It's Me Human Riots, Innit?

Dwayne, 21, from Weston-super-Mare, is reading Immediate Gratification Studies at Keele University. He is pictured here at Millbank Tower, on his way to lobby his Member of Parliament.

Chief Inspector Lee Feckless, of the Metropolitan Police, defended his officers' stand-off tactics, saying "at this moment in time, and being mindful of the danger of the situation escalating, my officers were instructed to apply for triple time and start filling in a few forms ahead of what will be a busy period for them tomorrow, when they will be filing trauma reports and seeking time off on full pay to try try to come to terms with what all of us can agree has been a very difficult situation".

Banker VV Idle, of Mayfair, a passer by, said: "Personally, I'd give them a ten minute warning and then run the bastards down with mounted police and batons. Some of the chaps at work have suggested water canon with indelible ink, others have suggested tear gas and stun grenades. No one thinks that these people are really students, or that if they are, that there is any possible chance of them turning into productive members of society. One of our brightest young bankers suggested swapping them for intelligent, industrious and well-meaning immigrants who would like to enter this country, which we all agreed would be a double net benefit. An older colleague suggested shipping them to a remote Hebridean island and leaving them to fight each other like Lord of the Flies."

David Cameron is abroad.

Big Mistake

Boris reaches the parts that other Conservatives do not reach. This seems uncontestable, as measured by his victory in the London mayoral election and the wide spread of those votes. Sure, he pisses off some Tories with his inconsistencies and stunts (let alone being a shagger extraordinaire and therefore a cad to his long-suffering wife), but he has an ability that so obviously eluded Cameron at the last election- that of being able to secure a majority from a broad constituency.

One of the things that people like about Boris is that he is not overly political - he jumps in with both feet instead of dilly-dallying on the edge like so many politicians who are terrified of upsetting even a tiny minority.

But he has made a mistake over housing benefit and exacerbated it by using imagery which is just bonkers. With next year's re-election in mind, he has made a fool of himself. Kosovo-style social cleansing, my foot! Doubtless his quick mind hadn't quite approved it for compliance purposes as he started blurting it out, and he will have to retract this in toto, and issue an apology, I'll wager.

Here is the public opinion on the matter:

"...An ICM poll in June asked: "Do you support or oppose imposing a maximum weekly limit of £400 on Housing Benefit." Support was 68% with 23% opposed. Even among Labour voters there was strong support - by 57% to 35%.
A YouGov poll in August asked: "Here are some policies the coalition government have announced in their first hundred days. For each one please say if you oppose or support it?" Among them was: "Putting a limit on housing benefit." 72% expressed support. 17% said they were opposed. Again even among Labour voters there was strong support - by 53% to 35%."
(ConHome, Harry Phibbs)

Boris still sees himself as PM after Cameron, or certainly harbours such ambition. Well, if he makes it, it will be as leader of a party other than the Tories; he cannot have improved his appeal to those outside London with this stunt.

Digging Deep

Is it just me, or have our allies in Chile made a damn site better fist of this rescue than we might have done? The Minister for Mines (is his name really Laurence Fishburne?) appears competent, genuine and speaks better English than most residents of Blighty. He's pulled it off.

One's heart bleeds for the miner whose wife AND mistress were both waiting patiently at the top of the shaft, and became aware of each others' identity for the first time just days ago. Tricky reconciliation there, one fears.

The country which had the good sense to topple its Marxist leader and appoint Milton Friedman as economic consultant in 1973 has been an exemplar to the other basket case economies of South America for decades. This is why I like the country instinctively and am not surprised by its great feat of the past two months.

Red hot, Chile!

Baleful

Brilliant solo performance.

Peta, 23, from Essex

I am considering employing Peta in my investment advisory department. She has many of the attributes that some of our male entrepreneurial clients find attractive in a private banker.

And she is well briefed on precious metals' market behaviour.

I dare say she can provide a couple of tips for our clients that they will find most persuasive.

Feel free to add your own puns in the comments thread.

H/T FT Alphaville

An Extract From the Book:

‘I had started jogging regularly out of Downing Street. Occasionally I happened to jog past a hooker standing on the same street corner. With some apprehension I would brace myself as I approached her for what was most certainly to follow.

"Fifty quid!" she would shout from the kerb.
"No way, 50p!" I fired back.

This ritual between myself and the hooker continued for days. I'd run by and she'd yell, "Fifty quid!" And I'd yell back "50p!"

One day however Cherie decided that she wanted to accompany me on my jog. As we jogged nearer the problematic street corner, I realised the "pro" would bark her £50 offer and Cherie would wonder what I'd really been doing on all my past outings. I realised I’d need to have a damn good explanation for my illustrious lawyer wife. As we jogged into the turn that would take them past the corner, I became even more apprehensive than usual. Sure enough, there was the hooker. I tried to avoid the prostitute's eyes as she watched the pair of us jog past.

Then, from the pavement, the hooker yelled:
"See what you get for 50p?"

Road to Nowhere - a Compo

Idle lay in his bath this morning, listening to his 'Desert Island' playlist on his iPod speakers. About five songs in, up came 'Road to Nowhere' by the estimable Talking Heads.

Later on, in the car, someone mentioned Kensal Green on Radio 4. I have never been to Kensal Green, but I know about the cemetery, it being the closing destination in that utterly fabulous paean to England's unstraight roads by GK Chesterton. For those who don't know it, here it is (and it's no hardship for those who do know it):

The Rolling English Road

Before the Roman came to Rye or out to Severn strode,
The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road.
A reeling road, a rolling road, that rambles round the shire,
And after him the parson ran, the sexton and the squire;
A merry road, a mazy road, and such as we did tread
The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head.

I knew no harm of Bonaparte and plenty of the Squire,
And for to fight the Frenchman I did not much desire;
But I did bash their baggonets because they came arrayed
To straighten out the crooked road an English drunkard made,
Where you and I went down the lane with ale-mugs in our hands,
The night we went to Glastonbury by way of Goodwin Sands.

His sins they were forgiven him; or why do flowers run
Behind him; and the hedges all strengthening in the sun?
The wild thing went from left to right and knew not which was which,
But the wild rose was above him when they found him in the ditch.
God pardon us, nor harden us; we did not see so clear
The night we went to Bannockburn by way of Brighton Pier.

My friends, we will not go again or ape an ancient rage,
Or stretch the folly of our youth to be the shame of age,
But walk with clearer eyes and ears this path that wandereth,
And see undrugged in evening light the decent inn of death;
For there is good news yet to hear and fine things to be seen,
Before we go to Paradise by way of Kensal Green.
GK Chesterton

So, my requirement for the compo subject was finally revealed: I want geography, or topography, or directions, or sign posts, or being lost. Or found, perhaps. Thoroughfares, byways, dead ends and tracks that peter out. But I don't want travel, per se, nor do I want modes of transport. Chesterton didn't spoil his masterpiece by talk of cars or trains and I don't see whay you lot should either.

Clerihews probably don't spring to mind for this one, but be my guest if you want. Epics, limericks, sonnets, haikus. There is room for them all.

You have a week at least. Tell your friends, not so much because I want traffic on this blog, more because a big entry will make it more amusing for all of us. There will be a prize.

More on The Coward

Another letter to the Telegraph with vital information about The Coward:

SIR – I must take issue with Quentin Smith (Letters, August 24). The “Coward” on the Stock Exchange, Lionel Frisby, had not only the MC but also the DSO. His brother, Cyril, however, had the VC.

Mark Ferguson
Wonston, Hampshire

Nicknames

I love nicknames. I rarely call people by their given names and most colleagues get a nickname whether they like it or not.

Often, the harshest nicknames are the best and most endearing. The Telegraph has had a good run of letters about nicknames over the past week. Today's main letter is a peach:

SIR – Those with experience of the old Stock Exchange floor will readily recall some of the nicknames (Letters, August 22) bestowed upon its habitués.
Among them were two brothers, both with highly distinguished military careers and both winners of the Military Cross, one with bar and one without.
The latter acquired the sobriquet of “The Coward”.

Quentin Smith
Dunley, Hampshire

Tally Ho!

Sorry, readers. I nipped out for a quick fag and a pint on June 1st and suddenly the whole summer has flown by in a blur of music events, sport, the Turf, much drinking and the luxury of a three week summer holiday in France.

After being away for so long, the challenge of restarting the old blog machine was oddly challenging. Alceste, who comments in this manor, suggested a compo, which has cured bloggers' block in the past. I will probably use that ploy in a few days.

But first, the chaps in light blue. It was splendid to perform my morning shave today listening to the complete, unedited speech by Churchill that the Today programme re-ran. I was almost tempted to miss the upper lip and start fashioning a raffish fighter pilot moustache. Had I any Brylcreme, I might have slicked the barnet. Even taken up pipe-smoking for a day. Well done, lads; a magnificent show.

Here is the Spectator's editorial on the speech. It seems quaint, in this modern age of warfare, to read about aircraft production and borrowing destroyers from America. Pity that Blair and his succession of useless Defence Secretaries didn't think about armoured Landrover production, or kevlar body armour production, or night goggles, or boots that could cope with rocky desert, etc etc. Still, at least those expensive new chairs in the MoD were comfy.

Mr Churchill Looks Ahead

The Spectator, 23 August 1940

Mr Churchill surpassed even his own masterpieces of lucid and spirited exposition in his speech on Tuesday, in which he surveyed the first year of the war and the last exciting days of victory in the air and looked fearlessly into the future. During the previous fortnight, and especially during the previous week, the nation had become aware of the fact that the intensified air attack was part of that onslaught on Britain whose approach was trumpeted in Germany. It might be no more than a preliminary to bigger attacks to come, but none the less it has been evident that so severe a defeat in an opening engagement, inflicted by the incredible skill and daring of the R.A.F., could not be without its effect on the whole campaign, whilst the destructive attacks by our bombers on the bases and industrial centres of the enemy proved that our capacity was as great in offensive as in defensive operations.
These spectacular triumphs achieved by a relatively small number of flying-men had already heartened the people and nerved them to endure the casualties which must be a consequence of even unsuccessful raids. But it was left to Mr. Churchill to put these events in their wider perspective and to indicate with authority and vision the grounds for confidence in the future. There was a superb but reasoned assurance in his conviction that the British Empire, though confronting the combined power of Germany and Italy, is capable of bringing the war to a victorious conclusion. He alluded ironically to the new German threat of "total blockade," and affirmed our own intention to maintain and enforce a real blockade of Germany, Italy, France, and all the countries that are occupied by the enemy. He dismissed the pleas of those who asked that food should be sent to France or other occupied countries on the grounds that it was for Germany to organise the food supplies that she had disorganised, and that to allow food to go to the subject peoples would be to help the enemy.
This is an argument the force of which is fully appreciated in the United States. No less satisfying to them and to us is the statement that the interests of the United States and of the British Empire both require that the former should have facilities for the naval and air defence of the Western Hemisphere, and that this country will be glad to afford these by leasing suitable sites in the Western Atlantic to be fortified and defended by them. He refrained from linking up this question in any way with the suggestion that America should send us old destroyers and other vessels. That was wise. In such a matter there should be no thought of striking a bargain. Co-operation, to the utmost that either side feels free to offer, is profoundly to be desired – and Mr Churchill has not disguised the fact that we should be glad of their destroyers. But to attempt to achieve such a result under the constraints of a deal would be the wrong sort of approach to this or any similar problem.
Mr Churchill reminded us that it is not in our hearts only that we have been fortified. In preparing our defences immense advances have been made in the short time that has elapsed since Dunkirk. Our aircraft production now surpasses that of Germany. The Army is growing in strength and equipment with every day that passes. Both the Navy and the mercantile marine are stronger than at the beginning of the war. The forces that we are piling up – numbers of trained men ever-increasing in proportion to the increasing supplies of warships, aircraft, tanks, cannon, machine-guns and rifles – are for the moment acting mainly on the defensive, but not without an offensive in the air which is dealing smashing blows at the very sources of German power and an offensive at sea which maintains the blockade. But though at this stage the defensive is necessarily our first pre-occupation it will not always be so, nor perhaps for long. Behind us is not only the vast potential of our expanding war industries but that of the Empire, and in addition the expanding output of friendly America. We are prepared for invasion now with the confidence borne of resolution and knowledge of strength, and the same knowledge gives us equal confidence of our ability during the next year or two to carry the war against the enemy to a victorious conclusion.

Badduns, All

Idle has advice for both sides in the Battle of Bad PR.

To the 'humanitarians': running blockades is risky. Running Israeli blockades is suicidal. Blame yourselves. If you REALLY mean to do it, next time take a couple of destroyers and a frigate or two, and make sure you have air cover (but nb this is still unlikely to work and will result in singed beards and smoking sandals).

To the Israelis: attacking any ship in international waters is very very stupid. Remember that the international press are all more or less Jon Snow in political outlook. You have the means at your disposal to annihilate a flotilla of 'humanitarians' in approx 30 seconds when they DO enter your waters, so next time, wait. Then show some restraint. Don't make so much of the world hate you even more than they do already.

To Israel's enemies: acknowledge their right to exist. Otherwise this will go on for ever. And if Ehud Barak becomes PM again and offers the Pals a deal anywhere near as good as Camp David 2000, grab it and run like buggery all the way back to Gaza and the West Bank.

To Israel: acknowledging your right to exist does not mean that we like your horrible methods and heartless attitudes. You can win your long term peace and security only if you play fair, which you almost never have done.

Houses A Both On Plague Your (rearrange for a popular phrase).

The First Test

No, not the Bangladeshis at Lord's, where idle will repair at noon for that quarterday in a chap's social life - Friday lunch at the Lord's test.

No, the first test for Cameron. Two tests rolled into one, if you like:

Does he have the mettle to stick to his word with the Liberals and pursue his iniquitous tax-grab on CGT, despite the principled and intelligent opposition to it from his own backbenchers, formidably marshalled by Davis and Redwood?

Or does he wake up, face a blast of fresh air, and come to his senses - and realise that Conservative principles on tax are based on logic and common sense rather than envy, chippiness and venality?

As Colbert said, "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

Well, the 50% income tax rate, higher National Insurance, increased VAT, IHT, ludicrously high duties on petrol, alcohol and tobacco - all this he already has. There has been much less hissing than I think he deserves, frankly.

Capital Gains Tax, remember, is levied on gains in capital THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED. It has been saved and put to a good use in most cases - providing equity to the wealth creating enterprises that depend upon it. This, I submit, is a better thing for the country than buying a giant plasma screen telly imported from Korea for your study or childrens' playroom.

Furthermore, the government can double-dip or triple-dip on CGT, as assets inevitably get turned over every few years. Taper relief used to prevent re-taxation, but taper relief went when the rate was reduced to a bearable 18%.

I could go on, but actually there is only ever one question to ask about any change to any tax: will it make money?


The answer, as your intuition told you, is that raising CGT rates results in lower revenue. We all know our Laffer Curve, do we not? The graph here relates to America, but the point is made.

Cameron is simply going to have to get a grip of this. We didn't wait 13 years for sensible Conservative fiscal policy to end up with this crap.

David Laws, who is obviously a Tory at heart and far brighter than Osborne, might be the man to break it to Cleggy and Compo-Cable: posturing as a Man of the People, when following stupid and counterproductive policies, is no way to run a railway.

The guiding light to all of this shower should be the Redwood Dictum:

"We didn't get into this mess by not taxing people highly enough, we got into this mess by spending too much".

Cut hard, cut soon; you will be doing it into a modest economic upswing. Disregard the socialists who say it will harm the economy - it won't. Impose a public sector hiring freeze and the state payroll will reduce by 300,000 each year. Impose public sector pay freezes and tell them they're bloody lucky not to be facing an Irish haircut of 15% of pay and benefits. Identify the white elephants and cut them completely, right away. Climate change guff for starters; quangos; overseas aid to nations with cash surpluses; ban civil service bonuses immediately; set up a Royal Commission for public sector employment - what do they all do, and why? Digby Jones, who worked for Brown's government and then resigned, said that he never came across a single government department or team that couldn't have done its job with half the personnel. It has the ring of truth about it.

PS Christ, the Dissolution Honours and Working Peers list makes one weep. Sir Ian Blair, for chrissakes. Paul Boatinglake. Prezza, the prize twerp. Quentin bleeding Davies. Jeesus. Dissolute Honours, more like.

Chesterton, as ever, had it right:

Prince, Bayard would have smashed his sword
To see the sort of knights you dub--
Is that the last of them--O Lord
Will someone take me to a pub?

Don't Say You Weren't Warned

Here are two pictures taken of a politician in Norway. Which one is Cameron? And which one Quisling?

One of them, you will remember, is a byword for a traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.

The other one is Vidkun Quisling.


ps I do not mean to say that Cameron is a traitor to his country. But for 'the enemy' I mean socialist LibDems, for 'country' I mean party. The cost of LibDem support to the Conservative Party will be to shaft the Tory middle class voters in a way that even Brown would applaud, were he not a dishonest unpleasant dog in the manger.

Polecat Update

Norman is like Marmite - few are ambivalent about him. Idle, of course, considers him to be a brave and principled man of great common sense and no little understanding of the working man. Like his doughty Prime Minister, he came from humble stock, worked hard, was a public servant and patriot far beyond the call of duty, and deserves huge credit for doing so much of the heavy lifting of the 80s and early 90s which allowed Blair and the disastrous Brown to pump up the bubble we so recently saw burst.

You might be surprised that he sees more to agree with than not in the Grand Coalition Five Year Plan. I think he articulates it pretty well.

One thing he does not mention is liberty, though it is never far from his thoughts, arch Eurosceptic that he is. Then again, the agreement doesn't shed much light on the subject. But we do know, because they have said so, that both Con and Lib agree that hundreds of petty interfering unenforceable laws introduced by the intolerant and fascistic Blair and Brown might get cut in a big repeal bill. Well, let's hope so. Mark Steyn, who writes so well on this subject, puts his opinion here. If the Cameregg government claims to sense the public mood, they will deal with this idiocy. Nick Herbert's appointment as police Minister, with his appetite for reform, is a good step.

It's not all bad, this coalition. Into each life a little rain must fall, and after the biblical deluge of the past 13 years, we must try not to be too discouraged by the drizzle that a soft-left ConLib government promises us. There may even be sunny intervals, during which idle proposes to score many Gower-like runs at the crease and then celebrate with rosé or good ale. I wonder if I can reproduce a moment as memorable as THAT catch last year?

The End of the Brown Terror

And Cameron Must Score! He shoots! He........

....... Well, you know the rest.

Tempted as one is to vent one's spleen over the whole bloody disaster, I will try to limit myself to a few observations and point you in the direction of those who have been energetic enough to write down their reactions on Friday and Saturday.

Idle went through the night with a dozen good friends a few miles up the road. We drank good champagne in anticipation of victory, thinking we deserved it, and drank it again at 5.30am when it became clear that the Great Cameron Liberal Appeasement Gamble had failed - this time, we needed it. At 6.15 I went home, showered and shaved, and climbed not into bed, but aboard a London train. Bloody Marys and beef 'n horseradish sarnies at the Cavalry Club revived me, and after making a poor fist of a meeting with a plutocratic property man, returned home. What struck me was that I don't remember hearing anyone laugh all day.

It is clear that, if governing Britain for the term of the next Parliament was going to be a thankless task in any event, doing it with the LibDems tying your shoelaces together and balancing buckets of water above the door into the Cabinet meeting room was hardly an improvement. They are an unprincipled and childish lot, who have never displayed a shred of consistency. Clegg is, I believe, inclined towards the Conservative Left and I see no reason why he should not eventually convert; St Vince, on the other hand, is a muddled old lefty who has flip-flopped like a freshly caught mackerel at almost every opportunity, whilst radiating faux sagacity and claiming foresight over almost everything imaginable. He, I think, is much more in tune with LibDem voters, who are well to the left of New Labour and (even) less pleasant. The point I am trying to make here is that Cameron should go it alone. He needs only to pass a budget, followed by a Queen's Speech in November. I reckon that he can get the Ulster Prods and Frank Field and Kate Hoey and one or two others to back him on this. Now that Labour is discredited, the sane ones can ignore the Brown thugs who call themselves Party Whips and vote with impunity. There are at least a dozen of them who will put nation before party.

Yet, it seems obvious that Dave is intent on building a coalition. It is becoming clear quite early on what is up for grabs. He surely cannot offer PR to Clegg, particularly in the light of Clegg's disastrous final week of campaigning and the damp squib of a loss of seats despite a marginal increase in his vote (which, given the Brown factor and the utter uselessness of the Labour government, eclipses even Cameron as Worst Result of the Night).

Low carbon mumbo-jumbo is IN, despite its cost and irrelevance (Delingpole writes less well when he is this angry, but I can see why he's fuming), whilst the ONLY good policy the tories had in their manifesto is in danger of being thrown OUT. I watched the estimable Michael Gove being interviewed by Marr this morning, and he appeared to have thrown in the towel; he agreed that if the price of coalition was his own job at Education, he'd give it to David Laws. Christ!

Europe will become a major consideration, despite its strange absence from the election campaign. The implosion of the Euro will be yet another feather in the cap of Thatcherism, yet another argument conclusively won. The Clarkeites and Howeites and Brittanites were in her own Cabinet, remember, and anything less than the iron backbone she displayed would have delivered this country to the European Central Bank and an economic fate that hardly bears thinking about. I have in mind a performance closer to Ireland's than Germany's, you understand.

The new intake of Tory MPs is, we hear, broadly Eurosceptic. The new boys might lack the cojones to defy the whips, but the government will recognise that the task of riot control over loss of sovereignty to Brussels has become much harder. Bill Cash and a handful of other patriots will be defeated on European issues, because Labour and Liberal alike will back any European stitch-up, but they will gain revenge when other crucial votes depend on every last Tory backwoodsman making it through the lobby. John Major thought he had his "bastards" - well, Cameron will have his, as well.

Psephologists are in heaven, with all the inconsistency of swing. Making sense of it all depends on one's pre-election prejudice, it seems. Those who like Cameron will demonise UKIP, and tot up the number of seats 'lost' to the UKIP vote. This is an impossible argument, given how difficult it is to judge how many Europhiles stuck with the Tories because of its 'safe' line on Brussels.

The most depressing statistic of them all is the 65% turnout. I was at a dinner party a week before the election, where a reasonably intelligent and pleasant woman told me that there would be a huge turnout. I asked her what figure she had in mind and it was clear that she didn't know what a normal turnout was. She had a stab at 80% for this election and I was able to strike a bet at 'below 70%', which I knew, of course, was a winner. Not a bet worth collecting.

So, we remain where we were in 2001 and 2005 - all those voters who have ceased voting. They have never had such a wide array of choices from the minor parties, so we must conclude that they want an identifiable Big party of the Left, and the same for the Right. Not, as presently exists, three parties trying to get into the same telephone box.

It might start happening on one side at least. John Cruddas wants to take his party back to antediluvian Proletarian Socialism, and may even get his chance now that Brown is dead and the favourite to take over is an effete North London would-be intellectual social-angst merchant (that'd be YOU, Miliband senior).

There is, of course, no hope for a recognisable Conservative party for a while yet. Had Dave failed on a bigger scale, and the Clegg march towards 80 seats taken place, there would now be schism in the Tory party, and after a short but bloody war, a strong party of the right would form and prepare itself for government in 10 years time. For now, we must hold our noses and mutter small thanks every now and again that Dawn Primarolo and Ed Balls are no longer ministers of the Crown.

This country is in a pickle of its own making. The idle and feckless proportion of the white working class with its welfare dependency is culpable, as is the spineless centrist voter who knows that the medicine must be taken yet cannot bear to see the poor and disadvantaged having to swallow the vile stuff. No blame, it seems to me, attaches to the Right over our current mess, with the possible exception that they are still blamed for administering the medicine in the 1980s. Yet after the horrible Right had finished forcing the bitter unguent down the craw of the populace in the 80s, 14 million voted for Major in 92, more than Blair ever got - he won in 2001 with 10.7 million and 2005 with 9.6 million.

The least worst option this time was a Cameron victory, but being held to account, because of his small majority, by proper Conservatives within his party. Instead, he will be stretched between Redwood and Fox at one end of his coalition, and Hughes and Teather and his wife at the other. If you find this uncomfortable, too bloody bad, mate. If you campaign as a liberal democrat, it seems only fair to have to govern like one. You will discover the contradictions of the situation, if only because the markets will make them clear to you. Happy appeasing, old bean. What sweet irony that Boris is STILL the most powerful Tory in Britain. I dare say he is whistling in his bath, and with good reason.

All Over Bar the Shooting

Well, that's him cooked.

What a plonker. It has been clear since 1997 that he is a deeply unpleasant and intolerant man and that his attractiveness to his client state is based not upon any human qualities but upon his uber-socialist wealth distribution agenda and appetite for 65% of GDP to be his responsibility; any relaxation of government spending being "taking money out of the economy", as though the population keeping and spending a decent proportion of its own money was somehow unproductive to wealth creation and the sustainability of the country's economic footing.

Idle, having at first suggested a 40/30/20 split between Con/Lab/Lib (and then recanted), now inclines towards his earlier prediction, except that Clegg now occupies the silver medal position on the podium (in itself, a laughable concept).

Must be Dave's lucky day.

What Have You Done, Dave?

Right of centre government in Britain is on the brink of extinction. The massive swing from Cameron to Clegg, if sustained, will result in a hung parliament in which Labour, coming third with 28% of the vote, would still most likely be the largest party. The Liberals can expect to win seats from both Tories and Labour, whilst losing only a few in Southern England to the Tories.

Clegg, now almost sure to be the next Foreign or Home Secretary, will sell his favour and support very dearly. It is inconceivable that he will not make proportional representation a minimum requirement. This means that, in the least complicated of PR systems, a share of vote of 50% would be required to win a majority in Parliament. But we will get a more complicated version, won’t we? A system that somehow safeguards regional fiefdoms of Labour, such as the North East, Merseyside, the Scottish cities, Manchester and Birmingham.

Now, you may say that Clegg is a moderate and can do business with Cameron’s Conservatives; that Clegg was a contributor to the Orange Book in 2004 (remember that? – “The book - which is edited by the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, David Laws - has just been published, and (among other things) calls on the party to be pro-market, Eurosceptic, and to partially privatise the NHS. It was written by various "reformist" MPs, including Mark Oaten and Vincent Cable.” Independent); that Clegg appears to be a realist. Well, let’s put it this way: does Clegg have more in common with the ‘successful’ era of the Conservatives, ie Thatcherite reforms, common-sense commercial efficiency and customer-orientation imposed upon government services, tough negotiations with Europe, defence of the realm in the Falklands? Or does he have more in common with the ‘successful’ era of the Labour party, ie the first two terms of Blair: tacit acceptance of Thatcher’s reforms, but a clandestine subversion of efficient government by channelling public money in record volume to favoured regions and ministries, whilst dismantling the “establishment” and replacing it with cronies?

Remember, for most of the Blair years, the Liberals had indulged in policies that were seen to be to the Left of Labour. Even if the Orange Book put an end to such nonsense, the party found itself with a support base that actually BELIEVED such drivel. The ascent of Brown has allowed Clegg to regain the ‘Centre’ position, whilst also claiming to be (because of the 90 years it has been out of power) ‘not like the two same-old parties’.

Furthermore, Brown is unlikely to be the recipient of Clegg’s largesse. If he is to share power in a Lib Lab pact, would he wish to report to Brown, vile bully that he is, or a more moderate, flexible and forward-thinking bloke like Miliband? The latter, obviously. Better still, Alan Johnson, who is known to be in favour of PR. Truly, Clegg can be kingmaker next month.

Clegg will go with the socialists unless the Tories are overwhelmingly the largest party in a hung Parliament, which looks unlikely. You may say there would have to be another election within six months, but this seems time enough for the Liberals to exact the ultimate revenge for all those years of slights from the two main parties – electoral reform to ensure that there is never – NEVER – another Conservative government in Britain, nor a Bennite Labour one.

Just a nice, consensual, liberal/social democrat Europhile Big Government, busying itself with the minutiae of our lives and charging us a hefty fee for doing so. Just like those in Western Europe. You know the ones – that have had very high structural unemployment for decades, sclerotic growth, that have porous borders, that appease rather than confront global miscreants, that dislike and distrust the Great Satan America, that are anti-semitic. Hey, they are so alike, they are pursuing political union, the practice of which is evident – an overbearing and only semi-accountable political elite bullying and cajoling bovine electorates into Big Government, Big Regulation, Big Taxation. The sort of thing a ‘Liberal Democrat’ just loves.

Seriously, folks, unless Dave shades it, which he neither threatens nor deserves to do, there will never be another right-of-centre, identifiably Conservative government again in this country. (No, I don't expect Dave to be right-of-centre or identifiably Conservative. But at least he'd keep the door open for someone who is).


UPDATE: Guido is more upbeat, fancying a civil union between the two modern metrosexual achingly with-it centrist parties.

No Planes, Full Trains and Expensive Automobiles

Idle was in Monaco last week, instead of Newmarket or the Aberdeenshire Dee. The sport, such as it was, involved the grunt of supercars rather than the poetry in motion of a Guineas-hopeful three year old thoroughbred, or the glory of playing a 20lb 'springer' from the bank of the Middle Dee.

Monaco was, well, Monaco. In other words, perfectly agreeable for two or three days, despite the concrete, most of the people (a sunny place for shady people, said W Somerset Maugham), the eye-watering cost of a bottle of decent rose, and (though less consequential), Rizla papers at a 500% mark-up on the cost in my newsagent. Dinners in a private salon in the Hotel de Paris were reassuringly expensive, as one would expect. Of course, the bank was paying for all but the Rizla papers, in anticipation of successful client meetings resulting in the conversion of plutocrat targets into plutocrat clients. If you find this all a little vulgar, console yourself that corporation tax, bonus tax and income tax will be tumbling into the bank accounts of NHS trusts up and down the country. The compact between the State and the banks is simple - depending on the cycle, politicians will either be brown-nosing bankers (that'd be you, Gordon, even with Lehman Brothers) whilst failing to regulate them, or cursing them roundly and VERY publicly, promising to tax them out of indignation and pique. But overall, politicians love banks to make huge profits, for tax income is the lifeblood of the spendthrift Chancellor.

But one bores of Monaco swiftly, and the prospect of being marooned there at crucifying expense was not a good one. Our mobiles buzzed with messages that our flights the next morning were cancelled. TGV and Eurostar had been fully booked for days. So, whilst quaffing shampoo and nibbles on Friday evening at the Empire Salon of the Hotel de Paris, overlooking an extraordinary array of supercars in Casino Square, it suddenly occurred to me that we needed a plan, and fast.

The concierge told us that hire-cars in Monaco had reached €3000 for a day, particularly if left at the other end of France. A taxi driver speculated that he could get us to Paris for €2700, but then decided he couldn't be arsed.

Resourcefulness was called for. Idle reckoned that there must be a few hundred hire cars at Nice airport with no incoming folk to pick them up. So, at 8.45pm in the Salon, we drained our glasses, cancelled dinner and went for it. Taxi to Nice Airport - 30 mins and €90. Rather modest 1.6L Opel estate - €316, to be left at Avis in Caen. 1280km, 8 and a half hours later, including several camera flashes but mercifully no gendarmerie, we sped into Caen in good time for the 0830 sailing to Portsmouth. My co-driver (2 hour stints) said the Opel managed over 200kmh downhill with a following wind on the autoroute, but I was kipping at the time and doubt it.

At Caen, we dropped the car at the station and took a taxi to the ferry terminal - €20. Lady Idle had booked the ferry online from home for us while we drove - €40 a head. On board, we found a restaurant - full English €9.60, and booked cabins with bogs and showers - another €40. The beds were made up and we managed 4 hours kip. Arrived on time, taxi to the station, train to Petersfield, wife picked up.

As we waited for the taxi at Caen, we talked to thers who had done the same from Barcelona, Madrid and Geneva. The local news this evening spoke to one determined bugger who had flown from Moscow to Istanbul, Istanbul to Spain, and driven the remainder. Dunkirk spirit, boys, Dunkirk spirit.

And the practical joke when we got back? That Cleggy, the oversexed Eurofanatic, having bullshitted his way through Thursday night with a bit of earnest charm and the odd well-thought-out oneliner, had not only breached the 20% ceiling for the LibDem vote, but was IN THE LEAD with 34%.

Cripes! I have been saying for the last year that the Cameron strategy of Liberal appeasement was a wrong-un, but evidence that it had crashed and burned quite so badly as this was unexpected.

I suspect that Cleggy's new popularity is a mile wide and an inch deep, and that he will get a nosebleed at this altitude, but a breakout poll, even if unsustained, tends to give bouyancy to a campaign. If I were a Tory candidate hoping to unseat a Lib in the Westcountry in three weeks, I would be bobbing like a turd on the Tamar.

The Idle prediction that the first poll after an election is called is a good indicator looks as safe as an Indonesian car ferry right now, but more twists and turns are surely in store. Does this country need a Lib Lab pact, keeping McBust in charge and spending money like a drunken city trader on bonus day, gifting his partners proportional representation, and ever-closer union with the corrupt and unaccountable Euro politcal 'elites'? Does it f#"k.

Brown Bombs in the Ring

The first poll I saw after the election was called was 40/30/19 in the Tories' favour, and this seems to me to be the likely outcome. The Budget was the last chance to produce a rabbit from the hat, and poor old Darling couldn't even produce a mixy one, so empty was the warren.

The danger for our disgusting PM and his ragged bunch of unconvinced Cabinet supporters was that, once the election was called and Brown no longer so much the Prime Minister, more an incompetent plumber trying to justify his expense and his handiwork, he would not be accorded a great deal of respect.

And so it has proved.

First, the number of CEOs and Chairmen of Britain's best known companies who were prepared to sign the letter making the obvious statement that increasing tax on jobs resulted in, err, less jobs, grew like a snowball. (So far, the Labour party has press-ganged one single business leader, the head of Standard Life, to support their stance. Strangely, he was a privatisation guru to Thatcher all those years ago). In the old days, you'd never have got this number on a letter, but these guys either already have their knighthoods or are happy to assume that Gordon won't be dishing out any more after his dissolution honours list, which seems unlikely, in the current climate of a suspicious electorate, to reward too many people involved in our economy.

Then there was the heckler who accorded the Glorious Leader not a shred of respect yesterday when he demanded why his children couldn't get into their choice of (non-selective) state school. Even called him 'Gordon'. Gordon slunk into his car like a deaf mute and gave no response. When asked the same question during a set interview later in the day, he answered a different question, as is his wont.

And then Humphrys this morning. Brown was treated with disdain. As an ex-PM, in fact. Or as a never-would-be-a-PM like dear old Smiffy in 2001/2. It was truly pathetic. He was pummelled. Couldn't get off the ropes. He could barely raise his hands high enough to defend himself.

He will stumble around the ring like this for another four weeks. He might not go down, but we will all feel like throwing the towel in on his behalf.

No more than 30% of the votes cast will accrue to Brown and his horrid bunch of venal losers.

Feeble - Thesaurus

Tories rule out more first year cuts
George Osborne has announced that the Conservatives would limit public spending cuts to £6.5bn in 2010-11 and no new cuts to existing budgets are planned for a year in his proposed emergency budget.

This £6.5bn, readers, whilst sounding like a lot of money, is approximately 1% of annual government spending.

1%. Jeeeesus. No more or less than a bloody rounding error. What planet are these wankers on? Which of us would consider that spending 99% in the next tax year of what we spent last year would amount to a "meaningful cut" during a financial crisis? Think of it in terms of your own household budget: what would you have to do to save a measly 1%? Would you notice?

Who, seriously, believes that 15-20% of government spending could not be axed without anything more than a few jobsworths being forced onto the labour market? Are there any amongst us who could justify the taxation of an honest worker who earns 1o grand a year, has this fact mulled over by hundreds of bureaucrats, who then hand the tax back as a "Tax Credit", having taken roughly a third of it as a handling charge?

We are in this crisis not because the government does not take enough in taxation. Oh no. We are in this crisis because the government spends too much of the nation's money. Forget about the bank bail-outs - large though they were, Lloyds is already showing a profit for the taxpayer (in-price below 64p), and we have been running a deficit every year since 2001. Osborne knows we spend too much, by a factor of about double, as does Cameron. But the strategy of liberal appeasement means that they dare not speak sensibly. They must spout gibberish, because our fellow Britons, when asked, opt for higher government spending and a reduction in personal liberty.

We will get the government we deserve on May 7th. And I will be ready to pack my bags for Geneva and do my work there if necessary.

Little George Osborne, deemed a few years ago to be the coming man of the Centre-Right. Yeah, right. Here is your online thesaurus for the word FEEBLE.

Main Entry: "FEEBLE"
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: not strong; ineffective
Synonyms:
aged, ailing, chicken*, debilitated, decrepit, delicate, doddering, dopey, effete, emasculated, enervated, enfeebled, etiolated, exhausted, failing, faint, flabby, flat, fragile, frail, gentle, helpless, impotent, inadequate, incompetent, indecisive, ineffectual, inefficient, infirm, insubstantial, insufficient, lame, languid, low, out of gas, paltry, poor, powerless, puny, sapless, sickly, slight, strengthless, tame, thin, unconvincing, vitiated, weak, weakened, weakly, wimpy, woozy, zero*

The Glow of Success

How pessimistic must one be to roll out a tangerine-coloured multi-millionaire non-dom compulsive liar warmonger to increase one's vote?

And did you HEAR him? Decorum prevents me from posting the video. But he's learned a thing or two on his bible tours of the Deep South, that's for sure. HOOOOOOOOOOLY Mother of GAAAAAAAWWWWD, that's for sure.

I have never understood why retired politicians can 'clean up' on the public speaking circuit. Who pays a grand a plate for what they have to say? Do they give the same speech a hundred times, or a hundred different speeches which are, basically, the same old same old? I'm more interested in politics than anyone I know and I have NEVER been asked to pay for rubber chicken and a re-fried speech from Bill or Tony or the other plutocratic wordsmiths. I don't even know anyone who HAS. True, I'm going to listen to Lamont at a Reform thinktank dinner after Easter, but only because it's work and I know the wine will be excellent.

This tosser believes he is the Messiah. Let's take him at his word and crucify the bastard.

You Couldn't Make it Up

Oh dear.

The sub-editor of the Times didn't seem to realise that his European correspondent was rather, shall we say, aptly named for the story he wrote about the ongoing shocking revelations of the Catholic church and buggery.

Look at who wrote this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece

One's first thought is that this has been doctored, but I have googled the author and he appears to be a kosher Times hack.

Other sites are having fun at his expense:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/26/boys_choir/

A Scientist Writes

Oxford University researchers have discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction (that would normally take less than a second) to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

Not Makin Bacon

This is an oldie but goldie. First went round in 2007, noticed by our friend Guido Fawkes.

I am pleased to count Nigel Johnson-Hill as a friend and neighbour. His razor sharp wit and splendid imagination for this letter was, and is, a joy.

Read it and laugh/weep. It encapsulates so much of what is wrong about this country.

Miliband was, in those far off days, the DEFRA secretary. Yes, a political wonk from the Chosen Race's enclave of North London, who had never been further out of London than Mill Hill, was the FARMING secretary. Gawd elpus!

Rt Hon David Miliband MP

Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Nobel House17 Smith SquareLondon SW1P 3JR

16 May 2007

Dear Secretary of State,

My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the “not rearing pigs” business.

In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven’t reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is – until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.

If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100?
I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?

Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don’t rear?
I am also considering the “not milking cows” business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?

In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits.

I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.

Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill

The Coming Schism

Readers of this blog might be surprised to hear that the louche and idle author of it was, until late January, a deputy chairman of his constituency's Conservative Association and Chairman of Trustees for the capital that underpins it (some loyal old bugger left the association a six figure sum a few years back, which hardly ever happens).

When I resigned, I did so with the Conservatives on average nine points in the lead and with a respectable working majority to look forward to. GDP from the last quarter of 2009 had been announced at +0.1%, which sounded like that Classic Brownism "a 0% increase", whilst America had bounced back at a fecund +5.7%. The 'news' that Brown was a foul-mouthed bastard who shouted and pushed and threw things was due to dominate the weekend papers. All in all, it seemed unlikely that Labour would start pegging back the Tory lead. Cameron, even if by default, would win. I was not a rat leaving a sinking ship, I felt. More like a rat on a floating ship who discovered that the other rats had started to pong a bit, and was happy to take his chance elsewhere. To git while the gitting was good, as an American cowboy would have it.

So I was asked why on earth I was resigning. Did I not want the Tories to win? Would victory not taste better if I continued to spend some of my spare time working for such an end? Was not the overthrow of the Brown Terror the one thing that simply had to happen?

Let me say at once that a Tory failure at the election would be a total fucking disaster. If you think that the way the country looks right now is bad, just wait until after another Labour election win, even if only as the largest party in a hung parliament. Sterling, interest rates, enterprise, job creation, tax receipts, public services all depend upon getting the Socialist incompetents out of power.

I resigned because, when I look at the Tory position on the size of the State, economic policy, Europe, climate science, the NHS, immigration, public sector pay and conditions, schools - well, I agree with only one of them. The last one, since you ask, and only then with the very big qualification that they made a monstrous fuckup over grammar schools and they are lucky to have Michael Gove riding to their rescue with a credible policy that champions the rights of parents and pupils and reduces the political grip of central state bureacrats.

I can just about vote for the Conservatives with a clothes peg on my nose, and doubtless I will do so in a few weeks' time. But I won't work for it. The frustration is simply too great. I would much rather offer criticism and praise from the sidelines, according to mood. It is not a good thing to be contemptuous of any organisation whilst an officer (however lowly) within it.

And whilst on the subject of contempt, how better to describe the attitude of Cameron towards his grassroot supporters? He takes them completely for granted, speaks over their heads, and thanks them not one bit for keeping the sandwiches coming and for re-filling the teapots during the dark years. He makes no attempt at all to stop them flirting with UKIP, let alone the BNP. Those millions who voted for Thatcher (even for Major in 92), but who NO LONGER VOTE - what of them? Does he try to encourage them back with a re-statement of the basic principles that transformed this country for the better after the disaster of late-70s Labour? He does not. He chases liberal votes, and does so brazenly. Some deluded folk think that he is a Tory in Liberals' clothing and will shed the cloak after an election win. Well he won't. He is a metropolitan liberal, on the left of the Tory party. The truth is, Cameron and his top table have much more in common with rootless West London professionals than they do with dentists or ditch-diggers or retired Colonels at the end of their drives in their rural constituencies. He is simply not an attractive choice for many of the old Conservative types who no longer vote. It is left to us (ex) Deputy Chairmen in the sticks to rally the troops. No longer.

The poll lead has more than halved, has all but disappeared in the Sunday Times this morning and there have been enough polls this week to suggest that this is not a freak. Momentum, unbelievably, is with Labour. Failure to beat this lot, as unpleasant, dishonest and incompetent as they are, would be an epic achievement. But don't let the Tories tell you that it is very difficult to unseat a ruling party, that the odds are stacked against them because of flaws in the Boundary Commission, that the message is clear but hasn't been put across well enough, yadda yadda....

The reason is that they are shit. They have pursued an idiotic strategy of liberal appeasement. No one who wanted a liberal, left-of-centre government ever voted Conservative. Why would they?

What this country needs is an identifiable right-of-centre political party. One that is not confused about where it stands on matters of sovereignty, democracy, the size of government, educational elitism, personal responsibility, sentencing and prisons, policing, immigration, the erosion of individual liberty.

No such party exists. But if, as seems increasingly likely, the utter pricks at the top of the Tory Party miss the open goal, then I will bet you a pint of Wadworth's 6X and a pork pie that such a party will be created. And it will transpire because the Right half of the Tory party and UKIP will create something that will immediately appeal to 30% of British voters and might, if well run, be at 35% for a 2014 election. If it appeals to those who have not voted since 1992, then make it 40%.

And I'll be a deputy chairman of a constituency association for the new party whenever anyone asks. And I won't resent a moment of spare time I give to it.

What Really Happened

This, a Taiwanese news channel's take on the Big Brown Bully case, is simply terrific. Watch the computer-animated thuggery.

This is proof, if ever there was proof! We can see him doing it! He's even wearing the correct tie! Arrest him now, appoint Lord Fondlebum of Boy as acting Prime Minister, and call an election before the Cameron poll lead, ricepaper-thin that it is, disappears completely.



Hat tip: Dizzy

R.I.P.

PIPER 23.3.96 - 15.2.10

Goodbye, old boy. You were a prince of a dog. You had a wonderful temperament; as good a housedog as it is possible to imagine. Brilliant in the rough, though occasionally a bit impatient at the peg, but I'll forgive you that. Gallant old lad that you were, you staggered on until your girls got back for half term. Happy hunting. We're going to miss you.

Confucius Say .....

..... if you can't find the book you are looking for, you are probably at the .......

Nelson: 20/20 Vision

"the Tories have adopted so many Labour policies out of tactical considerations that they are in danger of getting to office only to find they have signed up to continuing Gordon Brown’s agenda."

Fraser Nelson did the Keith Joseph Lecture this week. A dry old stick, Brother Keith (who was it who christened him The Mad Monk?) but not mad at all. A Grade A, Ocean-Going, Weapons Grade Conservative. He did the heavy lifting for the route out of the 1979 Labour Economic Disaster. Who will provide the road map this time?

Nelson's full text: http://www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/2010%20Keith%20Joseph%20Lecture%20-%20Winning%20is%20not%20enough%20by%20Fraser%20Nelson.pdf

Blogger's Block Compo

My days are spent in the relentless pursuit of gammon. At least that what I thought it said we should be chasing. My clients are puzzled but at least the price of pork bellies is holding firm. We are long.

Blogger's block? Run a haiku compo.

The Website you seek

Cannot be located, but

Countless more exist.

Do your best, or worst. Extra points for Brownisms. Or anything to do with Terry John, oikball player. Or the Pope's displeasure at having to have his fair share of bull dykes and promiscuous gays on the Catholic payroll in da YooKay.

The Labour Ad Men

Prepare for the 6th of May

By polishing turds

Royal Approval

One tries - by God one tries - to be supportive. The alternative to the monarchy is too awful to envisage. But I'll try: the popular vote would give us AntanDec, or Julie Walters, or Simon Cowell. Maybe Beckham. Joanna Lumley if we were very lucky. Stephen Fry if we were slightly less lucky. Tony bleeding Blair. You get the picture.

Better by far to have a settled succession. There will be a wrong 'un every now and again but not often.

I wouldn't call the Prince of Wales a wrong 'un, but he does have some rum views. Sometimes, these will carry the prospect of policy enactment, additions to the statute book, and massive prospective cost to the punter in the street, be he royalist or republican.

His views on man made climate change are a case in point. He runs a great danger of being on the wrong side of a deeply divisive debate. I think we know that he starts with his heart in the right place (unlike the politicos and scientists who have so much power and money to gain by blowing the Armageddon trumpet), but the implications for economic growth, employment, living standards and shared socialist misery are significant if he has got it wrong. The best place for him in this argument is as an honest broker with strong eco credentials, not as cheer-leader for the Big Government, Big Tax lobby.

What he certainly should NOT be doing is excusing the ratbags at the Climate Research Unit who cooked the books and destroyed evidence. A huge misjudgement, and deliberately cheeky, I would say.

What a target he makes of himself sometimes. I wonder if he arrived in the Bentley?

Posterboy

Matinee Idle

Make your own. Thanks, Lil. Charles Moore, proper Conservative, wrote the other day that if you left the country now and didn't come back until polling day, you would have missed NOTHING that might inform your electoral decision. What a grisly three months we have in store.

Breaking News

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/vh1_reality_show_bus_crashes_in?utm_source=videoembed

Sorry I have been idle. See how you go with the above. Surely worthy of comment.

It Was Idle Wot Won It

This geezer is now officially persona non bleedin grata, at least in his capacity as leader of Beards4Us, or whatever he calls his cell. And it was obviously idle wot banned 'em.

You see, idle led with the story the moment it broke on 2 Jan. After a while, on 6 Jan, that opinionated , quite-often-bang-on-the-money old Today editor leftie, Rod Liddle, joined in. Liddle reads idle (he is, after all, idle plus an L and a D), and went to town on brother Anjem. He calls him "one of those thick-as-mince gobby little chancers", which I must admit is good, and then dares, in print, to more or less quote one of the young Wootton Bassett (well, Swindon) white lads that your modest host suggested on 2 Jan might be future protagonists in this tale. "F*** off back to where you’re from, then, you Muslims" says Liddle. He doesn't use quotation marks nor ascribe it to Luke or Sam. We might infer that it is Liddle's own opinion. He has lots of previous in this area, representing as he does, quite often, the uncomplicated attitudes of the white indiginous working class.

Rod then has fun with the absurdity of the protest group's name:

"the guiding light behind the wonderful Islam4UK group — a terrific name, like www.shariaImlovingit.com or www.kuffirsmustdielol.co.uk"

Wish I'd mined that rich seam of gag in my original post. Rod had more time to think, plus the bugger got paid for it.

Anyroad, the upshot is that Postie Johnson has seen the light and banned the whole group. Just as well, as the facebook snowball was getting bigger all the while and Anjem's gang of malcontents would have had their shit rearranged in robust Wiltshire Young Farmers' Club style.

Well done the Postman. You were my choice as next Old Labour leader before today, but you have now franked the choice. You'll never get elected, but at least you will take your setbacks with good humour and honesty. No chance of the sons-of-Blair Milipede weasels doing so, let alone EdtheYob Balls.

Idle. First with all that's worth reading. Sometimes on a weekly basis.

The Wootton Bassett Conundrum

The ordinary folk of the Wiltshire town who have behaved in such an extraordinary way and with such dignity over these last few grisly years have a problem on their hands.

It would be quite out of character for them to herd the idiotic islamics, assorted peaceniks and their fellow travellers into the Tesco carpark and beat them up, as they deserve. And I am sure the good Wootton Bassett residents will ensure this does not happen. Quiet words with the headstrong young may be needed, though.

Equally, it doesn't seem right for ANY quiet country town to be invaded by a crowd of disaffected urban beards and troublemakers, despoiling the thoroughfare and chanting inflammatory and hoonish utterances, as they so love to do. Particularly a country town which has proved so splendidly that we don't need to go all aftermath-of-Princess-Diana when we wish to register our grief and respect.

So what's the answer?

Is it at all possible that all media will choose to ignore this, to let it go unrecorded? Not even worth posing the question, of course.

Might plod be encouraged to give the demonstrators an upfront bill (always unfeasibly large) for policing the event? At least so the cost of the awayday from Crawley and Oldham and Leicester will be more than just the coach trip and a Wagonwheel.

The best display of sang froid and Britishness (that's OUR type of Britishness, Mr Choudary, not yours) would be to let the buggers exercise their right to peaceful assembly. But somehow that would grate; after all, our excessive tolerance has certainly cost lives and has disfigured the 'culture' of Britain for evermore. Would subsequent repatriations at Wootton Bassett somehow be different, and not in a better way?

Something must be done. Or nothing. But what?