Misquotes and Trainwrecks

Having now had the chance to see Brown's worst performance yet at PMQs (and that's saying something), I absolutely agree with Iain Dale who said of it:

Cameron was on fire and pulverised Brown, who was almost reduced to a wimpering wreck. Jack Straw's face said it all. "Why didn't we get rid of him when we had the chance?" was what he was clearly thinking.

Well, if that was what Straw was thinking, a few more examples of Brown's - or Brown's team's - nightmare bungling will give him yet more food for thought, or cause for regret.

Here's one. Christopher Hope, in his Daily Telegraph blog, has just pointed out that he was the one who wrote about Cameron's attempts to open a dialogue with the unions, and that he was totally misrepresented - and pretty much misquoted - about it by Brown during those self same PMQs, while the old fraud, who had just finished admitting to lying to the House and the Chilcot enquiry over defence cuts, was trying - and spectacularly failing - to turn the tables on a rampant Cameron.

He told the Commons today: “The right hon. Gentleman [David Cameron] has come a long way from a few months ago, when The Daily Telegraph reported: ‘David Cameron has launched a secret mission to win over Britain’s trade unions…

“The trade unions have also been asked to help draw up opposition policy, The Daily Telegraph can disclose’.

“It also stated that ‘party officials have met with the unions more than sixty times since the spring.’ One day they are for the unions; the next day they are against the unions. The only consistency is in their total opportunism.”

Brown is wrong on a couple of points here. Cameron’s links with the unions did not emerge “a few months ago”. In fact my Telegraph story he was quoting from was published on the frontpage of the Telegraph in August 2008 – a full 18 months ago.

Since then, David Cameron confirmed the talks in an interview with the Telegraph and covered his plans to curb their links with the Labour Party just last month. Not much that is opportunistic here either – given Cameron had also hired his own “union envoy” Richard Balfe.

Anyone would guess there was an election around the corner.

Well, there is an election around the corner, and Brown's latest in long, long line of trainwreck performances might well prove decisive in determining its outcome. As Cameron struck home with devastating point after devastating point, and Brown's parries became more and more feeble, you could almost feel the votes hemorrhaging from Labour, and what remained of Brown's already ragged credibility draining inexorably away.

The most devastating blows Cameron struck, however, he saved until the last, of which the best was the damning charge that at least one thing is now absolutely crystal clear. Brown has been almost exclusively serving the interests of his paymasters, Unite, for years now, and not the interests of the nation. In addition, Cameron also managed to make it fairly clear that it was the interests of these giant, Labour-sponsoring union leaderships Brown had been serving, and absolutely not the interests of their members - or, indeed, the nation.

This is a key distinction that has to be rammed home from here on in. It will resonate, revealing, as it does, the trade union, anti-democratic power grab that's been going on behind the scenes relentlessly, if not furiously, since Brown usurped Blair. Cameron was right (again); this is a return to the handwringing, lame governments of the Seventies, who, as he memorably said, caved into the unions rather than talking to them.

Overall, this is a narrative that will ring true with hundreds of thousands of people who have been virtually disenfranchised and misrepresented for decades by left wing union leaders who now, it seems, have regained control of the Parliamentary Labour Party. And the reason why it will ring true is because it is true.

No one, bar the more rabid loony lefties of the Grauniad class, and Labour's new militant tendency itself, wants to go back to that sort of grim world, with a stagnant nation held to ransom by an unelected politbureau of bitter old union Trots. And people are quickly realising that Brown is so compromised, so reliant as he is on union money and largesse for his power, that he is not on their side. It's also becoming vividly clear how he survived all those coup attempts. The unions weren't willing to lose their puppet just yet - or, at least, until he's served his purpose.

Point is, there is so much new and powerful ammunition for the Tories here, it'll be hard for them to know which grenade to lob first.

And, of course, the ultimate, happy upshot of all this is that we have all taken one more agonising step closer to the downfall of the Brown regime, and towards a reforming Conservative government, attempted Unite coup d'etats and atavistic Big Union international syndicalism notwithstanding.

Browned Off

While this article from Lloyd Evans on today's pmqs is certainly very entertaining and worth a close read, especially when he takes the mickey out of the Bercow's risible performance in the Speaker's chair, I must concur with Iain Dale, who, unlike Evans, thinks that Brown was "flailing all over the place" and that Cameron "had him on the ropes." Evans, for some reason, thought that Brown's performance was "steady" and "predictable" but that Cameron's was "pretty good", but "not quite excellent."

Well, I'm sorry Lloyd, old chap, but you must have been watching a different pmqs because Iain Dale is dead right: on this latest piece of Labourist nonsense over "free" - but uncosted - home care for the elderly (a typical, bungled piece of Labour hijacking - and mucking-up - of an excellent and costed Tory policy proposal, motivated by a cynical desire, as Cameron said, merely to help the Labour party rather than to help the elderly), Brown was absolutely terrible. He came across as either crowing or just bad-tempered, but never once did he answer the substantive question that Cameron had skewered him with: death tax or no death tax? (We all know the answer - death tax).

Cameron was excellent today. With that in mind I suppose it could be necessary to form the opinion that his performance is being measured against far higher standards than Brown's. It's just possible that the only reason for this is that even slightly right of centre professional journos like Evans (and Iain Martin) are so used to Brown being appalling, that they unconsciously let him off lightly. By the same token, because many people who write blogs are so desperate to see Cameron and his party take Labour and Brown to the cleaners for what they've done to this country, what would be regarded as a good day for Brown is condemned as a shocker for Cameron. That browns me off a wee bit.

Iain Dale, at least, has maintained his objectivity in suggesting that Brown was crap this week, just like he was last week. And Cameron was great.

Rope-A-Dope

I watch PMQs. I watch it because I'm interested - not so much these days because anything is ever achieved in it by the gathered, undertalented quorum of our very costly elected political representatives, all whipped into a total complacency, but because, these days, it tells me both where the issue-wind is blowing and how the Tories could be doing a hell of a lot better.

However, I'm just not going to get into this thing now - I'm too tired and I have to be reasonably compus mentus for toil tomorrow.

I have to say this, though: if there is any advice to offer overpaid, overrated (on the strength of recent outings) "Team Cameron", it's this: STARVE BROWN of his favorite themes. It's not rocket science, after all. In any debate, especially PMQs, starve Brown of his stock answers; starve him of any chance to 'tractor-stat'; starve him of the chance to repeat his delusional narrative. Whatever it takes.

Whatever, indeed, it takes, including taking a few short-term hits. I think in the Rumble in the Jungle it was called 'Rope-a-Dope". If he has the guts and the desire, then Cameron must play the same game as Ali: let Brown, his fairly powerful but pretty dumb opposition, pound and pound away until he's forgotten why he's doing it, is exhausted and is ripe for the real knock-out blow (that nobody likes him, nobody believes him and nobody wants him)- no matter what.

Cameron must let the one-eyed Scots fraud hang himself, even if it means that he experiences a little pain by playing the rational, thoughtful, vulnerable - even sympathetic - professional for a few months.

While the electorate needs a bloody good reason to vote Labour again, all it needs is a small excuse and easy permission to vote Tory. Cameron should be focusing on that.

I just hope that middleweight Cameron has, somewhere, the policy excuse and the will to grant that permission to the people of Britain.

Right now, I have my doubts that he's good for either. The past week has been that bad, hasn't it?

Brown's Memory

At work, but heard PMQs on the internet an hour ago. I thought Cameron was good - pretty forensic and challenging - and hitting all the right notes about Brown, the Prime Minister with such a short memory that he can't remember making a guarantee two weeks ago to start withdrawing British troops 'sometime in 2010'. He can't remember that he didn't abolish Boom n' bust, or his claim that Britain was best placed to weather the storm of (his) bust and subsequent recession. He can't even remember his own party's legislation on inheritance tax. Extraordinary. However, I thought, unlike a number of other bloggers, that while Brown was fairly good, he in no way 'won' the exchange - as if that's what it's all about.

The main reason? Well, the even more extraordinary lapse of memory from this putative chairman of the G20 that meant he didn't even know who's in the group he's supposed to be chairing. He thinks Spain is a member. He's forgotten (maybe) that it isn't and the major bloggers are consequently having a bit of a field day, but only Guido saw it coming.

Brown: Take A Detention

PMQs. Just watched it. Haven't seen anything quite so hilarious since my cat attacked the washing machine. Three memorable quotes:

"He [Brown] says he wants to be a teacher but it looks like he's lost control of the classroom." (Cameron referring to the cabinet split about government spending).

"There's simply far too much noise." Speaker of the House hassled, short-arse teacher, Bercow, trying to get a grip of a class that has no respect for him.

"It's the Liberal party that wants to cut public expenditure, not the Conserv.... not the Labour party." Brown, our unwanted, very mixed-up and potty prime mentalist muddling up his lies.

One thing is certain, this PMQs was an epic win for Dave C. Brown, finally caught in the most whopping of his great lies, was left totally confused. His trainwreck performance will not have gone unnoticed among elements within his own cabinet currently briefing against him.

One thing more: Bercow seemed happy to let Cameron get on with it - even to the point of stretching chamber rules to breaking point by allowing Cameron to quote MPs' names. He completely failed to protect Brown who seemed quite stunned more than once in the midst of the withering Cameron assault. All he could do was repeat a lie about Tory cuts (which are actually Labour cuts) in a way that simply served to make him look potty.

Deliberate on the part of Bercow? No. He's not that good. The reality is that without the protection of his mate Mick, Brown's debating inadequacies have been exposed. Cameron, a decent scrapper, made mincemeat of him. Brown's final insult to the electorate, Bercow, has backfired spectacularly. Key-ool.

See for yerself.

"No Election Because I'll Lose"

Another Day, Another Pasting

Difficult to imagine a more pathetic admission from Britain's worst ever Prime Minister in today's PMQs (which I've just seen). He's blocking the General Election because he thinks he's going to lose. Plenty of bloggers have touched on the 'chaos' gaffe - as in, Brown associates elections with chaos because he's really an autocrat (and basically mad) - and hats off to them. They're right.

But the implications of this could potentially be pretty severe for democracy in Britain as a whole in that we now have a man 'in office but not in power' who is terrified of elections, is unwanted, has presided over the worst economic and now constitutional crises for generations but because of his visceral tribalism, spinelessness and unnatural egoism, will not go to the country. Generally the consequences of an impasse of this nature is unrest. Bring it on!

The Telegraph published the story about an hour ago:

The Prime Minister said that he would not call an early general election because a Tory administration would bring "chaos" to the country - a clear implication that he believes Labour will not cling on to power.

The slip was met with cheers from opposition MPs at Prime Minister's Questions, with Mr Cameron hailing it as Mr Brown's "first admission" that he was heading for defeat.

The Tory leader went on to say said that an unelected prime minister like Mr Brown was in no position to lead the country through the current political crisis.

He said that the promises the Prime Minister made when he came to power in 2007 had been broken and that Labour had no mandate to govern.

"Can't you see how badly we need a fresh start. Two years ago you promised us a fresh start. Remember what you said outside Downing Street: a Government of integrity and decency. Well that died with Damian McBride," he said.

"You promise to renew trust in Parliament. Where's that promise today?. You promised prudence, economic stability, a big house building programme. None of these things are happening."

"We have got to give the public their voice and the country a chance for a fresh start," he added. "The Prime Minister calls elections chaos. I call them change. Why can't we have one?

This is simply phase two of the violent tempest thundering over Westminster as the will of the people collides with the concrete blockhead that is Brown. There can only be one winner in that crash. Us.