In Scotland? Vote tactically in May 2015 General Election - Keep SNP Out!

As I indicated in an article here posted during February 2015 (link here), I indicated that it is my intention to vote "tactically" at the forthcoming general election in May 2015 and that in the context of my own constituency this means I shall in all probability vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate, based on my own assessment of the political dynamics of this area, with the aim of trying to ensure that the SNP does not win here.

Recently I have 'liked' a Facebook group called Scotland's Big Voice ("SBV" for short), which like me has the aim of thwarting the disaster that too many (or any) SNP MPs at Westminster would represent, plus the aim of removing the SNP as Scotland's government at next year's Scottish Parliament election and obviously I would be happy to see that happen too. There's an interesting analysis of the SBV here in the politics.co.uk website.

For the General Election in May 2015, SBV have drawn up a 'wheel' of all Scottish constituencies with suggestions of how people should vote tactically to minimise the number of SNP MPs elected and I am happy to say their assessment of my constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) tallies with my own. Below is the full chart:

- obviously to make this work effectively, people will to a greater or lesser extent have to vote "through gritted teeth" for a Party they might not normally choose to vote for; in many constituencies this will obviously involve a vote for Labour, anathema for me of course, or indeed for the Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidate, which for some natural Labour supporters would be similarly unpalatable under normal circumstances. But we are not in normal circumstances - if you want to maintain the long-term integrity of the United Kingdom and retain Scotland's position within it, some discomfort for a good cause will be essential if we are to prevent the SNP continuing its machinations to tear our country apart. Once the SNP is consigned to the trash-heap of history where it belongs, normal political business can be resumed.

Who ya gonna vote for? (GE May 2015)

For some months the pace has gradually been accelerating with the pieces being moved on the political chess board and for the next now slightly less than three months we are all likely to be bombarded with claim and counter-claim by the different parties for our votes.

Whilst our 'first past the post' (FPTP) electoral system for UK general elections does usually provide a clear result, the last time in 2010 it did not and the polling information recently seems to indicate that it may provide a similarly inconclusive result this time too. A bid by coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, to have a form of proportional representation ('Alternative Vote') put into law was decisively rejected in a referendum held during 2011. Personally I am very pleased that it was rejected, because I think the introduction of an Alternative Vote for general elections would have institutionalised coalitions, which I think would have been retrograde for our politics - I prefer to see the governing party, whichever it is, given a reasonably free hand to pursue its policies so that the results, good or bad, and who was responsible for them, can be more clearly seen and attributed.

In my particular constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) our current MP is a Liberal Democrat, the quite prominent cabinet minister in the coalition government, Danny Alexander MP. Anyone who has been reading my blog over the years will know that I am definitely not a Liberal Democrat, nor am I a supporter of this political party, but I am happy to acknowledge that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has been a moderate success and that Danny Alexander MP has played a fairly prominent role in this success, being No.2 in the Treasury and generally supportive of government policy. More recently he, and other Liberal Democrat MPs, have been keen to differentiate themselves from their Conservative colleagues and I think this is perfectly understandable ahead of the 2015 general election. I am, at the very least, grateful that we have had at least a partially-Conservative government these past almost five years, so that more rational policies have been implemented when compared with the many idiocies and plain incompetence of the previous awful Labour government. However, it is possible that a heavy electoral price may be exacted of the Liberal Democrats, according to the opinion polls, for their participation in the coalition government. I think this is grossly unfair, because at least they have helped save us from the disaster of another Labour government, something I am very happy about.

Nominations for the May 2015 general election have of course not yet closed, but so far (as at the time of writing) the 3 major UK national parties, Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats, plus the SNP and and the Green Party have chosen their candidates, but there may well be more candidates declared before nominations close. You can see the currently-known candidates in the YourNextMP website here:
- Alexander, Danny (Liberal Democrats);
- Hendry, Drew (Scottish National Party [SNP]);
- Mountain, Edward (Conservative Party);
- O'Reilly, Isla Macleod (Scottish Green Party);
- Robb, Mike (Labour Party).

Normally my voting decision would be pretty straightforward, I would vote for Edward Mountain for the Conservatives or perhaps abstain; basically I am a Conservative, but am no longer a member as a result of earlier anti-gay policies during the leadership of William Hague MP and his successor Iain Duncan Smith MP and, to a lesser extent during the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives of the late David McLetchie. However, although I have not rejoined the Conservatives as a member, their earlier anti-gay policies have been abandoned and replaced by an altogether more positive range of policies and actions, even if some of their MPs and MSPs remain as anti-gay as ever they were; within Scotland (the area that obviously concerns me most directly) there are a number of similarly and notoriously anti-gay SNP MSPs, a fact that the SNP doesn't really like to talk about and whenever the topic has been raised by me in the past I have been howled down by irate SNP supporters (aka 'dupes' and/or 'shameless apologists)'. Their are fewer similar Labour and no or almost no Liberal Democrats, to the best of my knowledge. Of course, there are other issues beyond 'gay rights', I readily accept, but this is a matter of such fundamental importance for basic human rights that I make no apology for awarding it a certain prominence - tough if anyone reading this takes issue!

Beyond that of course, I am for free enterprise and against any form of 'socialism' or 'collectivism' because 'socialism' and similar philosophies have produced such abysmal results wherever in the world they have been tried, it really is the archetypal 'dead parrot' of political philosophies so far as I am concerned! (with acknowledgement to 'Monty Python').

Anyway, where does this leave me and my voting decision for the forthcoming general election? I could vote for the Conservative Edward Mountain quite happily, but being realistic he is likely to garner only between 13 and 16% of the vote (worst and best case scenarios based on recent history) and is 'highly unlikely' to be elected as our next MP, even if he manages to increase the vote somewhat; that is the harsh reality, sadly; here is the result at the 2010 general election to illustrate this. So under an FPTP system those 6 to 7 or 8,000 votes are effectively wasted. The two likely realistic alternativea to the Liberal Democrats in this constituency are Labour or the SNP (formerly we had a Labour MP and our current MSP is from the SNP, for example); I would find either very unpalatable, but based on recent opinion polls the main 'danger' seems to come from the SNP and I certainly wish to avoid that outcome at all costs - so my present intention would be, through somewhat gritted teeth, to vote for Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats. The question that those who would normally vote Conservative need to ask themselves is - do you really want to see the SNP (or potentially Labour) win in this constituency? Given that it is highly unlikely (i.e. next to impossible) that a Conservative can realistically have any hope of winning here, would you rather have one of the unholy duo of the SNP or Labour win or would it not be less unpalatable to have a Liberal Democrat instead? Honestly? I know some will find my arguments anathema - but don't come complaining to me on the morning of Friday 8th May 2015 if instead we have an SNP or Labour MP, when some of the usual 6 or 7,000 Conservative votes could have been more usefully directed to the Liberal Democrats. I have never met Edward Mountain and if I thought he had a realistic chance of winning would happily vote for him, so I hope he will forgive me for writing so candidly about my feelings.

"Hypocrisy" from Danny Alexander, who just happens to be my MP

I've previously given our local MP, Danny Alexander, now a member of the Coalition government (from the LibDem wing of course), a fairly easy ride when commenting on his expenses at the time of the Telegraph revelations two and a half years ago, but rank hypocrisy and 'jumping on bandwagons' makes me heave! Here we have our Danny jumping on yet another bandwagon criticising those who make perfectly legal arrangements to minimise their tax liabilities:



- when, as Guido Fawkes has helpfully reminded us, he 'flipped' his properties, using what what can only be described as quite imaginative arguments, prior to the eruption of the expenses scandal in order to save himself rather a lot of tax.

As I wrote in 2009 (first link above) I expect he is no worse than very many other MPs, of all politcal parties, not to mention other well-known figures or obscure citizens for that matter, but it sticks in my throat to see him (and indeed David Cameron, the Prime Minister, last week) taking to the airwaves to lambast people like Jimmie Carr (horrible left-wing hyposite that he is, too) exploiting perfectly legal - for the moment at least - loopholes in the law to minimise his tax liability.

It is NOT moral, or in any way sensible, to maximise voluntarily one's tax liability to the State, merely so that it can squander it - this is NOT (surprisingly enough from me - Ed) a political rant against any particular political party. What it is, though, is a very clear statement of my view that one is obliged to pay only what the law prescribes as being due in tax, not a penny more nor a penny less. There is no question of 'morality' being involved - we are a country governed by the rule of law, not the moral prejudices of partisan individuals or newspapers.

So, Mr Alexander (and Mr Cameron or any Labour [or SNP] politician for that matter), I think you should think more carefully before taking yourself to television studios to try and profit from the 'tabloid-style' prejudices being whipped up just now. Your own tax affairs and those of quite a few other politicians are by no means clear-cut, depending upon who is doing the interpreting of what is 'moral' or 'immoral'.

For myself, I prefer to look at what the law says. Period.

Harriet Harman - not exactly on the ball is she?

The mouthy, preachy Labour loser Harriet Harman lost something of her usual polish and charm (well, she never had much of that, ever) in this television interview today; most amusing:



Her usual style of "sound-bite" and "bash the bankers" ill-thought policies suffered complete collapse under just the most cursory scrutiny. And about time, too!

The fundamental anti-democratic nature of socialism

Nottingham North MP Graham Allen (Labour) tells Laura Kuennsberg (of the BBC):

"It was a very good result under the rules, but the Labour government should have changed the rules so that we would never have been out of power, regardless of a General Election result."

(seen in a Guido Fawkes "Quote of the Day")

Ed Balls - deficit denier and now personal debt denier

Guido has the scoop on this odious individual's attempts to deny liability for personal debts. Not as dramatic as the debts he and his erstwhile boss Gordon "deficit denier" Brown have left the country with, but it is an interesting insight into the delusions of this socialist fantasist.

Cameron's 'Rap' in the national interest

I thought the Prime Minister's conference speech was excellent and it is nice to see that someone has turned salient parts of it into a 'rap' song:



No doubt sad left-wingers mocked the speech and will ridicule this 'rap', but they're the ones sadly out of touch with the public's determination to repair the damage done to the country by Labour's thirteen years of mismanagement.

Will he stay or will he go? Miliband D answers at last.

David Miliband has told his brother [Red]Ed that he is bowing out of 'front-line' politics to give him maximum chance of success without any inference that there might be dissention between them over any issue (and one can be pretty certain that there ARE significant differences between them on some matters - his reaction to Ed's speech yesterday was less than cordial at some points). A cynical person might say David is leaving Ed to 'stew in his own [even more left-wing] juice'.



David Miliband's record in politics is somewhat cruelly summed-up here; when he had the chance to topple the premiership of the walking-disaster that was Gordon Brown he flunked it. The nicest thing I can think of to say about him is that perhaps he is just not tough enough for the rough-and-tumble of front-line politics; I hope he finds something to do that will make better use of whatever his talents may be.

Thirteen Years of Labour Lies, Deceit and Mismanagement

Watch this video-clip compilation to remind you just how awful was Labour's most recent tenure in office. Just 101 days ago this shower of shysters was the government of this country:



- Point of information: this video-clip is indeed a 'propaganda piece' put together by the Conservative Party prior to the last General Election, but that in no way detracts from the absolute truth of everything shown in it.
(The idea for including this video-clip here is 'filched' without shame or apology from an article in the excellent Guido Fawkes blog.)

The Megrahi release saga rumbles on ...

I'm not going to rehash the arguments for or against releasing Megrahi last year, a decision taken by the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government'), Mr Kenny MacAskill MSP; I thought then and think still that the decision was both wrong and foolish. My articles written at the time on the matter give my detailed view of the matter:

- Scotland sends a convicted murderer home "to die" (20AUG2009)
- Bill's not popular in some quarters locally it seems (22AUG2009)
- Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release (28AUG2009)
- My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga (01SEP2009)

Now that final article linked to above, written on 1st September last year, might be thought to be contradicted by this present article, but in fact it is not because this article is on a whole other aspect of this saga, relating to judicial and constitutional territoriality. However, before continuing this article I think it useful to quote the final two sentences from my last article above:

"Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are."

At the time of the release the US authorities expressed their view opposing the release very vociferously, but as I wrote in the first article linked to above "We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world."

In recent weeks a US Senate hearing has been taking place into the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico involving oil company BP, a company with strong British links historically, even though it is today a truly multinational conglomerate with a large proportion of its shareholding outside the UK, with US shareholders holding a very significant stake in the company. It has been suggested by some US Senators that there may be a connection between the release of Megrahi and a deal agreed with the Libyan authorities by BP. Now these US Senators have 'invited' Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Prison Service's medical chief Dr Andrew Fraser to travel to Washington to give evidence before the US Senate hearing. The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has declined this 'invitation'. Also invited are Mr Jack Straw MP, former UK Justice Secretary and Mr Tony Hayward, BP chief executive, neither of whom have yet announced a decision on this matter. It will be recalled that Mr Hayward recently gave evidence before the US Senate in connection with the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill.

My view is very strongly that no official of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') should attend the US Senate hearing. I am no friend of the current ruling political party in Scotland, the SNP, nor do I care for the First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond MP MSP, but I watched him being interviewed earlier today on BBC News on the matter and have to say I agree completely with his analysis, which followed very closely the statement issued by a spokesperson on behalf of his administration:

"Since the Lockerbie atrocity in 1988, all matters regarding the investigation, prosecution and compassionate release decision have been conducted according to the jurisdiction and laws of Scotland. "Clearly, the Senate Committee has responsibility to scrutinise decisions taken within the US system, and Scottish ministers and public officials are accountable within the Scottish Parliament system. That is the constitutional basis of our democracies. "The Scottish Parliament's justice committee has already undertaken a full inquiry into the decision on compassionate release, and the Westminster Scottish affairs committee has also examined the issue in terms of the formal inter-governmental relations that exist within the UK. That is right and proper."

The US is a close ally of the UK (which includes Scotland), but the two are completely separate countries and it would seem to me totally invidious, on principle, for any official of a UK government or a devolved part of the UK such as Scotland, to accept or imply acceptance of the jurisdiction of a foreign country. I cannot imagine any official of the US Federal Government or one of the US States agreeing to give evidence before a Parliamentary Committee in the UK, nor would it be correct for them to accept such an obligation - the furore that that would arise in the US amongst the public there were such testimony to be offered by any US public official before the parliament of a foreign country, even of a close ally such as the UK, would be intense and entirely justified.

The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has stated its willingness to supply further written evidence to the US Senate and that is as much as the US Senate can expect, indeed my view is that even this is too much. I may disagree strongly with the decision taken by Mr MacAskill, but it is clear that he took that decision with due regard to Scots Law; that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned.

Finally, the comments made by Labour's Holyrood justice spokesman Richard Baker, to the effect that it was "perfectly legitimate" for US senators to ask Mr MacAskill to travel to Washington and answer questions are in my view completely wrong-headed and betray a complete lack of understanding of the constitutional issues involved, specifically relating to the sovereignty of the UK; I have no love for the SNP, but it is immensely pleasing that the Labour Party is no longer in power in either Scotland or Westminster if this is the care and attention they give to this country's status as an independent country; of course Labour is the political party that when in government agreed the unequal US/UK Extradition Treaty 2003 with the US, so they have 'form' in their dereliction of national duty.

The 'Dark Lord' speaks

'Lord' Peter Mandelson plugs his new book of 'memoirs'; I saw this advertisement on television a few evenings ago and almost choked on my supper!



How much do you think this will be 'remaindered' for in a very short period? Not much more than a Pound I should imagine.

McConnell - just one of more than 50 new Peers foisted on us by Brown

Labour-apparatchik, former First Minister of Scotland and currently MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw, Jack McConnell, has taken his seat in the House of Lords, following his ennoblement in Gordon Brown's 'Dissolution Honours' on departing as Prime Minister.

Just one of more than 50 people who will be on the public payroll 'til they die. That's bad enough, but these 'numpties' will be influencing legislation in the UK for decades. Other 'worthies' whom Gordon Brown has foisted upon us as life-long legislators include John Reid, Helen Liddell and Des Browne. Thanks for nothing, Gordon!

Diane Abbott MP, Labour's 'joke' leadership candidate

I don't share many (if any) of her views on life, or politics, or anything at all really, from what I have been able to gather from her many media appearances, but I have always liked her and found her good value on television - she has got charisma, is usually a good and confident TV performer, and she comes across as being quite a likeable character. When it was first revealed some years ago that she was sending her child to a fee-paying school, however, whilst being politicially-opposed to the very concept of private education, and she was questioned about it on an edition of This Week at the time by Andrew Neil, the flaws in her character and her stance on politics were thrown into particularly high relief. Still, she was always good for a laugh - she has a good sense of humour most of the time, except when questionned on her 'socialism' and her 'hypocrisy'.

Now, when I heard her seemingly off-the-cuff announcement on the Today programme several weeks ago that she was going to stand as a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party, like many people I was monentarily slack-jawed with amazement (even though I was still lying in bed at the time), but after a few moments I thought, well why not? She is an articulate woman (with impractical ideas, granted), she is from an ethnic minority - and she would certainly be a breath of liveliness and jollity, compared with the other candidates who were mostly from the same, boring 'party apparatchik' mould.

Over the past few weeks, since her leadership candidacy was announced she has, however, been given a relatively easy ride. As a regular commentator on the This Week programme for a number of years I think she must have accepted last evening's invitation to appear, after an 'hiatus' there of several weeks because of the General Election and her own subsequent Labour leadership candidacy, under the fond illusion that her 'grilling' by Andrew Neil would somehow be more gentle. I am very glad to say that this was definitely not the case! Andrew Neil asked her some very tough questions, to some of which she waffled in making a poor attempt at giving convincing replies, whilst with others she simply refused to make any sensible response at all. I 'tweeted' about this extensively last night whilst the programme was being broadcast (this is just one of my many 'tweers' about it last night). Diane Abbott was well and truly 'kippered' on last night's show and I'd say her leadership candidacy is not now just unlikely to succeed (as it always was), but a complete joke! Watch it and see for yourself:



(By the way, it was highly instructive to catch occasional camera-shots of Michael Portillo remaining completely silent and attempting to keep his face devoid of expression during Neil's verbal evisceration of his couch-mate.)

Margaret Thatcher at No 10 - what a difference almost three years makes!

This visit today is a vastly more pleasing sight:


- than was this bizarre visit in September 2007:


in my humble opinion.

In today's photograph, both participants look reasonably happy. In the photograph from 2007 the impression given is not one of 'joy' on either side, or so it seems to me.

The Labour Party - such [un]lovely people

I thought I should put the 'un' in the title in square brackets, because I wanted to avoid any possibility that the irony of calling these people 'lovely' might have been miscontrued by someone (most probably a humourless Labour drone) as reflecting my true opinion. That little matter cleared up, there's a really good article in yesterday's Times by Rachel Sylvester and she has some fantastic attributions of remarks made by various of the Labour Party 'players', which one presumes are all true - I strongly suspect they are, though. Read the whole article, but here are just a few of the juicier bits, which help to illustrate the disfunctionalities, rivalries and petty squabbles of this deeply-unpleasant bunch of people who have driven the UK economy into the ground by their inept management and flawed policies.

Her first quote is from John McDonnell, the 'left-winger' who is one of the leadership candidates (the one whom late-announcing candidate Dianne Abbott charmingly suggested could not get sufficient support for his nomination to go forward) referring to most of the other 'white Oxbridge-educated men in their forties who were special advisers in 1997' as:

".... the sons of Blair and sons of Brown"

A former Labour Minister is quoted as saying, of the two favourites [who] are brothers [and] who grew up in a rarefied left-wing intellectual bubble in Primrose Hill, North London, went to the same school, read the same subject at the same Oxford college and, until a few years ago, lived in the same house, divided into flats, [that it] is more than a little incestuous:

"It is weird, I can’t imagine standing against a sibling. I told them both — just decide between you — but they didn’t. I don’t really understand why."

Interestingly, and in the only mildly positive remark I have ever read about one of the other leadership candidates, Ed Balls, Raches Sylvester writes that he: 'became increasingly frustrated with Mr Brown in the run-up to the election' - a sentiment one can well understand! Even more damning, of Gordon Brown, is when she writes that: 'Ed Miliband once deleted his number from Mr Brown’s phone because he was so fed up with being rung at all hours'. So it is not just people like me, who are no admirers of Labour generally, or of Gordon Brown in particular, who think of Gordon Brown as an obsessive and unpleasant 'weirdo'!

Of course it is true that Labour passed numerous pieces of legislation favourable to the LGBT community over its 13 years in power and I have always acknowledged this in my blog and elsewhere and that the Conservatives have often been decidedly lacking (i.e. at best 'recalcitrant' and at worst plain 'homophobic') in this area. So it is interesting that one of the leading-lights in the Labour 'spin machine' for many years, and reportedly a 'friend' of Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, referred to ' Mr Blair, Mr Brown and Lord Mandelson as the "three poofs". ' - obviously the tolerance that allowed the legislative changes to happen doesn't extend far below the surface and certainly not amongst the 'thuggish' tendency that Campbell represents - and let's not forget that some of those changes happened only because the Labour government was forced into doing so as a result of rulings against the UK by the ECHR.

In any case, whilst the 4-month leadership contest may well provoke considerable amusement amongst bystanders, it is unlikely to be of great relevance in the governance of the UK as the likelihood of Labour returning to power any time soon is probably quite small and by the time it might do so there will be a new generation of Labour apparatchiks and the present group will be mere footnotes in history [... I hope].

The Conservative-LiberalDemocrat agreement

The agreement signed yesterday between the Conservative and LiberalDemocrat parties to frame their relationship in the new ruling coalition has now been published and can be downloaded here.

This initial agreement document is not very long and is worth reading in full. Of particular interest to me (although other parts of the document are of great importance, too) is point 10., which covers the broad issue of Civil iberties and I quote this section below in full:

Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations Agreements reached 11 May 2010 - 10. Civil liberties The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion. This will include: A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill. The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database. Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission. The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency. Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database. The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury. The restoration of rights to non-violent protest. The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech. Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. Further regulation of CCTV. Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason. A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

If these plans are carried through, and I hope they are implemented fully and rapidly, it will be nothing less than the destruction of the 'Police State' the previous Labour government has been busy implementing these part 13 years.

Quite apart from all the other sensible and pragmatic matters touched upon in the Coalition agreement, the section on 'Civil Liberties' does it seems to me justify a special celebration!

Her Majesty the Queen invites David Cameron to form a government

David Cameron visited Buckingham Palace yesterday, where Her Majesty the Queen invited him to form a new government, appointing him as Her Prime Minister to succeed Gordon Brown who had just tendered his resignation:



Whilst I am tremenduously pleased that the period of uncertainty seems to be over, the task ahead of David Cameron, the Conservative Party and their coalition LiberalDemocrat partners is daunting. Recovering from 13 years of Labour government and its mismanagement and squandering of the nation's resources will take many years, clear thinking and determination. I wish the new Government luck - their limited initial popularity is likely to take a severe beating in coming months as the austerity measures they are likely to announce become clear and start to take effect.

The public and the private faces of Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown today shot himself and the Labour Party in the foot quite badly - it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I didn't relish seeing the man exposed for the two-faced person he is. On the basis that nothing is more instructive than seeing and hearing what actually happened today, I am embedding the video-clip which Guido has kindly put up for all our 'edification' (and frankly, amusement):

- I watched the full exchange between Mr Brown and Mrs Duffy earlier today and indeed it seemed to be a friendly-enough encounter. She is obviously a long-standing Labour supporter (hardly surprising, I expect, in a town such as Rochdale) and her questions about the 'national debt' were obviously those of someone who has probably 'scrimped and saved' for everything throughout her life and is worried about the futures of her grandchildren. I share her concerns too abouut the profilgate expansion of the national debt that has occurred under Gordon Brown's 'watch'!

On the 'Eastern European immigrants' question, she expressed a pretty conventional view amongst many working-class people, those most affected by the large number of people from new EU member states to came to the UK soon after they joined, because the UK was one of the very few existing member states that did not impose a 'transitional period' of controlled movement for work on citizens of new member states. People like me weren't very much affected by the large numbers that came in, apart from being able to find people to do things like plumbing and carpentry more easily than before. I must also be completely honest here - I supported the decision to allow immediate free movement and deplored the decision of other existing EU member states to inhibit it. It was one of the very few decisions of the Labour government (along with our participation in the 'liberation' of Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his sons) that I thought good. Whilst I haven't fundamentally changed my opinion on either matter, I now accept that both had ramifications that I did not foresee at the time, in the case of the 'Eastern European immigrants' question probably affecting people like Mrs Duffy's family much more than people like me. In other words the much-touted core Labour supporters.

What today's incident laid bare is what Gordon Brown really thinks about the 'little people' who put Labour in Downing Street (nobody put Gordon Brown himself there, except the pusillanimous Parliamentary Labour Party). If the man had kept his mouth shut, or switched his microphone off, his 'sucking-up' to Mrs Duffy on-camera would have shown him in a very favourable light to those likely to vote for Labour next week, but his in-car comments revealed what he really thinks of people like Mrs Duffy. It is not attractive, but it is the truth. Nick Robinson, the BBC political correspondent, implied on-camera today that this side of Mr Brown's character is not a surprise to people who know him - here is his perhaps somewhat more considered assessment.

UK inflation rate shows 'unexpected' rise

Unexpected to whom? Certainly not me! This latest news that UK inflation has risen to 3.4 per cent in March is, I fear, merely the beginning.

The 'wait-and-see' stance of the Bank of England I'm afraid illustrates to me that they are simply 'headless-chickens' peddling their spin furiously (to mix metaphors in quite an awful manner - so sue me!) because they know disaster is looming, but know that the mess the Labour government have got us into is going to get worse and they cannot see a way out. At least the BoE Monetary Policy Committee, whilst holding interest rates at 0.5 per cent, have decided not to pump yet more 'invented' cash into the economy, the so-called 'quantitative easing' mechanism. Thank goodness for small mercies!

I really cannot write any more about this, I am so angry. I've been boring on about it for months and years, much good it has done me, except perhaps to help let me blow off steam and possibly keep my blood pressure under some kind of control. The profligacy of both the Labour government and far too many individuals in taking on far too much credit is finally coming home to roost! One cannot, over the longer term, spend more than one is earning - the markets (not least the foreign exchange market) and inflation are the unavoidable 'corrective mechanisms' that are going to be unleashed on us once the election is over, whichever political party 'wins'; at least with the Conservatives there would be people in power with decent ideas for halting and eventually reversing the rot. But any politician who doesn't talk about the inevitable fiscal pain that most people are going to have to get used to post-election is merely kidding themselves and the electorate; time to 'tell it like it is'! Here are some of my posts on this topic over recent years:

18 June 2005 - We're all doomed ... at least potentially ... no, seriously!
16 August 2007 - Investment markets - to stay in or to sell...
16 July 2008 - The financial 'crisis' - to blog or not to blog
16 September 2008 - Bill's off again ... back to Spain (the title is relevant, trust me!)
30 October 2008 - What's really going on in the economy
10 November 2008 - Interest rates cut. Tax to be cut? Borrowing to go up?
15 December 2008 - Far from alone
28 February 2009 - The inflationary bubble that is being constructed
2 April 2009 - G20 result in summary - 'global quantitative easing'
1 July 2009 - Mr Gordon "0% increase" Brown
8 September 2009 - Labour forced to come clean over budget deficits
20 January 2010 - So inflation is kicking-off is it? Not a surprise given the idiotic policies of our Government!

As I wrote in the final article referenced above, it gives me no pleasure at all, indeed I am filled with considerable apprehension, when I write - I told you so!

I hope the electorate will remember this when they go to cast their votes on 6th May and punish the current Labour government with a crushing defeat! It would be absolutely wonderful if Gordon Brown were to be defeated in his own constituency - that would be some kind of poetic justice! Although I know it is probably unlikely, I can dream, can't I?

The Conservatives start to 'stick it' to Labour - and about time too!

At long last, some hard-hitting Conservative campaign ads. which high-light just how awful Brown (and before him Blair) and Labour have been for Britain:

One of Brown's first acts when Labour came to power in 1997 was to punish private sector pension schemes, transforming a very healthy pension industry into a basket case with huge deficits:



Brown has presided over a huge increase in the country's national debt and seems determined to continue borrowing to fund his mad politically-driven agenda:



Brown's much-vaunted "end to boom and bust" has produced the biggest bust/crash (or whatever you want to call it) in 80 years and brought with it catastrophe for younger people seeking jobs and a sound future:



These are apparently 3 of the 7 advertisements which Saatchi are producing for the coming fight for the country's future. The other 4 anti-Brown posters will cover the following topics:
- I let 80,000 criminals out early;
- I doubled the tax rate for the poor;
- I lost £6 billion selling off Britain's gold;
- I increased the gap between rich and poor.

It would be great to be able to say that some of these statements are inaccurate, but the horrible truth is that they are but a few examples of the havoc caused by Brown and Labour, which the Conservatives will once more have to sort out (just as they had to do when they last took power in 1979 after an earlier period of gross Labour mal-administration).