Bitch fight!

Handbags at, er, Dawn, or something.

Fantasist vs airhead in North London constituency.

Hilarious.

Pity they can't both lose and the poor bloody voters get an MP who can think... y'know... actual thoughts.

Lest we forget

Hat tip Daily Referendum.

Prayers are never wasted

This morning, I prayed.

This afternoon, heaven answered my prayers.

St Vincent of Cable has been de-frocked. He stands naked for all the world to see. Contrary to what you might think, it is a truly wonderful sight.

Mr E has created something elegant, beautiful, toothsome and good for the soul.

Fucking lovely.

The old firm

There's never a Crick around when you want one

Will Michael Crick or the Dispatches team ever rip into those awfully nice Liberal Democrats' disgusting campaign tactics?

No? Never? Why not?

Are we to assume, then, that the titans of investigative TV journalism are content to know and do nothing about the campaign lies, the character assassinations, the political shape-shifting from one electorate to the next, the diametrically-opposed and equally mendacious policy platforms in neighbouring constituencies?

The Labour and Conservative Parties would not be so indulged by Newsnight or Channel 4 News, would they? It would be full hue and cry.

So why no investigation of the anything but saintly LibDems? Saying 'they are only the third party' is not acceptable. A lot of utter bastards started out as a third party.

Audience in Cable stitches, again. Not that it matters*.

I'm waiting. Waiting for some clever bugger to long-range-fisk Vince Cable. It never happens. It never will. The reason is simple. No-one can be bothered. Vince is politically irrelevant. A funny turn. Nothing more. He can win all the applause from here to eternity but Vince will never have the power he believes he would wield more expertly than those promoted over his head.

The Good Doctor Cable is not a serious political contender, as he's well aware. He's simply good copy for TV editors, the cuddly and fluent TV face of the Liberal Democrats who have to be included for balance, or get a chance to pontificate solo when the big boys won't come out to play because they have work to do.

Vince is Shagger Clegg's wise old granddad, made more convincing by the white wisps on the bald bonce. The reassuring face of the nasty, dishonest, hypocritical, authoritarian (never was a party more inappropriately named) Liberal Democratic Party whose candidates are Tory when they want Tory votes, Labour when they want Labour votes, Monster Raving Loony when they want protest votes. Campaign slogan, 'Shape-shifting here!' 'Principles? I shit 'em. Except joining the Euro, obviously.'

Like every other LibDem spokesman who will never (thank God) be asked to accept the burdens of national government, Vince doesn't have to be right, which is just as well because he rarely is. He just tells us he was, over and over again, and we all know about repeating something often enough.

He doesn't even have to be consistent, because no-one, not even Paxo, bothers to tuck away what he just said in their memory banks. He can say whatever he likes next time he turns up.

Vince just has to turn up, look avuncular, and do his turn. You know, impersonate the sort of exemplary, reasonable politician that, he tells us, we want all politicians to be. You know - nice. Harmless. Moderate. Neutral. Comforting. Funny. Impotent. Throwing stones at power and at anyone likely to take power, just like we do when they're on the telly, the bastards. Hey - he's one of us! Good old Vince!

Until the polling booth, when even Vince groupies have to get real and elect a government. General elections are not the X Factor. These bastards can put your taxes up, close your hospital, lock you up and send your children into battle. Nice has nothing to do with it. Honest and competent is what's needed.

But Vince-politics are not Real Politics. Give Vince the occasional invitation to Desert Island Discs, maybe, or a bit of dancing on the telly, and he'll turn up and entertain the crowd. Possibly for free, although a small fee is always nice.

A sometime Labour councillor and adviser to St John Smith and ex-employee of Big Oil, the ever adaptable and very ambitious Vince has said he would happily serve as Chancellor (no, stop it - listen) in a Conservative government. That annoyed his party colleagues more than a little since their constituency is firmly on the left. More recently, he took his fantasies into the Treasury itself, only to have Sir Humphrey tick him off in public. His little dream is dead, so now it's no more Mr Nice Guy with the Tories.

Which brings us to last night and the Chancellors' debate. Vince threw in his lot with Badger in a whcckaTory effort which got a lot of ... laughs. Like this. No longer having the chance to join 'em, he decided to beat 'em - with his pointless but ever-popular tickling stick.

Being the expert LibDem shape-shifter he is, Cable offers few targets to his enemies. Oh yes, he has enemies. I do wish someone would fisk him senseless. One day, maybe, if anyone can screw up the courage to fillet the family puppy. There's never a Kelvin MacKenzie around when you want one, is there?

Still, the always wide-awake Iain Martin gave him a few smacks, today.

Cable claims, yet again to have predicted the crisis (when? show us the quotes).

Cable says (again!) that he warned about what would happen. Never challenged on this.

... the People's Vince. Darling and/or Osborne needs to take him on and challenge his claims.

Vince looks like he's running the programme! As though he's the host! Get stuck in, Krishnan.

... says he has a fully-costed plan for lower income tax (uh-huh) and he mentions his mansion tax (which should be known as the house tax)

Vince has a lame attempt at getting a "hang a banker" vibe going, attacks "pin-striped Scargills" holding the country to ransom.

The People's Vince says again that he warned on the banking crisis! Audience loves it - it is now an established truth that Vince was a seer. Never ever gets challenged. Bold move by Krishnan G-M would have been to catch VInce off balance and get stuck into his claims

Cable: Let's face it, I am brilliant [wild applause]. Labour are just rubbish and, I am saying this with a straight face, the Tories are in hock to rich men (unlike the Lib Dems who took £2m from a convicted fraudster now in jail and didn't give the money back). And, did I mention that I'm brilliant?

UPDATE: Tom Bradby wonders how Vince gets away with it, too. Tsk. It's because no-one can be bothered, Tom. See above.

UPDATE: Ben Brogan says the Big Parties and the broadcasters woke up this morning to the fact that the LibDems are getting a free ride. Questions are being asked. Change is afoot. About fucking time.

UPDATE: Even Dave's caught on...

UPDATE: there is a God! He's a Greek Scotsman.

*Actually, it does. Yes, seriously. In one TV studio, not much. If it distorts serious politics, it does. Hope you enjoyed the free ride Vince. Let's hope it was your last.

Actions, not words

James Kirkup is questioning Osborne's plans to cut waste, saying that Brown has done the same in the past to no avail.

Er, not quite, James, old boy, not quite

Brown announced savings to get in ahead of the Conservatives's similar announcements and to hold off the UK's creditors. Then he quietly prevented the cuts, as Gershon has complained.

Seriously, can you imagine Brown voluntarily making cuts in the public payroll? Can you? Seriously? He's being forced by the bond markets to make them now, of course, to keep the IMF at bay, but he's doing so in secret lest his payroll vote should revolt in the run-up to the election. The difference is that Osborne and Cameron will not just announce Gershon cuts but actually implement them. And they are being honest about it. Change indeed.

Curse of Jonah x Curse of Darling

Going, going...

Light, erm...

... blogging.

Going down with flu. Am in solitary and confined to quarters. Blogging this in secret while Er Indoors is in the shower.

Keep an eye on the bastards for me.

Vote Labour.

See? I told you I was ill.

Please send whisky.

Ow ow ow don't hit me!

Carbon-trade billionaire-in-the-making Saint Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC and Bar, pleads for clemency.

Darling's economic forecast (cross-dressing edition)

Balls (and Brown) royally shafted by demob happy Darling

Yesterday, Alastair Darling deftly gave us the widely-advertised Labour party-political budget while at the same time putting something of a cordon sanitaire between himself and the Bunker.

Today, in an unbelievably smooth follow-through which should go down in political history, Darling calmly placed weapons-grade explosives beneath wannabe Chancellor Balls and Prime Minister Brown. Courtesy of the BBC.

By his calm statement to Nick Robinson that if Labour wins the election there will be deeper and tougher cuts than Thatcher's, Darling has taken revenge on the Forces of Hell who, having sown the wind of thuggery, will now reap the electoral whirlwind.

With all the authority of his great office of state, the Chancellor has both exposed Brown's economic claims to ridicule and given the lie to Balls's repeated assurance that public expenditure will continue to rise under Labour. In effect, he told Brown and Balls to go fuck themselves. Live on air.

That noise you hear is screams of rage from the Bunker and the smashing of a hundred items of electrical equipment. In another part of the Bunker, frantic work has commenced on re-engineering Labour's entire electoral campaign.

Where does Labour turn, now, to find something with which to attract the vote?

Balls's favourite 'dividing line' between himself and the Conservatives is his claim that Osborne would take a rusty battle-axe to vital services (and enjoy the butchery, obviously, being a toff) whereas Balls, being caring Labour, would work amazing economic magic through what he calls 'efficiencies', and above all that in doing so he would be 'deft'.

Deft? Deft? Watch and learn, Balls, watch and learn. The man you tried to oust, Alastair Darling, is an object lesson in deft. Never was there a Chancellor, not even Gordon Brown himself, as deft in telling the Prime Minister, publicly, that he and his team could go to hell.

There is absolutely no truth in the rumour that David Cameron has today written to Alastair 'Labour Cuts Tougher Than Thatcher' Darling, thanking him for his announcement today and assuring him that his peerage and vice-chancellorship are in the bag.

Darling, like Balls and Brown, knows perfectly well that Margaret Thatcher made NO net cuts in public spending. None. (Update to clarify: actually, while there were some reductions, overall public spending increased during the Lady's time, by 1.1%.) Ever since the day she set about breaking the stranglehold of the unions on British society and restoring sanity and health to the economy, the 'agony' of the Thatcher years has been writ in blood on the hate-banners flourished by all Labour politicians.

In every speech Brown has ever made, he has invited favourable comparison of his benign self with the memory of Thatcher the Destroyer.

And now his own Chancellor says that the incoming (yes, I know) Labour government, which Brown insists he will lead, will wreak worse havoc than did the monstrous Iron Lady herself.

Vote Labour!

Irony, thy name is Darling. This is simply too delicious for fucking words.

For Balls or Brown to rubbish Darling this close to the election would trigger the instant implosion of the Party. From now until the election, they and Byrne and Cooper will have to face the Darling Question. Daily.

Labour's last Chancellor has had his revenge on the vicious Prime Minister who, as Labour's soi disant greatest Chancellor, viciously turned on his own Prime Minister. The legacy of the Labour Prime Minister who used Margaret Thatcher's name as a curse throughout all his years in office, is finally cursed by unfavourable comparison with the very same Thatcher, by his own Chancellor whom he tried and failed to sack and upon whom he unleashed the Forces of Hell.

Achingly, orgasmically pleasurable.

So. Game on.

Stab vest, tin hat, food taster and bodyguard for Chancellor Darling, please.

Cut off Gordon's Balls

This...

... is a good idea. Penultimate paragraph.

Did I miss anything?

Anything at all? No? OK.

Half a cheer

David Cameron says that the Trade Union Modernisation Fund will be suspended by a Conservative government, but the Learning Fund will continue.

Sigh.

I suppose it's a start, and why start a total war before you know how many of those who may look like the enemy might in fact be backing you, on the quiet?

Did I miss it?

The BBC News coverage of the official, coruscating condemnation by Parliament of almost everyone involved in the arrest Damian Green affair, for ultra vires action, gross incompetence, abuse of authority, bad judgement, failure to uphold the Parliamentary privilege which is supposed to defend the citizen against arbitrary arrest, failure to observe the law, failure to uphold standards of propriety, failure to communicate, conflation of laws to the abuse of the laws concerned, buck-passing ... oh, what's the point?

Took your time, Dave

But at last Cameron refers to 'Labour's complete and utter lies' and to 'appalling Labour politicians'.

Better later than never, so...

[Applause]

Can you do this?

Clever old you!

Get your pen out and apply for this job. It pays £17,277 in annual salary, with 28 days' paid holiday, a choice of (unfunded) pension schemes, an interest-free travel loan, child care vouchers and discounted gym membership.

Applications by 6th April 2010 to:-

The Stupid Fucking Taxpayer, c/o Brown Labour Investment vs. Damaging Tory Cuts, 10 Downing Street, London SW1 2FU.

This one's almost impossible to swallow, Dave

David Cameron is reported as saying that he has no plans to kill off Labour's money-laundering machine via which Labour in government has given its union paymasters £120 million of taxpayers' money in recent years.

What?

• Out of my taxes, Dave.
• And given right back to the Labour Party, Dave.
• Which has steered the country's finances right up to the top of shit Creek, Dave.
• Way past the sign saying Last Paddles Before The End, Dave.
• With all of us facing severe cuts all round, Dave.
• And higher taxes, Dave.
• With the unions using the money to thwart the will of the electorate, Dave.
• With more than half of it, so Whelan and the comrades boast, hoarded in their war-chest for their post-election, anti-Conservative-government Forces of Hell, Dave.

Well, Dave, when the mobs start smashing the windows and throwing scaffolding at the old Bill, when I can't get into hospital on on to a plane or train, or get my rubbish collected, when I can't find what I need in the shops, when I'm watching the swirling union banners and listening to their leaders' bull-horns, paid for with my money, and when I'm watching Gordon Brown on Newsnight saying that the country has become ungovernable and only he can rescue us, that he told us so, and assuring us all that - thanks to Unite and the other unions - Labour is on its way back into government, I shall remember your announcement today, Dave.

I know you need the votes, Dave, but this agonising indigestion which has suddenly come upon me may just kill me off before I get to put my cross on the ballot. It's certainly laid me too low to go canvassing today, so I've called in sick, I'm afraid.

The incineration of Speaker Martin et al

Here is the last page of the report of the Parliamentary Privileges Committee on the Damian Green affair.

Crown copyright.

Placed here for the purpose of embarrassing Jacqui Smith MP, and former Speaker Michael Martin.

My emphasis, below.

____________________________

Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate - Committee on Issue of Privilege Contents

Conclusions and recommendations The Home Office and the Cabinet Office 1. We consider that Home Office officials were at fault in allowing an exaggerated impression to be formed by the Cabinet Office of the damage done by the leaks. (Paragraph 13) The Cabinet Office and the Metropolitan Police 2. While we can understand the Cabinet Secretary's concern arising from the wider pattern of previous leaks, the reference to national security in the letter from the Cabinet Office to the Metropolitan Police Service of 8 October 2008 was ill-judged. We agree with the Home Affairs Committee that giving the impression that national security had been damaged by the Home Office leaks was hyperbolic and unhelpful. Civil servants who perpetrate leaks are quite rightly liable to disciplinary action, with consequences up to and including dismissal. (Paragraph 17) 3. In our view the impact of leaks on the conduct of Government business is not, and never can be, a sufficiently weighty reason in itself to justify a police investigation. (Paragraph 18) 4. We wholeheartedly agree with the tone and content of the Cabinet Office guidance paper on official information standards of conduct and procedures, in the revised form issued in November 2009, and we endorse in particular the need for an honest and realistic assessment of any damage caused by leaks. (Paragraph 20) National security leaks 5. We are concerned by the Cabinet Office's continued failure to identify the source of other leaks across Government of more highly classified material. (Paragraph 21) The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service 6. In our view the Metropolitan Police made the wrong decision after their discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service on Wednesday 22 October 2008. (Paragraph 29) Misconduct in public office 7. We consider that if sufficient rigour had been shown on 22 October 2008 the conclusion reached on 16 April 2009 — that the facts failed to reach the standard required for prosecution—could have been reached six months earlier. (Paragraph 53) 8. We agree with the Public Administration Select Committee and we wish to emphasise that the common law offence of misconduct in public office should not be used in relation to allegations of leaking of information in order to subvert the clearly expressed will of Parliament to limit the application of the Official Secrets Act to protecting only information whose disclosure is likely to be damaging to the security and intelligence services, to the armed forces, to the interests of the United Kingdom abroad or to the prevention and detection of crime. (Paragraph 54) 9. We recommend that the published CPS guidance should be updated to include the Director of Public Prosecutions' position on the offence of misconduct in public office, as set out in his Statement of 16 April 2009. (Paragraph 56) 10. We recommend that the Law Commission re-visit its 1997 recommendation that misconduct in public office be made a statutory offence, in the light of developments of the past dozen years. (Paragraph 57) The Cabinet Office 11. We deplore the Cabinet Office's failure to follow its own guidance by not calling a case conference which could have ensured a properly balanced approach was taken to investigating the Home Office leaks. (Paragraph 24) 12. The comments made by David Davis on the BBC, the day after the arrest of Damian Green, do not excuse the decision made by the Cabinet Office on 8 October to call in the police to investigate the apparent unauthorised disclosure of unclassified or restricted documents to certain newspapers. (Paragraph 35) 13. If the Cabinet Secretary had been adequately briefed about the stage the leak investigation had reached by 22 October 2008, it could and should have been called off. (Paragraph 59) 14. None of the leaks of which Christopher Galley was suspected had inflicted any damage on national security. There was no basis for the concern that the potential for future damage to national security was significant. The Cabinet Office was wrong on 29 October to continue to press for a police investigation of the recent Home Office leaks, and it was a mistake for the Metropolitan Police Service to act upon the Cabinet Office's request. (Paragraph 60) The arrest of Damian Green 15. We have no hesitation in agreeing with Sir Ian Johnston that the decision to launch the surprise arrest of Damian Green was disproportionate. (Paragraph 67) 16. While we note the decision of the Gold Group chaired by Assistant Commissioner Robert Quick to take stock of the evidence from Christopher Galley before making a decision on whether and how to arrest Damian Green, we find their approach difficult to understand or justify. (Paragraph 68) 17. The arrest of Damian Green by the Metropolitan Police was poorly executed and in any case quite unnecessary, since the police could have arranged to interview him by appointment. (Paragraph 70) 18. We condemn the covert use of electronic surveillance, which was not authorised in the way that good practice normally requires. (Paragraph 71) Search warrants 19. We are deeply concerned by the sloppy wording of the written informations, upon which search warrants were obtained, and their inconsistency with the true character of the leaks uncovered in the actual investigation which must have been known and understood as a result of the scoping operation. (Paragraph 74) 20. We are clear that to exaggerate or to make a mistake in a written information submitted to a Judge when applying for a warrant is to breach lawful standards. (Paragraph 75) The Police and the Palace of Westminster 21. We take this opportunity to commend the professionalism and dedication of the police staff who serve at the Palace of Westminster. (Paragraph 81) 22. We recommend that SO15 either be re-named or that it be stripped of any role in dealing with non-terrorist offences. (Paragraph 88) 23. We would expect the House authorities to co-operate fully with police operations genuinely directed against a possible terrorist threat, but they ought not to allow a mistaken perception that alleged offences might be linked to terrorism to over-ride their better judgement. (Paragraph 89) 24. We consider that the failure by any police officer expressly to advise the Serjeant at Arms of the right to refuse consent was symptomatic of the sloppy approach of the police in this case. It is true that failure to do so does not necessarily make a subsequent search unlawful but there was no excuse not to observe proper procedure. (Paragraph 98) The Clerk of the House, the Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker 25. The conversation between the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant at Arms on the afternoon of Wednesday 26 November was a missed opportunity to recognise and forestall the storm which broke over Parliament when Damian Green's office was searched. In that short exchange the information not given, the questions not asked, the assumptions made and the misunderstandings caused led to confusion which could and should have been avoided. We remain perplexed that the seriousness of what was being discussed did not alert either of the two protagonists to enquire further of each other. (Paragraph 93) 26. We agree that Mr Speaker Martin's Statement on 3 December 2008 was accurate, in that the conversation between the Clerk and the Serjeant was not a proper consultation, but we regret the opportunities missed on the afternoon of Wednesday 26 November, first, for the Serjeant to alert the Clerk to the intended police operation and, secondly, for the Clerk to make clear to the Serjeant the limits to her authority. (Paragraph 94) 27. In the circumstances we are surprised that no effort was made to convene a meeting of senior officers of the House and the Speaker on the evening of Wednesday 26 November to consider the significance of what was about to take place and the possible consequences to the House itself. (Paragraph 100) 28. We consider that seriously inadequate communication between these three key figures — Speaker, Clerk of the House and Serjeant at Arms — resulted in complete misunderstanding about the proper process for allowing a search of a Member's office. Had all three been more persistent in their questions and more forthcoming in their responses they must surely have appreciated the nature of events and their unfolding significance. We agree with Lord Martin of Springburn that the House officials should have served the Speaker better, and the Clerk of the House has rightly apologised that matters were not better handled; but it was inescapably Mr Speaker Martin's responsibility to make sure the right questions were asked. Mr Speaker Martin failed to exercise the ultimate responsibility, which was his alone, to take control and not merely to expect to be kept informed. (Paragraph 115) The Speaker's Committee 29. In our view it would have been possible for the Speaker to use his power to allow a Member of the House to move a Motion referring the matter of the search of a Member's office to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, instead of proposing that a new committee should be appointed. (Paragraph 126) Matters relating to privilege arising from the police operation 30. We do not consider that anything the police did amounted to a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House but the conduct of the police in this matter clearly fell below acceptable standards, as the Johnston and O'Connor Reports bear out. We understand that the Metropolitan Police has accepted the conclusions of those Reports (Paragraph 140) Matters relating to privilege: recommendations for the future 31. The freedom of the press to report Parliament fairly is a matter which would need proper attention in any re-statement or revision of the law on parliamentary privilege. (Paragraph 163) 32. It would in our view be a mistake for Parliament to legislate in haste or to address only one aspect of the multi-faceted relationship between liberty, Parliament and the law. While we have no unanimous conclusion on the wisdom or necessity of legislating on parliamentary privilege, we agree in recommending that before any Government Bill on the subject was introduced it would be highly desirable for the whole question to be addressed in the round by a special joint committee drawn from both Houses. Before setting out to define and limit parliamentary privilege in statute, there needs to be a comprehensive review of how that privilege affects the work and responsibilities of an MP in the twenty-first century. (Paragraph 169) The views of the Committee: the offences 33. When the Director of Public Prosecutions announced on 16 April 2009 that he had decided that charges should not be brought against either Christopher Galley or Damian Green for the offences alleged against them, it was because on the particular facts of the case there was no realistic prospect of a conviction against either of them. (Paragraph 170) The views of the Committee: leaks and the Police 34. We endorse the four concluding Recommendations of the O'Connor Report— 1. That the Metropolitan Police Service, together with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), review and formalise guidance on police investigations involving high impact cases, to fully incorporate the principles of 'without fear or favour'. 2. That the Cabinet Office reviews the Civil Service's capability to respond to leaks and facilitates the development of appropriate standards of preventative security and investigation in accordance with departmental risks. 3. That the Cabinet Office review its guidance to departments on leak investigations to clarify that the police will have the lead in Official Secrets Act inquiries or other very exceptionally serious criminality but that the Cabinet Office/departments will deal with other leaks and agree the guidance with police. 4. That the police, Cabinet Office and Crown Prosecution Service jointly agree a protocol that provides checks and balances for future investigations recognising that decisions on the conduct of investigations must ultimately rest with the police. (Paragraph 171) The views of the Committee: searches on the Parliamentary Estate 35. We give our support and endorsement to the Speaker's Protocol of 8 December 2008, which makes clear the indispensability of a Judge's search warrant, while reserving to the Speaker on behalf of the House the responsibility for ensuring that any such warrant is executed with proper respect for the functioning of Parliament. We recommend that the Speaker's Protocol should be drawn to the attention of any future Speaker, Clerk of the House or Serjeant at Arms of their initial briefing, handover or induction. (Paragraph 172) The views of the Committee: the House of Commons Service 36. We have set out in this Report our views about the response of the House authorities and particularly that of the Speaker, the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant at Arms to an unusual challenge to the good management of the House of Commons. Despite the progress made since the Tebbit Report towards a more unified House of Commons Service, our inquiry has demonstrated that there were lapses in communication, induction and lines of accountability and responsibility at the very top of the organisation. (Paragraph 173) 37. As Chief Executive of the House of Commons, the Clerk of the House should have made sure that the Serjeant at Arms had a better grasp of the limits of her authority, that she was fully aware of the McKay Memorandum of July 2000, and that she realised that no claim of confidentiality should have prevented her from making sure that the Speaker and the Clerk of the House were fully aware of the intended police operation affecting a Member of Parliament. (Paragraph 174) 38. We recommend that the next review of Management and Services of the House of Commons should take place early in the new Parliament, to continue the series which runs from Ibbs (1990) to Braithwaite (1999) to Tebbit (2007). We would like to see a fresh examination of the roles and responsibilities of the officers of the House and the Speaker to ensure the effectiveness of the support for individual Members and the good management of the House. Such a review should include greater clarity on the role of the most senior personnel, line management responsibilities, and lessons to be drawn from best business practice as well as the management of other comparable legislatures. (Paragraph 175) 39. While the House and its Speaker could and should no doubt have been better served by their officials, the Speaker himself should have been asking the right questions and he should have taken more responsibility for exercising the authority of his high office. (Paragraph 176)

Damian Green affair: the blistering, withering judgement

Committee on Issue of Privilege - First Report Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate

The Committee damns them all - above all Speaker Martin, but also the Clerk of the House, the Serjeant at Arms, Cabinet Ministers, senior civil servants including the Cabinet Secretary, and the police.

Wow. I mean... well... wow.

Infelicity doth rule their orisons

According to PoliticsHome, Gordon Brown backs his paymasters at Unite in their war with BA and is calling on them to strike again.

Gordon Brown is to make a fresh attempt to resolve the dispute with a second wave of strikes due to begin on Saturday.

Who knew the PM was also a Unite capo?

For the want of a literate editor, the story was fucked. I blame the education system.

Mr Brown, you are no Clem Attlee

Army voting intention: 57% Tory, 7% Labour, according to a poll at ARRSE.

Bit of a change from 1945, then.

No wonder this rotting corpse of a Labour government is content to deprive the poor bloody soldiery of its votes.

Have mercy on us, Boris

When Dave has finished with the mellifluous banalities about partnership and the heart of Europe, he should attire himself in cerulean blue, and pearls, and a pineapple-coloured wig...

Well, yes, true, but... oh, God.

Note to self: add mind bleach to election campaign shopping list.

Hunt followers

When manoeuvres start in earnest, which of the party leaders will merit the personal attendance of each of the Big Beasts of TV news? To whom will the second division stars of TV hackery be allocated, as editors seek revenge for missed scoops and bad reviews?

• Will Boulton break burgers with Brown, or carry-out with Cameron?
• Does Robinson raise a Downton's with Dave, or a Goff's with Gordon?
• Evan Davies and Shagger Clegg - what are the odds?
• Will the Bishop deign to leave his Lambeth Bridge palace?
• Is anyone brave enough to crowbar Paxo out of his chair and into the street?
• Is Emily Maitlis too good for Vince? Tsk. Please - be nice.
• Who will Brillo pick on? Does anyone care?
• How can Sky let Peter Spencer out looking like that?

... and who will draw the Black Spot - Crick?

Be afraid...

He paused thoughtfully, then, with no hint of a smile, and peering over his spectacles in apparent incredulity, observed: “ You don’t think a little thing like losing a general election is going to stop Gordon Brown, do you?” Whether, by “stop”, Mr Mandelson meant stop Mr Brown from carrying on as Labour leader, or stop him from carrying on as Prime Minister, he did not say.

Parris.

Mind bleach - now.

... Cracker is going to have to be called out of retirement to reason with you through a locked door as you squat on the cabinet table with no trousers on, Maggie Darling as a hostage, and a borrowed Glock 17 pointed at your own nuts issuing demands for a Government of National Unity.

Weekly. Unmissable. Not worth buying the Guardian for, though, so read it online. Before they go bust.

Scary

Iain Dale's Nemesis.

Mendacious LibDem chicanery nailed

Popcorn out, ladies and gentlemen, as you savour this clip of St Susan of Kramer being exposed for the archetypal Liberal Democrat she is.

Let us pray

I am starting a Prayer Circle whose Intention is that someone of goodwill and sound Smith-Burkean principles will make the horrible Barclays, who have no interest in publishing but only in money, an offer they cannot refuse for the Telegraph and the Spectator. We also pray that this philanthropist, guaranteed a peerage of course, will restore both journals to Conservative sanity, to the great comfort of the English (sic) people.

In the event that our prayers are answered, Boris Johnson will be Editor in Chief of the Telegraph, Tim Worstall its Economics Editor and Jeff Randall its Business Editor. The new proprietor will encourage Hennessy and Riddell to follow their lodestone and defect to the Guardian. Fraser Nelson is on probation with us for the retention of his present chair. After a promising start, he is not doing as well as one hoped. At least he has youth on his side as well as potential and may, in time, learn.

Taxpayers gave £12 million to Unite who gave £11 million of it to the Labour Party.

The rebuttals to the Conservative attack on Unite's donations to Labour are coming thick and fast. The most popular is 'the Labour Party was always the political arm of the Unions', which is offered as justification for Unite's £11 million cash to Labour, its Labour campaign call centres and its sixty-odd Labour PPCs at the coming election.

An affronted wail has gone up: 'It's voluntary and democratic - the will of the members.'

Horsehit.

One recent poll suggested that almost as many trade union members would vote Conservative as would vote Labour. A recent written answer in parliament revealed that a fifth of Unite members have opted out of paying the political levy. Guardian

I am reminded of the old union block votes which, unjustly and scandalously, put the votes of millions of workers behind whatever policy the unions wanted Labour to adopt. Millions of union members were not even allowed an opinion by their oppressors, the Marxist-Leninist union bosses, until Margaret Thatcher took a broom to the midden that was British trade unionism and flushed out the corrupt horseshit which was depriving workers of their rights and freedoms, while it secured political power for the men who ruled who could and could not have a job.

And now we hear that Unite's Millions For Gordon are voluntarily subscribed by union members.

Horseshit.

The earmarked political sub may be voluntary, but union officers have discretion to use central union monies as they see fit, including giving money to the Labour Party, which they do. Whether one likes it or not, to belong to a union is to give money to the Labour Party.

Of course, under Brown, merely to be a taxpayer is to give one's hard-earned to the Labour Party through the "union modernisation fund" - whether one likes it or not. £12 million to Unite over the period in which Unite has given Labour £11million. Yes, Labour saved from bankruptcy and a profit to Unite of £1 million. Ker-ching!

This is unjust, undemocratic and iniquitous. Not that scruples about concepts like justice and democracy disturb Gordon Brown's sleep for a instant. He is content as long as he can raise money to pay his anti-Tory army by whatever means - and eff the taxpaying electorate.

If the Conservative party had a single donor called Unite PLC that provided 40% of its donations, provided the CEO of the Conservative party, had its Head of PR setup websites for the Conservatives, hired people like Damian McPoison to run smear campaigns, unfairly influenced the process whereby many of its Unite PLC employees become Conservative MPs through donations and Unite PLC block votes in CLPs….. we would all be outraged at the infiltration of the Conservative party by a single company. But if we just changed the word Conservative to Labour in the above and deleted “plc” we would arrive at the state of the Labour party. Comment at LabourHome

Who pays the piper...

Runner-up quote of the day

Angela Eagle, a woman who could never be mistaken for one of life's thigh-slappers.

Letts.

Quote of the day

Immigrants who refuse to integrate are colonists.

Norm.

Brown: "I'll go on"

Five. More. Years.

Pic from theflyingwarpigs

There IS a God

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

I swear upon my honour that...

I will do everything in my power to persuade every British voter I encounter that a vote for Labour is a vote for the total destruction of civilisation.

Bella Gerens, inspired by hatred of the bastard whom Boris dubs Spheroids.

Via Mr E.

Anyone here speak Liberal Democrat?

Got a job for you - over here.

I've only got six languages, plus Latin and Rubbish, none of which is any use. I thought the Rubbish might help but I was wrong.

Oh, well, not surprising coming from the party whose HQ issued a campaigning manual called Effective Opposition which

hypocritically advised the party's candidates to face in both directions at the same time. It urged them 'to secure support from voters who normally vote Tory by being effectively anti-Labour and similarly in a Tory area secure Labour votes by being anti-Tory'.

Yes, ladies and gents, this is a fine example of the integrity of the Liberal Democrat Party about which most voters know fuck all except that membership involves a nightly group-wank over something it calls 'fair votes', as in:

'Vote Liberal Democrat for fair votes. Vote for the party which refuses to tell you until after you have voted whether we will shore up Gordon Brown and the Labour government you were gagging to be rid of or David Cameron and his Conservative Party which as you know is a bunch of toffs led by toffs like me. Signed, Clegg.

No - wait. That's not right.

But vote for us anyway so that we can blackmail whoever most people voted for into introducing PR so that we can pull the same trick on you at every election thereafter. For ever. Or at least until we enforce total control of Britain by the keepers of the Clegg pension in Brussels. Vote LibDem for Fair Votes!

Whaddya mean, 'what trick?' Oh - it's all very simple. And Fair, obviously. How it works is, you throw away your democratic right to choose your own government - for ever - and you leave it all to us.

I shagged almost 30 birds, you know. Vote Shagger!

Noises off: 'Vote Huhne-no-I-am-not-Buff-Hoon-I'm the-other-one who's-not-even-as-important-as-Hoon! Vote Tosser!'

Where was I? Yes, hand power to the LibDems and you need never vote again! You are all fucking retards anyway for thinking we're anti-the bastards you hate when even we don't know what we believe but what the fuck as long as you stop laughing at us and we get to rule over you until the IMF and the EU take over because Cable really hasn't got a fucking clue but by the time you find out it won't matter because the voting system will keep me in red carpet and chauffeurs for ever and... pass me a tissue would you?... and ...

Nurse! Quick - the screens! Clegg thinks we're taking him seriously again.

And that Fraser Nelson is a very naughty boy for winding him up.

The BBC is using its Charter as its corporate arse-wipe.

Lifelong politics addict that I am, I am pretty much exhausted by anger. I am avoiding broadcast news as far as possible and from this point on am not listening to anything the BBC has to offer apart from music. If Radio Three pauses the music in favour of a half-hour talk-programme, it goes off.

What the fuck is it with the fucking BBC? Stupid? Blind? Past caring? Plain fucking corrupt and evil?

I am stomach-crampingly, biliously, retchingly sick of the BBC's incredibly unremarked series of near-daily attacks on the Conservatives.

The clear assumption in every examination of every single Tory policy is that it is derided and dismissed by people who know about such things - in other words, the Tories are amateurs in every single field, simply not up to governing.

Most stories about Tory policy open with a critical and dismissive quote from a high profile opponent, Mandelson if possible, obviously.

Despite the Tories' consistent lead in all polls, the BBC has not found enough material for a single supportive, pro-Conservative vox pop. Not one. None. None at all.

But there is plenty of time for Tory-hating old psephologist, 'Professor' John Curtice on the rare occasions when there is mention of the Tory lead in the polls, and only then in terms of 'hung parliament'. God forbid there is discussion of a possible Tory government other than in terms of gawdelpus.

If there is no political question with which to beat the Tories, BBC hacks (patrol leader Crick M) will insinuate or play up something negative about personal relationships between members of the ShadCab

Meanwhile, BBC editors maintain a total radio/TV blackout on Labour's historically unprecedented record of destruction and incompetence. Does this presage silent support of the incoming government, of whatever party?

A blind eye and a deaf ear are turned to the Cabinet's established Brownian policy of Stick To The Big Lie.

No mention is made, ever, of Brown's widely-discussed weirdness nor of the fact that policies being 'announced' now for implementation in a year or two may never come to pass because the electorate may not permit it.

Anyone who attacks the Labour government is subjected to intense, erm, scrutiny, as the generals will attest, with slimeballs like Bogdanor brought on to condemn them.

Adding insult to injury, BBC editors allow the corrupt, venal, divided, lying, nasty, unscrupulous, hypocritical, hydra-headed LibDems to remain wholly unscrutinised, inviting them on the air in every discussion (impartiality, you know), there to propose themselves (give me fucking strength) as God's own prophets of the innocent, clean and objective politics they tell us we all want.

The BBC has dispensed with all pretence of impartiality and political balance, its hacks obviously reckoning that although once the election starter gun is fired they will have to behave themselves, by that time their work as Labour's Pravda will be done.

They brazenly raise two fingers to the voting public who pay for the BBC under pain of imprisonment, as they go busily about their task of propagandising for Labour, shoring Brown up and skewing the polls and (they hope) the election result in favour of the government generally agreed to be the worst in modern British history.

And the longer this goes on, the more they have to stick to it lest Project Stop The Tories fails, the Tories form the government and begin dismantling Pravda.

Bastards.

As for me, I've had enough of this.

Fecking ignorance

SMS just received:

17th March is St Patrick's Day! Get your four-leafed clover at Twibbon!'

Seriously.

OK... razor over there... anyone seen the Leonard Cohen CD?...

Party politics

One day my neighbour's daughter put her head over the fence and announced: "When I grow up I want to be Prime Minister!"

Her parents, Labour supporters, smiled as I asked: "If you were Prime Minister, what would you do first?"

"I'd give food and houses to homeless beggars."

Her mother beamed and said: "Welcome to the Labour Party!" "Very good," I said. "But you don't have to wait till you're Prime Minister. If you come round and mow my lawn, pull up all the weeds and collect up all the leaves, I'll pay you £50 for your day's work. Then we can go over and see that lad who begs in the shopping centre and you can give him the £50 to buy some food and find a room of his own."

She nodded enthusiastically. Then she frowned for a second and asked: "Why doesn't the homeless lad come over and do your garden himself to get the £50?"

"Welcome to the Conservative Party."

Scientific consensus on warble gloaming

This is him. The scientific consensus. All of it. Name of Lovelock.

Story from Neil Craig, via Mr E.

Cyclops on manoeuvres

Looks every inch a hero, doesn't he, Sarah-Not-A-Prop? The weird expression... the hands... hell's teeth, can't the horrible bastard even stand normally? Pic nicked from OH.

Open letter to CCHQ, FAO Messrs Cameron and Pickles

Hello? CCHQ? Anyone (apart from Gove) in there? Are all the Tory generals dead? Sleeping? Weeping? What? Hello? When are you going to come out and fight, for God’s sake? I increasingly feel like I’m alone out here with just a few bloggers for company. This campaigning backpack (which we have created, not you) is getting heavier every day. I have donated to marginal campaigns up and down the country. I am working in my constituency. I am blogging-for-victory and campaigning on political web forums daily. My head aches, my eyes and my fingers are bleeding. And where are you? Please. Stick it to Brown, Mandelson & co NOW, or it will be too late and you will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. You are (not really) firing at an open goal left unmanned until recently by the worst, most damaging, most dishonest, most discredited government in modern history. Who may yet win the election.

If you allow yourselves to be outgunned by Brown, Mandelson, Campbell and Whelan, if you lose us this election, your reward, apart from the most unbelievable tonnage of weapons-grade shite which will fall upon your heads for inadvertently betraying your country into the hands of these incompetent, traitorous, lying, utter, utter bastards, will be to watch as Brown, salivating and gurning in victory, and Clegg, unscrupulous as ever and hardly able to believe his luck, immediately change electoral law to eliminate the Conservative Party from government FOR EVER.

Now I don’t know about you, Mr Cameron, Mr Pickles, but the prospect of a permanent Labour government simply terrifies me. And millions like me. This is not an election Britain can afford to lose to Labour and I mean that literally. A Labour win would mean catastrophe for the country: pain, poverty, riots... although the country is not sure about that. It is your job to make the country sure of that - before time runs out.

Recently, we had before us the prospect of ridding the country of the cancer that is Labour. Today, we are facing the possibility that you will have killed the Conservative Party instead. Unbelievable.

In such an event, you will deserve every bit of the jeering opprobrium to which the party, the press and the nation will subject you. 'Calm down,' did you say?

Yes, yes, I know the marginals look a lot better than the UNS. Yada yada yada. Richer-than-us Unite knows it, too. They are NOT asleep at the wheel. Please. Please. Mr Pickles, Mr Cameron. GET OUT OF YOUR BLOODY TRANQUILLITY ROOM, STRIP OFF AND FIGHT. FIGHT. BARE-KNUCKLED. Like us, out here, the poor bloody infantry. There will be blood. Unpleasant, but unavoidable. The alternative is far, far worse. Please. Please. No more Mister Nice Guy, huh?

• YOU HAVE THE AMMUNITION, SO SMACK DOWN MANDELSON'S BLACK OPS WITH A DOSE OF THE SAME - or has he already succeeded in decapitating the Conservative Party?

• TELL THE COUNTRY THE TRUTH ABOUT BROWN’S LABOUR - at least we'd know that you know what we know. You do know, right?

• TELL THE WHOLE COUNTRY EXACTLY, IN CONSERVATIVE TERMS, WHY WE NEED A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT AND HOW THAT GOVERNMENT WILL WORK - I am making a few assumptions here...

I look forward to seeing you out here on the battlefield.

Thank you for your attention. If you reply, keep it, er, real. If you are thinking of sending back a package of computer-generated platitudes, keep it. Thank you very much. Right. Back to the fight. Regards, Prodicus

Due process is annoying but it's safer than rule by lynch mob

I fail to understand why the Justice Secretary should have to explain his correct decision - to uphold the law and sustain the judicial process - to the family of a victim of a crime committed seventeen years ago. That the person convicted of that crime may or may not be suspected of committing a separate offence today, an offence with no material connection to them, can be no concern of theirs. Are they victims, here? Witnesses?

I fail to understand why the press are harrying the Justice Secretary for obeying the law, as he must, for reasons which editors understand perfectly well and/or which their legal departments will or should have explained to them. And warned them off.

I fail to understand why the Attorney General has not officially and publicly warned commentators, editors - and John Humphrys who behaved like a particularly dense cub reporter this morning - that the consequence of their hue and cry may be to prejudice or prevent trial of a suspect in a serious criminal case. And that the identity of the suspect is irrelevant.

Yes, I want to know. But it is more important to me that criminals be tried and imprisoned.

So would you all please shut the fuck up lest the authorities be prevented by your sensationalist bloody wittering from locking up a suspected child pornographer who may or may not be a child murderer?

April election, then?

This can only mean that the 'current Chancellor' and the (current) PM are at war.

Brown will not let Darling have an honest budget before the election which therefore will HAVE to be held in April.

Ready when you are, Prime Minister.

RIGHT, DAVE?

What BBC News forgot to tell us today

Among other things...

Gordon Brown tried to 'ambush' David Cameron's visit to Afghanistan.

Number 10 ordered the embassy not to assist the Leader of the Opposition. The embassy ignored the order.

Shoppers face VAT on food to slash national debt.

The necessary discussions with retailers are under way although apparently the present Chancellor has absolutely no intention....

Which means Darling's finished and no budget before the election - in April?

SAS suffers worst losses for 60 years.

Of no interest to Brownites, of course.

Islamists got voters out for Livingstone.

Of no interest to the 10 million of so London voters whose money Spart gave away to his malign friends among London's admitted enemies.

Why? How? Cui bono?

Why are the serious papers showing no concern that the Labour Party, which placed one of its many tax-dodging non-dom billionaire donors on the Privy Council, is now owned by a single trade union for all practical (sic) purposes, a union whose political chief is Brown’s closest friend Whelan, a union who at Whelan's bidding has given Labour more millions for this election than the Conservative Party could ever hope to raise from all sources, a union which has effectively bought and taken charge of the Labour Party and its election manifesto and is in the process of buying the election?

Is this open attack on democracy of no concern? Not a story? At all?

Why are the BBC and the serious newspapers (and the Daily Mail) united in their contentment to follow every poison-trail laid down by the Witch-finder General Mandelson and his familiar, Campbell, by which they intend to wound fatally the leader and effective deputy leader of the Conservative Party in the run up to an election in which these men lead the only alternative to the Labour Party?

Are they so confident that Mandelson will be the source of power in the next government that they strain to retain his favour, and so help his wish to become the nation's reality?

Why is the only alternative to Labour as our next government, the Conservative Party, being denied anything but passing reference by the BBC to its policies except when one of those policies is selected for all-out attack by Lord Mandelson which is exhaustively reported for at least a whole news cycle?

Does this systematic omission of information and complicity in attack satisfy (even) the corporation's duty to inform, let alone be impartial?

How is it good for Britain for political commentators actively to exculpate Gordon Brown, the man who has been in sole charge of government in all matters of domestic government and defence for thirteen years, for the calamitous condition of our country and for its low ranking in every international measure of success from child-welfare to educational attainment, from security from attack to economic viability?

Is the measurable - and measured - contempt for and anger at Brown, widely said to be a liar and derelict of duty, and not a story? At all?

How is taking sides with the Forces of Hell good for the country or for the reputation of the press and the BBC? This media group think... if that is all it is... is curious. Very curious indeed. And malign.

What Brown's terrible legacy of debt actually means

Gordon Brown's public debt is your debt. Debt which you must repay. Your money, which you must earn. The government has no money left.

Every pound the government spends is a pound you earned by your work or what it has borrowed - in your name. Your name is on the loans. All of them. Trillions.

Because of Gordon Brown's socialist profligacy with your money, you now owe trillions of pounds to be repaid over the next forty years.

It must be repaid before your hospital buys sterile supplies, before your doctor gets paid, before your children's teachers are paid, before your roads are mended, before your doctor orders your medicines, before the helpless old are nursed, before damaged children are rescued from their abusers by social services, before criminals are caught, tried and jailed, before the Labour government can order any more massage suites like the one you have already bought for Ed Balls's office.

The debt must be repaid because unless it is, what with Gordon Brown having calculatedly bloated the public sector in order to poison the private sector (despised in his doctrine) so that we cannot possibly create enough wealth to pay for our needs, we have to borrow even more just to keep the country going.

Unless we pay back what Brown has already borrowed in our name, those from whom the British government borrows will simply refuse to lend us any more.

That would mean no money. No. Money. The total collapse of essential services. It would mean cataclysmic public anger and civil disorder. People getting seriously hurt.

To stave off that evil day, and since you have no more to give the government, and since more borrowing is impossible until we start paying some debt back, the Bank of England is now printing money ('quantitative easing') which it is lending to the government to keep the public services going.

The more money the Bank prints, the less it's worth. Devaluation. (Not possible for Euro countries, by the way, hence the riots in Greece.) The pound is worth only three quarters of what it was just a few years ago. How many Euros can you get for your pounds, these days? Right. Same goes for whatever we import - and we import almost everything we need.

This is hidden inflation, but it won't be hidden for long. Prices will rise all round, and your rainy-day savings will vanish as you spend them in order to live. And your mortgage and other credit costs will go up. The end of the inflation road is beggary. 1930s Germany. Worthless paper money by the barrow-load, Zimbabwe. Money which can buy... nothing.

So not only have we got vast debts to pay, our money isn't as good as it was and we have to pay out more of it both to get rid of the debt and to buy our essentials.

The debt must be repaid.

Debt is killing our economy and it's getting worse every day that Brown is in charge. Oh, it takes some sort of genius to create a catastrophe on this scale out of the solid gold economy Gordon Brown inherited from Chancellor Kenneth Clarke in 1997. Gordon Brown is that sort of genius.

But remember, Gordon Brown knows all this. And knowing it, he did it to you anyway. Here's why.

So. Do you still want to vote Labour?