I've said it before, and i'll say it again...

Our newspapers really have to stop distorting the opinion polls they commission.

Take today's Guardian and its new ICM poll for example.

The basic voting intention figures were: Conservatives - 42 percent; Labour - 30 percent; and the Lib Dems on 18 percent.

The Guardian reported that the Tories were down 2, as were Labour, and the Lib Dems were up 2.

Given how several recent polls (3 out of 5) had shown a swing to Labour from the Lib Dems, one might have concluded from reading the Guardian that this swing had continued.

But this was not what happened.

In fact, the Tories were up 2, so were Labour, and the Lib Dems were actually down 4!

So what happened? The Guardian, like all the other newspapers, compared their new poll with the last time they commissioned a poll, i.e. a month ago. But in the intervening period, there had been a further ICM poll - hence the disparity.

Newspaper editors really need to stop distorting the opinion poll situation. It is for this reason that when a new poll is released i ignore the newspaper reports and get my polling news from the excellent UK Polling Report and PoliticalBetting.com.

Anybody else noticed all the roadworks lately?

Well you know it must be approaching the end of the financial year when councils start ripping up all our roads, causing huge disruption.

Some no doubt will claim it is all part of helping to stimulating the economy.

But of course that has nothing to do with it as they do the same thing every year, even during the 'boom' years.

All that is happening is that councils are frantically trying to justify their road budgets - for which they receive large sums from central government and therefore from us, poor old Joe Taxpayer.

If this was genuinely about improving our roads they should be able to plan moderate, spaced out road works throughout the course of the financial year. The fact that they tear up all our roads seemingly at once demonstrates this is purely about maintaining the same size budgets for next year!

Who's worse - Harman or Cooper?

The Evening Standard has reported that a Cabinet minister is planning to approach Treasury Minister Yvette Cooper to persuade her to stand as a "Stop Harriet" candidate for the Labour leadership if Labour loses the next election.

I really don't know who is worse - Feminist, politically correct Harriet Harperson or the charmless, Luke Skywalker-pixie Yvette Cooper.

As a Tory, i'd be ecstatic if either became Labour Leader after Brown is defeated at the next general election (or if he bails out beforehand). As long as Harman or Cooper were Labour leader, Tory rule would be assured.

Christ, they would make people like Brown, Kinnock and Foot seem popular!

UPDATE: James Forsyth on the Spectator's CoffeeHouse blog writes: "it is only fair to point out that the makeover and media training Cooper has had have worked; she has gone from being one of the worst frontline Labour performers to one of the best. Her intellect—if not her judgement—should also not be in doubt." I'm sorry James, she may have a reasonably high IQ but all that media training hasn't done squat. She is STILL one of Labour's worst media performers. She is simply awful and i cannot imagine how her style (not to mention the nonsense she spouts) appeals to anyone other than hard-core Labour supporters. If i were her, i'd ask for a refund for that media training! And makeover - what makeover? She still looks like Luke Skywalker for crying out loud!

Bankers' bonuses: The Northern Rock Precedent

On the 13 February, the former shareholders in Northern Rock lost their High Court bid to overturn a Government compensation scheme which they argued was based on criteria, set out in statute, that will result in their shares being valued at nothing.

The judges saw nothing unfair in the compensation scheme, requiring the Treasury to pay compensation on the same basis that it could fairly have paid in September 2007, rather than on the basis of a value enhanced by public funding unavailable elsewhere.

The government clearly took the view that without taxpayers money, Northern Rock would have gone bust. Had that happened, the shares would have been worth nothing. As it stands, under the compensation scheme, shareholders are likely to receive about 5p a share which falls far short of the £3-4 shareholders claim they deserve, but still 5p more than they would have earned had the bank gone under had the Treasury/taxpayer stood by and done nothing.

So where's the link to bonuses I hear you ask?

Well... the government claims it cannot force the nationalised or partly nationalised banks to stop paying all bonuses because many bankers have contracts stipulating bonuses that have to be paid and therefore if they violated these they would be open to legal challenge.

Therefore, we saw yesterday the government's "too little, too late" pressure applied on RBS to cut bonuses to the legal minimum i.e. to just those contractual obligations. Hence RBS will cut its bonuses from £1 billion to £175 million.

But is this good enough? Should failed bankers really receive £175 million in bonuses at RBS when the bank has been an abject failure?

The government should have done more. I'm not a lawyer, but the Northern Rock case made me think...

If the government can deny the shareholders of Northern Rock any real remuneration for their shares on the grounds that without taxpayers' money the bank would have gone bust, why can't the government say to the bankers of RBS that had taxpayers' money not been used to prop up the stricken bank, RBS would have gone bust and then those bankers whining about their bonuses stipulated in their contracts not only would not have received those bonuses, they wouldn't get a basic salary either because they would be out of a job.

The government has been far too meek on this issue and far too slow. Brown and Darling say they don't want to reward failure yet are standing by and letting that happen just because they are scared of a fight.

Cranmer's Labour Dream Team

Cranmer has blogged about what he believes would be an election winning team for Labour.

I'm not as convinced as Cranmer is that it would secure Labour an "easy" fourth term win. I doubt very much whether it would even produce a hard-fought victory.

But nonetheless, it is a hell of a lot better than Labour's current government line-up even though it still has many duds in the list (e.g. Byers, Bradshaw, Blears, Davies, Woodward and Bryant).

See for yourself from the list below:

Cranmer's winning team:

• Prime Minister - Alan Johnson
• Chancellor of the Exchequer - Frank Field
• Home Secretary – John Denham
• Foreign Secretary (and Europe Minister) - Gisela Stuart
• Health Secretary – Stephen Byers
• Education Secretary – Alan Milburn
• Justice Secretary – Ben Bradshaw
• Business Secretary – James Purnell
• Environment Secretary – Hazel Blears
• International Development Secretary – Hilary Benn
• Defence Secretary – Quentin Davies
• Communities Secretary – John Cruddas
• Transport Secretary – Shaun Woodward
• Culture Secretary – Glenda Jackson
• Olympics Minister – Kate Hoey
• Leader of the House of Commons – Chris Bryant
• Party Chairman – (out of sight but highly effective) Peter Mandelson

Cranmer goes on to argue that as part of his election-winning strategy for Labour, the following people should be kept away from the media as voters dislike and/or distrust them: Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling, Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, Dawn Primorolo, Keith Vaz, Ed Balls, Ed and David Miliband, Goeff Hoon, Jacqui Smith, and sundry lords (but especially Ahmed).

Pure fantasy all this of course. It's never going to happen but its a bit of fun nevertheless.

To my mind the Tories would still triumph at the next general election but the contest would be much closer if Cameron had to face Cranmer's Labour team rather than Brown's, and the Tories certainly wouldn't be 20 points ahead in the polls!

A general election defeat might be a good thing for Labour - it is in desperate need of clearing out the dead wood that litters the government benches.

Brown bounce has just gone splat!

The Brown bounce is well and truly over.

The voting intention figures from the latest Ipsos MORI poll have just been released and show the Conservatives on 48 percent (+4), Labour on 28 percent (-2), and the Lib Dems on 17 percent (no change).

Since the turn of the year we have seen the polls shift back towards the Conservatives with their double digit leads being re-established. Recent polls have also shown Labour fall back under the psychologically important 30 percent level and several (ICM, ComRes and Populus) have shown a jump in support for the Lib Dems, at Labour's expense.

This latest poll shows the Conservatives as the main beneficiaries with the Lib Dems unchanged (YouGov's latest showed the Lib Dems down by 2).

The Tory 20 point lead is the largest since September and shows (i know it's only one poll - but it is following a trend) that Brown's bounce has been completely erased. Brown's personal ratings have also suffered a hit with 64 percent of people dissatisfied with Gordon Brown.

Brown inexplicably coaxed voters back to the Labour fold in the latter months of last year after the Labour Conference. As PM he was able to act and therefore portray himself as a man of action and as the "saviour of the world" he was able to give the impression that he had a grand plan that would save the British economy. The recession would be shorter and shallower because of his action and leaders across the world were following his lead.

These same voters have now deserted him and returned to the Tories. Brown has been found out. Last year he was giving the impression he was on top of events, but now it is painfully obvious that he is behind the curve and being buffeted around on a whole range of issues. The steps he has taken are not working, they are just adding to our huge public debt and are being denounced by Germany, France and the Netherlands.

Far from being the decisive strong leader, he has once again shown himself to be a dithering, ineffectual leader - something which was clear from his handling of his handling of the bankers' bonuses issue. He has sat on his hands since October, then the bonus season arrived and the negative press finally spurred him into action only for him to then announce yet another review which will report by the end of the year.

The recent stories about Sir James Crosby are also really damaging for Brown who had a terrible time last week. It was last week that Brown was linked to the failures of the bankers as it was he who designed our regulatory system, removing the supervisory role of the Bank of England against the advice of the then Governor Eddie George. This will be Brown's Achilles Heel. This is just the beginning. Public hostility towards the bankers will increasingly turn to Brown and the Labour government.

Time to call that general election, Gordon...

Brown fails to answer oral and written questions

Those who have seen our Dear Leader in action in PMQs or in television interviews will be well aware that he has a pathological inability to answer a single question put to him.

However, it seems that this is not just confined to oral questions. ConservativeHome has flagged up Brown's wholly inadequate responses to Parliamentary Written Questions. His "grumpy" and "terse" responses to questions from Tory MPs are worth looking at.

The contempt Brown holds Parliament in is astonishing.

During PMQs he routinely ignores questions. Sometimes he even gives just one or two word answers which demonstrates his contempt for the questioner (something Blair also used to do on occasion). At other times he answers the question with a question of his own.

The Speaker is powerless to compel him to properly answer the question posed rather than the one he wished had been asked. I understand the reason why - otherwise it would drag the Speaker, who is supposedly impartial, into a political quagmire. But it really is farce.

And now we have evidence that he uses obscuration tactics in his replies to Written Questions. A favoured tactic of his is to say: "I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on XX XXXX XXXX, Official Report , column XXX." But when you check that previous answer you find it was completely inadequate. He also gives one word answers to Written Questions.

There seems very little that can be done to make our disgrace of a Prime Minister respect Parliament and democracy. The only action we can take is flag up his contempt he shows our elected representatives, and through them, us.

Brown is shameless.

Friday Fun: IF CADBURY MERGED WITH NESTLE!

PMQs - Brown distances himself from Sir James Crosby

In the last PMQs before the half term recess, the economy took centre stage, and David Cameron unsurprisingly chose to begin by bringing up Sir James Crosby.

Sir James was formerly the Chief Executive of HBOS and then was appointed as Deputy Chairman of the FSA by the Prime Minister. He was also Knighted on Brown's recommendation in 2006 and has been an economic adviser to the Prime Minister, writing a report advising the government how to resurrect the ailing mortgage market.

However, yesterday Sir James came under pressure when Paul Moore, who was the head of regulatory risk at HBOS from 2002-2005, told the Treasury Select Committee that Sir James was the "original architect" of HBOS's "grow assets at all costs" expansion strategy which has led to its fall from grace and that when he tried to raise the alarm about the risks being taken, Sir James took a unilateral decision to sack him. HBOS and Sir James deny these versions of events and say an internal 9 month investigation conducted by KPMG found Mr Moore's dismissal claims to be unfounded.

The problem for Brown, given his closeness to Sir James Crosby was that allegations of this kind are extremely damaging particularly as it ties the Prime Minister to the financial catastrophes of the City via calling into question his judgement. If Mr Moore's claims are true then Brown has been guilty of appointing someone who pursued a foolish strategy that brought a huge bank to its knees to the important position of Deputy Chairman of an organisation which is supposed to regulate the banks. Critics charge Brown with employing someone who was completely unsuitable for the FSA and to give advice about Britain's mortgage crisis.

More...

Consequently, it was no coincidence at all that half an hour before PMQs, Sir James announced he was resigning as Deputy Chairman of the FSA. This was clearly a case of Sir James being pushed rather than him jumping. Brown was obviously keen to spike Cameron's guns and attempting to neutralise the issue.

Had Sir James not gone before PMQs then Cameron would have demanded Brown sack him. Brown would no doubt have prevaricated and therefore it would have been a gift to Cameron. As it was, Cameron was left only to question Sir James's appointment in the first place and demanding from the PM that he admit his appointment was an error of judgement.

Brown, of course, did no such thing. What he did do, however, was drop Sir James like a stone. Brown said the allegations were "serious but contested" and said "these are allegations that he will have to defend, so it is right that he has stepped down as vice chairman of the Financial Services Authority." Brown also sought to distance himself from Sir James by claiming that far from him being one of his economic advisers, he had just written two reports - one for him and one for the Chancellor - and both of these had now been completed. The clear implication was that he wasn't an adviser anymore. The PM had just cut his ties with Sir James who was now out in the cold.

Cameron linked the Prime Minister's lack of regret over Sir James's appointment to Brown's inability to apologise for saying he had "abolished boom and bust" and saying we were "best placed to weather the downturn." Cameron scolded the Prime Minister for not apologising for anything, saying the Prime Minister should admit that "he got something wrong." He added: "Even the bankers have apologised? When is the Prime Minister going to?" Linking to my earlier post, from Brown's reply it does not sound like Brown is gearing up for any kind of mea culpa. The man is unapologetic about every decision he has ever taken.

What then followed was similar to what has taken place in recent weeks. The PM says he has taken action and done X, Y, Z while Cameron has done nothing other than oppose the steps the government has taken. Then Cameron says X, Y, Z have all been failed policies and Brown should have done what the Tories have advocated which is A, B, C. It is all a bit "i'm right, you're wrong" and we just end up going round in circles.

However, Cameron was in fine combative mood - more so than of late. He went on the attack accusing Brown of being the one who set up the "failed regulatory system."

The two leaders also had a bit of a ding-dong over the issue of VAT cuts. Brown saying the cuts were a good idea, Cameron disagreeing. Cameron said the Dutch, the Germans and now the French thought it was a wrongheaded policy. He quoted the French President Nicolas Sarkozy who said Britain’s VAT cut had “absolutely not worked,” Brown was "ruining" Britain's economy and Sarkozy had said he would not be repeating the Prime Minister's "mistakes." Cameron wanted to know what Brown thought could be the "mistakes" Sarkozy was referring to. Brown then drew attention to Ken Clarke who he said was in favour of a VAT cut.

But Cameron hit back by saying the PM needed to get his facts straight - Clarke had voted against the VAT cut in the Commons. "Why can't the PM get his facts straight?", Cameron asked. While on the theme of factual accuracy, Cameron also jokingly highlighted Brown's claim not so long ago that the artist Titian finished a painting aged 90 and had said he felt he was just learning about painting. Brown had said he felt like that about the economy. But Cameron corrected the PM saying Titian had died aged 86!

Cameron signed off with a hard-hitting attack line: "Incompetence + arrogance = 2 million unemployed."

But Brown retorted with a line about regulation, insisting that the Conservatives had been urging deregulation rather than new regulations and Cameron had even called him the "Great Regulator." The problem for Brown is that it was his financial regulation that failed. The issue at hand is about wrong-touch regulation rather than light-touch regulation. Moreover, Brown had also quoted Cameron out of context - he had been talking about general business red tape and regulation rather than specific financial regulation.

Brown finished off by saying that Cameron had opposed measures to rescue the banks and boost the economy. "They have been wrong, wrong and wrong every single time," he told the Commons.

Two other things to mention about the exchange - one criticising Tories, the other Labour MPs. During the exchange, Cameron asked a serious of questions such as: "Who gave us the largest deficit in the developed world? He did. Who made Britain the highest personal indebted country in the world? He did. Who set up the regulatory system that has so failed? He did." It is the "he did" part i have a problem with because every time Cameron says it, the Tory backbenchers joined it. Stop it! It sounds so naff and cheesy and all it achieves is making viewers at home cringe and give the Labour benches a cheer as they mock the Tories. I don't mind Cameron doing it, but others should definitely not join in.

Now the Labour criticism: why do the Labour MPs always shout "more" after the Brown vs Cameron exchange finishes? This is just as naff and sad. I think they started it when Brown's authority was diminished and shouting "more" was a way of sounding like Brown had given Cameron a drubbing and the Labour benches had really enjoyed it: hence "more!" It was transparently false when they started it and it still is. Give it a rest!

Now, on to Nick Clegg. I thought for the second week running he gave a good performance. The Lib Dem leader said that the government was making three announcements a day - how many of these were actually being enacted? Brown completely ignored the question and instead outlined several steps he had taken.

Clegg then went on the offensive saying that Brown had promised to get the banks lending again but had failed to do so and was letting bankers keep "millions in bonuses" because they had issued "a cynical apology." In a hard hitting attack which turned the "do nothing" jibe back on the Prime Minister, Clegg said: "It's bad enough being a do nothing party, but isn't it worse being a say anything, do nothing Prime Minister?" It was a good line that managed to attack the Tories as well, but the real sting in the tail was reserved for the Prime Minister. Brown responded saying: "If I had taken his [Clegg's] advice, we would have made the wrong decisions."

Will Brown say sorry?

Martin Bright has written on his new blog, The Bright Stuff, that "Whitehall officials have been ordered to make a compilation DVD of Obama's various apologies to the American TV networks to be studied by the Prime Minister."

This follows Barack Obama's frank admission that he "screwed up" over his attempted appointment of Tom Daschle. Obama has won plaudits for the good grace of his confession of fault.

If Bright is correct, it seems Brown's advisers have come to the decision that unless Brown makes a mea culpa, he is doomed electorally. With Labour polling once again under 30 percent, something drastic needs to be done. Labour cannot put all their eggs into the 'G20 summit meeting with Obama' basket which is likely to prove insufficient in any case - and they probably know this.

His advisers will have their work cut out, however.

More...

Brown continues to ridiculously boast that we are "best placed" to weather the recession; refuses to admit "British jobs for British workers" was a grave error of judgement; refuses to admit he was completely wrong to have said he "abolished boom and boom;" refuses to admit we are in a "bust" (though bizarrely will admit we are in recession - how are the two not one and the same?); and worst of all, continues with his strategy of blaming everything on America and not taking any responsibility for his actions over the past 11 years.

The latter is the most serious obstacle to any credible, wholehearted mea culpa.

The idea that Brown will give a humble, 'Obama-style' apology in a self-deprecating manner is difficult to believe.

First, the man is in denial. He seems to honestly believe he has done nothing wrong; that it was not his fault that Britain has the biggest Budget deficit in the world; that Britain is the most indebted country in the world; that he designed our regulatory system that failed; and that he failed to curb the excesses of our financial services sector and call time on debt and the over-supply of money in the boom years which lies at the root of our particular troubles.

Second, he is unlikely to apologise because it this a huge character flaw of his - the man simply does not do apologies. Psychologically he just cannot bring himself to admit regret or mistakes because that, in his mind, makes him look weak and vulnerable rather than strong. He will see any admission of guilt as an electoral gift to the Tories.

Third, if Brown decides to play against type and go ahead, or was persuaded to do so, I doubt it would work because Brown, to put it bluntly, is a lousy actor. If this was Tony Blair we were talking about, you just know he would be able to pull it off even if he didn't mean a word he said. Brown, on the other and, will be incapable of looking convincing. Brown will be unable to pull off a Blair-style "masochism strategy."

Fourth, any apology is likely to fall short of what is necessary because of Brown's unwillingness to give his opponents too much ammunition and thus will feel underwhelming. His opponents will attack him for conveniently glossing over certain issues. It will only work if it is fulsome but this would undermine his current strategy (see below). But if it was seen as only a part apology his critics would continue to raise the issues he avoided demanding a further apology. A part apology would be the worst of all words.

Fifth, and finally, a mea culpa would mean Brown would have to adopt a completely new strategy and he is unlikely to want to change course - because again it will look like he has been following the wrong path during the past few months (not to mention years). He would no longer be able to just blame America as he will have admitted some responsibility lies at home - and most importantly, with him. If he gave a full apology he would admit he borrowed and spent too much money; allowed the deficit to grow too large; failed to run a surplus in the boom years; failed to design a financial regulatory system that was fit for purpose; and failed to call time on household debt and the over-supply of money. If Brown admits to all that – which would constitute a full apology – then not only will he have just agreed with the Tory critique of him, but it will also mean he could no longer pursue his policy of borrowing and spending more money to fight the recession as he will have admitted they were some of the causes for Britain’s recession – the worst in the developed world, according to the IMF.

For these reasons, I’d be amazed if Brown did a full mea culpa. However, if he does go ahead, it seems clear to me that Brown can study all the Obama DVDs he wants, but unless he truly believes he is culpable his mea culpa will be half-hearted and consequently will do more harm than good.

My gut instinct is that any apology will be similar to the bankers' apologies yesterday. He will say he is sorry in a general sense, but downplay any personal failings. It would be more of an apology about what the government did not do - properly regulate the banks, secure global economic early warning system (blah blah blah) - rather than what he did do - debt, deficit, over-supply of money etc. This will enable him to say sorry but pin the blame on others in reality without taking any genuine responsibility for his own actions.

As i argued above, a part apology would be insufficient and ill-advised.

Mixed messages: Government all at sea on economy

When will this failed government make up its mind on the economy?

While Baroness Vadera sees "green shoots" of recovery and Tony McNulty sees 'light at the end of the tunnel', Ed Balls now says "this is the worst recession for over 100 years" and Alistair Darling has said we are "seeing the most difficult economic conditions for generations."

How can these conflicting views be reconciled?

And what about our Dear Leader? He seems in denial about the state of the economy and attacks anyone who points out the bloody obvious as "talking down the economy." Very convenient device that for shutting down debate and reducing his accountability!

The PM still ridiculously claims that Britain is "best placed" to deal with the downturn while the IMF, EC and the fate of Sterling tell us otherwise.

But even Brown seems confused. One minute he is telling us he has "saved the world" the next he is telling us we are in a "depression."

Brown seems to be hedging his bets and as a result is ending up in a right old mess. He wants us to believe that the recession and financial crisis is solely down to global forces. One might think therefore that he would be candid about the true state of the economy.

The problem, however, is that Brown refuses to risk all on his "global recession" narrative in case the electorate (rightly) pins some of the blame at his door. So Brown tries to cover himself by giving false optimism about the economy in an attempt to convince voters that his action will make the economy shorter and shallower.

It is a fudged strategy which shows that he lacks the courage of his convictions. The government, Brown included, are sending out too many mixed messages - worst crisis for a hundred years yet we are best placed, our leader is saving the world, government action will mean economy will start growing in third quarter of this year and green shoots and light at the end of the tunnel can be seen.

The government is all at sea on the economy!

Would a national government be a good thing?

A resounding NO!

Why do i bring it up? Martin Kettle, in the Guardian, has written an article entitled: 'Darling, Clarke and Cable in the cabinet? Don't rule it out'. He writes that: "Another disaster for Labour in this European elections, and the drums will beat for a national emergency government."

Kettle also highlighted the Tory MP, Patrick Cormack, who called on the PM during PMQs to invite David Cameron and Nick Clegg to Downing Street to seek common ground and national leadership on the economic crisis. Kettle said of Cormack: "On occasions he says something that speaks to the mood of the moment in a way that eludes more calculating and partisan politicians. This week at prime minister's questions was one of them... the earnest, one-nation patriotism of Cormack and MPs like him may become increasingly attractive"

I couldn't disagree more - i thought it was one of the most naive questions i had heard from a Tory MP for some time as it completely misunderstood the character, psychology and politics of the Prime Minister.

I'm unconvinced that the drums will beat for a national emergency government. However much our Dear Leader likes to make war analogies to the current situation, calling for a Blitz-like spirit, we are not in a war.

We are in a severe recession (or should that be depression?) but i do not know how getting all three parties to work together will help our recovery.

A national government should be opposed for five reasons:

1. Labour and the Tories have diametrically opposed positions on the economy. To my mind it would be impossible to reconcile these.

2. A national government, if it were even possible given the divergent views of the parties, is unlikely to restore economic confidence. The problem is we are going in the wrong direction under Brown's leadership. What this country needs is a change of government - a Conservative government - not a national government.

3. The only reason why Brown would ever countenance a national government would be to get himself out of hole. Brown is the most partisan and tribal politician there is. He is also a control freak who does not like giving power away. He is not going to bring in politicians from other parties to his Cabinet and also have to modify his policy positions unless a national government is the only way of saving his political skin. And remember, Brown only embraced bi-partisanship last year because it was a way of stymieing debate, not to bring about a consensus of views.

4. Brown is partly responsible for this recession. The Tories would gain nothing by forming a national government with Labour and lose everything by unjustifiably providing political cover for Brown's woeful economic performance. This is why Cameron made a huge error by trying to appear bipartisan, like Obama and McCain, on the economic issue. Brown was always likely to end up throwing it back in his face as soon as the Tories made any legitimate criticism of him. As i said above, Brown was only interested in bi-partisanship in order to curtail dissent. A national government could lead to Brown winning the next general election which would be an unwarranted travesty - a disaster for Cameron, the Conservatives and most of all, the British public.

5. Finally, it is the job of the opposition to provide voters with an alternative and to hold the government to account. Were a national government to be formed, the opposition would not be able to provide those vital public services.

To be fair to Martin Kettle he concludes that a national government, although he no longer believes it is impossible, it still is unlikely.

I'd go much, much further and argue it definitely won't happen - and nor should it!

Bank should NOT cut interest rates

The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) will announce its interest rate decision today at 12pm.

My view is that it should NOT cut interest rates.

• Interest rates have already been slashed from 5 percent to a historic low of 1.5 percent and have had no real discernible effect other than helping those on tracker mortgages.
• It takes time for interest rates to feed through to the economy.
• The key issue is NOT the cost of money, BUT the availability of credit. An interest rate cut will not change this. Government needs to get the banks lending again.
• Cutting by 0.5 percent (as the City expects) will restrict monetary freedom of movement later if needed.
• Savers, the "innocent victims of Labour's recession," have been punished enough. Remember there are 60 percent more savers than borrowers in this country. Many who have retired rely on their saving's interest to supplement their income. Banks also need deposits and an interest rate cut could further disincentivise people from saving.
• Sterling has already lost a quarter to a third of its value against most currencies. This devaluation has taken place not just against currencies like the US Dollar, Euro and Yen but against currencies like the Thai Baht. How can it be that the pound has suffered against the Baht when Thailand has experienced such political and economic instability of late? An interest rate cut will further weaken Sterling. For those who argue that a weak pound will help our manufacturing base, i ask: what manufacturing base? We lost a lot of our manufacturing industry during the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher rightly restructured the inefficient and unproductive British economy, but manufacturing has gone into further decline during the 11 years of this Labour government.
• Finally, i would dispute the argument that an interest rate cut would instill confidence. It hasn't worked so far, even when the MPC slashed rates by 1.5 percent.

It's time the Bank of England took a a step back and held interest rates steady.

PMQs - Depression, Protectionism & BJ4BWs

PMQs today had the themes of protectionism which Cameron then linked to Brown's notorious phrase "British Jobs for British Workers" (BJ4BWs) and tax avoidance from the Lib Dem's Nick Clegg, in what was a much better performance from him. In fact, the PM also had a much better outing than has been the case in recent weeks. He gave a feistier performance but was also helped by Cameron who, although did not have an off day as such, was not firing on all cylinders and did his best to scuff his shots on the BJ4BWs issue, despite being presented with an open goal.

But the headlines from this PMQs may be about a word the Prime Minister used - perhaps inadvertently - in reply to Cameron: DEPRESSION. The PM had said: "We need to take the world out of depression." It may well have been a slip of the tongue but the Prime Minister did not correct himself. Nick Robinson, on the BBC's Daily Politics show, revealed that it was a word that was being used behind closed doors. What is unusual is that Brown is ahead of the curve on the issue. He normally prefers to be behind the curve and in denial, refusing to admit things are as bad as they are, giving an unrealistic and absurd sunny outlook. It is for this reason that i would expect the PM's Official Spokesman to back away from it. But too late, Brown has said it. What was also a surprise was that Cameron missed it.

More...

Anyway, David Cameron began with a question about US protectionism, particularly the decision of the US House of Reps to endorse a 'buy American' protectionist fiscal stimulus package. The Tory leader wanted to know whether the PM was concerned by the move.

Brown did no such thing of course preferring to give a general answer about how he has made it clear retreat into protectionism is the biggest problem the world faces. The PM was never going to address the specifics of Cameron's question as the 'buy American' idea comes from President Obama (though he may be backing away from it now). The last thing Brown is going to do is criticise anything the Messiah has said. That just would not do - how could Brown and Obama be best friends after that?

Cameron then moved on to the Doha Round of WTO trade negotiations which have stalled. Cameron said the US and India had to give ground the most and argued that as both would be present at the G20, if barriers are not removed, it would represent a failure of the summit.

The PM gave a breakdown of the reasons for the deadlock and said some progress had been made and it was up to Obama and the Indian PM to accept the terms of the agreement.

Cameron then linked protectionism surrounding the Doha talks to the Prime Minister's ill-judged comments at the 2007 Labour Party Conference about "British Jobs for British Workers." Cameron denounced the statement saying it showed a lack of judgement and asked whether Brown regretted using it?

The PM admit a mistake and show regret? Never! I seriously think we need to introduce truth serum and a lie detector test to PMQs so we can get Brown to answer a question, and answer a question truthfully. That said, the man is so often in denial that i sincerely think he believes his own spurious rhetoric. Anyway, Brown comes back with the most ridiculous spin i've heard for some time, claiming: "Can anyone here say that they don't want jobs for British workers?" A pathetic interpretation of his own statement.

Cameron hit back saying Brown's use of the statement was opportunistic, protectionist and pandering to people's fears, and he knows it. The use of the word 'opportunistic' by Cameron always brings loud jeers from the Labour benches who think it's a case of pots and kettles. However, Cameron has been consistent on this issue - he condemned Brown's use of BJ4BWs back in 2007 and is doing the same now in 2009. Nothing opportunistic about that. The sad thing is that the Labour MPs who jeered Cameron actually privately think it was a gross error of Brown's to have ever used the slogan in the first place. This was something Cameron picked up on quoting the Home Affairs Select Committee Chairman Keith Vaz as saying in 2007 that the phrase was tantamount to "employment apartheid." Cameron again asked: "Isn't the use of the slogan an error of judgement, a mistake and he should apologise?"

Brown replied saying that it was the government's duty to help British workers get skills (as if that was what his statement was all about). The PM also latched on to the 'opportunistic' jibe and said there was nothing more opportunistic than giving support to the government like Cameron had done and then withdrawing it. My view has always been that Cameron should never have offered Brown bipartisan support - the PM is the most tribal politician there is and has no interest in consensus and bipartisanship.

Cameron then said doesn't the PM understand he's taking people for fools again - he's been found out? Not the strongest riposte from Cameron - it lacked punch.

Brown then went into patronising mode and said: "Let me bring him up to date on industrial dispute..."

Cameron then hit on a key weakness of Brown saying that one of his problems is he refuses to admit mistakes when they are starring everyone in the face - citing BJ4BWs and 'boom and bust'. The Tory leader then said the PM "should just look behind him, they are so ashamed of what he said," which was met by Labour jeers. "Wasn't using phrase error of judgement?"

In a feisty, clunking fist of a reply, Brown countered that the biggest error of judgement would be to do nothing. (Come on, Brown has to get the "do nothing" jibe in during PMQs - it wouldn't be the same without it). Brown said the government was investing while Cameron was going around the world talking the pound down. In a hard-hitting attack, Brown accused Cameron of deciding it is in the interest of Tory party to talk Britain down and said he should be ashamed of himself.

Unfortunately Cameron had run-out of questions and was unable to counter this claim. Cameron could have credibly argued that it is only he who is being straight with the British public while the PM is in denial viewing the economy with rose-tinted spectacles giving wildly optimistic assessments of the British economy which do not correspond with reality.

I thought Cameron did ok but he should have done better given the own goal he was presented with on the BJ4BWs issue. I thought Ken Clarke was more convincing the other day with his attack in the Commons.

As for the anonymous Nick Clegg, i thought he put in a much better performance today. The Lib Dem leader went again on the issue of tax avoidance which he said was costing Britain £14 billion in lost taxes. Clegg wanted to know when the PM would close the tax loopholes and give us "British taxes for British companies."

It was a decent question which Brown replied by saying that it needed an international agreement.

Clegg hit back claiming the PM was living in denial. Clegg needs to watch the beginning of his second intervention. He often comes across quite shrill. Anyway, he attacked Brown for having created the system that lets this happen and accused the PM of losing this country billions of pounds. Why should anyone trust him when there is one rule for fat cats and another one for everyone else? This was much better from Clegg and a marked improvement on his recent efforts in PMQs.

However, the PM had a pretty good response saying maybe it was the Lib Dem leader who was in denial as it was the chief donor to the Lib Dems who had got into trouble as a tax evader and the Lib Dems had not paid back the money he had donated. Brown claimed the government will continue to do everything it can to lead to an end of tax avoidance and evasion.

ZaNuLab - The Evidence

Is Gordon Brown basing his Premiership on Robert Mugabe and the Zanu PF 'governing' party in Zimbabwe?

Let's take a tongue in cheek look at the evidence...

1) PRINTING MONEY - On the 8 January the Times ran a story entitled 'Chancellor set to print more cash as interest rates hit record low'. Alistair Darling denied it as true but last Friday the Guardian said the Bank of England was preparing to turn on the cash tap in an article entitled 'Bank of England to use £50bn of taxpayers' money to ease credit crunch' in what it said was "the clearest signal yet that Britain is moving towards the desperate recession-busting tactics of 'quantitative easing'. This is Mugabeconomics!

2) POLITICAL INTIMIDATION - The government is upset that a civil servant is leaking embarrassing information from the Home Office to the Conservative Party. The police are brought in to investigate, the civil servant is arrested and the Conservative shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green has his offices and home raided by counter-terrorism police and he is detained at a police station for over 9 hours. Police raid his Commons office without a warrant. Cue cries of "police state" as Zanu PF-style intimidation tactics are used.

3) ELECTORAL FRAUD - Mike Smithson from PoliticalBetting.com reports that the marked register - the list of those who actually voted in the Glenrothes by-election has "gone missing" which is supposed to be open to inspection. Given that many expected a SNP win or a much narrower margin of victory for Labour, Labour's decisive victory raised eyebrows. As Mike notes: "The startling thing about Glenrothes was the massive increase in postal votes compared with the general election - up four-fold if I recall correctly. It all sounds fishy." Mugabe and Zanu PF-style electoral rigging of elections from Labour.

Brown is following the Mugabe rule book word-for-word it would seem. He has taken the economy down the toilet, has intimidated opponents via the police and is now rigging elections! What's next?

Mapping my Political Compass

I've been reading Iain Dale's weekend post entitled 'Why the BNP is Left Wing (And Fascist)' which i entirely agree with.

Iain has since followed up with a post today in which he uses the website Political Compass to back up his point that the BNP is indeed left-wing and fascist. He also uses the website to plot his own position.

Political Compass takes the view, correctly in my opinion, that it is far too simplistic to just identify parties and individuals on the old left-right spectrum. Consequently it asks a series of questions to plot your or your party's position on a economic and social x,y axis graph. See below:

Political Compass places the UK's parties in the following areas:

This is the graph that Iain includes on his blog post. Clearly the BNP is authoritarian/fascist on the social scale but it is also left-wing when it comes to measuring its economic stance.

One thing i wasn't particularly happy with the above graph was the position of the Conservatives. Political Compass had them as more authoritarian than New Labour which i thought was absurd given David Cameron's support for civil liberties and Labour continuing to ride roughshod over our freedoms in the name of security and national databases.

However, i've found on the Political Compass website another graph which plots the changing positions of the three main parties over the last few years. This one is much more representative as Labour is seen as more authoritarian than the Tories which i believe reflects the true positions of the parties. See below:

Finally, as Iain has put his own graph up showing where his politics stand, i thought i'd do the same for those wondering where my politics lie. It came out as expected, putting me on the Libertarian Right. It is a similar position to Iain Dale though i share his concern that it puts us in Lib Dem territory - so perhaps Political Compass is not infallible after all!

If you want to see where you stand, take the Political Compass test by clicking here.

British jobs for British workers

“British jobs for British workers” is a soundbite that has undoubtedly come back to haunt the Prime Minister given the wildcat strikes throughout the country.

It sounded ill-judged when he used it in 2007 during his Labour Party Conference Speech and sounds even more so as it echos in the middle of a recession.

Those feeling their jobs are under threat from foreign workers should not go on strike. Wildcat strikes are a sad return to Britain's dark days of the 1970s - incidentally also under Labour rule. We must not retreat into protectionism.

But it is surely understandable that these workers are calling on Brown to honour his pledge – as is the Labour MP Frank Field.

The problem is that Brown can do nothing. It was a hollow soundbite, reminiscent of the dog whistle politics Labour condemned the Tories for using during their 2005 general election campaign. It was nationalist-protectionist rhetoric not befitting of the Prime Minister. Some even described the pledge as xenophobic. Had Cameron used it, Labour would have accused him and the Tories of being racist.

Brown was trying to appeal to working class voters on the run-up to a general election that never materialised.

It was also part of his bizarre “Britishness” agenda that he was pursuing, perhaps to lessen his Scottishness to the English electorate.

Brown should never have used the meaningless soundbite that could never be turned into policy.

The problem for him now is that those working class voters he was trying to appeal to in a hollow pledge believed that what he said had meaning.

Far from attracting voters, Brown’s inability to follow through could cost him votes.

Brown should be straight with voters and apologise for his use of words. He should admit he misled them. Alas, we have more chance of hell freezing over seeing as our Dear Leader doesn't do apologies or regret.

Men and women should not get equal pay

... in tennis.

It is an absolute outrage that men and women get paid the same for winning the grand slams.

Yesterday, the excellent Serena Williams demolished her opponent Dinara Safina 6-0, 6-3 in just under an hour of tennis in a half packed Rod Laver Arena.

Contrast that with today's men's final at the Australian Open where Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer in a five-set thriller 7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2 in a packed Rod Laver Arena.

Not only do the women play less tennis (best of three rather than best of five sets - if it even ever goes to the deciding set) there is far less strength in depth in the women's game and far less consistency.

One wouldn't have known that Safina was also challenging Williams for the No. 1 ranking yesterday. Williams was Premier League and Safina was Vauxhall Conference.

I wouldn't even pay the women half what the men get paid. A third is surely all they deserve!

Quote of the Day: Sex tips from Blears

I'm a bit late to this, but still worth blogging about.

The pint-sized uber-optimist, Hazel Blears, has offered Labour candidates this nugget of advice on sex and campaigning:

"Campaigning is like sex – if you’re not enjoying it, you’re not doing it right. It should never be a drudge."

Amusing. But how sad is Hazel for comparing political campaigning to sex? You need to get out more love!

How can Cameron avoid being blamed for his inheritance?

ConservativeHome reported earlier today that Tory strategists are considering producing a 21st Century Domesday Book compilation analysis of Labour's legacy if the Conservatives win power at the next general election.

Tim Montgomerie wrote: "It would be one of the first acts of an incoming Conservative government. New Cabinet ministers would be ordered to prepare an audit of their portfolios. Four to six weeks later a Domesday statement of the extent of public borrowing, the weakness of the nation's energy infrastructure, the weakness of family structure and so on would be published. As well as serving as a statement of challenges it would then be hung around the neck of the Labour Party."

This is essential work.

I have long held the view that the next Conservative government would have a fight on its hands to convince the electorate several years into its first term that it was not to blame for the countries ills and that they still need time to put them right. I've also felt it would be a good way to recalbrate the 'official government statistics' and other measurements of government performance that have long been skewed in favour of the government to falsely show success. These must be put on an independent footing.

This so-called 'Doomsday book' would be an effective way of showing the state of the nation the Tories inherited and hence a useful way to be judged. This of course has risks of its own if the Tories were to fail to deliver but such ambition would help focus minds. It is very important that a benchmark for judgement is set.

I had previously envisaged Cameron doing a presidential-esque state of the nation television address to the people setting out the shithole we were in after 13 years of Labour rule and the steps people could expect from the Conservatives to put it right. (Not sure if this would be within the rules - if not, Cameron could change the rules).

It will take at least two terms to put Labour's mess right and the electorate needs to give Cameron the time and remember who really deserves the blame.