Polly

Carrying on the Greek's Good Work... as he is off cavorting in Ireland...

When will Polly realise - he's just not the sort of man you thought he was.

You thought he was a god but he is merely a mortal full of flaws.

He is like that handsome bit of fluff that you see at the Labour Conference, Polly, but he isn't handsome at all... rather it is the sherry goggles that have distorted a plain, bland man into something worth getting excited over.

He is the man you take back to your room imagining hour upon hour of glorious lovemaking, a sexual beast capable of giving you orgasm after orgasm - each better, more intense and enjoyable than the last but, when the lights are off, he is no such thing. He is simply a pump-pump squirt. He, like Nick Clegg, has received many complaints over his technique.

RS

When business calls, the clunking fist turns into a wee tim'rous beastie - May 2nd 2008

Stop tinkering, Gordon. Be bold, and show whose side you are really on - April 25th 2008

This buffeted prime minister must stop scrambling at every puff of wind - April 11th 2008

Now Brown can rediscover his natural political fire - January 1st 2008

Balls's bold plan to end child poverty could revive Labour - December 11th 2007

Labour must go on the offensive to get out of this vortex of failure - November 30th 2007

Be bold: show us the red thread running through your policies - November 9th 2007

Now the crisis is over, ditch the muzzle of consensus - October 9th 2007

A conviction politician, but where, Gordon, is the edge? - September 25th 2007

Now Brown must show exactly why he was so impatient to take control - September 21st 2007

It's a truly decent, clever team - but now they must excite - June 29th 2007

High risk can yield high rewards. Brown's real enemy is over-caution - June 22nd 2007

Finally ministers are free to say the rich are too bloody rich - May 18th 2007

Just imagine what might be, if only Labour dared - December 26th 2006

Brown's intellect is beyond doubt. Now he must show political genius - December 8th 2006

Blair's party is crying out for Gordon the Viking - March 21st 2006

Brown Trousers... again

I have accused Brown, many times, of being a cowardly politician. I have sniggered that this timid leader has written three books on ''Courage'' when, in reality, he probably puts both full-fat and semi-skimmed on his cornflakes as to avoid making a choice. I have laughed and poked fun as he has wriggled out of every political challenge. I have said that he is a political soft-cock - a man who when the legs of political opportunity are akimbo and wanting nothing more than a pounding from the Prime Minister... he suffers from brewers droop.

However, his behavior over the Olympics is so complicated it is as if he is playing an advanced game of hokey-kokey.

On the one hand:

"We will not be boycotting the Olympic Games. Britain will be attending the Olympic Games ceremony. I think President Sarkozy said himself he expected Britain, because we are going to host the next Olympics, to be present at the Olympic ceremonies and I will certainly be there."

On the other hand:

He will not be attending the opening ceremony.

But wait:

We knew all along that he wasn't going to the Opening Ceremony.

On the one hand, he wishes to meet the Dalai Lama. On the other hand, he allows Chinese thugs to surround the Olympic Torch and trot up to Downing Street, shakes their hand and then doesn't fucking touch the Torch.

Does he honestly think we won't notice that as he grins and waves, surrounded by goons, he won't touch the torch? It's an empty gesture like one of those wankers who waves his water over whisky at Burns Suppers to toast the 'king over the water'. It's like signing the Lisbon Treaty behind closed doors all over again. This is a man, remember, who welcomed the Saudis last summer yet won't be seen in the same room as Mugabe.

Can you imagine Gordon Brown having the balls to do a Rudd - to stand up and blast the Chinese publicly? I can't imagine him doing it in the UK in English let alone in Mandarin in Beijing. Of course not because that would involve taking and holding a position.

He wants us to do something about China but what exactly? He's changing position as often as a Aberdonian whore when the riggers are in town - nobody knows what he thinks about China, nobody knows what he wants to do but he is trying to please everybody at once. He doesn't want to anger the Chinese for any number of reasons, he wants to show to the world he wants to support a feudal theocracy in Tibet, he wants to show to the anti-China protestors they have a point, he'll welcome Chinese goons to Downing Street yet he won't touch the torch and he is picky about which morally abhorrent dictators he'll eat smoked salmon sandwiches with.

My head is spinning. What the fuck is he doing? I can't keep up.

RS

Saudi Probe

One of my most furious pieces came in December 2006 over the Attorney General's intervention in the SFO's investigation into alleged corruption by BAE.

It is good news indeed that this ruling has come through. I wonder if that means the SFO will re-invigorate their investigation? Or would that be against the national interest?

Lunchtime edit: An update here. Some lovely quotes:

''... is difficult to identify any integrity in the role of the courts to uphold the rule of law, if the courts are to abdicate in response to a threat from a foreign power''

''It is difficult to identify any integrity in the role of the courts to uphold the rule of law, if the courts are to abdicate in response to a threat from a foreign power''

And: “We fear for the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat.”

He concluded: “No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of justice.”

Quite.

RS

Believable

I was going to title this unbelievable... yet, unfortunately, it is all too believable.

I wonder where the shame button is on New Labour Robots?

RS

A few stories

A New Year and, unsurprisingly, a glut of stories about the Labour Party...

Whilst he's not (stifles guffaw) saving the Middle East (sniggers) he's joining an Investment Bank as an advisor.

It is not known how much JP Morgan will pay him, but some estimates say more than $1m (£500,000) a year. The bank said he had a "unique perspective''

That is one way of putting it...

As my good friend, the Greek points out, there is speculation that Chuckles is in the running for the job of EU President. Just when we thought it was safe to get back into the water... I knew, I just knew, when he smirked his last smirk outside Downing Street that we would be seeing the man again. Not in the dock, as one would expect, but in some position where in some small way I would be contributing to his salary. Why can't he just fuck off?

Talking of criminality, what of Tango Hain? I was going to go over this but the Greek does it too well for me to bother.

I would say that if he is legally responsible, erm, he is legally responsible - he cannot delegate it (unless there have been maor shifts in jurisprudence since my university days). The idea that:

There is no evidence that Hain sought to break the law and he has already admitted "deeply regrettable" administrative failings.

is frankly laughable. Whether he intended to break the law is neither here nor there. It's a little like Wendy's 'I didn't know it was against the law'. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat, love. If I was caught driving at 130mph down the M8, I doubt me pleading 'But i didn't realise it was against the law....' would get me precisel nowhere'

We've also been told that ID cards may not be compulsory - what?! The only thing more pointless than a compulsory ID card is a non-compulsory ID card. Miliband was right all those months ago... sometimes, when Brown opens his maw, and the realisation sinks in that this behemothic idiot is actually First Lord of The Treasuy, you think was Blair as bad as him?Of course, dear reader, they are two sides of the same filthy shilling.

And what of the idea of ID cards for foreign nationals? What is to stop someone saying 'I'm not a foreign national that is why I don't have an ID card' How could we prove otherwise? By having a British job?

And this from Grandmother Goose? Remember Blears & Lewis sitting in on decisions then turning up on the picket line to protest against those decisions? It seems as if double-speak isn't reserved to Mancunian dullards.

It isn't just Labour, of course, they are all at it. Depending on which Lib Dem you are speaking to they are either for or against the legalisation of cannabis.

And people wonder why swearbloggers end up swearing...

RS

Let me out! Let me out!

Nothing that this government does surprises me anymore. If someone told me that the Wonk Brothers Ltd (Miliband et Miliband) had said that instead of ID cards we must all have our names tattooed on our foreheads as to help the police with their enquiries I would no doubt shrug and mutter 'whatever next'.

In 16 months of running this blog, I've thought those words 'Whatever next' any number of times - sometimes about general sleaze (from the government intervening in an SFO enquiry into BAE's dealings with Saudi through to proxy donors), about general incompetence (discgate, learner drivergate, Northern Rock et cetera) but mostly about the profoundly illiberal policies this government continues to pursue.

There have been so many encroachments into our lives it is difficult to know which one's to ridicule first (here, here, here, here, here, here and here for starters) but this piece in today's Times caught my eye.

The suggestion is that we should hand the power to confiscate passports to Civil Servants.

Firstly, this is, in my view, a legal matter and this seems to abrogate due process. Whilst there are precedents for the removal of passports (the most obvious is the removal of football hooligans passports) this is a judicial function.

Secondly, looking at the recent performance of office monkeys (I'm sorry civil servants) should we trust them to do this? They can't even be trusted to ask for recorded delivery...

Thirdly, what is the system of appeal here?

Fourthly, who are these people accountable to?

Fifthly, what precedent does this set? Will the power be extended? Why is it so important to keep fathers who don't pay their CS money in the country but not any number of other undesirables?

Whilst absconding fathers are clearly an issue, I would contend that arbitrary executive control over someone's freedom to move within the EU is a larger issue.

RS

Nats & Tories...

Up a tree k...i...s...s...i...n...g...

This story was in The Scotsman but I haven't seen it anywhere else.

Whilst referenda are a reserved matter, this may end up being somewhat significant.

Firstly, Brown and Westminster need to say that this vote was invalid and a referendum can't occur - highlighting the Scottish Parliament's comparative toothlessness (at a time when 3 of the parties are asking for greater powers and Labour will probably come on board).

Secondly, it may be a useful test case for any proposed Independence referendum vote in the Parliament (what happens if said referendum vote actually passes - can a referendum be held?).

Thirdly, it creates a sticky mess for Brown nationally as one of the regional parliaments has voted to hold a referendum suggesting, at least, that the people of Scotland want a referendum.

I don't think this will lead to much... we certainly won't get a referendum out of it but I'm sure it may cause Mr. Broon some headaches especially as Goldie and Salmond are too bright not to push the issue...

RS

Ladyboy

The Greek has already given Stephen '9 points' Ladyman a kicking for this.

The minister who knew that millions of drivers' records had gone missing in the US said he assumed his successor would hear about a probe into the loss.

What is the first rule of business school, Ladyboy? Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. He, presumably, has been sitting back and thinking 'I wonder when this story is going to break'.

"It doesn't look like a cover up to me - it looks like one of those things."

Well, I suppose so, we are getting more than a little used to 'one of those things' - it does keep happening after all. It also shows, dear reader, just how bitter the Blairite/Brownite divide is, just how little care they put around our keeping our personal data secure and how incompetent the party in government truly are... former ministers will not tell colleagues potential problems. Do they not have handover meetings?

As the Greek says this suggests that these lapses occur all the time...

Fuck the lot of them.

RS

Darling, do we need to have a word?

Well, I am sure every blogger in the country will be writing about this.

A few comments:

1) Is anyone still seriously suggesting we trust this lot with our personal data when it comes to ID cards?

2) Are the Lib Dems still seriously suggesting we let this lot takeover Northern Rock?

3) ''The BBC's economics editor Evan Davis, said it was likely political scrutiny would focus on the decision to merge the two departments and to implement the "efficiency savings". Would this make it Cylcops Broon's baby?

I would normally swear my own cheeks off about this sort of story. I genuinely don't feel I need to... the story writes itself.

RS

Vote Labour...

Or they'll do it for you!

It makes Douglas Alexander look like an organisational genius!

RS

EU Treaty

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Have a look at this sordid exhibit. (Focus your attention on these lines... ''The EU now has 25 members and will continue to expand. The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe'')

Now have a look at this. Oh, and maybe have a look at a bit of my own work...

Now having read all those, think how one could come to this opinion?

The Federal Union is a europhile organisation - they admit that the Treaty is largely similar to the vetoed EU Constitution. Parliament's all-party European Scrutiny Committee called it 'Substantially Equivalent' to the Constitution.... but still, Polly will try her best.

Our old friend, Polly, may well be excused for not perusing my rants online. She may not be excused for not recognising a Parliamentary Committee telling us that the Treaty is almost exactly the same as the Constitution which the Labour Party promised us a referendum upon.

This is not merely as she puts it 'relatively minor piece of EU good housekeeping will be forgotten by the next election by all but Ukip' this has major effects across the EU - she admits this further down her article.

Furthermore, as if we should be surprised, the issue shows exactly how stupid Labour think we are (and we prove it time and again by letting them off the hook) and exactly how much contempt they hold us in.

The government is now in for a perfect press storm. The dysfunctional dominance of four newspaper groups, with four fanatical Europe-hating owners, will try to force a referendum.

A referendum which the Labour Party promised us in their election manifesto.

The question is, will Labour stand firm in the face of press bombardment? Rumours of a wobble on holding a referendum are alarming - but almost certainly wrong, or perhaps deliberately misleading, to frighten the Lisbon summit into submission.

They shouldn't be frightened into holding a referendum. They should be holding it because it was part of their manifesto pledge - either the Treaty is 'substantially equivalent' or it isn't. I'd like someone, anyone, Polly, Barroso, Brown, the barman in The Albanach, whoever to tell me what the major substantive differences are between the Constitution and the Treaty.

There was never any need for a referendum.

Ah so the fact that you, with your palsied mind, thinks that there was never any need for the referendum means the idea can be completely forgotten. Let's forget the quaint notion of a prospective government using it's manifesto for telling us what it plans to do. Let us not expect them to even attempt to tell the truth. And when they lie, or renege on a promise, we'll just let the fuckers off shall we...

It is a legacy of Jack Straw, always Euro-dubious, when he bounced Tony Blair into it before the 2005 election.

Are we really going to believe this utter rot? That Jack Straw, that all-powerful being, managed to 'bounce' Tony into this? That this managed to get passed Gordon's roaming eye! Utter hogswash.

The treaty shifts power back the other way. National parliaments have new powers to pre-scrutinise EU legislation. They can send back legislation, if a third of them oppose a new law with a yellow card warning or a red card veto. That's new.

Ummm they were promised 6 weeks to scrutinise legislation under the Constitution. Now they'll get 8 weeks (a change from the Constitution). So only slightly new new, as it happens.

Both that and the idea that all EU legislation would be subject to the prior scrutiny of national Parliaments and the double approval of both national governments (in the Council of Ministers) and directly elected MEPs – a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international structure... were in some form in the original Constitution.

Contrary to more outrageous myths, Britain loses no power over its foreign policy, embassies or UN seat.

Ah hello straw man! Nice to see you back in Polly's repertoire. As it happens, The EU’s foreign policy High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations have been merged. In the original Constitution the new job was called “Foreign Minister”. In a sea change, it is now to be called “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”. Nobody is arguing we'll lose a UN Seat.

With the Parliament being capped and with Croatia due to be let in, we will, however, almost certainly lose MEPs and with the change in Commission rules we will often be without a Commissioner (no great shakes to see that fucking twat Mandelson out of a job) but still, our influence is waning.

With 27 members, qualified majority voting is essential. But "qualified" means nothing passes without a majority of countries that also represent a majority of EU citizens. At last, the European parliament gets more power: until now it could only accept or reject the entire budget, but now it can reject particular items.

What the budget that hasn't been signed off by the auditors for twelve years?

Watch it vote down the CAP it has always opposed. And, for the first time, there is a mechanism for a country to quit the EU.

At fucking last - let's hope that we use it.

To have influence, the EU's foreign diplomacy needs putting together under one minister. Javier Solana can't at present put pressure on a foreign government over, say, human rights, when trade, aid and defence belong to other commissioners acting alone.

Hang on, I thought we weren't losing any sovereignty over foreign affairs...

The irony is that this treaty marks the victory of the British vision - and yet here we go again, pretending it is the work of devious foreigners from which our valiant leaders will rescue us with red-line lifebelts.

It's the fucking same as the fucking constitution. Or, should I say, substantially e-fucking-quivalent!

That is why if Britain voted the treaty down in a referendum, it would lead rapidly to the EU exit gate.

Oh no!

Referendums can only work on matters of simple and profound principle. Since the treaty is about many technicalities, the government can only reply to the Euro-hysterics with dull technical explanations.

Oh so when you said that it was not necessary to have a referendum what you meant was that on Eurocrats would understand? That the British public is to fucking thick to understand?

This is not referendum material but the stuff of representative democracy. The very word Europe in any vote is toxic, thanks to Murdoch and company, who would ensure few ever knew what they were voting on.

You certainly don't have a clue by the looks of things, love.

We need the treaty to act on terror, crime, climate change and foreign aid. Europe needs an effective voice to stop any US madness in Iran. It is the only collective voice on global warming.

So.... is it a piece of good housekeeping and just a constitutional tidy up? Or is it vital to help us act on huge global issues. Do we keep sovereignty over foreign affairs under the treaty? Or do we need to cede sovereignty to help us act on these issues? So Polly, is a referendum is not necessary because it isn't important? And if so, why is it so vital? Is a promise in a referendum a promise or just something to get some votes? Should we trust these corpulent Labour bastards one fucking inch?

RS

IHT

An interesting post on Inheritance Tax from Grandmother Goose. I wondered how long it would take for New Labour to sell out their principle re: Inheritance Tax? Of course, The Campbell Quotient explains it all.

Percentage Drop in Opinion Polling - Time it takes to reach front page of newspapers = Time it takes for Policy Change/Reverse/About Face

Surely, this to-ing and fro-ing shows exactly how ideologically, indeed morally, bankrupt New Labour really is. Either they believe that inheritance tax is justified or they do not. I would have more respect for them if they hold to their guns and say 'Actually, taxing a corpse is a legitimate thing for the state to be doing'. I'd think they were fucking idiots, of course, but I can respect a fucking idiot. If they u-turn, as I'm sure they will, it shows - yet again - that they will do almost anything for a boost in the opinion polls.

Whilst this is somewhat turgid analysis, what exactly does the Great British public see at the moment? A governing party that will change it's skin in front of their very eyes to try and get a whiff of a floating vote? A governing party that will manipulate the news to undermine the opponents conference? A governing party that pretends it wants to give us our democratic right to vote but then, when the polls say nay, they decide to watch the Eastenders omnibus?

Perhaps, these weeks - when Labour have been shown up for all to see as the duplicitous, mendacious charlatans they are, when Labour have been shown to all to be a party that will do almost anything to get a headline and when Brown has been shown to have all the courage of a particularly timid mouse suffering from shell shock - will be the weeks we look back on and say 'that is where he lost the election'.

RS

PS - my views on IHT here.

Councillor Terry Kelly

In his most recent comments. Councillor Terry Kelly to a white South African

''Remember Henry you're not in S.A. now waving a whip at a cringing black child.''

Hmmm. In the picture above the good Councillor is with his old friend Wendy Alexander. Indeed, he was her election agent in the recent farcical election. I wonder what would the media would make of a Tory or a Nat with such close links to a rabid, racist idiot?

RS

Joint up government

So it turns out that a good clutch of government ministers have been on the wacky backy when they were at university.

I suppose that at least explains the poorly written laws, excessive paranoia (and the surveillance society) and why John Prescott is, how shall we put this, such a rotund bastardo.

Whilst this outbreak of honesty is somewhat refreshing, a couple of points.

1) Whilst what someone does at university is not really my business, for all I care Gordon Brown could have sold his arse for tuppence on the Royal Mile whilst a student at Edinburgh, I do find it somewhat worrying that these people are now looking to reclassify cannabis to a Class B narcotic. Why should any youngster caught whilst smoking marijuana take lessons from this shower?

I'm not sure I buy the story that they all 'did it a few times, didn't like it, realised it was wrong and have learnt from their mistakes'

2) Why was this announced yesterday? Why did they all come out at once? Safety in numbers? To bury bad news? To cover a story? To stop a story? Who knows? I'm skeptical of the motives and I'm skeptical that they are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then again, they are New Labour Ministers...

RS

Cash For Honours

Quite astonishing stuff... no charges?

For once I agree with a Nationalist. So, over to you Angus McNeill:

"We've had an investigation going on for the past 16 months, there have been 6,300 documents at the end of that given by the Yard to the Crown Prosecution Service.

"The Yard liaised with the CPS through all this, and now it seems the CPS are trying to tell us it's all a wild goose chase."

Nicely put, sir.

RS

Deputy Prime Minister

Harriet Harman? Harriet Fucking Harman? Dear Sweet Darwin... from my understanding her main argument for becoming Deputy Prime Minister was the fact that she had a vagina and the other 5 didn't.

Iain Dale is reporting that Douglas Alexander is going to be in charge of running the next election campaign? As Tony The Tiger would have it.... Grrrrrrrreeaaattt!

RS

Cashpoint Charlie

I found this in this morning's Scotsman but the only story about it on Google News was from the Daily Mail. It turns out the taxpayer is going to foot the bill for a lavish leaving do for everyone's favourite corrupt rogue, Lord Levy. £6,000 of taxpayers money is going to pay for his farewell party.

The reception is being held to mark Lord Levy's nine years of service as Tony Blair's personal envoy in the Middle East.

While I have no problem with leaving bashes, only a true spoilsport would, I would contend that this man should be in chokey for crimes he has committed not being fed caviar paid for by the public purse. He has been part of a cabal of crooks that has brought disgrace to this country. The fact that Labour are pressing ahead with this shows that they are so far out of touch with

In a written Parliamentary answer, Foreign Office Minister Geoff Hoon said: "The estimated cost is £6,000, which will be met by the Foreign Secretary's entertainment budget."

But, to the best of my knowledge, Lord Levy is not a Foreign Office employee rather a personal envoy of the Prime Minister? Furthermore, we all know about estimated costs are to the Labour Party - something to tell the electorate and then spend whatever they want.

Love, or what you will,

RS

Ending the Liveblog

Giving up... it is too brutally fucking dismal.

In my view, Cruddas, although he's clearly more left-wing than Stalin's wife on a Wednesday, is the only one of the lot of them who is consistent and honest. The rest are lying, knifing and twisting around like no tomorrow. The only one who can give a straight answer - a round of applause and a raise of the Tobermory to him.

Everything that is wrong with British politics clustered in one room. Give Paxman a machine gun (and a grenade, just in case!).

RS

PS - If Blears & Harman mention that they are women they deserve to die by mau mau. Blears has just 'blearsed' Cruddas.

PPS - To Blears (verb). To talk condescendingly to a person by flattering them. 'I think Jon Cruddas is absolutely right to talk about raise these important issues. Usually done by smiling, nodding and looking at them as if they were a piece of white dogshit.

Liveblogging - Deputy Leader Debate

The battle for Prescott's replacement begins...

On Social Mobility

Cruddas uses the phrase 'big ask' so I stop listening for poor use of the language. Hain bangs on about City Bonuses (how much did you earn last year?).

Blears's major insight is to say that most people want to do well. Most! Is this really the level of analysis we get from our politicians? That MOST people want to do well? Well, fuck me in the mouth, the ear and the nose, cover me in stock and roast me twenty five minutes. This woman is grating, annoying and stupid enough to make any right-thinking person rip off their own face.

Paxman asks why do you deserve another chance you've had 10 years? Ex-fucking-actly. I've stopped listening to Harman. She managed to get outclassed by the assorted dunces by not being able to answer 'yes or no' to three simple questions.

Three questions - Yes or No Let's see how they do. They've got no clue. Come on Paxo, nail these bastardos!

Renewal of Trident

Cruddas - No

Hain - Yes

Harman - Keep it under review (Yes or No! Yes or cunting No!)

Blears - Yes

Benn - Yes

Nuclear Power

Benn - Yes

Blears - Yes

Harman - Yes but waffle (Yes or No, you useless cunt)

Johnson - Yes

Hain - a waffley yes

Cruddas - Yes

End to charitable Status of Independent Schools

Cruddas - Yes

Hain - No

Johnson - No

Harman - Waffle (last, clearly last)

Blears - No.

Benn - No

Second Question about Brownite future:

Question quickly diverted to 'Stop & Question' and the fact Hain & Harman learnt about it from the papers. Hain talks about the stop and question laws being in the past in Northern Ireland - actually, the present, son!

Hain & Harman apparently didn't know about 'Stop & Question' laws. Blears has a bit of a pop at Hain... the squirrel comes out with her stock and trade 'we need a robust debate' which means, usually, 'stop asking me questions, I just don't understand but I'm very energetic and a woman'.

Cruddas turns it back to the question Paxman asked. Glory Be! He won't last long. Talks about why Brown will be different. Benn, looking like the son of a man who was always wrong, Brown has a moral purpose. What is particularly moral about taking money from grieving families, I wonder? The more I see Benn, I see John Major without the charisma.

First Question about Iraq

Frankly, I'm bemused as to what I'm hearing. They all said, having criticised Howard, that if they had known then what we know now they would have voted against the Iraq War. All about WMD, nothing on terrorism (not even the nuanced Abu Nidal, Palestine Terror groups argument), nothing about the negated sovereignty due to Marsh Arab genocide, nothing about humanitarian intervention or promotion of democracy. All about WMD and all blaming it away - take some responsibility you total fucking bastards.

90 second statements -

And finally - Cruddas. Election about whether we can change. Lost 200,000 in 10 years that's nearly 20,000 a month so showing a wonderfully Blairite grasp for figures.

Fifth - Tango. Beating the Tories will be tough. My values... apartheid blah blah. Woke up shortly after when he talked about full employment (really?). Progressive, internationalist foreign policy says a man who openly criticises neo-conservatives whilst voting for Iraq and refusing an investigation into the war. People like Human rights (no has told John Reid). Took full credit for settling Northern Ireland conflict (nothing to do with the people of Ulster, of course, you egotistical walking cock and balls).

Fourth - The Postman. Tony Blair & Prescott have done brilliantly? A we have a Blairite denier! Lots of real guff about communication channels becoming corroded and improving social mobility (the fucking cheek of it under this government, where social mobility has broken down). Compared himself to Robin to Brown's Batman.Pinky to Brown's Brain more like...

Third - Harman. Gordon Brown is the next leader but who is deputy is what we are discussing tonight? No, surely not! Fucking obvious stuff. The fact that she's a woman means she's best for the job apparently...

Second up - Blears. Dear fucking Christ, I hate this malignant bitch. Apparently, the party neeeds to renew but the real question is how? Not her leaving of course...

She sounds like a 'successful saleswoman from Burnley...

First up Benn. Apparently, he's a vegetarian teetotaller. At this point, I switched offreeling from the shock that a Deputy PM wouldn't have a G & T of an evening. Perked up at the mention of socialist values. I didn't realise the Labour party was either socialist or had values. Mostly leftist waffle...

Keith Vaz

A proliferation of posts to whet your appetites before the bank holiday weekend! Did no one else find it amusing that Keith Vaz was pushing for Andy Duncan of Channel 4 to resign because of gross misconduct?

Did someone say Filkin? I'm sure I heard someone say Filkin? Or maybe it was Hinduja?

The hypocritical fuckwit. If any Labour MP ever goes on record saying 'x perso should resign' we should point and laugh at their particularly weak record of ministerial resignations. But when Vaz does it... well we should piss ourselves and then shout 'Crook' until the cows come home.

RS