Yes, that's right, he's already told us, as reported this morning by Politics Home, that this "isn't 1992" and we all should line up in a row like obedient little sheeple and vote for Crash. Good luck with that line of campaigning, Neil, old boyo.

A couple of gems:

The situation is radically different, and I don't think we'd learn much from 1992. While we had a recession, it wasn't a global recession as it is now.

And there was me thinking the fundamentally dishonest, outrageously simplistic Labour narrative that it "started in America" had been comprehensively debunked, er, by everyone. Seems Kinnock's a bit off the pace.

Everyone now knows that Crash indulged in disastrous levels of deficit spending during a period of putative growth - unlike every other major world economy; that he incompetently deregulated the banking system, arrogantly destroying all the checks and balances built up carefully over the previous 20 years; that he subsequently presided over (encouraged, even) the biggest property and debt bubble in British history and that he failed to manage the bust when it actually came. The crash was, remember, just as terrible in Britain as it was in America, if not worse, thanks to Brown's deregulated banks' toxic assets and lack of real cash. RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock - two Scottish and one Geordie bank, all chummy with Brown so long as they kept giving him the funny tax money. And that was all it took to bring the country to its knees: bad, corrupt even , management, private and political. I could go on. Need I, though?

Brown's economic crimes run far deeper than this and go back far further: destroying the best funded pensions system in the world, selling gold at the bottom of the market, PFI, cuts to the armed forces in wartime and so on. And then lying about it all by, for instance, claiming that since he'd abolished boom and bust, it must have been someone else's fault in some other country, preferably the United States, that his entire house of cards fell to bits at the first sign of financial turbulence. This kind of attitude provided us with some of the evidence that with Brown, a pretty unhinged mind was at work. At least Kinnock was just a harmless windbag, ultimately.

I think it would therefore be sensible for Kinnock to shut-up about Brown's record on the economy. And he's wrong about the comparison with 1992 on at least one level, too. In that election, we voted for a government that would lead us out of recession, and it did. We'll be doing the same this time around. So I'm afraid the outcome won't quite tally with this other, priceless Kinnockism:

...if you want someone to effectively manage the economy, you will vote Labour.

Rofl. To (mis)quote that really funny guy on the Moneysupermarket.com ads: "Trust Labour on the economy? You're 'avin a laugh!"

No tax on jobs, just cuts in waste. That's what we need and only the Tories are offering it.

In fact, so far, they're policies, such as the cancer treatment availability promise and the Equitable Life compensation, seem to me to be all about righting 13 years of accumulated Labour wrongs. I think this is a damn good strategy, not least because between now and election day, they will not run out of Labour wrongs to right. There are so many to choose from.

So, Kinnock, pay attention: if anything, this election seems more like '79 than '92, but there are similarities from certain perspectives with both. It's between the Tories and the Labour party, for instance, just like it was then. See?

Joking apart, ultimately, it's pretty clear that this one is going to be very much its own election with its own characteristics and its own, probably surprising outcome. For me, that 'surprising outcome' will be the sheer scale of the Conservative victory, or the sheer scale of the Brown defeat - whichever makes you happiest.

Both suit me fine.

Is This Ed Miliband's Entire Campaign Strategy?

It reminded me of a bit of commentary from Richie Benaud in 1981 when Botham was lashing the Aussie attack to all parts at Trent Bridge. After Beefy had just scythed another bit of wide dross to the boundary at point, he (Benaud) was moved to say, "They're just not learning are they?" I'd like to think that if Sir Richie was a political animal, he would be inclined to say the same thing about Labour's truly amateurish, pimply sixth former poster 'campaign', which so far has managed not only to backfire at every attempt, but also to provide their opponents with some morale-boosting hilarity, too. Take their latest feeble effort (see above) - winner of an Ed Millipede-inspired (if that's the right word) competititon, no less (that would be the pimply sixth former influence, then).

As the Spectator said earlier:

Now, there are two immediate problems with this poster. The first being that I'd always thought the character Cameron is meant to be playing – DCI Gene Hunt – is actually quite popular with the public, despite his rough and less-then-edifying edges. Indeed, he even topped a recent poll as "Britain's favourite TV hero". If you're going to go down that whole 80s route, why not pick someone genuinely nasty – like Gordon Gekko, for instance? Or Skeletor...
And the other problem is that, with all the union action at the moment, and the state of the public finances, the Tories could just as easily produce their own alternative: Don't let them take Britain back to the 1970s.

The third problem is, of course, that it's childsplay for the Tories to bat these right back at the Labour hoons, with interest. This is what ConHome came up with first thing this morning (while I was still safely tucked up in the land of nod, I'll have you know).

Now, I realise it's not exactly brilliant, but it was put together in a couple of minutes, it makes the point directly (unlike the naff Labour school project effort), and, above all, it pokes fun at the limitations of the form itself by parodying the content of the anti-Tory one. Not bad.

Add to this the smart retort from CCHQ about the original, "David Cameron as Gene Hunt? We wish we'd thought of that", or words to that effect, and all you are left with is yet more evidence that it's amateur night in the bunker.

Since there have been rumours that he is struggling to cope with his brief, I'm left with the happy thought that this could be the sum-total of Ed Millipede's entire election campaign strategy: a whole series of pisspoor, failed attack posters - or short wide balls outside the off stump if you like - that the Tories just keep on battering for six. Perhaps it's a masochism strategy, which makes the nasty old Tories look like bullies for bashing Miliband minor's best balls all over the place. Who knows? Whatever it is, it's so bad it really is funny. And it won't work.

"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, Brown's abolished boom and bust. Not." Best I can do.

You see, that's why I won't be submitting an entry to any Conservative slogan competetion for the general public, let alone having a crack at some dodgy artwork. And that's probably why, thanks to the rather more professional approach of the Tory strategists, they have no plans to start one. Labour, strapped for cash though they are, should take note. Better still, let's hope they don't - and keep 'em coming. At least it'll make their final defeat not only the best thing since the ZX Spectrum, but entertaining, too.

(Oh yeah, and lots of hat tips to Iain Dale.)

Update:

Oh dear:

"It was his idea"
"Shuttup Dave!"
"Well, it was."
elbows Dave in ribs "Shut up!"
"Ow! I'll tell."

I mean, oh dear. Ministers of the Crown, remember, folks. Ministers - of - the - Crown. Dear God, we really are in the shit if this lot get back in.

So just keep those posters comin' Ed 'n' Dave, you pair of pimply sixth form lightweights.

Ministers of the Crown. Unbelievable. I mean, how?

Gunning For Balls

I've donated. You should too. As Guido says:

Antony Calvert is the Tory PPC fighting to win in Morley and Outwood. He is aiming to give Labour a “Balls moment” to match the 1997 “Portillo Moment”. Ed Balls has a notional majority of 9,000, Portillo had a 15,000 majority, the symbolism would be perfect.

The neutering of Balls would be a sweet moment indeed. I can't think of any Labourist liar more deserving of total electoral humiliation (apart from Brown himself). Can you?

Hat tip: Iain Dale

"The King" Cameron

Great spot from GF early this chilly morn.
Just goes to show, some vandalism's a definite improvement. In this case, an enormous one (at least it's not totally witless). As for the Tories with this poster thing, really, what the hell were they thinking?!

Labour Lies...

...because that's what Labour does. Only in this case, the morons are doing what the left does best: rewriting history and moulding it to fit their fevered agenda and internalised political narrative. This kind of thing is why I know these people are seriously dangerous.

So what's all the fuss about? Well, Dizzy had it earlier today but I didn't have time to scan it, and now John Ward has reminded us of it. What is "it"? It's the video below which, according to Mr Ward, was shown at the Labour party trainwreck conference and could well be used as a campaign weapon. Huh, good luck with that.

As Dizzy said:

Obviously lying is par for the course these days for Labour so a bit of rewriting of history should be expected too.

Love the bits where they try to claim credit for giving women the vote; ending apartheid in South Africa; and defeating fascism.

And, as John Ward concludes:

In the words of Marvin the Paranoid Android: "I've seen it: it's rubbish!" It's backward-looking, hugely inaccurate, and I don't think its anachronistic style and content will work at all well in twenty-first century Britain.

But don't take anybody's word for it. See for youself (if you can stand it).



Sentimental, self-indulgent bilge and a prime example of Labour looking backwards because they've got no future.

Dave Reaches Out To Me

I was impressed with Dave's latest email, apparently sent to me personally.

Dear J__,
On Tuesday, after months of denying it, Gordon Brown finally admitted that spending had to be cut. So at last he is catching up with reality.
The public spending debate can often get bogged down in the language of deficits, forecasts and balance sheets but it really is this simple: Britain's in a debt crisis. We're borrowing far, far too much money. And unless we cut public spending, we're all going to pay the price - with higher taxes, higher interest rates and lower confidence in our economy for the long-term.
So why on earth has it taken the Government so long to realise this? For months, we've been telling them that they need to get a grip on our national finances. And all across the country, families and businesses have been working out how to trim their own costs and live within their means. But the Government seems to have been entirely asleep on the job.
It didn't have to be like this. On Wednesday, the Conservatives were handed leaked documents from the Treasury. These showed that as far back as April, Gordon Brown's officials were drawing up plans to cut public spending by nearly ten per cent. So all the time that Gordon Brown was adamant in public that spending could continue to rise, in private his figures showed otherwise. He was, not for the first but hopefully for the very last time, taking people for fools.
Add that to the election that never was, the bungling over the abolition of the ten pence tax rate, the evasiveness about the release of al-Megrahi, and we have a Prime Minister who can't be straight with people about what he really thinks.

Outstanding music. I agree with it all - I've been saying most of it myself for some time, after all. My only real concern is that he - or whoever writes this stuff for him - seems to think I'm 12. But I need to know the score.

So can I have the grown-up version from now on please? You know, the one with a bit of philosophy and a bit of real bite. The one that contains the argument and the plan.

It's not much to ask.

Clean And Wholesome

Rather more impressive was this week's missive from Dave C found this morning in yours truly's Yahoo inbox. (Better than last week's cringe-making effort at any rate - hardly a difficult achievement).

With it came this rather quaint instalment of what I think is part of a series called "Political Pickles: A Culinary Campaign Adventure". I thought it rather fun. Rather...nice.



Clean, wholesome politics is on the Tory menu, folks. How refreshing. Above all, though, Brown-Labour simply isn't mentally or culturally equipped to comprehend this type of strategy - so it'll work. (And the muddled Lib Dems just don't matter, if you're wondering why I rarely talk about them.)

The Pickles Approach will puzzle the attack dogs of the Left. They will try to pour scorn over it, to belittle and smear the Conservative candidate. But all they will do (yet again) is alienate - yet further - people who find the Pickles Approach an enormous relief from Labour's venomous politics of character assassination and class hatred.

There's one thing about this little movie I am slightly confused about, though: this weird appeal for people to "come and campaign in Norwich". Well, chubby, chuckling, Tory chairman, much as I appreciate the invitation to drive nearly 300 miles to put leaflets through letterboxes in the pouring rain in a strange city - or whatever it is you want me to do (keep your stocks of pork pies topped-up?) - I think I'll have to pass on that one. No offence.