It's Gone All Gordon

Hugo Rifkind wrote an excellent article in The Times (£) about Gordon Brown's evidence at the Leveson Enquiry this week. He compares Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's views on the press, views that expose the two men's very different outlook.

Tony Blair thought back then — and doubtless still thinks — that the British press was awful. “Of course the accuracy of a story counts,” he said. “But it is secondary to impact. It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be, but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.”

It’s a fairly devastating critique, this, painting the press as irresponsible and amoral; a nihilistic force of mob-handed destruction. In the wake of phone hacking and everything else, this does not seem inaccurate. But this is not what Gordon Brown thinks at all. He sees a press that is not amoral, but immoral. Or, to put it another way, Tony Blair would say that the press tore apart Gordon Brown because he was rubbish, because it was fun, because it was just so damn easy, because a mindless sort of group-think took hold and ordinary humanity flew out the window. Whereas Gordon Brown thinks it happened because two or three powerful men, for ideological or commercial reasons, entered into a conspiracy to get rid of him.

I would argue that this isn't just how Gordon Brown thinks but how many on the left think. The left sees News International as a political opponent (at least since its papers swapped sides) not as a news outfit whose failings are the same as other media operators. They genuinely believe that News International is in league with the Tories and out to get them.

It is this paranoid political outlook, allied with the commercial opportunism on the part of Murdoch's competitors, that has led to the unjustifiable amount of media coverage that Leveson and any Murdoch related story gets. Rifkind concludes...

“Attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment,” said Tony Blair in 2007. “It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial.”

Quite. The Leveson Inquiry was born out of a sudden public awareness that print media had terrible problems. I’m not going to play those problems down. But they were Tony Blair problems, not Gordon Brown problems; problems about process, not motive. All the way through, I’ve had a sense of lawyers looking for problems with motive and simply not finding them. And thus, what started seven months ago (seven months!) as a righteous autopsy into grotesque wrongs done to ordinary folk has become a whirlwind of innuendo about whether the sidekicks of media bosses and Cabinet ministers are sending each other the right sort of text message.

This is why it’s getting boring. It’s gone weird. It’s gone Gordon.

My favourite comment under this article is from Stephanie Bennett...

"A politician complaining about the press is like a sailor complaining about the sea". - Enoch Powell

Minor Mistakes and Little White Lies

So, the News International flagellation continues unabated. There's no sign that their competitors or politicians want to focus on other media organisations that we know have been at least equally guilty of using dubious information gathering methods, so it's not going to move on any time soon. But I note that the anti-News International lobby have a new bit of spin.

It's a cunning line, based on the reported words of Rupert Murdoch in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. Murdoch, referring to News Corp's handling of the crisis since it broke, said they'd handled it well with only and few "minor mistakes". I've now seen this has been reinterpreted by some (BBC reporters and Labour politicians, including John Prescott, so far) as meaning the accusations against the News of the World (such as the accessing of Milly Downler's voicemails) were minor mistakes. Clever. There will be many that may disagree that News Corp have handled the crisis well with only a few minor mistakes, but no one would agree that the accusations regarding the accessing of innocent private individuals' voicemails, including victims of crime, are minor mistakes. Indeed, it's a line that, had he actually said it, would add to the public outrage and focus it more sharply on Rupert Murdoch himself. Which is, of course, their agenda.

After Gordon Brown's dodgy claims regarding The Sun this week we can see that the, mostly politically motivated, anti-News International campaign is resorting to lies and smears to progress it's agenda. It may seem like natural justice for the press, and I wouldn't be too bothered, if it wasn't for the fact that all this energy is being focused on one organisation, mostly because it upset a political party when it turned it's back on them. The worry is the wider problem in the press generally won't be addressed. What we need is the same tenacious focus on The Mirror, People, Mail etc. No one seriously suggests they've not been using similar methods as the News of the World. It will be interesting to see if Labour MPs maintain the same level of passion and indignation and the BBC continue wall to wall news coverage, when the story moves on to the non-News International papers and, God forbid, Labour papers like the Mirror and People.

Gordon's Claims

Tonight Gordon Brown claims he has stood up against the evils of News International. He's made various claims against The Sun and The Sunday Times and, obediently, the broadcast media has been reporting it as fact all day long. Unfortunately, for once, the case the papers have quickly put forward in defence, is looking credible and calling into question Brown's version of the truth.

Gordo "standing up" to the evil Rupert Murdoch

The claims about what The Sunday Times got up to can be easily defended by the fact that pursuit of the story was entirely in the public interest. Much more damaging, if true, are the claims that The Sun illegally accessed Brown's son, Fraser's, medical records and published the story against the parent's wishes. Here's some of the, interesting, points being made in The Sun and Times tomorrow...

• 5 years ago, The Sun reported that the Browns new baby had cystic fibrosis. The story was highlighted by The Guardian as "the best of today's papers" and they wrote two articles of their own on the subject.
• No complaints were received from the Browns at the time
• The Sun has a signed affidavit from the man that supplied them with the story, contradicting Brown's claims that they got the information illegally via accessing his son's medical records (a claim originating from The Guardian a competitor of News International's Times and Sunday Times)
• The man was a father of another baby born with the same condition as the Browns' baby. He is quoted as saying "[I] had no access to the medical records of the [Brown's]child at any time" and that he felt vindicated in contacting The Sun because "we felt we could have made something positive out of the tragedy and...the truth would have come out eventually anyway... the fact they are so high profile could have made a difference". 
• The Sun claims they had the consent of the Browns to publish, once they felt they were ready to go public. And they complied with a request to allow other papers to publish the story at the same time. 
• The hospital where Fraser was born confirms that there has been no previous suggestion that medical records were compromised. 
• Subsequently, after publication in 2006, Gordon Brown showed no sign of upset of desire to cool relations with News International...
• Rupert Murdoch and Gordon Brown continued to enjoy a good relationship with regular visits from Murdoch when he was in London, cementing the view that Brown was Murdoch's "favourite politician" at the time. 
• Brown rewarded the man that broke the story about Fraser's condition with the first exclusive newspaper interview after he became Prime Minister
• Amongst many other social get togethers, Rebekah Brooks (the Editor of The Sun) was invited to Downing Street for a "World's most successful women" lunch and a sleep over (with Murdoch's wife and daughter) for sleepover at Chequers
• Gordon Brown attended the wedding party for Rebekah Wade and Charlie Brooks.
• `The close relationship ended abruptly in September 2009 when Brown heard about The Sun's intention to stop supporting Labour. Andrew Neil reports that Gordon Brown threatened to "destroy" Murdoch in a telephone call to him after learning he was deserting Labour's sinking ship. 

Well, there's little doubt that, following the demise of the News of the World, many in Labour's ranks and in the non-Murdoch media, can scent blood. I'm sure Brown would love to bring Murdoch down. I hope there's more to his Sun claims than we can see tonight. Otherwise, his use of his son's condition to attempt to increase the pressure on an organisation he hates for turning away from him, will be a new low, even for the man who employed Damian McBride

Could Cable Be To Cameron What Brown Was To Blair?

PoliticalBetting.com highlights analysis of the parties national share of the vote during Thursday's elections by Rallings & Thrasher. It confirms that the Tories actually had a (slightly) higher vote share than Labour. Given recent opinion polls that regularly gave Labour 6 to 10 point leads, the Tories have got to be pleased with that.

Considering the controversies over the spending cuts, tax rises, the NHS reforms and that the only repository for protest votes against the Con/Lib Dem coalition is Labour, this result is extraordinary and must be very disappointing for Labour. The coalition parties amassed 54% of the votes verses Labour's 37%. It's unsurprising that Lib Dems support dropped significantly from its impressive 2007 level. It is surprising the Tories actually did better than their 2007 result and their 2010. The Lib Dems were always going to have to face up to losing their soft support from the anti-establishment left. Their moderate left of centre support will also be flakey until they are convinced that the path the coalition is taking is correct. That will only happen once the path has been trodden and the results are tangible.

However, if the coalition is to deliver, all parties need to be working together constructively, supportively and with a shared vision of what is to be achieved and how. As I suggested in a previous post, the Lib Dems need to spend less time trying to win back the niche anti-establishment leftists that have abandoned them and try to build support back up from the true centre of British politics (that's a bit more to the right of a significant number of Lib Dem frontbenchers like Cable and Hughes). The aftermath of Thursday's election results has led to a lot of noise from the left of the Lib Dem party suggesting that they need to become more obstructive and demand more policies that would appeal to the supporters they've lost since allying themselves with the Tories. While there is sound logic in Lib Dems maintaining their identity apart from the Tories, I suspect much of this talk exposes good old fashioned anti-Tory feelings that have been painfully suppressed by their originators since the coalition was formed. And it's dangerous talk.

Tony Blair came to power intending to achieve radical reforms that would improve health, education and social cohesion. He failed miserably. Any improvements to public services were achieved through enormous increases in spending with little or no reform whatsoever. The result was ever diminishing returns on the investments. Productivity fell as budgets expanded seemingly inexorably. What improvements there were often proved to be illusory as real world experiences of public services were ignored in favour of managerial performance statistics that just ticked the right boxes for the politicians who started setting priorities instead of, for example, medical, educational or policing professionals. We were told that our young people had never been better educated, but employers were coming across increasing numbers of innumerate and even illiterate school leavers. We were told that our health service was the best in the world thanks to the enormous increases in spending there (it now costs over £100 billion a year). But cases of patients dying of malnutrition in hospital beds increasingly appeared in the media, complaints about uncaring and incompetent treatment increased and health outcomes lagged behind countries who's health services really did provide best in class care.

If there is one lesson this government must learn from the previous administrations it is that reform is the only route to genuine and long lasting improvement. What stopped Blair from achieving his goals? The answer is Brown. More accurately, it was the competing agendas of two camps in the Labour party, the Brownite left and the more reform friendly Blairite modernisers. Brown crippled Blairs reforms and eventually undid many of them. He was all for spending tax payers money but he didn't want to alienate the left of the Labour party by reforming services run and staffed by predominately natural Labour supporters in the public sector; staff who paid their dues to Unions who funded the activities of the Labour party. Indeed Brown thought that by massively increasing the number of people employed by the public sector (incredibly, and disastrously for our economy, to over 50% of the entire country's workforce) that Labour's future would be secured as "turkeys don't vote for Christmas" i.e. they're not likely to vote for the Tories as they believe they will reduce their numbers. In the end many did vote for Christmas and we are about to eat a lot of turkey. But I digress. The point is that, reform is vital, especially in health and education. And now we are finally starting to pay for Labour's largesse there won't be great wads of cash raining down to paper over the cracks that will inevitably appear if cuts are delivered without reform.


The reason the language emanating from the likes of Cable and Hughes is so dangerous is that, if it is listened to and acted upon, the Lib Dems will become the Brownites of the coalition. Hell bent on obstructing reform in order to focus on a subset of their support base that exists (actually existed would be more apt) out on the left wing. Believing, wrongly in my view, that a) they will ever come back and b) that they need them to survive as a real force in British politics. Ed Miliband's Labour is their natural home. Many politically aware leftists who may have once supported the Lib Dems will harbour a deep sense of betrayal as their world view leads them to believe most people agree with them deep down, that there is a "progressive" majority in Britain that's main aim should be to keep the Tories out. We heard Huhne, Mandelson and others describe this view during the AV referendum campaign. These people will not return to voting Lib Dem. Certainly not by the next election anyway.

This politicised view of the people of Britain is wrong. There is no progressive majority who would keep the Tories out for ever if only the Labour and Liberal Democrats got together. It's no coincidence that it was when Yes to AV campaigners started more explicitly describing AV as a way of "stopping the Tories" that their support started to plummet. It was a mistake, not least because AV wouldn't have "stopped the Tories". In fact what voters want to see is a government working with purpose, unity and competence to achieve real improvements, such as fixing the nations finances while improving services. They understand doing both is not easy but expect results none the less.

Those results won't come if Brownite style obstructiveness rears its one eyed grumpy head again within government in the form of Lib Dem attempts to win favour with voters who will never consider them again after they dared to stand with the great Tory Satan. Instead a better option would be to work constructively and supportively in government to deliver real and effective reform that will enable savings to be made in order to address the budget deficit, while entrenching long term improvements to services and avoid or mitigate the cuts short term affects. This will involved challenging policies as they are developed but doesn't include the public wholesale blocking of reform in order to be seen to be an opposition in government. Because if they do that, it won't be long before that's where they'll return, permanently.

If they stick together and make this coalition work, both parties can emerge at the next election and claim their fair share of the successes. Looking back from 2015, Labour will look as irrelevant as they really are in modern Britain. If things go very well there may even be an opportunity to replace Labour as one of the big two.

The Dragons Could Have Stopped The Banking Crisis

Some say it was Gordon Brown's reform of the financial regulatory system that led to the excesses in the financial sector that contributed to the banking crisis.

However, here is proof that Gordon's multi-agency system (FSA/BoE/The Dragons' Den) would have worked had the Dragons done their duty.

Peter "Nick Clegg" Jones, Theo Thefoetus, Duncan Genocide, James Yes We Caan and The Grumpy Woman quiz two city gents on their "Piece of Paper" proposal...

Ed Miliband's Credibility Deficit

"Watch my nose grow out to here when I talk about the deficit"

Ed Miliband writes in Thursday's Times newspaper that the deficit that the Government (or Conservative-led government as he insists on spinning it, in a pathetic and transparent attempt to alienate Lib Dems) is grappling with, is not the fault of the last Labour mis-led government.

In continuing his attempts to convince voters, who he clearly thinks are as gullible as 4 year olds, that this is the case, he is demonstrating what a poor leader he is and how he hasn't a clue about creating a credible narrative for his party that could return the credibility required to make them electable again.

In attempting to sell the lie that the deficit was caused by a "global economic crisis" he merely invites Coalition supporters to remind everyone, as if they needed reminding (sorry), that it is the structural deficit that is being addressed. In other words, the difference between what is spent from and earned in taxes after the economic cycle is taken into account.

The deficit wasn't created by the evil bankers, as some would have us believe. The bail outs of the banks, something Labour and Gordon Brown are quick to claim were part of their "save the world" strategy, certainly have added to the overall debt levels but not to the yearly structural overspend (a better word for deficit in my opinion). Eventually, those banks will be sold off (presumably just before the next election) and the taxpayers money spent on buying them out will be returned with interest. So, even the bank bail outs are only temporarily inflating the debt level that is being added to by the tune of £150bn a year, currently.

It is the £150bn overspend that needs eliminating if we are to start to tackle to frightening level of debt already racked up. The overspend has been caused by reckless and politically motivated structural spending increases that were unaffordable and now have to be brought back under control.

If you cast your minds back just a few years, you will remember a time when the word "cuts" was political poison. Labour's electoral strategy (something Ed Miliband was heavily involved in) was to keep spending more and more and then dare their opponents to suggest spending was too high. If they did, as the Tories had done in previous elections, the cry of "cuts in hospitals, nurses, doctors, police, schools, teachers, etc etc" would go out and voters were duly repelled. It was a successful strategy until the growing recession hit the banks and sparked the banking crisis. After that, people looked to government to spend more on supporting the economy and on social welfare for those cast into economic difficulty. But they saw a Government that had spent all the money during the good times and now had to rack up enormous debts to act to support an economy during, what was an inevitable downturn. We, the electorate, have to take some of the blame for being taken in by Labour's strategy and
the Tories learnt they had to avoid talking about cuts if they were to "detoxify" their brand.

So, the one thing Little Miliband gets right in his Times article was this lack of political clarity from Labour's opponents back then. That is regrettable but not an excuse to ignore the crisis now, as he proposes. His approach would leave us continuing to add to the £4.8 trillion debt mountain that is already a millstone around our childrens' necks.

2011 will be a testing year for the Coalition. It's on the right economic path but it starts getting rocky and is uphill for most of the rest of the Parliament. Let's hope it can keep itself together during the coming dark days of unpopularity and political tests, like the forthcoming AV referendum. The only way a clown like Ed Miliband will get elected is if the Coalition drops the ball in the middle of the game. The inbuilt electoral bias will return a Labour government with them just a few points ahead (or even possibly one or two points behind) the Tories. So, it's time for Tory and Lib Dem politicians and supporters to gird their loins and battle through the next couple of years while doing everything they can to counter the deceits put out by Labour such as "the deficit wasn't our fault"

Not Really Apples With Apples

I read that Gordon Brown compares himself to Barack Obama in his first interview since he finally gave the British people a chance to decide if they wanted him or not. As we know (and knew long before the day) they didn't and Labour's vote slumped to sub Michael Foot 1983 election levels.

There's one big difference between Brown and Obama... well there's lots... but there is one major difference that I think Brown can't ever bring himself to admit to. And it's not that he's not black; he came to terms with that after that awful YouTube gurning incident. No, it's that he was never elected Prime Minister. He really shouldn't be comparing himself with genuine, elected leaders.

Meanwhile, during his speech earlier, Mr Brown had made light of losing the British general election in May.

He said he was someone who "spent some time as a politician before becoming a community organiser".

Mr Brown contrasted himself with President Barack Obama "who spent some time as a community organiser before becoming a politician".

Interesting that he can only bring himself to surface in public abroad. He clearly feels more comfortable in Africa than at home. I imagine Zimbabwe will need a new unelected dictator soon. Even Gordon couldn't fuck up that economy any more than it already is... or could he?

Blair Faced Cheek!

Is see Labour just keep on costing us...






It's being reported that our last (elected) PM's bodyguards alone are costing the tax payer £250,000 a year, in expenses.

Tony Blair really does have some bare faced, (orangey) cheek. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept the need to protect ex-PMs. And I understand that a relatively young and still active one, like Blair, is going to cost a substantial amount of dosh to protect. But it seems some of the cost is down to the numerous holidays the Blair's take. I can only hope it was the Labour Party that met the cost of Tony's visit during the General Election. But the point is that in this new age of austerity, it really isn't on to be spending thousands of pounds protecting a very well paid individual while he, and his also very well paid wife, sun themselves on exclusive beaches.

My suggestion would be to offer a generous maximum amount of paid protection to ex-PMs and then expect them to pay any additional costs incurred on top of that by their swanning around the world, unless their activities were directly in the interests of Britain. The days of issuing blank cheques at the public's expense are over and that should extend to the likes of the Blairs as much as everyone else.

Luckily, Gordon is all but unemployable following his disastrous premiership. So he won't be jetting hither and dither at anyones expense.

However, as the people of Britain begin to pay the price for his profligacy with higher taxes and lower public spending, I suspect the cost of protecting him will be a lot less if he's abroad than if he's at home. In fact, perhaps he's already worked this out and has fled the country. That would explain the little that's been seen of him (doing what he's paid for) in Parliament recently.

We Live In Interesting Times

The Chinese can be blamed for a lot of things, Tiananmen Square, over population, wrecking the Copenhagen deal, inventing fireworks that keep me awake in the run up, throughout, and for some time after, November every year, but mostly for delicious take away food that has contributed to my being over weight contributing, possibly, to my early death (hopefully still in the future whenever it is that you're reading this). However, this week the Chinese proverb "May you live in interesting times"  seems to have cursed this great nation of ours in relation to our recent General Election.

Things got even more interesting today following Gordon Brown's resignation. This should be a moment to celebrate for everyone but the blindest Labour apologist, but look deeper and you will see it isn't. As with all Gordon Brown's utterances, you have to read between the lines to work out what he really means. This resignation is really about extending his premiership, for up to an incredible 4 months, beyond the General Election in which he and his party were soundly beaten.

Gordon's resignation is designed to entice Nick Clegg into negotiations and a deal with Labour while his party descends into civil war between the various potential leadership camps such as the Milibandians/Ballistas and the Harridans. He is determined to cling on as Prime Minister as long as (barley) constitutionally possible, and almost as important is the chance to scupper a deal that would see the election's winning party, The Conservatives, take over the reigns.

The Tories have today offered the LibDems electoral reform in the shape of the Alternative Vote system. This was a system favoured by Labour, and for good reason as it favours them even more than the current FPTP system with it's bias for Labour due smaller constituency sizes and low turn out in Labour areas, amongst other things. However, it's clear that the Tories will allow a referendum (as any electoral reform should have) but will campaign against the change itself.

I can only think that the Tories believe that AV, of all the options for change, is the easiest to defeat in a referendum. As you can see from the table below, if the relationship between seats won and share of the vote is what's important to you (what some call "fair votes"), then AV is worse than FPTP.  

It's a big gamble for Cameron and if it doesn't pay off this system would further entrench the Labour party in power. But, it seems, the offer is necessary to keep the LibDems interested. Even though it has succeeded in that objective, Clegg is now sniffing around Labour to see what they can offer. This double dealing looks bad and must leave a nasty taste in the Tory negotiators mouths as they continue to maintain their respectful, reasonable and conciliatory stance with the LibDems (despite their poor showing in the General Election) while they attempt to play one side off against the other to get maximum pay back. Meanwhile the country continues to yearn for some decisiveness and a government we, and the markets, can have confidence in.

The final offer is now in the table, take it or leave it, Clegg. Take it, and you get the chance to give the Liberals something they've not had for decades, real power and the chance to implement real policies and effect real change.

Leave it, and show the nation how you put party before country, how afraid you are of real responsibility during what will be difficult times to govern, and be rightly condemned to another 100 years in the wilderness for your cowardice. That is, of course, unless your Labour friends in parliament manage to agree to vote for a referendum on PR (highly unlikely, despite what Gordon says). In which case (assuming you win the referendum) we can look forward to you whoring your support around the other parties like some kind of surrogate electorate choosing who should govern, while the real electorate looks on, bemused and wondering what their "fair votes" are really worth.

The Image Of Election 2010

All the stories of Gordon Brown being a bully, being socially inept, a control freak etc etc, had no real effect on Labour's support in the months before the election was announced officially. Today, a slim chink of light was shed on the man and for once we heard him talk without being scripted and coached by Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, and everyone but the blindest Labour drone would find what we heard very unattractive.

There are so many revealing insights into Brown the man including: 

• Saying one thing in public and another in private
• His preference for meeting people vetted and controlled by his aides 
• His need to blame others (I just hope Brown doesn't have a mobile phone handy next time he sees this "Sue" he blamed for "putting him with that woman"
• His inability to handle prolonged pressure without making fatal mistakes.

David Cameron has been meeting real people all campaign and gets heckled and confronted on an almost a daily basis but manages to avoid insulting them live on television. Gordon Brown announces at the beginning of the 3rd week of campaiging that he will engage with more ordinary people and within 3 days of the pressure of mixing with normal people he's made a massive gaffe.

Hopefully those people, that haven't already, will see that this man is not fit to be PM and the party that has inflicted his leadership on the country will be decisively defeated at the next election. The party is so deeply infected by the nasty, macho, bullying New Labour culture concocted by Blair/Brown/Campbell and Mandelson that it will require an extended period out of office to purge the poison. None of the current cabinet are untainted and cannot represent change.

I hope after this, there is less talk of hung parliaments and  more focus on getting Labour out, decisively and for a long time, so they can find their way back to decent politics or be consigned to the political wilderness, like the Liberals have been for 90 odd years.

Spatchcock Coalition Is The Last Thing We Need

Following the Leaders' Debate last week and the subsequent surge in LibDem support, the threat of a hung parliament looms large over Britain. For some it seems like a good idea, a chance to smash the old discredited two party system. But, in truth, it would be a disaster for the country.

The Mayor of London sums up one reason why it would be disastrous: The need to address this country's financial crisis:

Boris Johnson: “The last thing we need when you need some very difficult decisions taken for the budgetary health of this country is a hung Parliament and the endless dickering around between some spatchcock coalition between the Liberals and the Labour government staggering on, without giving this country the new start and the new medicine that I think it needs.” - Hat tip to Tory Landlord 

Another reason a hung parliament, leading to a Lib/Lab pact, would be disastrous is the gerrymandering of the electoral system to ensure any future election is stitched up for the left.

This headline from The Independent illustrates the agenda Gordon Brown will be working to in a hung parliament situation (one, no doubt, The (not really very) Independent would approve of):

How would Labour stitch up the electoral system? Well, Brown's last-second conversion to electoral reform, just before calling the general election, is proof of his cynical motives. If he was serious about reform he'd have chosen a Proportional Representation system. One that produces a result that is actually proportionate to the way people vote. Such systems aren't perfect and I'm not a fan of PR myself, but then neither is our current system with its appalling Labour bias that could lead to Labour ending up with the largest number of seats even if they finish third in the popular vote! But no, instead he goes for the Alternative Vote system. A system that the BBC proved would be even more biased towards Labour. See Patently Rubbish: Why Labour Wants AV for a great explanation of Brown's true motives.

Clegg has not made PR a make or break issue for supporting Labour in a hung parliament. He is only asking for "Fairness in the voting system". And, as the LibDem's Shirley Williams admits, Clegg is likely to be seduced by the AV system on offer from Brown. If only because it further cripples the Tories. As always with hung parliaments, manifesto pledges go out of the window and politicians do secret back room deals to get themselves into power. It is likely such a government would be dogged by in-fighting, horse-trading and compromise that would lead to a early general election when it all collapses in a heap. The one thing they will ensure that they implement will be the electoral reform that would be so beneficial to their own self-interests.

It is also very likely that highly destructive in-fighting within the Labour Party will break out as Brown struggled to maintain his leadership position against coup attempts that will follow Labour's poor performance (especially for an incumbent party) at the General Election. This will just add to the weakness of the government and cripple its ability to address the financial crisis, let alone deal with any of the other urgent issues facing this country. Markets and the pound will fall adding to our economy's instability at the worst possible time.

The truth is that the LibDems almost certainly can't win the election outright. They are very unlikely even to be the largest party in a hung parliament. The reality is that they will just end up denying the Conservative victory and a decisive rejection of Labour. Worse, they are far more likely to prop up Labour in power than unite with the Tories to form a Change Coalition. And if the Tories lose this election after the reforms Cameron has put them through, reforms some older members in the grassroots are still unhappy with, they may react by lurching to the right and once again become unelectable for a generation.

It won't just be 5 more years of Labour, it could be 10 or 15!

LibLab Government - A Suicide Pact The Tories Should Love

I used a clip of Gordon Brown attempting to frame to debate during the early hours of the General Election in 1992 in my previous post (hat tip Tory Landlord). The objective of his comments were to set the idea in peoples minds that, should an incumbent government lose an overall majority in a General Election it has LOST the election and has no mandate to govern. He clearly knew Labour hadn't won that night and was preparing for a hung parliament.



These words may come back to haunt him in the coming election. But, of course, Gordon will have easily changed his mind on the matter, now the opposite scenario is in place and he is PM of a government likely to lose its overall majority. It's only the perverse Labour bias in the electoral system that will deny the Conservatives outright victory.

Recent reports suggest Gordon Brown wants to stay on a leader, even if Labour lose outright by less than 20 seats. Any attempt by the LibDems to prop up a minority Labour government would do them immense harm. Labour would have lost the election in the minds of the people, even if they manage to get the most MPs.  Such a government would limp on, with Gordon as leader, with all the challenges of a broken economy and all the currently suppressed internal Labour splits re-emerging. The LibDems would be seen as propping up a broken party in power, probably for some electoral reform bribes that would benefit them in the future. The electorate would not be impressed by this kind of self-serving behaviour.

In many ways, a LibLab government could be the best result for the Tories (but not the nation for the time it governs, anyway). The Tories will be returned to power with a whopping majority after a LibLab government implodes. The LibDem's support, such that it is, will collapse and we may well see the emergence of a new 3rd party in British politics.

One thing is for sure, it will be an interesting election night. One worth staying up for. I'm already looking at booking Friday 7th of May off work! *SAD*, I know!

Look Into My Eye

Many have been left wondering what could be responsible for the reduced gap between the two main political parties in the polls.

Could it be the general low level of political awareness that means a puff piece like the Piers Morgan interview can really sway how people vote?Perhaps it's some kind of chronic short term memory problem affecting voters, leading them to forget what incredible levels of dishonesty and incompetence this government has achieved over the past 13 years? Or perhaps it's just sadomasochism on a massive scale? People actually want five more years of Gordon's mental leadership.

I can reveal that none of the above are the true reason for the bizarre polls of late. The truth is far more shocking.

Gordon Brown is hypnotising the people!!!


"Look into my eye, look into my eye, the eye, the eye, not that eye, don't look around the eye, look into my eye.... And you're under!"

It's only affecting the weak willed, it's a bit like the force from Star Wars in that respect: "These are not the droids you are looking for" becomes "These are not the Union millions that are bankrolling me", etc.

Gordo's powers are strong. Faced with repeated questioning about sending troops to fight with inadequate equipment, a situation that has led to many unnecessary deaths, he merely wafts his hand at his inquisitors and mutters "forget these trifling points - what say you about the ASHCROFT??". It's proven enough of a distraction technique for the BBC this past fortnight. But then they are incredibly weak willed.

Cameron needs to deploy some Jedi mind tricks to counter these dark arts, otherwise the attack of the clones will be successful. But who will be his Yoda?


Sarkozy might look the part but he knows he's got a trained puppy in Gordon and owes him for ratifying the Lisbon treaty without the promised referendum. Another act of betrayal Brown's mesmerising eye has made many forget.

He's even managed to convince an author not to publish another book that could expose his fragile mental state, even though she was hand picked to write a biography because of a sycophantic piece she wrote on him a while back. The book is likely to be very positive about the great Gordmezmo but they fear too many of the Rawnsley allegations will be given credence by some of the anecdotes in the new book.

Perhaps Cameron can use his appearance on Trevor McDonald's programme on Sunday to deploy some of his Jedi powers over a broad audience? "Don't vote for me and another 5 years of Gordon you will have."

Hmmm - may the force be with him, I think he's going to need it!

UPDATE:

Thanks to Tory Landlord, my attention has been drawn to an early attempt by Gordon to use his, then fledgling, hypnotic powers to convince David Dimbleby and the nation that Labour had won an election it had, in fact lost...

Gordon Brown To Appear on Tower Block of Commons

Following David Cameron's appearance on MPs-do-reality television programme, Tower Block of Commons, Gordon Brown has insisted on appearing himself, as soon as possible.

When he heard Cameron had filmed his appearance last week, Brown was overheard passionately asking a member of his staff to arrange an appearance of his own:

"This is a fucking election year you useless turd! If that posh felching sponge gets to pretend to care about these poor bastards on TV, then so should I. Now piss off and shitting well arrange it."

The arrangements were duly made and he is being lined up to spend a day with a gang of youths as they roam the local shopping centre. Brown has already worked out a way to build his credibility with the group of unruly yobs. He's going to share with them his favourite past time - happy slapping.

We have obtained a picture of him yesterday, catching Tessa Jowell (or Tessa Bowel as he insists on calling her "because she's full of shit") up-side the head after she failed to nod approvingly enough during Prime Ministers question time.

It is believed the picture was taken by Peter Mandelson, who eye witnesses claim, was cackling like a demented school girl as Jowell cowered and wept following Brown's assault.

National Socialists or Irrational Socialists?

It's amusing to see all the faux outrage being aimed at Iain Dale for his post publicising a controversial picture by artist Louis Sidolo.

I'm not convinced it's the best piece of satire I've ever seen, but it conjures up a smile just with the word play "Reign of Terror / Error". Louis Sidolo explains the piece on Dale's blog thusly...

The first piece is called 'Reign of Error' . It is a play on words from the recent book which described Gordon Brown’s leadership at No10 as a ‘Reign Of Terror’. In this piece, he is ‘morphed’ into an image of Hitler! Of course it is provocative, but if you think about it, there are strong similarities: Both started out as chancellors, both bullied their way to the top and seized power without being democratically elected, both tried to rig the electoral process, both prone to flying into uncontrollable rages and both caused huge economic damage to our country etc...

After a twitter exchange with, the normally sensible, Labour MP Tom Harris, I was left in no doubt as to the offence this picture caused. In response to me suggesting that Iain Dale wasn't comparing Brown to Hitler, that the artist was making the Terror/Error word play (something very topical today), Mr Harris said...

@fullabeanz No, he's publicising and linking to (thereby endorsing) an artist who claims there are "strong similarities" between GB and AH

I can understand his point. Sidolo does write "but if you think about it, there are strong similarities". But he goes on to list similarities that are obviously meant satirically but not literally. For example, the office of Chancellor is obviously different in Britain compared with Germany; "both caused huge economic damage" - well Hitler had to lose a world war to achieve this, Brown managed it with just pure economic incompentence; "both prone to flying into uncontolable rages"... well yes, okay, that was probably is literally true. 

No one is suggesting Gordon Brown is a Nazi, hell bent on committing atrocities like the holocaust. There are a few similarities between the two mens' behaviour and circumstances - some real and some coincidental, that provide a little bit of humourous material. The point is, the artist is making a joke. An edgy joke, yes. A provocative joke, yes. But a joke none the less and not a very original joke either. I remember seeing this on Guido's site ages ago...

 

And the picture Iain Dale has on his site hardly compares to this kind of thing from Spitting Image in the 80's...



Suggesting Thatcher's government was similar to the Nazis is more offensive in my opinion, as many on the left did actually believe that. Many of them today believe Tony Blair is a fascist! Surely Stalin is more offensive for a left wing Prime Minister? Stalin killed more people than Hitler, after all!

Yet, no one got enraged when the avuncular Vince Cable (as well some colleagues of Brown's in the Labour party) compared Brown to Stalin.

I suspect the faux outrage has more to do with Iain Dale's influential presence on the internet than anything else. It also presents an opportunity for those who would like to see his attempts to be selected as a PPC for the Tories scuppered. "An this man wants to be an MP" is a quote I've seen a few times on Twitter (not from Tom Harris BTW, but other Labour activist, certainly). If not this, then I suppose this is an election year and blog post presents Labour with an opportunity to paint the the Tories as "nasty" once again.

Shame.

Spinning Tears

There has been a lot written about whether or not the interview with Gordon Brown (due for broadcast on Sunday) is an electioneering stunt or not. Few doubt his tears are genuine over the loss of his new born baby, 8 years ago but the timing of the interview, so close to the general election, raised eyebrows.

Now, call me naive, but when I first heard about the interview, and the weeping, I didn't think it was an overtly political move. Sure, they were attempting to show Brown's human side, but it seemed too cynical to suggest this was blatent electioneering.

However, the subsequent heavy leaking, last weekend, of the details of the interview, focusing primarily on his emotional responses, makes it look more like a spin operation. It looked like they wanted an early blast of coverage followed by a second, after the broadcast.

My expectation, therefore, was that we'd hear nothing more until after the broadcast this Sunday. But no...

Enter arch-spin meister, Alastair Campbell on Andrew Marr's show last Sunday. That performance ensured continued discussion throughout the week about not just Campbell's "tears" (I didn't actually see any) but Brown's, and general discussions about men showing emotion in public etc. All very attractive coverage for a party that has already identified the female vote as a potential growth area for them. Personally, I think it was a mistake. Most of the women I know were turned off by what they saw as Campbell's insincere emotional acting. But you can see how Labour spin doctors are thinking. They'll be hoping Brown's weeping will be more heart rending for being genuine and about an undeniably tragic event.

So, after all this I'm starting to get cynical. But really, would Mr Brown really stoop so low as to use this personal tragedy for political advantage? I still couldn't believe that. I despise the man for how he's run (and ruined) this country, bullied and lied his way through government etc. But this? No. It can't be.

But today I notice that, despite having comprehensively covered the same details last weekend, the BBC is now plugging the story again, two days prior to the broadcast and adding nothing significant to what was spun to them a week before.

This smacks of further spinning by Labour and acquiescence by the BBC. This goes for any other channel that covers this story so needlessly today or tomorrow. I note the BBC website had the story up as the main headline in their political section. Is a rehashing of week old news really the most important political story today?

It's not as if this is even self publicity for a BBC programme as the interview will be going out on ITV.

It is still shocking just how easily manipulated our media is by this government.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Brown's "Reign of Terror" - The Independent

Looks like the "bully Brown" story just won't go away. Tomorrow's Independent front page...

According to PoliticsHome... "[The paper] is serialising a book by former Downing Street spin-doctor Lance Price, in which he quotes aides to the Prime Minister saying Brown's treatment of junior staff is 'unforgivable'."

And this shortly after the Andrew Rawnsely account of senior aid bashing and secretary yanking; before that Labour ex-chairman General Secretary Peter Watt's insights into Brown's bunker, describing similar intemperate behaviour.

Brown wants to personalise the coming General Election by focusing on Cameron's background and schooling. Such low politics is to be condemned. Many would say this story is just the same low personalisation and we should focus on policies only. But as an increasing number of ex-colleagues and Labour insiders become free to comment we are seeing ever more convincing evidence of Alastair Campbell's description of Gordon Brown as "psychologically flawed".

Brown himself is an issue for the General Election. His judgement, temperament and honesty have been called into question too many times for him not to be.

UPDATE: The Independent article is now on-line: Brown's 'reign of terror' at Downing Street

Punchy Brown to Go On and On

It's being widly reported that Gordon Brown says he wants to continue as Labour leader after the general election, even if he is defeated. He will attempt to stay on if the Conservatives fail to win a majority of more than 20 seats. Clearly, this is his idea of a success and he feels that he can justifiably ask the union's not to unseat him. Given that the alternatives are likely to be Blairites, he may well get his wish.

It should be noted that, with the electoral system weighted against the Conservatives, a hung parliament or a small majority are real possibilities. So there's every chance that Brown will still be Labour leader after the election (likely to be in May). The Tories will be chuffed with this. But it gets better for them...

Apparently, Brown wants to stay on to pave the way for Ed Balls to take over when he finally does step down. With Ed "Piers Fletcher-Dervish" Balls at Labour's helm, the Tories are guaranteed electoral success regardless of the system.

And today we hear revelations from the respected political journalist, Andrew Rawnsley, that Gordon Brown's much speculated about unstable temperament has indeed been a problem in the past. What's he been up to? Well, punching an aid, yanking a secretary out of her seat because she wasn't typing fast enough etc. You get the picture.

I'm not sure who will be more dismayed by the Prime Mentalist's insistence on staying on as Labour leader after the election: Blairites desparate to take over or Labour staffers afraid of a clunking fist in the face if they forget to sugar his coffee again.

Tessa Jowell admonished after failing nod head often enough during Prime Minister's question time

Gordon Brown Is...

There's a well known, and rather amusing, partial search phrase that you can type into Google that causes the predictive search engine to produce some (mostly accurate) popular search terms.

I hadn't tried it for a long time until today. It seems that No. 10 has cottoned onto the ruse and they, or more likely their drone like new media activists, have been busily punching "Gordon Brown in a good Prime Minister" into the search engine to get that phrase to appear as a suggestion. The original predictive search suggestions were an accurate depiction of the contempt with which Brown is held by the British people (well, at least by those that use Google). In fact, most of the original phrases still come up, so all is not lost.

Luckily, I have a screen shot from back in May 2009 (that I used for a Facebook wall post) to compared today's with...

May 2009...

And today, with one Gordon friendly addition...

It's good to see them focused on the important things, like this. It's not as if there are any other major issues facing Britain today anyway, are there?

Yet More Damning Insights Into Brown's Bunker

Today, there have been yet more damning insights into to the dysfunctional world of this Labour government. The left leaning Guardian newspaper reports comments from the civil service union chief that should be headline news later (but I doubt that will be the case). Jonathan Baume, head of the FDA union (the Association of First Division Civil Servants), is quoted as saying:

"The dysfunction is partly political and partly organisational. No one is clear how the Treasury, the prime minister's office and the Cabinet Office actually loop together and come up with a coherent policy initiative. When Gordon Brown became prime minister no clear direction ever emerged from him."

The article goes on to report...

...gridlock at the heart of government, with mandarins meeting indecision in Downing Street, ministers who have "given up", and a culture of "government by announcement".

He [Jonathan Baume] complained of "a sense of malaise at the political level. Some ministers have clearly given up the fight and are focusing on what happens after the election. It's a very strange atmosphere."

And this just a few days after a report by the Institute for Government (funded by major Labour donor Lord Sainsbury, by the way) also drew the conclusion that Brown's government was weak, dysfunctional, that No 10 lacked any coherent strategy and was reduced to issuing reactionary "barmy ideas" from the centre etc etc.

I would recommend reading both links above to get the full picture of how bad things really are at the heart of our government.

...And this after the humiliating revelations by Labour's ex-General Secretary Peter Watt, about Brown's mental instability, indecision and control freakery... and now a dodgy fund used to finance his own political ambitions within the Labour party.

...And this after it was revealed, via a Parliamentary question, that there are no fewer than 12 Parliamentary Private Secretary roles remaining unfilled after Brown's reshuffle last June, because Labour MPs don't want to serve under Brown's "leadership".

It's hard to believe such damning insights, especially from independent civil servants, Labour Party insiders and sympathisers, into this governments operation aren't the top story in our newspapers and on our TV news programmes this week.

But, I suppose, "Gordon Brown is Incompetent" just isn't news any more.