Laws Gone

Iain Dale and others are reporting that David Laws has gone. One thing: if true, it is important to establish the precise reason for his 'resignation' (sacking by Cameron). Having said that, it is also important to establish what were not the reasons too. For instance, certainly not the reason would be the one David Blackburn has just supposed in a uncharacteristically shoddy and pretty wrongheaded piece for him:

According to Con Home and several other sources, Laws has resigned. This is hugely regrettable as Laws is a star performer and I feel he has been the victim of a media gay-hunt that belongs to a bygone era. The sums of money involved are slight in comparison to some, and there are arguments that other ministers should resign for having committed similar or worse offences and for having shown markedly less contrition. But it is refreshing that a minister would resign over a personal transgression with haste and dignity.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin. First, Laws has had little or no chance to demonstrate he was a 'star performer'. He was starting to look promising and seemed to be grasping the wisdom of the Tory policy on the debt and structural deficit. Well done for that, but stardom it hardly warrants. Second, to 'feel' that he was the 'victim' of some mythical 'media gay hunt' is arrant nonsense. His sexuality had nothing to do with it, aside from the fact that he was clearly embarrassed about it and this provided him with a motive for being so incautious with his expenses and then concealing this potentially damaging fact from his new boss. There was and is no 'media gay hunt'. Outrage about his public/private hypocrisy, yes - bigotry and prejudice, no. That is in Blackburn's imagination and, I think, was uttered because of some kind of personal disappointment rather than any genuine understanding of the sequence and significance of events [like I have, lol]. Again, I've got to say that I find that surprising from this writer.

Third, and most significantly, Blackburn makes some sort of point about the relative scale of previous incidences of irregular expenses arrangements with a frankly childish 'they didn't so why does he?' argument. Well, if he thinks that that false equivalence will wash with anyone then he hasn't understood idea-one of what's been going on here. Cameron stood on a ticket of cleaning up parliament and being tough with his ministers if they step out of line in principle. The amounts involved (and 40k seems like a lot to me) are not important. The way the money was channeled is. Laws bent the rules in a deeply suspicious way, far more even, if we are to entertain Blackburn's relativist argument for a moment, than your average trougher who simply took advantage of those rules but did so by the book, i.e. without adding their own, personal interpretation that advantaged them, or, indeed, a loved one, even more.

As to his mention of 'other ministers', who, I wonder, does he mean? Cameron? Labour ministers? Cameron can hardly fire Labour ministers who've already lost their jobs, for heaven's sake, so what on earth does he mean? Your guess is as good as mine. Suffice to say, it's the most muddled-up post of his I think I've ever read.

So much for the Blackburn gay witch-hunt theory. The real reason why Laws had to go is because Cameron is keeping his word. He has always understood the scale of anger at the expenses scandal. He also realised that Laws could not be talking about painful cuts in public spending one second and defending his own venality another. That's called an 'untenable position'.

In other words, the only thing Laws' sacking has demonstrated to me is not that he is dignified - I'm sure he is - but that David Cameron really does mean what he has says and that, dear readers, is the really 'refreshing' thing about this new government and about this incident.

But what follows is crucial. A sound, imaginative replacement must be found. Blackburn says, alarmingly, that it might be the lunatic Huhne. That would be a disaster not just for this government but for the entire country and Cameron must intervene to stop it instantly.

The only man with the gravity and intellect for a job like CST in a time of economic trauma and dislocation is John Redwood. Whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, Redwood is the right man for the needs of this country at this parlous point in its history.

What the Libdems want simply doesn't matter.

Update:

Well, they've got it badly wrong and given Danny Alexander the job according to ConHome. That is a disastrous decision and it will come back to haunt this coalition. You cannot compromise on the economy for the sake of the coalition and certainly not with someone as wet behind the ears, untested and lightweight as 37 year-old Alexander (yes, I know, he's been bigged up over the past few weeks because of the negotiations. Big deal).

Too many Tories are going to be too pissed off too quickly with any more appointments like this one. This may even be the one that tips them over. I think this is the first real sign that this coaltion cannot and will not last long. For one thing, unlike the corrupt Labourists, as amply demonstrated by Brown, Conservatives do not believe in the idea of clinging on to power at any price. The coalition could soon be toast.

Quite frankly, after the promotion of another Libdem lightweight to a cabinet role for which he is most certainly not qualified, especially at such a crucial moment for the British economy, I'm not sure how I feel about that prospect yet. Maybe, after all, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Who Will Fire David Laws?

Shaping up as a half-decent, expensively-educated, millionaire Chief Treasury Secretary though he might have been, I'm awfully sorry, but David Laws' political arse is grass. He can't argue the case for public spending cuts when he, apparently, has been pretty happy to sponge off the state on behalf of his partner for the longest time.

So the only question to me is: who will fire him? His party leader, Clegg, or his boss, the Prime Minister?

My view? Cameron must pull the trigger immediately because what Laws did particularly is just the sort of troughing, fiddling, pocket-lining, venal rule-bending Cameron has been condemning in principle and often for over a year. He fought the election on that platform, for heaven's sake!

Frankly, Laws fired himself the moment he chose not to reveal any of this as being a potential problem to his boss before he was appointed (I do not for one moment believe he didn't realise or didn't understand the rules - in fact it's surely hard to believe that of a double first Cambridge economist - and it won't wash regardless, even if he sticks to that lame line).

But who to replace him? Well, how about John Redwood? I think it's high time Cameron picked someone like him for the cabinet anyway. Besides, he's much smarter and more experienced even than Laws in many ways, and genuinely believes and can explain the Friedmanite solution to Labour's debt crisis that we now so desperately need. He'd also be a handy bulwark against the economic mixed brew that is Saint Vince and his presence would vastly help to shore up the Tory back benches. A win-win scenario potentially, then, both for the party and, in my humble, for the country.

Oh, and sucks to the bloody Lib Dums. They can either suck it up and stay in government, or they can destroy this blessed coalition in a fit of indefensible pique.

I just can't wait to see how Deputy Nick decides to handle this one.

Brown's "Cack-Handed Incompetence" : So It Begins...

Stalking donkey horse - outspoken Brown critic, Barry Sheerman

The countdown to Brown's exit, that is. Barely has the dust settled from the Czech cave-in over Lisbon and the torrent of Labour-sourced, anti-Brown briefings has begun. Already, for instance, this morning's Times has a front page village report that our useless and unwanted Prime Minister has acquired a stalking horse (stalking donkey more like, but I digress) in the form of Barry Sheerman. The report reveals just how deep the discontent within the Labour government now runs, just how desperately fragile Brown's authority has become and just how appalling his leadership of the PLP has been, particularly over the expenses issue.

It's worth a gander:

GORDON BROWN last night suffered fresh challenges to his authority amid growing turmoil over the expenses scandal.

Barry Sheerman, the veteran MP and critic of the prime minister, was on the verge of standing for the position of chairman of Labour’s parliamentary party on what will be seen as a “Gordon must go” manifesto.

The chairman is regarded as the “shop steward” for backbench MPs. The incumbent is Tony Lloyd, a Brown loyalist.

MPs from all wings of the party offered Sheerman their support for his “stalking horse” bid, which could be formally announced this week. Alan Simpson, of the left-wing Campaign Group of MPs, said: “Gordon has found himself floating adrift from his colleagues. I think if Barry Sheerman stood, he might find a surprisingly high level of support.”

Another MP said: “If Barry wins, it would mean Gordon has lost his party. It would be hard to see how he could carry on.”

The fresh plotting came as it emerged that dozens of Labour MPs will openly defy the prime minister by refusing repayment demands from Sir Thomas Legg, the Commons expenses auditor.

Frank Field, the former welfare minister, became the most high-profile “refusenik” by announcing he would not pay back the £7,000 — mainly in “excess” cleaning costs — that Legg demanded. He is among 50 MPs querying demands from Legg.

Field, who when the expenses scandal broke had been described as a “saint” because of his low claims, spoke of his anger at being put in the “rogues’ gallery”. He was particularly angered by the way Legg introduced retrospective caps on claims for expenses such as gardening and cleaning which had previously been cleared by the Commons fees office.

Instead of the £7,000, Field sent a cheque for £117 to Legg with a letter querying his logic.

“It’s like driving along at 25mph in a 30mph zone only to receive lots of tickets which say you should not have been driving over 20mph,” he said.

Amid signs of cabinet despair over Brown’s poor handling of the scandal, Harriet Harman, the deputy party leader, has let it be known that MPs found guilty of “technical” expenses breaches are unlikely to be forced to repay cash.

She is expected to be a candidate in any future leadership contest and Brownite loyalists privately believe she is undermining the prime minister by currying favour with disillusioned backbenchers.

The Legg audit has led to about half of all MPs being asked to pay back sums claimed for cleaning, gardening, furniture and second home mortgages. Many Labour MPs blame Brown personally for allowing the scandal to flare up again.

If Sheerman, respected chairman of the Commons education committee and who is on the moderate wing of the party, were to back away other rebels are ready to fill his place.

Jane Kennedy, the former farming minister, is understood to be considering standing on an anti-Brown ticket. The Liverpool Wavertree MP warned in June that Brown’s refusal to resign could seriously damage Labour.

Malcolm Wicks, a former minister who is now Brown’s energy envoy, delivered a thinly veiled attack on the prime minister’s leadership, saying the party needed to rediscover its “backbone”.

Nick Raynsford, the former local government minister, said Brown had displayed "cack-handed incompetence" over the expenses issue. He said: “It is not, in my view, certain that Gordon will lead us into the next election."

Many Labour MPs are braced for the publication next month of the official report by Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the committee on standards in public life, which will recommend radical reform of the expenses system. He is expected to say MPs should be forced to sell their second homes and to stop employing family members on the Commons payroll.

Brown’s handling of the expenses crisis will face further criticism tomorrow when Harman is expected to raise her concerns at a meeting of the Commons commission — the House’s governing body chaired by the Speaker.

By any standards, this is about as damning as things can get for Brown without an actual, direct challenge to his leadership. Now that Lisbon is done and dusted, itself an appalling crime against British democracy, there is nothing left to halt that direct challenge. It could come any day and I, for one, will welcome it with open arms no matter who we end up with in Brown's place (even the hated Harperson or the scheming Lord Peter Mandelson). That's how much I want Brown gone.

One thing is now certain, at least to me, my wish might well come true sooner than even I had predicted. The fraud, usurper and great ruiner of Britain could be gone before the end of this month!

Brown Reduces The Deficit

No, not with the ridiculous panic measure that is the £16Bn (plus or minus £13Bn) fire sale of a few assets, but by being forced to pay back 13 large of taxpayer readies that he, the Prime Minister no less, has troughed.

Meanwhile, as the pound begins to plummet, the penny begins to drop.

A Big Day after all, then!

PS: I have one response to Brown's expenses misfortune as the police move in on his fellow Labourist fraudsters, currently whining away and trying to wriggle out of repaying their ill-gotten gains. It goes like this...



*sides splitting* Oh dear, Brown. Do stop. By resigning.

We're all laughing policemen now. One more time!

Big Day Tomorrow?

Could be. The expenses scandal, after yesterday's revelations, is about to rear its ugly head again. This report from Peter Spencer of Sky News earlier seems to be suggesting so. Creepy Pete does well here, striking the right balance (unlike the biased BBC's reporting), given that evidence so far shows that it's far more likely the government generally and Brown in particular will be blamed for most of the corruption that's been going on - and rightly so since most of the worst abuses have come from Labour MPs and even ministers, including Gordon Brown himself!



Donal Blaney even suggested this morning that it's the expenses issue, not his eyesight, that will provide Brown with the excuse to get out of office with some degree of dignity. I'm not so sure after watching this report, but who knows? My feeling is that the Labourists are so punch drunk now, trotting out the horrible Yvette Cooper-Balls - herself a serial trougher along with her equally horrible husband - to try to limit the damage from the surge in the Conservative Party's popularity, that they might have just given up. It's a chilling thought, but it seems to me that they could be resigned to their fate and so will keep drawing the comfortable salary, treading political water and sinking the country ever deeper into debt right up until the very bitter end. A large proportion of these invertibrates seem to want to leave Brown in place, with Alan "Postie" Johnson well-positioned to take over, simply so that the former carries the can for what now looks like inevitable electoral annihilation. They will squeeze as much time out of their term simply to line their own pockets prior to unemployment. No Labour MP's seat is safe now - and they all know it.

So it is a big day tomorrow, but mainly for Labour, who are stuck firmly between the proverbial rock and hard place, right where they deserve to be. Whatever the outcome of all this, the best they can expect is, as Spencer puts it, "zilch". For them that would be a real result. That's how bad things are for them - and that's how little they care about the needs of the country. They'd sooner go on like this, paralysed and unwanted, than trigger a genuine challenge to their own, bankrupt and moribund leadership.

I still think Brown will be gone by early November (or sooner), mind you, but it will have a lot more to do with the Czech president's actions than expensesgate and his failing eyesight. The plucky little Czechs I reckon are about to cave in and ratify Lisbon, given that the Germans in particular are putting gigantic amounts of pressure on them to do so, including vicious personal attacks on their head of state.

I buy the theory now that once that weasel Mandelson has got what he wants and locked us into Lisbon, with the future President Blair waiting in the wings, Brown will be dropped like a radioactive turd.

If you think not even the New Labour hierarchy could be cynical enough to try to pull this coup d'état off, think again. Mandelson, Campbell, Blair: the most infamous, treacherous and crooked three men ever to wield power in the history of British politics. Even Brown, the awkward, perfidious incompetent, pails before them.

Remember their names!

Cowardly Cowardly Scotland

That Patricia Scotland woman - you know, our Attorney General: where is she? While her political career goes into a tailspin (no one elected her anyway so no sympathy from yours truly will be forthcoming), she's gone into hiding.

Ollie Cromwell has once again snuffed-out any hopes she might have had of skulking back to work tomorrow morning as if nothing had happened. His new surgical dismemberment of any possible defence she might have tried to launch, this time over her expenses fiddling, has put paid to that idea. (See Guido for highlights.)

Meanwhile, the Downing Street smear operation has gone into overdrive, making sure the UK Border police raid on the poor Tongan woman caught up in the middle of all this was splashed all over our gutter press, complete with rumours of homosexuality, infidelity and "open relationships". Shock horror. Anna Raccoon has said it all in her excellent post on this new Labour low. She comments:

My sympathies lie completely with Ms Tapui. She is a foreigner living in a foreign country. She is legally married to a solicitor, she has the legal right to live in the UK, she worked for the ultimate legal guardian of our laws; whilst ignorance of the law is no defence, she had more reason than anyone to assume that she was doing nothing wrong in applying for a job as a cleaner. The fault, under a statutory liability that she devised herself, lays entirely with Baroness Scotland who failed to scrutinise and retain copies of, the correct papers – for if there had been copies of correct papers, there would be no problem – and thus failed to give her the friendly advice she might have expected from such a quarter, that she was not entitled to work and should not continue to seek employment.

Baroness Scotland has ‘received the full support’ of 10 Downing Street. Ms Tapui’s privacy and physical integrity has been invaded in a most humiliating fashion.

The Sunday papers today contain a multitude of photographs of her smashed front door courtesy of the UK Border Agency, who proceeded to pick their way through the detritus of her personal life and papers.

‘Chief Reporters’ have been dispatched to pick through those indelible details of personal life left on the Internet by those who frequent salacious and explicit sexual chat rooms and forums.

Good, that. Really good.

It's interesting, isn't it? A pattern seems to be emerging; the bunker's smear tactics have never gone away. You can just imagine it, can't you? The sotto voce conversation, strictly off the record.

Brownite goon 1: "Have we got anything on the cleaner?"
Conspiring civil servant: "We'll know after the raid."
Brownite goon 2: "Get me Maguire. Get me Dacre!"

Nice. Although it seems the smearists might have got a little ahead of themselves with this very fishy release of Scotland's fiddled expense claims. That smacks of chaos.

Meanwhile, Scotland has disappeared. A lot of people will be very pleased to hear that.

The upshot of all this is that she's gone. Law broken. Incompetent. Trougher. Found out. Career over. End of.

--Update (sort of)--
Just spotted this little paragraph in the Mail's 'orrible coverage of this story:

Yesterday, Lady Scotland’s detached house on a leafy Chiswick street remained empty. All the curtains were drawn, although a dog could be heard barking when the doorbell was rung. Neighbours said she had not been seen in days.

Someone should break down her door to see if she's alright. Check on the dog at the very least. Don't wait for the smell...

--Update (sort of) 2--
Still no sign of her. The picture on Guido's site is funny. The last time he did that the result was carnage for Brown's inner circle. I wonder what the result will be this time.

One thing, though: it's very hard to take aim and fire if the target has disappeared. I'm telling you, someone had better check that house of hers. Curtains drawn, dogs barking - doesn't look good. Somebody, please, break down her bloody door!

The Desirable Cut

This Gerald Scarfe cartoon from the Sunday Times is typically brutal - and honest.

Red Rag Over Scotland

If you haven't already caught it, I strongly urge you to check out The Red Rag's coverage of the pisspoor behaviour of our pisspoor Attorney General, Baroness Scotland of Asthal (it's a village in Oxfordshire, apparently. Yeah, you and me both).

From The Rag's pretty much watertight, forensic analysis of her negligence and/or crimes surrounding her illegal immigrant employee, it is very hard to see how she can survive the remainder of the week. She is, after all, in charge of enforcement of the immigration laws that grew out of her government's immigration policy. Blunkett went for the same sort of thing, arguably. Otherwise, it's one rule for them, another for us, isn't it? And that won't do.

A well-deserved, partial scalp for Ollie C. is almost certainly on the cards, then. And, into the bargain, this represents one more step along that long and bumpy road to the final collapse of this Labour government. Good news.

(Via Guido).

Labour Leadership Rumours, Chapter 112

One positive thing that can be said about the Left media, I suppose, is that you do get a better quality of inside info., especially on the epic, Tolstoy-esque Brown [lack of] leadership saga. Just flipped through the web-pages of the Observer, (which is actually the same as the Guardian online but we are supposed to pretend it's the Observer when it's Sunday, which I happily do - I like the quaintness of this challenge), and stumbled upon an article penned earlier today by Toby Helm. It concerns the latest plot (allegedly) brewing against our poor, deeply depressed PM. He writes (rather well, actually - although in typical, Graun/Observer style, there seems to be some side-debate going on about how to spell the word "install"):

There are new and potentially fascinating developments on the Labour leadership front, I hear. Serious plans are being formed by some Labour MPs to install an "anti-Brown" candidate as the next chairman of the parliamentary party. It is all part of a fresh attempt to oust the prime minister before the general election.

The MPs – including several former ministers – are urging senior figures including the education select committee chairman, Barry Sheerman, to put themselves forward to replace the current PLP chairman Tony Lloyd, who is seen by rebels as too much of a Brown loyalist.

Sheerman, a very senior figure in the PLP, has turned against Brown recently and would be seen by the whips as a de facto stalking horse, no less. Crucially, the PLP election, which will take place when parliament returns next month, will be conducted by secret ballot, meaning MPs do not have to own up to their choice.

Last night, Sheerman refused to comment but friends made absolutely clear he could and would be persuaded to stand if they could provide him with evidence that he would get sufficient support. Soundings will be taken among MPs at Labour's conference in Brighton later this month.

One backbencher said a challenge to Lloyd from Sheerman would throw the party into another period of "prolonged and vicious" leadership infighting.

The rebels are clearly trying to gain a foothold in positions of authority to try to persuade people from within that the game us is up for GB.

"An anti-Brown candidate like Sheerman would be supported by the 60 to 70 or so hardliners who are known to want Brown out, that is for sure," said one Labour MP.

"The question would be, how many more would join? That would depend on how things go over the conference season. The whips will pull out all the stops to prevent this. If it happens it will be ugly."

During the last coup attempt against Brown in June, Sheerman, who described himself as a "serialist loyalist" by nature, suprised colleagues with vehement criticisms of the prime minister.

He said he believed the parliamentary party was no longer listened to and he was not sure Brown was the right man to lead the party into the next election.

Sheerman complained to Lloyd about the way MPs such as Ian Gibson, who was forced out of Norwich North seat because of the expenses scandal, had been treated by the party machine.

The rebels are also planning to field their own candidate for one of the seats on the influential parliamentary committee, which conveys the views of the parliamentary party to the prime minister in regular meetings held in deep secrecy.

Some senior Labour figures who want Brown out, believe that if they keep up the pressure, and instal their people in positions of influence at the top of the party, then they might be able to persuade Brown to leave No 10 of his own accord. One theory is that Brown might cite his declining eyesight as a reason for leaving before the election.

The difficulty for the rebels is that they still have no candidate with whom to replace Brown. Alan Johnson, the home secretary, is still regarded as the best choice by most MPs but he has insisted he will not move against Brown and does not want the job.

Another backbencher said that despite Johnson's comments, the intention was to leave him with no option. "If things go according to plan, Johnson will come under intense pressure in the next few weeks."

Ed Miliband, who was tipped as a successor to Brown by Unite's joint general secretary Derek Simpson on the eve of this week's TUC Congress, is also being talked up as a possibility although he, also, remains loyal to the prime minister.

Combine this with thrusting new Speccy editor, Fraser Nelson's, devastating article this fair morn, citing an earlier, even more devastating article by Trevor Kavanagh from the same publication, about the personal responsibility Brown bears for the decline in just about every area of British existence, and you have to say that James Forsyth's question yesterday, "Can Brown make it through December?" is looking a tad optimistic. I'm beginning to wonder whether he's going to "make it" much past the Labour Party conference.

It simply can't go on like this - not in terms of Labour (who cares what happens to them?) - but in terms of the country. Someone has to say it out loud: we have no functioning government in the UK right now. It's leading to corrosion and decline at home and humiliation abroad. And for what? So a clinically depressed, medicated incompetent without a shred of decency in him can keep the job for which he is so patently unfit right up to the bitter end.

I've said it before and I'll say it again until that wicked, unelected fool is gone: even if they don't give a toss about the damage Brown has done/is doing to the country, someone in the Labour party better wake-up to the damage Brown is doing to their party and get rid of him with all convenient speed or the electorate will never, never forgive them for putting some wrong-headed, short-term form of self-interest before the needs of the nation they are supposed to serve.

But if Helm and the others are right, then we won't have much longer to wait until Brown is finally, finally, gone.

Hallelujah!

A Very British Coup

Just watched this 1989 classic for the first time in years. It got me thinking, if he rigs things so he doesn't have to go between now and June 2010 (or even beyond that date), then how the hell will we rid ourselves of Gordon 'Tyrant' Brown? It's a tricky one.

Tell you what, even though he's a Dennis Skinner-type loony communist, the fictional PM Harry Perkins is infinitely more desirable than Brown. At least he's honest. At least he has principles. At least he's reasonably normal. At least he's elected!

So we'll have to switch the plot lines around a bit for our little revolution. The restoration of British democracy is the goal, not the subversion of it, as in the film. That can't begin before our demagogue PM is removed and this cesspit parliament taken down with him. Any suggestions?

Anyway, here's a clip:



"I'm going to tell the truth."
"He can't do that. He's the Prime Minister."

Tee hee.

Blears Not Deselected - Exclusive Pictures

Hazel Blears, Sky is reporting, will not be deselected by her local Labour Party in Salford. I've uploaded the most recent pictures of her reaction to this disappointing news - disappointing to us, that is, not to the evil gopher, obviously. She seemed pretty happy about it:

Ussher-ed Out

Kitty Ussher: spending more time with her alien

I'm quitting for the sake of my kids, says tax evader and [ex-]government treasury minister, posh southern socialist MP for Burnley, Kitty Ussher. According to the Telegraph, she claims she has never done anything wrong whatsoever and that she had always intended to quit. Er, right. So that's why you accepted the ministerial appointment 12 days ago is it Kitty cat? Pull the other one, it's got a fur ball on it.

Her remarks to The Lancashire Telegraph just two months ago bear repetition if you don't think I'm being fair.

BURNLEY MP Kitty Ussher has defended her decision to school her children in London and said “I am still in love with Burnley”.

The MP said she has been shocked by the reaction since the news was exclusively revealed by the Lancashire Telegraph last week.

She said that “nothing has changed in practical terms” and that she would continue to split her time between her home in Brixton, South London, and her constituency base in Burnley.

And she said that her working life means she had no choice but to send her children to school in London, even though “the education in Burnley is better”.

Mrs Ussher, who serves as a Pensions Minister, said she would now name her terraced home in Brixton as her principal address.

But she said that weekends and school holidays would be spent at her home in the Healeywood area of Burnley.

Mrs Ussher, who was elected in 2005, said: “Parliament sits from Monday to Thursday in terms practically identical to school terms.

“If I want to keep us together I have no choice but to send them to school near Westminster even though the education in Burnley is better.

“I am 100 per cent committed to my adopted home of Burnley and I’m very proud that my children have Burnley on their birth certificates.

“But anyone who suggests that I should split my family up for the sake of my job should be scorned and derided.”

Mrs Ussher said she was keen to remain as the town’s MP.

Fancy that.

==Update==
Just to clarify: The Guardian is now saying she was actually sacked as a minister. Her claim that she decided months ago not to stand again as an MP is what I was attacking, mainly because it's not true!

Dan Hannan: Brown GO!

Death By Email

Sky has just released the Labour backbench email currently being circulated calling for Brown to piss off. Here it is...

Dear Gordon,

Over the last 12 years in government, and before, you have made an enormous contribution to this country and to the Labour Party, and this is widely acknowledged.

However we are writing now because we believe that in the current political situation, you can best serve the Labour Party and the country by stepping down as party leader and prime minister.

And so allowing the party to find a new leader to take us into the next general election.

Yours,

xxxx

So the plot is real - in spite of Mandelson's lies and spin to the contrary. And they only need 50 names.

Things are accelerating...

==Update==
According to the Grauniad, Labour rules require 72 names. The rebels apparently have 80 probables - and rising.

Betrayal

The Telegraph has revealed the latest government minister to have lined his pockets at the taxpayer's expense. He is Bob Ainsworth, the Armed Forces minister. He "claimed nearly £6,000 for the redecoration of his designated second home, submitting bills that included rebuilding the fireplace and fitting oak beams into his ceiling," the Telegraph says.

...[he] also tried to claim £2,225 for a sofa and £1,000 for a LCD Samsung television, both of which were reduced by the fees office. According to the Green Book of parliamentary rules, MPs are not allowed to claim “the capital cost of repairs which go beyond making good dilapidations and enhance the property”.

And so it goes on - and on and on and on. I suppose it's worth noting this man is also a serial flipper who, as has become the norm, denies he's done anything wrong.

So why bother bringing it up, then? Well, this case is a lot different in my opinion. While this man was busy doing-up his house with oak beams and artex or whatever it was - paid for by us - the troops in the field for whom his department has a duty of care are badly-paid, ill-equipped, over-stretched and under-fire. They are fighting and dying in Afghanistan while he is troughing away merrily, beautifying his house so he can sell it on, turning a profit and rubbing his hands. While the lions of Britain and their families are forced to live in damp, cheap, dilapidated accommodation on ancient bases, one (probably all) of their ministers of state has been filling his bank account by playing a property game that tax* on the fighting soldiers' income has helped finance. (*It's worth remembering American soldiers do not pay income tax while on active duty, unlike their British counterparts.)

This isn't merely a disgusting insult to the armed forces Ainsworth represents, it's a betrayal. It reveals the most serious breakdown in basic morality at the heart of the British government. You would need to go back to the days of the Napoleonic Wars and the mutinies in Spithead and Nore in 1797 to find some sort of historical comparison for this kind of corruption, at least in terms of the yawning moral gulf that has opened between rulers, ruled and the guardians of the land. The rulers are filling their chests with the nation's treasure while the people and the armed forces are expected to make do and do as they're told. Naturally, 212 years on, there are differences. But the underlying symptoms indicative of the decadence of the powerful in this country are the same.

So if this Ainsworth character is not removed from his post immediately, our forces in combat would be perfectly within their rights to stop fighting as far as I'm concerned. They should go all the way and consider their service abused, the military covenant broken and refuse to fight until this parliament is dissolved and a new parliament elected. Of course, they will continue fighting because they know what's at stake. Besides, their loyalty is to the country, to the Queen and to each other, not to Bob 'Oak Beams' Ainsworth or Gordon 'D-Day Invite' Brown.

Gordon doesn't 'do' loyalty and neither does his dead, chaotic regime.

Labourlost Finally Finds Its Voice

Daniel Finkelstein earlier today noted a startling article on the reborn (and now half decent thanks to Dolly's departure - shame it's too late for them) Labourlist blog. Entitled 'Gutless Brown', it spells out in no uncertain terms precisely where Brown has completely failed and where Cameron has partially succeeded in tackling the expenses scandal. It's a decent analysis not-least because it delivers a reasonably honest appraisal of the state of play (unlike the latest ultra-rogue Comres Indy poll - which stinks, frankly!).

Two things: Labour activists are going to need a hell of a lot more of this kind of clear thinking if they are to have any hope of avoiding a Party-busting total wipeout come the General Election (an election that will, I think, certainly happen this year). They also need to wake-up to the fact that Brown's weaknesses were well-known long ago in Labour Party circles and yet still they thought that foisting this man without a mandate on the British people was acceptable.

As a succession of hideous polls now unequivocally prove, those weaknesses have done what weaknesses always do when they are stress-tested: they become severe liabilities. Brown's is a destructive character. He is antagonistic towards and suspicious of all those around him, save a handful of tainted, equally blinkered acolytes. In his politics, this destructive character expresses itself in a strange mixture of sophistry, browbeating, defensiveness and morose withdrawal. It is hardly suited to public life; that such a personality has been permitted to become Prime Minister of all things provides ample reason for the parlous state of just about every institutional dimension of the UK's existence: the economy, parliament, the Civil Service, Downing Street, the banking system, civic society, the postal service, public service, the NHS, educational standards, family life and so on and so on. All have been catastrophically affected by the influence of one man: J.G. Brown.

...at every turn in recent weeks, and yes, throughout his doddering premiership, Gordon has shown a shocking and at times painful lack of political instinct, which would have allowed a niftier politician (Blair, anyone?) to not only strengthen his own position but also bring about the transformative energy that Brown alluded to in that conference speech.

Time and again, we the rank and file, have had to squirm as the Prime Minister’s political judgement has been exposed as sorely wanting; the election that never was, 10p tax, youtubegate and now his reaction to the expenses scandal.

No one of course suggests that the poisoned system is Gordon’s fault directly (Parliament itself must take the rap for this) but what we can blame our leader for his appallingly lacklustre political response. Just where exactly has he been? As was so often the case in the Blair years when the going got tough, Gordon retreats to his bunker licking his wounds. Surely any party leader with but the merest handful of political nous would have sensed the virtually apoplectic anger of the British people and responded quickly, positioning himself as the man of change he has for so long tried to convince the electorate he is.

Rather, after his rather unfortunate brush with internet video, Mr. Brown returned to the bunker, presumably hoping everything would just be okay. How can he, or those around him at the very least, not have realised that a political vacuum is never left unfilled? That if Brown failed to position himself as that agent of constitutional change then David Cameron certainly would; which is precisely what happened. The good people of Britain could barely turn on their TV screens or radios without seeing or hearing the Tory leader sounding like a veritable expenses Hulk Hogan; I personally lost count of the number of Conservative MPs on which planned to ‘come down on like a tonne of bricks’ by the end of the week.

The point is that Cameron took the decisive action quickly and efficiently, both on offending MPs and coming out with a plan to solve the mess. This is surely why the latest poll in the Times on Saturday reported that whilst a massive 62% of respondents thought the Prime Minister had been personally most damaged by the expenses scandal a mere 5% thought the same true of Cameron (Ed Balls, presumably).

All of this despite the fact it is Conservative MPs with the most egregious claims. Cameron had the political wherewithal to sense the public’s anger, come out fighting and position himself as the change maker, something that Brown just clearly had not the guts to do.

This is all very well, but where is the call for his immediate removal? Where is the honest, clear cry for reform of the Labour party, starting with the rotten leadership and half the PLP? Where is the appeal in this article that the final connection be made by Labour activists everywhere between the state Britain is in - or merely the state Labour is in within Britain if they can't bear that much honesty - and the man they allowed to play with it for so long, first as Chancellor then as PM? I'll tell you where: nowhere. This is the angry Labour blogger's conclusion:

His only chance now is to go all for it, lay out a clear comprehensive stall for wholesale constitutional reform, expose the Tories’ ‘ifs and buts’ and come out with concrete proposals for a transformed political system. He really has little to lose now. You never know, he might actually form a legacy. Alas, I fear the bunker mentality will prevail once more, but we can at least hope. All of this is but the latest example of Brown’s tactical ineptitude. It will surely cost him, as well as us, dearly.

There's some fight in that - but it's aimed completely at the wrong target once again (the 'evil Tories' and 'the system'). What there is far more of is something that is becoming more and more familiar as the Brown disaster continues to unfold: a shrug of the shoulders and more supine drifting from a 'movement' that has lost its way so completely that it no longer seems even to care.

Brown's "tactical ineptitude" is certainly a problem for them, but it's now the least of their worries. If, for example, he is caught in a lie after his denials in this interview about the changes to the expenses rules in 2004 which directly benefited ministers, the remainder of his career could span a matter of days. What is far worse, however, is the almost bovine inability of Labour to grasp once and for all that without him, they stand a chance of limiting the damage to a term or two out of office whereas with him, they might as well tear up their membership cards and call it a day because Labour will be finished for generations.

Alas, I fear the bovine mentality will prevail and Labour will crash into a decline exactly like their Liberal predecessors in the early C20th - and as near-terminal. It will have taken the Liberals a century to recover by the time they beat Brown-led Labour into third place. How long, I wonder, will recovery take for them?

Farewell Darling: A Tribute In Toons

In no particular order of fun:



























































































































































And meet your ultra house-flipping, tax evading, smearing, backstabbing, Brownite lickspittle new 'Chancellor', Head Balls.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

Constitutional Deform

Yours truly has been down the beach enjoying the glorious summer sun all day. Why, then, did El Gordo have to spoil it all by opening his disconnected gob? I avoided Marr's much-trumpeted interview assiduously this morning, knowing full-well that it would contain the kind of platitudinous, backtracking, soundbitten horseshit that is Brown's bankrupt oratorical currency. But I failed. This afternoon I succumbed to curiosity and read the Sunday Times coverage of it. What I found was not pleasant and is lingering in the atmosphere like a disowned fart.

Dan Hannan's deoderising is the best so far, so I'll leave it to him:

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, along comes Gordon Brown with a proposal for statutory regulation of MPs. Prime Minister, it was the "I have acted within the letter of the rules" mentality that brought Parliament to this pass. You cannot compel moral behaviour by legislation; on the contrary, such laws replace a culture of conscience with a culture of compliance.

The PM, in an unwontedly pharisaical aside, said that some recent revelations "offended my Presbyterian conscience". But any good Presbyterian would see that external regulation smothers personal responsibility. (See here for the full case against the Broon's abominable idea.)

Yes, the House of Commons needs an external regulator. Happily, it already has one: the electorate. Have we so little confidence in ourselves as voters that we are content to surrender our right to choose our representatives to a government-appointed quango? Is this what Coke and Hampden and Pym fought for? What fools our fathers were if this be true.

It's a pretty simple point but it's one that liability Brown is incapable of grasping: there was nothing wrong with the expenses 'system'; the problem is the MPs who exploited it. Revealing their utter turpitude through temptation is, in fact, the system's triumph. Then again, with his deflection tactics and mishmash 'reforms' (which, as Hannan implies, will only actually serve to deform our democracy still further), perhaps he knows exactly what he's doing - sort of. He will say, do, destroy, obfuscate, bully, cheat, steal, burn, ruin and annihilate anyone and anything to cling on to power. So wrecking British democracy will be a stroll in the park for this new Caligula.

“We will be the reforming party on the constitution. It’s always where I have wanted to be.”

Priceless. If you're going to be a hypocrite, might as well be a massive one. If you're going to tell a lie, it might as well be an absolute whopper. He's clearly got Balls. People of Britain, deliver the crushing defeat to this tyrant on Thursday that will start the countdown to his demise. It's not just desirable now, it's vital.

Lies, Darling, Lies

Alistair Darling, charged with managing the nation's finances, has lied about his expenses claims according to the latest DT revelations.

Mr Darling initially attempted to claim yesterday that the expense was justified as it was in relation to the taxation of his office costs. However, receipts submitted by the Chancellor to the parliamentary authorities clearly show the advice is for personal taxation.

According to senior accountants, in itself this is a clear breach of the rules. What makes it worse is that Darling sought to mislead the public initially by suggesting his claims were related purely to his role as an MP and as Chancellor.

Surely there is only one course open to him now: he must resign. He's claimed public money for a private accountant, has lied to the public about it and as the man in charge of tax policy, has exposed himself to a serious conflict of interest. Each one of those reasons represents a strong enough reason for the man to be sacked. Taken together, not only should he be fired as Chancellor, but his future as an MP must also now be in serious doubt.

If useless Brown doesn't act on this, everyone will finally know precisely where they stand with Labour: they will stop at nothing to cling on to power. Not good enough, I'm afraid - and the Opposition parties must make damn sure that message is heard loud and clear by demanding a no confidence debate in the Chancellor and, by implication, the government.

This cannot go on.

Another One Bites The Dust

Fraser Nelson reports that another Tory grandee is to fall on his sword after making dodgy expense claims.

Only this morning, Andrew MacKay said that he would stand for election again - but after a conversation with David Cameron he has now decided to stand down at the next election. The open meeting he held had several calls for him to go, and there was talk of a petition. The grassroots momentum was significant. This, make no mistake, is a personal loss to David Cameron who relied on MacKay to be his eyes and ears in the backbenches.

It's become pretty obvious that Cameron intends to purge the Tories of all those who have abused a lax system, whether their claims fell within the rules or not. The party faces a torrid time over the next week or so, but one thing is now abundantly clear, whatever you might think about the main parliamentary parties' behaviour generally, the battle between Brown and Cameron on how to deal with the issue is being comprehensively won by Cameron.

As I said a few days ago, thanks to his indecisiveness, mixed messages and perennial favouritism Brown faces the impossible task that is reshuffling a tainted and split cabinet. Another minister broke ranks today providing a front page story for the Times and further evidence of a government in total disarray not just over the expenses fiasco but over the management of the economy and home affairs, too. Caroline Flint, the over-promoted minister of something-or-other in question and friend of chipmunks everywhere apparently

...risks angering Downing Street by saying that Ms Blears had technically done nothing wrong, despite Mr Brown’s branding her behaviour “completely unacceptable” after she failed to pay capital gains tax on the sale of a flat.

Ms Flint says that Ms Blears is “one of the last people who would ever come into politics to gain some kind of financial benefit”.

So, not only wrong but wrong-headed and a thinly-veiled assault on Geoff Hoon, the Lord High Chancellor of Troughers. Combine this backbiting with the brewing tempest over the economic mismanagement apparently exacerbating an already serious situation vis-a-vis the debt crisis, with the UK about to lose its AAA status according to CNBC and you quickly see the Times is way off-beam with its characterisation of the mood within the Parliamentary Labour Party...

In a further sign of the febrile atmosphere at the top of government, some ministers are now speculating that Mr Brown could be persuaded to call an autumn election. They say that, with Labour apparently heading for certain defeat next year, the only way Mr Brown could rescue his party would be to be bold and go to the country...

They shouldn't bother talking to 'some ministers'. There is not one snowball's chance in hell that this outcome is even remotely likely. On the strength of the evidence so far, Brown will either hang on until the last possible minute of this parliament (not a chance) or he will be metaphorically assassinated (probability rising with each passing day) soon after the June 4th wipeout by the growing mass of disaffected Labour MPs faced with unemployment.

Not to see this is not to appreciate the state of panic among Labour's rank and file, or the total lack of leadership or connection from the Prime Menacer. While they are ponderous and slow on the uptake, predictably, they will eventually come to the conclusion that they chose him and they can depose Brown. Whatever they might think of him personally, they will look at David Cameron and see tough, sure, decisive - even brutal - leadership from a fairly normal human being. They will then look at Brown and see a bully who cannot see past the end of his own nose, inconsistency, dithering and, above all, a willingness to burn anyone to save his own bacon.

It will finally dawn on them that he is a liability and has to go.