Brown Admits to Arrogance of Labour - Your Turn Dave

So let me get this clear yesterday that I get a tabloid from my Labour oppenent, telling me that it is clearly a two horse race between Labour and the Conservatives for government(you can get more of this nonsense the back page tells me by following him at yourname).

While at the same time his leader was saying:

"It it's a clear result we'll accept it, if it's a different result then we've got to deal with it but don't persume what the people are going to vote efore they vote because that would be arrogant."

Parenthesis mine.

So let me get this straight all those Labour and Conservative leaflets about there being only two options for government are the arrogance of the two old parties? Is that correct Gordon?

Most opinion polls in the last 10 days have Labour in third place in the vote. Today's Independent poll has Conservatives on 32, Lib Dems on 31 and Labour on 28. So the people are telling them both they are being arrogant to rely on their votes.

Brown U-Turns on Fault with Bank Regulation

Do you recall Gordon Brown the Prime Minister saying that the banking crisis was brought on my a world wide problem and nothing to do with Gordon Brown the Chancellor?

Do you recall Vince Cable warning both Gordon Brown the Chancellor and Gordon Brown the Prime Minister of serious flaws in banking regulation that needed to be dealt with?

You probably won't recall George Osborne nodding his ascent of the former and barracking the later.

Well in an interview to be aired tonight Gordon Brown has finally admitted that he was wrong.

"In the 1990s, the banks they all came to us and said, 'Look, we don't want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation.' And everybody in the City was saying ... and all the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much.' And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more."

As for the Tories he said they had urged him to be even lighter handed on the banks adding:

"You don't listen to the industry when they say, 'This is good for us.' You've got to talk about the whole public interest.

"And so we are tougher on the banks and tougher on the way they behave and we can be relied on to make sure the banks act in the national interest."

So who would you want in charge of the economy?

• Someone who's taken soundings knows what he's talking about and is still saying we need to be tough on banks, like Vince
• Someone who's prepared to act because one interest group have said it was god for them who then realises later, when it is too late, that other views are important, like Gordon
• Someone who doesn't seem to know what is going on or realise how bad things are and is prepared to carry on, like George.

I know which of those three I'd rather have. The steadying yet firm hand, the foresight and forethought of Vince Cable stands out head and shoulders above the other options.

That's why a vote for the Liberal Democrats is not a wasted vote this time around on May 6th. It actually makes sense to vote for the party that's been making sense over our biggest problem for the last decade.

Things Are Only Getting Worse - D:Nightmare

It was thirteen years ago that they brushed into power telling us that 'Things Can Only Get Better' to the words of D:Ream's anthem. The fact that the band's keyboard player Prof. Brain Cox has now said he's backing the Lib Dems must be an omen that they haven't.

But according to the leader in The Times this morning even the Labour manifesto is going to ignore the last 13 years. Was it really that long ago that John Prescott was encouraging Labour activists to Go Fourth, and now the voters aren't apparently being asked to give Labour a fourth term.

The Times looks back at those promises of a better Britain of the new cool Britannia:

"This is not the country that Tony Blair promised us. Ofsted reports that 40 per cent of 11-year-olds cannot read or count as they should. Unemployment today is at its highest level since Labour came to power. Almost a million under 25 are out of work, well over half a million have been out of work for over a year, and more than eight million people in Britain are economically inactive. Is this how Cool Britannia was supposed to look"

As for the Prime Minister himself, while chancellor he promised us he had done away with Tory Boom and Bust economics, he appears to have replaced it with Labour boom and bust. The only difference I've found thus far is that I'm still employed even though my salary is frozen, once again.

Back in 1997 Labour promised pledges to do stuff, now they are merely offering guarantees not to take stuff away. Who are they going to blame?

The last Tory Government was 13 years away. No Labour Government has had this much time to but things right. So that would fall on deaf ears.

The world? Well they did say that this recession was a global recession but it seems to have hit us worse that most of the rest of the world, and that includes Greece. So how can we explain that oh 'prudent one'.

Does that mean that the Tories are going to be the best option to get us out of this? Well no. There have been numerous world leaders who have cast doubt over the Conservative plan to get the UK out of this, and as for the man we think will be at the helm, George Osborne, there is already talk even amongst Tories that the shadow Chancellor may not get the job in government.

The Lib Dems are offering a sustainable recovery. One that doesn't hurt the pockets of those who are already most affected by the recession. We need to think differently, act differently and ensure that such a deep recession isn't allowed to happen. Labour and the Conservatives are both caught in the trap of promising certain people that things don't need to change. They are also both clutching at last minute straws, I saw both sides on Twitter wanting to take the raising the tax threshold to £10k yesterday. That is costed in the Lib Dem manifesto what about the other two.

The Lib Dems have realised we need an austerity budget going forward, but one that stimulates growth. That is why we have set aside for the time being some of the things we would dearly love to do, they aren't what is key right now, but concentrate on what this country needs to get back on its feet and stride off confidently again. The other parties don't seem to the get it and the SNP worst of all. That's why the only real change that can build a fairer Britain is coming with the Lib Dems. That's why Nick Clegg's hope of one in three voters realising that now as we build up to the election isn't pie in the sky.

Things can still get better, you just need to see how.

The Fruit of Gordon's Character

"It is for other people to judge but I believe that character is not about telling people what they want to hear but about telling them what they need to know.

"It is about having the courage to set out your mission and the courage to take the tough decisions and stick to them without being blown off-course, even when the going is difficult.

"For better or for worse, with me what you see is what you get."

Well that is what Gordon Brown is saying should be the judgement on which people base their decision for this election. So lets look at Labour's mission over the last 13 years.

On law and order they seem to have been blown by whatever the police want irrespective of the civil liberties that they limit. So that is a course but one that many social progressives who once felt the Labour party was their natural home are wary of.

On Iraq they set out on a mission to get rid of Saddam. They certainly weren't swayed by the advise of legal and military experts that their reasoning for the invasion was flawed or illegal. We've even had David Miliband saying that UN was feeble over Saddam, that only the iron fist of the US and UK could waken them up. But Bush and Blair still kow-towed to New York to get a retrospective resolution even though they broke Article 2 of the UN's founding charter.

On tax that steady course that Gordon has ploughed. He announced he was to remove the 10p tax band. Only for it to be given a temporary reprieve. In effect he had unfairly doubled the tax burden of the lowest paid. Indeed only most earning up to about £2,000 less than the Tories want to freeze public pay everyone was worse off. While at the other end it was Gordon who made a differential in the high rate capital gains and income tax thresholds making it easier for the richest to avoid paying a full amount of tax. Yet now he speaks of a future fair for all.

As for the banks, well it got worse. Gordon refused to listen to Vince Cable, a former banker, and sailed his course of deregulation. Allowing them carte blanch to gamble the nations savings against the market. We'll be paying for that courageous path of the former chancellor for years to come.

Only the Liberal Democrats have consistently stood up for our civil liberties in the last 13 years. Only the Liberal Democrats spoke out about the illegal war on Iraq with one voice. Only the Liberal Democrats are promising to make our taxes fairer. Only the Liberal Democrats are prepared to reform the banks, yes allow the investment banks to speculate, but not at the expense of individuals and firms access to core banking services.<

Gordon Brown as the son of the Manse is no doubt aware that Matthew 7:16 says. "It is by their fruits that you shall know them." Sorry Gordon but Labour have turned out to be a rotten apple. The Tories are merely the same old sour,bitter lemon trying to disguise themselves as a juicy, sweet strawberry. The Liberal Democrats are trying to give real sustenance to our economy, it is time to build a fairer Britain.

Bullying Helpline Patron Quits - Update Make that two, no three

Professor Cary Cooper has just announced that he has quit the National Bullying Helpline (NBH) the organisation at the heart of the Brown bullying enquiries and concerns about the confidentiality of those who have called it. Prof. Cooper an expert in workplace stress told the BBC that he was "really upset" adding:

"[As] a helpline or counselling service you never, ever reveal anything to do with when a client calls you in any way."

Another bullying charity Bulling UK had said on its website yesterday it was "horrified" that Christine Pratt CEO of the NBH had "all but identified" one caller in media interviews. Speaking of the serious nature of such disclosure they said:

"It's hard to imagine a more serious breach of confidentiality."

With Professor Cooper's departure today serious questions need to be asked about this incident, not just the leakage of the material but now that they have been exposed the claims of those who had called.

UPDATE: A second patron TV presenter Sarah Cawood has also announced that she has stepped down. Another Patron Ann Widdecombe MP has also expressed concerns about recent events:

"The helpline is supposed to be confidential and while no details were revealed I do not think it is a good idea."

UPDATE 2: No sooner had a published the last update than tweetdeck alerted me to the fact that Ann Widdecombe is also stepping down. In a statement Ms Cawood said that the reason she is stepping down said:

"In light of the recent events where confidential phone calls were made public, I feel it is no longer a campaign with which I would like my name to be associated."

However, Christine Pratt apparently fire fighting said:

"Her role as a patron has been disappointing and she has not got involved in spite of making many promises," she said.

"Appointing her as a patron was with hindsight a mistake."

Is Today the Day?

After Gordon got up on Saturday to launch a campaign slogan the one thing he didn't do was launch a campaign.So the rumour mill has gathered heat that today being the first day of the working week he will get in his car and drive down the mall to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen for a dissolution.

Will it be or won't it?

I may well jump at the first text message I get at work today*. Afterwards I may settle back to what I need to do at work, or start rearranging the leave I'd already booked off and wandering to an other election related to do list. It will all depend on one man's decision, whether I ramp up now the activity I've been doing recently or carry on with the gradual ramp up I'd been doing anyway. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

One thing I'm fairly certain of, if it does kick off today it is liable to hbe in the run up to my 2:30 deadline and my busiest period of the week.

* That is not a cue for those of you who know my number to send me innocent or spoof texts.

Not Even Bartlet Sank So Low

During Gordon Brown's speech he said:

"We will cure cancer within a generation."

Of course fans of the West Wing will recognise the policy if not the full rhetoric around it, clearly Gordon's speech writer didn't want to totally wrip off the West Wing.



Bartlet in the end despite being in a desparate situation at the time didn't use this jaw dropping announcement. He decided that the people would see it as clutching at straws to say something so radical, and uncosted to try and regain popularity. It was even going to be a major part, a major build up and full stop to his State if the Union. Brown, who appears not to have had the qualms of Barlet, mentions it only in passing and you could have missed it. Big announcement buried, why? Out of shame? Out of saying you'd said it but the world had missed it?

He also said that Elections are not judgements on the past, put decisions for the future. So does that mean Gordon is not standing on his record. Well it would appear he wants you to forget about that.

Although he did say take a fourth third second look at Labour, and a long hard look at them [the Conservatives]. I would say take a long hard look at Labour as well. He said that the Conservaites were not going to anything to get rid of the hereditary peers in the Lords. Well the opposition party in 1997 promised to get rid of them, they are still there after 13 years of power. Care to explain that one Prime Minister.

Gordon was launching the phrase a "progressive future, fair for all" so I was wondering if he was going to announce his defection to the Liberal Democrats. After all the ones that are offering the fair future to all are the Liberal Democrats, a fair tax system, a fair political system, a fair start for your children's education.

But no there was no big announcement of the Brown defection, no annoncement of the General Election date. The Labour Twitterverse was all a twitter last night that this would be a big day, their Labour "Future Fair Freefall for All" slogan had been let out of the back last night. So rather a damp squib if that was the hyping.

As Alistair Carmichael says of the slogan:

"Labour's latest message to voters is 'A future fair for all'.

"I would anticipate that voters' message to Labour would also begin with an 'f'.

"The problem for Gordon Brown is that he will be judged not just on his intentions but on his record.

"13 years of Labour Government have let down those who need fairness and equality most."

It's Friday so...Happy Birthday Prime Minister

Well tomorrow Gordon Brown celebrates his 59th Birthday. So lets have a little look at how other's see him.


An intriguing take as Gordon as Skeletor.



Classic John Clushaw turning Gordon in a rapper.



Meanwhile Rory Bremner sees Gordon more as Mika singing the music to Grace Kelly, of course the lyrics aren't the same.



Finally Jeremy Vines looks at Vince Cable's phrase "From Stalin to Mr Bean" one that Piers Morgan brought on Sunday. I wonder if we'll have an updated version on election night 2010, this from the council election night in 2008.

The Attitude Check - The Leaders' Responses Part II

Yesterday I started to look at the common questions that Johann Hari posed to David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown over the last three months in Attitude. I'm initially going to look at the common questions and each leaders response.

The second such question was:

Who were the first gay people you knew?

Point of information: All three leaders are of roughly the same generation, though Gordon is of course slightly older. Gordon in 59 this Saturday, David Cameron is only a few months older than Nick Clegg who recently turned 43.

Clegg: That is a difficult question for me as I don't think there was a particular moment. I had a very liberal upbringing, a very open upbringing, I was lucky. I had very liberal parents, an international upbringing. I had gay friends at school and worked with gay colleagues for a long time, so there was no sort of "Eureka!" moment when I said "oh!" - it wasn't like that. I think that's in keeping for someone of my generation. I'm blind to this. My closest friend at university who I lived with, came out, but, you know, I never thought of him as "My Gay Friend". He was just Luke, my best friend, that was it.

Nick's answer is very much like most people of my sort of age. It sort of happens around you from school up. No big deal, but being able to place one time or one person is tough, but he does talk a little about one friend. It's very much a relaxed answer, spoken in a chit chat sort of way. You can tell he's at ease with the question and merely answers it.

Cameron: Openly gay? I suppose friends I made particularly after I left university. I went to the Conservative Research Department and since then [I have had] quite a lot of [gay] friends, actually. It's difficult to know sometimes, going further back.

Ouch! I have to say it that opening is something that most Attitude readers will have also cringed at, most of us may well have experienced the first person we knew who was gay was letting us in on a secret possibly, a true friend hoping you'd keep their confidence. Failing that I don't believe any one could have gone through University in the 80s without having at least one gay friend. Somehow that is just what Eton and Oxford educated Cameron seems to have done. Now they may not have been friends but surely they were known to him.

Brown: Good friends at university. I went to one of the first civil partnership ceremonies in Britain, and it was very moving. I thought - here's something that wouldn't have happened in Britain ten years ago without there being a Labour government to bring it about. It demanded such courage from the people who campaigned for it for decades and then it took legislative decisions to make it happen. It showed our country is far more tolerant that people thought - we are ready to embrace the dignity of every individual. The gay community in Britain should take credit not just for winning rights for themselves, but making our country a better country. People respect individuals more as a result of the achievements you have had. And to have changed not only your own community but also to have changed the country itself over the last ten years - it's an incredible achievement. And that message has gone out across the world, everyone can see it.

That's why I spoke out so strongly when there were moves to roll back civil partnerships in America. There are people who have made a commitment to each other and clearly loved each other, who are now faced with this idea that it is going to be rescinded. It's totally unacceptable. And that's why I'm fighting to get all the countries in Europe to recognize civil partnerships carried out in Britain. We want countries where that hasn't been the case - especially in Eastern Europe - to recognize them. We're negotiating agreements with France and then with Spain. But I think we can actually go further than that. And if we could show, in Eastern Europe as well as Western Europe, that this respect for gay people is due, that would be really important. Of course it will be tough, and it will take many years, but that has never ever been a good reason not to fight. Every single change we've delivered for equality we started off with people telling us it couldn't be done.

Brown started well with his opening four words, they answered the question in part. He carries out about going to one of the first civil partnerships. But this launches him off into a tangent, rather than talking about any of those friendships he lurches into a treatise. There is repetition from question one of key words individual, rights community/society, equality. There are all sort of abstract concepts, speaking in a general rather than a specific. Rather stilted as if learnt rather than from personal experience. Also for quite a long answer only the first four words and possibly the second sentence actually deal with answering the question. Like an examination answer or a political answer picking up a key theme and running with it in totally a different direction.

Neither Brown or Cameron come across well in this answer, Cameron stalls with his question, before working out where to go. Brown starts with the answer but in four words is off talking generalities rather than about the friends, the object of the question.

My rating of this answer:

• Clegg 7/10
• Cameron 3/10
• Brown 2/10
  

The Attitude Check - The Leaders' Responses Part I

Johann Hari has now completed his set of three interviews in Attitude with the three major party leaders. There are some questions which are specific to one leader and his party but several which are generic across all three. Over the next few nights I will be looking at those and giving my opinion on how they responded. Here is how Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg responded to the opening question they all were asked.

Why should people vote for [your party] at the next general election:

Brown: Because we [Labour] are the anti-discrimination, anti-prejudice and pro-equality party. We've always been determined to protect and defend the rights of the people who need the protection of the law. I think the whole history of the Labour movement has been to take on prejudice, discrimination and vested interests where they exist. If we've not done enough until 1997, we are to blame for that. But we have done a huge amount since, we've got a lot more to do, and in our blood, in our DNA, is a determination to speak up for equality and against inequalities and against injustices. I am really proud that once people have won rights, you can't ever humiliate them again. You can't ever go back. My view is: you start from the dignity of every individual. You want a society where every individual has the chance to realise their potential to the full, and any barriers that exist - like prejudice - is dismantled. And so, my position, starts from a principled position. Some people might think - this guy is a son of the Manse, brought up in a very Presbyterian environment. But I've always been very proud that the Church of Scotland has a much more egalitarian view about gay rights than others.

Sadly for the Prime Minister the way he speaks even comes across in the written word as dour. Also this is a position statement there is a lack of clear reasons why we should vote now, apart from the one line "we have more to do".

Clegg: I want anyone from any community to vote for us because of the values we [Liberal Democrats] represent, not because they think we tick a particular set of boxes. We are a liberal party who believe in tolerance. We have the longest and proudest record of campaigning for gay rights in British politics. The main reason I want people to vote for us is not some sort of segmented appeal because we've got a vision of Britain could be that I believe lot of folk - gay, straight, white, black, Asian, women, men - can support.

Nick Clegg is the only one not wholly cuffed by the fact he is speaking to a gay publication. He's setting out the ideals, elsewhere in the interview come some of the specifics. He's showing the tolerance that he talks about by not pigeon holing, the other two talk of some other worldliness but Clegg is all encompassing, not boxing you in don't look at us just for tick boxes.

Cameron: Above all because I think the country needs change. Change in terms of sorting out our economy, in terms of improving public services, and in terms of some of the things that are going wrong in our society. I think I can say to gay people that not only is it change we need, it is a changed Conservative Party that faces you at the election. Not that we have a perfect record on all of these things, I know. But there have been some major changes that have taken place under my leadership.

I know there are gay people who have conservative values, such as wanting us to be supportive of business and enterprise, wanting to have strong defense believing in strong defense of liberty and so on - but in the past they have felt held back [from voting for us] because the Conservative party was sending them a signal that we didn't support them or their lifestyle. That has changed. I think we can look gay people in the eye and can say you can now back us both for the values we have but also because we now support gay equality.

Initial thoughts on David Cameron is that he is trying to overcome the legacy that his party have established through their past actions. Hence the apology, however twice he says "I think we can" either say or look at gay people differently from before. Think and can together are two soft words which may hint at a certain uncertainty. Cameron also hits out at the wider agenda though.

Overall it is a tough start for Cameron, indeed Hari doesn't let him off later in the interview so maybe he is guessing the course that the interview will take. Brown sounds like a lecturer in political history, laying out the history of the party but not giving much of a vision for the future no reason to vote Labour to move forward. Both Cameron clearly and Clegg by implication which is later fleshed out give a reason for hope. It may be that Labour is basically out of ideas but the other two both show an enthusiasm, the snappiness of Nicks answer to the first question being a prime example of bring it on.

For openers I'd give

• Nick 7/10
• Dave 6/10
• Gordon 4/10

More tomorrow at the same time

Things Brown has Been Absolutely Certain About

Today in the Observer Gordon Brown says:

"I'm not complacent, but Labour can still win it. I'm absolutely sure of that."

This is the same man who declared in September 1999:

"And I say to Conference and the country, we will never return to the days of Tory boom - bust."

What never? What absolutely sure?

I think Gordon doth use superlatives too much and too glibbly.

Clegg and Cameron Say No Privilege Defence: Brown Silent

Nick Clegg and David Cameron, leaders of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties respectively, have agreed that the three MPs facing criminal charges over their expenses should not claim privilege as a defence. Cameron said he was disgusted and Clegg that the public would be outraged if Elliot Morely, David Chaytor and Jim Devine used their stated 1689 Bill of Rights defence of privilege.

While Cameron is saying he will say more at a press conference on Monday Nick Clegg speaking at the Welsh Lib Dem conference said:

"Lawmakers shouldn't be above the law and they should not be invoking 17th century conventions in order to avoid paying their expenses".

However, the Prime Minister has been quiet on the specifics neither distance himself from the individuals or offering support. He been talking generically:

"We have taken the action necessary to clean up politics, but I am determined now to reconnect Parliament and the public, to bring politics back to the people. It's their Parliament, not ours.

"This expenses scandal has been a scar on democracy and has done great damage to the reputation of parliament. We are putting the discredited old system behind us and I want to see the new system in place as soon as possible."

He went on to talk about his Alternative Vote proposal as his trump card to clean up this mess. The fact that he is having a daily attendance allowance rather than an itemised, individual, receipt based expenses system shows that he has failed to understand the public's desire for transparency for their MPs.

As Mark Thompson pointed out our electoral system does appear to have some contribution to play in these scandals, he's also pointed how how disproportional AV is and would actually have returned Labour a bigger majority in 1997. Hardly a way to replace a discredited system with one that can be manipulated just as much by the party machinery to get their way.

Brown's AV Proposals Hand Edinburgh South to Lib Dems - Curtice

Last night Eric Joyce asked on Twitter, "AV [Alternative Vote] Voting. Any thoughts?" so I had a little debate with him about how it was change not reform etc. How it still gave too much power to the parties and not enough to the people. he went strangely silent on me when I asked. "Why now? It was discussed pre-1997 by the Blair-Ashdown negotiations. Why wait 13 years?".

I take it Eric's silence adds strength to the argument that Gordon Brown is proposing this now as a political expedient not out of any real commitment. Indeed in this morning's Scotsman John Curtice points out that the Lib Dems are everyone's second favourite, so AV would help the Lib Dems, but only he says in seats where are already a strong second like in Edinburgh South. Indeed he thinks AV would deliver us a dozen or so extra seats.

Of course the other issue is who is going to be second favourites elsewhere. Curtice says:

"The SNP is unlikely to gain much either. The Nationalists cannot be sure of winning more second preference votes from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats than Labour.

"But who do Liberal Democrat and SNP voters prefer more – Conservative or Labour? The answer is clear – Labour. In the ICM poll, 45 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters said Labour was their second choice, only 28 per cent the Conservatives. Only a handful of SNP supporters in the 2007 local elections gave any support to a Tory candidate.

"So where Labour lie a close second to the Conservatives, the new system could enable them to capture the seat. But the Conservatives are unlikely to gain where they are close to Labour – while of the two parties they are also more likely to be leapfrogged by a local Liberal Democrat."

It is a fault with a majority system such as AV which is not proportional to the voting intentions of the electorate but merely a reallocation of the votes to the next best option.

Andrew Burns the Labour leader on Edinburgh City Council self deprecates with his blog title Really Bad Blog, but this morning I want to hold him up as a Labour elected representative who speaks sense.

He says seeing as the use of Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster Elections have now been tabled as an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, he says it is:

"Pretty straightforward to adjust it from a majoritarian to a proportional system ... "

He then outlines almost the wording (bar the use of 2 member constituencies and a few other pieces) that I think a Lib Dem MP should be tabling replacing AV with a Single Transferable Vote System(STV).

STV also gives more power to the people, last night Eric Joyce was bemoaning the fact that 8 MSPs had some say over the voters of Falkirk that he represents. He was also saying that he liked to let the people have their personal say over his re-election. Thing is the bulk of that say is down to the local party, there only is one Labour candidate that the people of Falkirk have to vote for under the AV proposals.

Say if under STV Falkirk and say Livingston and Linlithgow were returning 3 MPs there may well be 2 or 3 Labour candidates for the people to choice from. It would combine the aspect of the people deciding which Labour candidate was their preferred option, plus also decide between the various candidates. This may not be to Eric's liking for his own personal reasons* but suits people like Iain Dale who advocate open primaries. It gives a certain amount of power to the people. It makes peoples votes fairer and is proportional rather than a shifting of the votes.

My current choice of words to explain Brown's position is a misquote of Neil Armstrong. AV is one small step which suits Labour best, where is the giant leap for fairness to the electorate?

In conclusion Curtice sums up Brown's long road to his Damascus moment to change the voting system like this:

"Under current circumstances at least, the attractions of the Alternative Vote for Labour are clear. Its adoption would make it even more difficult for the Conservatives to win a majority, only make it a little easier for the Liberal Democrats to secure extra seats, while Labour's chances of winning a majority might even be enhanced.

"Not so much "new" politics as an old-fashioned political fix."

Brown is fiddling but at least Andrew Burns is man enough to spot the score.

PS On a point of order made by Caron on twitter of course we don't need AV to get Fred Mackintosh as the MP for Edinburgh South. He is more than capable of overhauling that 405 vote margin over Nigel Griffiths Candidate X under first past the post.

Read also: Alistair Carmichael MP on why you should beware of dying Governments bearing gifts. Plus Mark Thompson estute as ever on whether AV is even worth campaigning for.

*Most expensive MP in the House of Commons.

Brown Proffers Packages Tied Up With String

Police powers to Ulster,
Or is that "six counties".
Hours after hours of discussion and nothing.
Brown proffers packages tied up with string,
This is an old Northern Irish thing.

Forty eight hours to mull over the offer,
Then Brown will decide what becomes of the coppers,
Marches and justice are all in his hands.
Peter and Martin are on shifting sand.

When the times up
Loggerheads or not
They could be feeling bad.
They'll have to remember the thing that unites
And then they won't feel so mad.

Apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein but as Brown flies out of Northern Ireland without the deal being signed, I'm sure you'll agree it was worth it (the song not Brown's 48 hours in Hillsborough).

READ ALSO: Alistair Carmichael* the Liberal Democrats Northern Irish Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary of State gives his own view on the current situation on his new blog.

* By linking to him I'm not expected to escape his tap on my shoulder to prepare at Federal Conference Glee Club for enditions of either Flower of Scotland or Danny Boy.

It's Friday...Have a Cadbury Break

Don't worry my usual 5pm clips are on their way. But seeing as the news this week has been dominated by Britiain's premier chocolate manfacturer I thought you'd like these for your elevenses (after all the Stephen Glenn position has it's own hour).

Modern Classic



School Boy Memories



That first sex symbol



Frank Muir making it up as he goes along



But then there is also this.

***BREAKING*** Brown to Face Chilcot

News just coming in that Gordon is going to face the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq soon.

Sky are saying:

After increasing pressure from political opponents, Mr Brown wrote to Sir John earlier this week to make it clear he would be "happy" to attend at any time.

"I am clear that it is a matter for you how you conduct the Inquiry and that it is, and must remain, entirely independent of Government," the Prime Minister wrote.

"In undertaking this you have rightly chosen the order you wish to receive evidence.

"For my part, I want to make it absolutely clear I am prepared to give evidence whenever you see fit. I remain happy to take your advice on this matter."

They and the BBC now both believe that the Prime Minister is now going to be called before the enquiry in a matter of weeks rather than later in the year as originally scheduled.

There is also some spectulation as to what part this PMQ from last Wednesday had in the resulting early call of Brown to face the questions.

13 Jan 2010 : Column 682

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD):Given everything that has come to light in the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, will the Prime Minister now do the decent thing and volunteer to give evidence to the inquiry before people decide how to vote on his record in government?

The Prime Minister: The Chilcot inquiry has drawn up a list of those people that it wishes to interview and has invited the people on the dates that it has done. I will follow the recommendations of the Chilcot committee. I have nothing to hide on this matter and I am happy to give evidence. Equally, at this time, I thought that the debate in the House was that the Chilcot inquiry should decide when people were heard.

Mr. Clegg: The point is that this is not just a question for Sir John Chilcot; it is a question for the Prime Minister's own conscience. When the decisions were taken to launch this illegal war, he was not only in the room-he was the one who signed the cheques. He should insist on going to the inquiry now. People are entitled to know before they decide how to vote at the general election what his role was in this Government's most disastrous decision. What has he got to hide?

13 Jan 2010 : Column 683

The Prime Minister: Nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman was the one who wanted Chilcot to make the decisions about whom he called. He cannot on one day say that Chilcot should decide and then say that he or someone else should decide what happens.

On the Iraq war, we have given every single document to the Iraq inquiry. We have given it the opportunity to look at every document and to ask for which documents it wants to be declassified. The only documents that will be withheld from publication are those that directly affect national security and international relations. This is a full inquiry being run by Sir John Chilcot. People are being interviewed, rightly so, and asked for their evidence, but it is for the Chilcot committee to decide how it proceeds-that is what the right hon. Gentleman proposed.

If it does it shows how much more on the pulse Clegg is than Cameron as even the Spectator's Coffee House blog had earlier given Clegg another hit to Cameron's miss this week.

More to follow.

Brown's Crumbliest Flakiest Answer

As the Government owns 84% of the Royal Bank of Scotland is the Government therefore 84% liable for the £12bn loan they have given Kraft to buy Cadbury's putting British jobs at risk.

That is the question (iPlayer Nick Starts at 17:54) that Nick Clegg the Lib Dem leader asked Gordon Brown at PMQ's today. Also why are they lending such amounts to American based multi-nationals when they still refuse to lend to British businesses trying to invest in British jobs and British products. The Prime Minister responded with the crumbliest, flakiest answer. An answer that did not taste like the question before.

Indeed he went off listing economic achievements of his Government rather than answering the specific charges of Nick's question. Brown's default position even though that looks more dodgy the more he quotes his economic achievements in response to economic disasters.

Vince Cable has made a follow up statement on this issue.

"Cadbury is a national institution which provides thousands of jobs in the UK and there is a real danger its takeover by Kraft will lead to job losses.

"It is particularly galling then that state-owned RBS should part fund this takeover when it is clearly not in the interests of the UK economy.

"This takeover also raises broader questions about how hedge funds, out to make a quick buck, can destabilise even the most established companies.

"We have seen Cadbury shares rapidly bought up by hedge funds that are keen to accept the Kraft takeover regardless of whether it is in the long-term interests of the company.

"As the City minister Lord Myners himself notes, it is becoming too easy for good British companies to be taken over by foreign predators."

So there you have it the Government has aided an abetted a predatorial take over of a British institution. Anyone who have ever tasted American chocolate will know we have far the superior product.

UPDATE: Now that Hansard has issued the 3 hour later official record here is the exchange. I've added a few comments in red.

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD):......

I should like to return to the issue of Cadbury’s. Last month, Lord Mandelson declared that the Government would mount a huge opposition to the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s, so why does the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is owned by this Government, now want to lend vast amounts of our money to Kraft to fund that takeover?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is really suggesting that the Government can step in and avoid any takeover that is taking place in this country overnight (Actually I think Lord Mandelson suggested it when he said "If you think you can come here and make a fast buck [you] will find that you face huge opposition from the local population... and the British Government"), and then tell a bank that it has got to deprive a particular company of money by Government dictate (Again Mandelson "We expect long-term commitment, not short-term profit, to rule."), his liberal principles seem to have gone to the wall.

Mr. Clegg: I thank the Prime Minister for the little economics lecture, but there is a simple principle at stake. Tens of thousands of British companies are crying out for that money to protect jobs, and instead RBS wants to lend it to a multinational with a record of cutting jobs. When British taxpayers bailed out the banks, they would never have believed that their money would be used to put British people out of work. Is that not just plain wrong?

The Prime Minister: Putting the words “liberal” and “principle” together seems very difficult now—[Interruption.] I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that no Government are doing more to try to protect and increase jobs than this country’s (actually quite a number are doing better). Unemployment is falling today (except in Scotland where is it up 9,000) as a result of the actions we have taken (This time I'm quoting Jim Murphy who isn't so certain "After previous recessions the jobs market has taken longer to bounce back than the economy, and we know that we are still in very uncertain times."). If we had taken the advice of the Liberal (I assume he means to insert Democrat here) party (the Banks wouldn't have been given the free reign they had and income tax and capital gains would be in parity), unemployment would be a great deal higher than it is now (I dispute this as around here many jobs were lost when the banks no longer where willing to lend). He has nothing to offer the debate on the economy at all—[Interruption.]

A bit of a visual update:

Hat tip to Subrosa Video from Ollie at the Red Rag

***Breaking News*** Nick Robinson Names Cabinet Names

Nick Robinson has just named the names of those in Cabinet that were standing by as Geoof Hoon and Patricia Hewitt too the heat for their letter.

Harriet Harman

David Miliband

Douglas AlexanderJack Straw Jim Murphy Bob Ainsworth The dirty half dozen who were waiting to pounce.

Was their intended successor a Miliband?

Nick Robinson said that you can expect their offices to be issuing denials immediately. At least a lot faster than the statements of support for the Prime Minister earlier in the day.

Did Shakespeare Foresee Such Drama on Twelfth Night, Again?

Well it takes something to put fire in the belly and heat you up on a day like today. This morning before I walked out into -9C I was about to strangle the male present on BBC Breakfast who seemed over excited that it was a mere -6C in North West England. But I digress.

So what has stoked the boilers today? Or rather who? Or rather Hoon, ably assisted by Hewitt. For Geoff and Patricia have had enough. The BBC are covering it live. Come to think of it wasn't it a January evening, though a rather warmer one, back in 2006, indeed 4 years to the day that the last long night of the knives from MPs against a leader took place, it led to me posting this in the wee hours of the morning.

On the 6th January 2006 a letter was going around the Lib Dem MPs in the commons seeking to find support for the notion that Charles Kennedy should resign. Today we find that Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt have sent a letter to Labour MPs to call for a secret ballot to sort out Brown's leadership.

The Prime Minister is doing just what Thatcher did when the plot to get her to stand aside was being hatch, being busy. For Thatcher her trip to France on business may well have been her undoing in her dying hours. One wonders what Brown's visit to a snow command centre will lead to? Indeed Charles Kennedy after the night of the circulating letter fell on his sword. Will the new day bring Brown to the same decision?

UPDATE: Nick Robinson has just hinted live on BBC evening news that unless one of the Labour cabinet comes out and says what they say to him and his colleagues all the time in private, Brown will stay in number 10. How deep is the rift below this surface?

On a lighter side check out Liberal Conspiracy's pics live from the Labour plot.


moar funny pictures

Update 2:

I don't often link to Guido but this is a good take on the whole last 24 hours.



As this is a live and happening event this blog post is liable to be updated.

For example the list of who is for or against having the ballot.

***BREAKING NEWS***

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt have written to all Labour MPs to call for a secret ballot to sort out the Labour leadership issue once and for all.

I'll no doubt be able to write more, once I get out of work, and time allows.

Anyone got any songs for Hoon or Hewitt to go with last night's blog entry?