Life without Gordon Brown

I am in Edmonton, Alberta. The sky is cloudless (as yesterday) and this weather promises to continue. Last night I watched a baseball game with my son. I notice that the banks are properly regulated here and none has failed. There is no news of the UK except for that which I seek out on the web. I don't have politician's lie invading my space. Bliss!

Two fingers up to the public

As has slowly become apparent, our MPs, now recovered from the exposure and criticism of their expenses, are reverting to their old ways. The Labour members have made it clear now that they are more interested in scoring political points than electing a Speaker who can achieve parliamentary reform. Bercow clearly was not wanted by most Conservatives and they will see him as another Labour stooge. This will make working relationships difficult and it is hard to see how reform will happen in this environment. In addition, Gordon Brown is still PM, so meaningful reform is a non-starter.

It is also apparent that Mr Bercow likes the sound of his own voice. It won't take long for the public to find out what they have leading Parliament.

It was also interesting to see that Gordon Brown's and support and active whipping for Margaret Beckett torpedoed her chances.

Reform. What reform?

The expenses scandal continues; the government blatantly lies to us; things should change; nothing will change. It is dispiriting but I am increasingly coming to the view that we will limp along to the next election without any attempt at reform. The election will cause a change of government and the new government will have to concentrate on salvaging the economy. And that will be that.

Today we will get a new face in the Speaker's chair. Bercow, if he gets it, will be problematic because of his personality, but otherwise it will be same old, same old.... No reform can be expected from there.

The real issue is not the fiddling of expenses or members of the Lords clocking in to get their daily allowance but the actual function and purpose of Parliament. We have a government selected from members of the Houses of Commons and Lords, a lot of whom are given jobs that could be, and probably are, done by civil servants. Power resides in the hands of a handful of people. That's the real tragedy. Our parliamentary democracy has been surreptitiously hi-jacked and subverted over the years, almost without anyone noticing. MPs have little to do other than act as lobby fodder on the few days they attend the Commons and provide an additional Citizen's Advice Bureau in their constituency. The Lords, as a consequence of Blair's partial reform, ironically now have the time to do what MPs should be doing - namely debate and amend legislation. Some of them have not missed the opportunity to make money out of this.

One has to ask what is the point of having 640 MPs when so few of them are usefully employed? And the question will still be asked (and not only by myself) until efforts are made to change and improve.

What I would like to see happen (and I won't hold my breath waiting) is for a reform commission set up to spend a year travelling across the country genuinely seeking input, spend whatever time is needed to distill this into a report with recommendations, and finally (and crucially) hold a binding referendum to determine the next step. The referendum questions should put three or four models before the public and should include the option of leaving things as they are (the "don't meddle" option). I think too that a year of debate prior to the actual referendum would be required to ensure that all the options were fully understood and another year to prepare implementation of any change.

Constitutional change is a difficult and risky business, therefore it is right to spend four or five years on it, but at the end we would have a renewed democratic system. On the other hand, we might end up with the "no change" option, which would still be OK because we will have endorsed the status quo. At the moment we have no trust in anyone within the present system.

No election for the rest of us

MPs tomorrow will have the privilege of voting in an election - another dividing line between them and us!

The X Files

When I bought my Daily Telegraph today the boy behind the counter read the banner "The Complete Expenses Files. Is that like the X-Files?"

"Yes", I said, so quick I even surprised myself, "the aliens are ripping us off."

He looked at me blankly, but at least I got my own joke.

Lest we forget

The only MP who had the courage to appear on Question Time last night was Ken Clarke. Apparently over a hundred were asked, but declined. They have some sense of shame then.

You wouldn't know it from reading the blacked out expenses documents published yesterday. This must amount to monumental arrogance. The Telegraph has already published the uncensored version and they are in a position to make comparison with "the stuff they didn't want us to know"; yet they went ahead anyway. You couldn't make it up, as they say.

They must believe that after we all go away for a sumer holiday we will forget about this and it will be business as usual. This seem to be the thinking also behind the election of a new speaker, and they think they can get away with an unreformed house.

Message to MPs. We will never forget this one!

Speaking for change

Michael Martin's whining final speech which appeared to blme everyone else for the predicament he found himself in was a good illustration by itself of the man's inadequacy for leadership. There should be lessons to learn from politicizing the role as MPs did in 2000 but it now appears that they are all back to their old ways. The election of a new speaker hinges, we are told, upon Labour MPs voting en bloc for John Bercow, just to annoy the Conservatives and Conervative MPs voting for Margaret Beckett to stop John Bercow.

Whatever the result it will be unsatisfactory. MPs have obviously learned nothing from the exepnses scandal except that they should steer clear of Question Time.

The semi-detached PM

Two days ago I wrote about Gordon Brown's talent for being on the wrong side of every issue. This in the context of his announcement that the Iraq enquiry would be so completely closed that no chink of the light of truth would be allowed to enter. Apparently there is to be a climb down on that stance, but once again Brown has got himself into an unnecessary position.

The man is so completely out of touch. Look at his behaviour yesterday while the Speaker made his retirement speech, totally uninterested, rudely shuffling his papers because he had more important things to do. The rest of the house, although they may not have been fans of Michael Martin, had enough respect for the office and the institution to look as if they were giving him serious attention.

Yet another example of his lack of interest in people must be his hiring of Kitty Ussher ten days ago. Given all of the interest about expenses would it not have been wise to ask her if there was anything he needed to know about before she took the job?

For all the contact he has with reality he might as well have his office in the Orkneys. he might be happier. I know we would be.

Kitty Ussher

The highlight of this woman's career must have been her appearance on Simon Mayo's program this afternoon, where she lied and evaded answers to questions in order to defend her lying leader. Before that she must have been faceless and unknown outside Westminster. Now she can return to anonymity as she has now been found out for shameless abuse of the expenses system. Naturally, she "has done nothing wrong".

Goodbye!

Carry on lying

It's all so depressing! Brown has decided that he will spend spend spend and the Conservatives will cut. So whether or not there is actually money on the kitty or money to borrow, Brown's policy is to spend. Other people, including the unasked itizens of this country, may have other ideas. I was always true, is true, will be true in the future, that you cannot spend what you don't have. I accept that Brown, after a lifetime of spending other people's money, may not accept that but it baggars belief that Labour MPs and cabinet minsters keep refusing to acknowledge that the era of reckless spending is at an end and assert this unfounded belief that borowing more and spending more will get you out of economic difficulty.

Another tax

They are incorrigible! They've been happily wasting our taxes on personal home improvements and now they want to charge every telephone subscriber £6 a year so that three shepherds living in the Orkneys can get broadband access!

It's a tax too far!

Transparently opaque

I am now fully convinced that is pathological with Brown. The Iraq enquiry has now been set up to conclude, well, absolutely nothing. So once more we will go through another expensive charade for no good purpose other than to protect a few liars. Many of us knew the truth before the invasion began. We knew we were being lied to but a sufficient number of MPs chose to take Tony Blair's proffered fig leaf and so we got into something that we could not come out of with honour.

Brown could fairly claim that it wasn't his decision and most would accept that. He is therefore in a position to commission an open enquiry and let the blame fall where it should. In fact he could have done this two years ago and won himself some credit. But he stubbornly ploughs on, seemingly determined to be on the wrong side of every issue. It is pathological.

Practicing what you preach

I see from the Sunday Times today that Neil and Glenys Kinnock are doing very well out of state handouts. Glenys Kinnock collects a teacher's pension, a Brussels pension worth £46,000 pa, will be entitled to a further £19,750 pa related to her service as an MEP. Gordon Brown has just handed her an income of £83,375 for this coming year and she will be entitled to a pension based upon that. And to crown this little perk (to coin a phrase) she will be able to trough for years to come on the basis of her Lords' membership.

Neil Kinnock receives pensions from his service as MP and EU Comissioner totalling £112,000 and is also a Lord with all the additional benefits that that entails.

The Sunday Times article goes on to detail what some might consider excessive use of allowances and expenses and their habit of running this tax-funded enterprise as a family business.

Should I draw some comfort from the fact that people who have spent a lifetime preaching the benefits of state welfare should be among its primary recipients?

A tale of two resignations

Hazel Blears is at it again. Now she's apologizing for every mistake she has made. Keep quiet Hazel! You are making things worse for yourself.

There's an object lesson in political behaviour here. Consider Geoff Hoon. He made a long ministerial career of dead-batting any questions that were put to him and did not complain when he was demoted. His expenses were open to the same interpretation as Blears but he did not panic, said nothing and as far as we can see it has all blown over. In the meantime he has quietly stepped down from government (again without comment) and will probably be rewarded with an EU Commissioner' portfolio.

Hazel Blears couldn't wait to rush into a TV studio to wave a cheque for £13,000 and this is the one move she might regret more than anything. Instead of getting the benefit of the doubt among her supporters she exposed herself to accusations of shamelessness and hypocrisy. Brown took his opportunity to put his stick in the spokes of her wheel and she responded by even sillier actions, which she presumably hoped would get Brown thrown out. Instead the Brownies have been able to put it about that Hazel Blears' resignation on the night of the election cost them lots of votes and got two seats for the BNP. Totally irrational of course but it's got enough Labour activists to believe it and look to deselect Blears.

This is not a sad story. Hazel Blears had a small intellect, if intellect at all, and it says something for the barrel-scraping of Brown's first cabinet that she was ever put in that position. As I have observed before, she had mastered the art of talking without saying anything. I always felt John Prescott mad more sense than Blears.

Labourlist is listing

I have just taken a look at Labourlist. In Draper's time it was controlling, mendacious and boring - apart from the unintentional sideshow of Derek Draper charging around losing vote for Labour. Now it looks like a real blog with room for opinions from grass roots Labourites. I was slightly saddened by the general despair of the comments who have no faith in Gordon Brown and see the next election as already lost. Most of them appear to be sincere believers and have probably worked hard for their party. It's a pity they have been so badly let down by their leaders.

Let's control what we don't need to control

If ever proof were needed that we are slowly (quickly) sinking into a police state, it is the announcement this morning that parents who care enough to educate their children at home are to be subject to registration and inspection. This from a government that cannot properly manage the schools under its bureaucratic control.

There are a tiny percentage of parents who opt for home education. They are universally well educated and motivated and the results are usually good. John Stuart Mill was educated at home in the 19th century. It didn't do him any harm.

We learn however, that an infinitessimally small percentage of this tiny percentage of children MAY be at risk from child abusers. So the authorities whose track record of preventing child abuse by parents who send their children to school is lamentable, wish now to set up a new expensive inspectorate to control parents whose record of abuse is nil! Outrageous!

The unsinkable Golly Brown

The Titanic powers on towards the iceberg. Was it only on Monday that a supposedly contrite Gordon Brown promised more open and transparent government and a listening Prime Minister?

Wednesday:

Brown attacks the Conservatives for announcing Treasury forecasts and then denying that Labour would cut even though cuts are actually written into their own forecasts and a day after the Health service came under notice of cuts in 2011.

Shaheed Malik is exonerated in a supposedly independent report commissioned by the Prime Minister, who then refuses to let the report into the public domain.

Typically Brownian, the PM introduces a document about Parliamentary reform that is vague on particulars and particular about vagueness. It will be talked about as an example of his pioneering efforts at Parliamentary reform but will be largely forgotten and buried.

And nothing will change

As one who is outside the Westminster bubble everything that happened yesterday seems quite astonishing. Brown's heavies stomp around the corridors using all the threats out of the Brown playbook against likely dissidents. The PLP meeting is stacked and stage-managed. Brown promises to listen more. Labour MPs relax as the arms that have been twisted behind their backs are released. The Labour party is united. Everyone agrees that Gordon is the best man for the job.

Except that nothing has changed. Labour voters have turned away in large numbers. There is no vision (promised in 2007). The cabinet lacks distinction. Gordon Brown will hear but not listen. The bullying will continue. Implementation of any policies will be inept.

The journalists will run a few more hares in September. Brown will get another last chance. Nothing will be done.

Gordon without end

The media assessment appears to be that whatever rebellion there was is now over. MPs have apparently decided to stay on the payroll (not to mention the expenses roll) for another year. If they're going to lose they might as well do it with another £200,000 socked away in a safe account.

That was my conclusion last week, despite attempts by the commentariat to work up a story. I suspect that now most people will now tune out, enjoy the summer and come back in the autumn to another series of cock-ups.

The rise of national socialism

Last week I was looking at the card range of a small greeting card publisher. She publishes high quality, tasteful cards based on top quality photos. They retail at £2.50 to £3.00. One of her new cards is a photo of a wall bedecked with End glish flags - Cross of St George, Union Jack etc. She introduced this into her card range some while back and guess what, it has become a top seller.

I doubt if any of the buyers or recipients of this card are tattooed skinheads; it is highly likley that they are respectable middle-class taxpaying citizens, so it is apparent to me that this is an illustration of a latent desire amongst a majority to reassert Englishness.

It is not nasty virulent racism, although it will be characterized as such by those with an axe to grind, but it is a reflection of a kind of bewilderment that people have become marginalized in their own native land. It was only two generations ago that the prevailing English attitude was one of pride. We were proud to have come through some of the 20th century fights against tyranny, we were proud of our industrial and trade accomplishments and we were proud of the empire. We could therefore afford the generosity of being tolerant and understanding.

Since then the prevailing opinion is that we must view our imperial past with shame, to see our industrial achievements through the lens of exploitation of workers and to reinterpret the twentieth century as a century of totalitarian aggression against selected groups. While none of these historical occurrences can be denied we do end up with a wholly unbalanced view and reasonable, moderate people are beginning to question the wisdom of skewing everything against our history.

The BNP are undoubtedly led by a group of nutters who believe they can turn the tide of human history, but people are voting for them because they are addressing some issues that the mainstream parties refuse to touch with a bargepole. When that changes voters will no longer feel compelled to place their x beside the name of a BNP candidate. The hysterical reaction of some commentators and politicians will only feed their supporters and convince their recent supporters that they were rig ht to vote this way.

Harman bloops

I have just listened to Harriet Harman on Radio 5 suggesting that Labour voters are more highly principled than other voters and were therefore more likely to protest the expenses scandal by withholding their vote, thus implying that Lib dem and Conservative voters had more moral flexibility on these matters. Of course she might also have been unintentionally implying that those who did vote Labour were just as morally corrupt.

All I can say is carry on digging the hole! If she believes that continuing to treat the electorate with contempt will win votes over to Labour, think again.

Remember the "court of public opinion" Harriet.

Open lies

It has come to something when our Prime Minister can openly lie before gathered political journalists on television and get away with it. Of course politicians lie or avoid telling inconvenient truths but most of them will find a way of shading their answer so that it's not actually a direct lie.

"Did you plan to sack your Chancellor this week?"

Brown: "No I did not."

A Blair type answer: "Prime Ministers have to consider all options in a reshuffle; however, we all know that Alastair has been doing an excellent job and that it is right that he continues . . . "

We had the same kind of thing with the election that never was and there have been other instances. Either Brown is stupid, delusional, totally lacking in awareness of his impact on other people or all three.

Yet another year of this?

So this is it! Another twelve months of crisis and cock-up as this sorry government under its sorry leadership limps unsteadily along to its sorry expiry date. It is hugely depressing. I did ask myself a year ago whether I could live with two more years of this; this final year will drag on and on.

What a sorry, pusillanimous, and frankly, despicable bunch these Labour ministers are! They are content it seems to rumble along, draw their salaries and perks and take their inevitable copper-bottomed pension when it comes. How hard it is now to work up any respect for any of them. If they speak, I shall tune out. I used to admire John Denham, for example. I thought he was decent and principled and I respected his stand on Iraq, which probably set back his ministerial advancement by several years. But even he has found feet of clay this time around.

Our form of democracy is best served by a balanced two party system, be it Whig or Tory, Conservative or Liberal, Labour or Conservative, but all these things run their course and the system is seriously out of balance and has been for the past thirty years - firstly with a weak and out-of-touch Labour Party, then with a weak and out-of-touch Conservative Party, and now it looks as if we will see the Labour Party headed for oblivion.

Regardless of our political leanings we should take no pleasure in the demise of the Labour Party. If a resurgent Liberal Party is able to come forward to replace Labour as the alternative governing party then there is no great harm done, but how many years will that take? If the Liberal Democrats were able to gather enough electoral support to form a government in ten years time then normal service could be resumed, with the Labour Party as a regional party along the lines of Plaid Cymru or the DUP. In some respects this would be a good thing because this would take union funding and influence out of government.

As I see things this morning, the Labour Party under Gordon Brown will grow more-and-more out of touch with the electorate. decisions will become more centralized and be increasingly taken by a tiny isolated group of karaoke afficionados. The lies will increase in number and frequency and the House of Commons (let alone the Lords) will remain an unreformed cesspool.

Does anyone in the so-called Westminster village seriously believe that the British public will continue to fall docilely into line?

I grew up in what used to be a working class town. Families lived in red brick terraced houses. The men were skilled artisans who walked to work, paid mortgages on their houses, went to church or chapel on Sunday, paid cash for everything, respected the law, educated themselves at night school and voted Labour. What could they do now? Labour sees them as electoral fodder, won't listen to their concerns and condemns them in the vilest terms if they vote BNP. Blair seemed to understand that the Labour Party needed to have a broader appeal than to cloth capped working men and well-to-do, privately-educated idealists, but it does appear that the party is losing the former and keeping the latter. And it is the latter group, who have very little contact with the great unwashed, who are setting the agenda for the party. So a minority controls an increasing minority. They get used to telling people what they want rather than asking people what they want, and I have increasingly heard this from members of government in recent time. "What the people of this country want is . . . . . . "

If the Labour Party heads for electoral oblivion, losing the south and east of England, parts of London, a good tranche of the midlands, the they will deserve it, richly, and it won't just be Gordon Brown's fault.

Out like Flint

Gordon Brown is not very comfortable with women. Intellectually he has grasped the idea that women expect to contribute at all levels of life but he really can't bring himself to see them as part of the gang. So Caroline Flint's criticism - that she was there as "window dressing" - is probably accurate. Yvette Cooper gets in to the gang becasue she is the wife of one of the boys. Harriet Harman, annoyingly for him, gets in because she has actually been elected to something and he can't ignore her.

Gordon Brown is probably a happier man this morning. All these pestilential women with their shrill demands and annoying feminine ways have now absented themselves from the table, so now the boys can get together, tell jokes, get on with their purposes without having to constrain their behaviour. What a relief!

Caroline Flint has not departed with glory. She could have supported her friends but chose instead to support Brown with the hope of some advancement. She should have known better. Brown does not respond to fluttering of eyelids and she was getting nothing out of him but to be minister who occasionally attends cabinet meetings.

The Fixed Term

The political atmosphere has been febrile this past few days. No doubt this will continue. It is meat and drink for journalists and vastly entertaining for bystanders. But is it eally necessary? Does it really advance the cause of democracy or good government? Goe it make our lives any better? Probably not. In the end it has about as much impact as CSo if there is one reform I would like to see come out of this it is the fixed term Parliament. Come up with a figure - four, five, six, seven - it doesn't matter. What does matter is that there is a beginning and a certain end to a government's life. During that term it will not matter how effective or unpopular a government is, the end will be known and we can all shape our lives around this certainty.

Such certainty will avoid the silly efforts we have seen today by a desperate PM. If he had a fixed term he would not need to go through any of this other than the need to remove incompetent ministers. But this isn't about competence or otherwise. It is about conveying an illusion that this is about a government with the right dynamism. If we had fixed term this would not matter and ministers would be able to say truthfully that they "were getting on with the job".

So what happened to Shaun Woodward

The ubiquity this past week of Shaun Woodward (indefatigable defender of GB) convinced me that he would be rewarded with a bigger job. Not to be it appears. As far as I can see he is still languishing in the forgotten province of Northern Ireland.

Good news for David Cameron

Ever since David Cameron came to my notice I thought he was a lucky politician. He was lucky to emerge at a time when the Conservative Party wanted to develop a fresh image. He was lucky to get Gordon Brown as an opponent. He was luckier still when Brown backed out of the 2007 election. And he is lucky now that Brown's poor leadership skills are evident.

The failure of the Labour Party to find a way of getting rid of Brown is another stroke of luck for Cameron. All he needs to do now is coast.

The reshuffle keeps most of the old faces with the exception of those who have absented themselves from the table. Hutton was not stellar but he was competent. Purnell is probably a loss. And plainly there is no new upcoming talent to fill their shoes.

Cameron now has more time to prepare for government.

Another bonehead decision from Gordon Brown

The Apprentice candidates, if there is another series, will have to say M'lord instead of Suralan.

I rather suspect that Lord Sugar will not be an effective minister. Successful business people work in a more-or-less closed system. Certain products or services are provided and both customers and owners/shareholders have to be satisfied. That alone is difficult but political judgement is probably ten times more perilous, because not only do the immediate stakeholders have to be satisfied but also the general public and interest groups. In other words some people who may want to have a say in decisions cannot be fired.

There have been instances of politicians who have been successful in both arenas - Michael Heseltine and Chris Huhne, for example - but both men carried their business careers in parallel with their political careers. I can't think of examples of successful business people who have made the transition late in life to politics and made a lasting difference.

We shall see, but from what I have seen of Lord Sugar I doubt that he will have the flexibility to manage in politics.

Jerry Springer's insight

Jerry Springer has had the advantage of growing up in the US where they actually allow their citizens to elect their representatives and leaders, but I didn't get the sense that this concept was fully understood by the panelists on This Week last night. Diane Abbot - "We don't do it that way here."

Well the answer is that we should be doing it that way. Brown, if he had been elected, by anybody, might be on firmer ground if he had some sort of mandate. If you trust the voters they might trust you back.

Diane Abbot was particularly exercised last night by this putsch from the "right". Dear me! The old left wing, central control, not trusting the workers to manage their own lives way of doing things is now intellectually bankrupt. It's gone. It's over!

On the sunless side of the street

Brown is generally useless at PMQs but yesterday he was, surprisingly, on top of the game. Cameron, normally the master of these occasions, appeared to be waving a badminton racquet in the air.

Well, what do we know. Brown seems to be at his happiest when things are miserable. Misery gives him some sense of purpose. We saw this side of him when the banks were in meltdown; his personal gloom lifted as it descended on the rest of us. Now that he is in desperate personal straits, the sunny and confident side of his personality comes out for another airing.Smith

The situation he finds himself in is largely of his own making. If he knew how to manage (rather than bully) people he could have demoted Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith and kept their loyalty. But that it seems is not Brown's way - his is to undermine, to demoralize, to harangue, to bully, to belittle. The worm does turn.

As the Guardian pointed out yesterday, Brown will achieve nothing even if he lasts another year. However good the ideas are nobody will listen. He may be happy that the world appears to be against him because this will reinforce what he has always believed about his relationship with a world that doesn't understand him. It makes me wonder why he went into politics. You might think that this is one area of life where the ability to understand other people was a prerequisite.

I kip for UKIP

With the one exception of voting for entry into the Common Market I have never cast a European vote. I have remained broadly pro-European. The commercial advantages made and continue to make very good sense. Much of the social legislation that derived from that also got my broad support. If we had gone into the Euro currency in 1999 I would have been in favour of that too.

Doubts started to enter my mind when Tony Blair tried to pass off the new constitution as "housekeeping". I went over the edge when the untrustworthy Gordon Brown refused to give us a referendum. At that time I would still have been a pro-European and could have bought into those arguments had they been made. In the end there was no discussion, no debate, no explanation and our MPs once again let us down.

Today we have a European election. Are there any policy issues? Don't know. None of the major parties are willing to discuss policy so I have no idea how to vote on policy issues.

I am going to vote, however, and it's going to be for UKIP. They at least have a position and I suspect that if the election was carried out in the open I would not be casting my vote in their direction. So today, for this one occasion, I am going to vote for UKIP

Shredding Magna Carta

The document unwillingly signed by King John at Runnymede in 1215 remains the foundation of our ability to hold our government to account. This concept was taken over the Atlantic by our American cousins and written into their constitution. It is central to the American way of life that citizens can hold their government to account at all levels. I heard on radio the other day that the US has much better control of fishing the sea (or more accurately overfishing) than Europe, precisely because various citizens groups have been able to mount effective campaigns to prevent overfishing. Sadly, he pointed out, Europe has no such mechanism, so whereas we in the UK might be able to fall back on our ancient Magna Carta rights, they have no application in an European context.

I have been sleepwalking into this. I confess, along with millions of others, I have never voted in an European election and could scarcely name any MEPs or what they do. I need to start paying attention. Greta Andreasson on Question Time a few weeks ago told us that 75% of the regulations that affect our live come from Brussels. That made me sit up. Here we are with 646 Members of Parliament, many of them on the fiddle, who only deal with legislation that impacts 25% of our lives! Something is out of joint. Our ancient English rights to hold our government to account only applies to a quarter of the legislation that is passed. That's akin to saying that you can hold your Parish Council to account for the few things they control, but for the rest of it, cry in the wilderness.

Blears gets her goodbyes in first

McBride has gone but is clearly not forgotten. It appears that Blears got tired of all the Number 10 briefings against her and thought "Bugger it! Why should I do GB any favours!" Iain Dale did warn that she could be dangerous.

Most people have ignored the fact that Brown's spin operation is much larger than Blair's. It lso appears to be far less effective. No leadership I presume.

Sean Woodward has been omnipresent these past weeks and I noticed that he was sitting at Gordon's left hand at PMQs. Home Secretary then?

I won't miss Hazel Blears.My early impression of her a few years ago was that she had become highly skilled at talking but endlessly but saying nothing. It was impossible to discern what thinking or principle, if any, lay behind it.

The Bathplug Parliament

Despite the moat-cleaning, the up-market duck houses, the serial second-home flipping, the tax avoidance, the exploitation of grace and favour homes, what symbolizes to me the grubby level at which our Parliamentary representatives is the claim for an 88p bath plug. Nothing was too trivial to legitimately pad expense claims to ensure that they totalled the maximum allowable. We surely have come to a nadir when our elected representatives can occupy themselves with the minutiae of their daily lives.

So I will remember this as the bathplug parliament and the sooner someone pulls the plug and allos the dirty water to swill, clockwise, down the drain, the better. It's all very well for party leaders to talk about high-minded reform now - yes it is needed, but nobody is listening to this lot, and most of all, nobody is listening to this discredited (no, barely credited) Prime Minister. He even managed to bungle the Queen's appearance at the D-Day anniversary. How does he manage things so badly?

With some rats already deserting the sinking ship this is either Brown's last week or the first week of another year in government. It's probably going to be the latter - he appears to have enough people about him who will quite like enjoying the ministerial perks for another year - even the odd replacement bath plug.

Elemental my dear Watson!

A further thought. The only thing that Watson is famous for is his threat to organize mass resignations of junior ministers in an effort to destabilize Blair. What if this a reversion to type?

Tom Watson

Tom Watson came across my radar at the time of the plot to get rid of Tony Blair to leave a vacancy at Number 10 for his master. This may have been the highlight of his political career. He was subsequently rewarded by being made a Minister of something or other - perhaps for the preservation of threepenny bits.

What is a surprise therefore is that he has announced his resignation. What for I wonder?

Home Secretary will spend more time in her second home

She left with more dignity than she displayed during her tenure but now Jacqui Smith will be able to spend more time in her second home enjoying rented videos. She was completely out of her depth and that's that.

However...

It's all very well for Iain Dale to say that she is a nice person. So what! I'm a nice person. I expect Iain Dale is a nice person. The world is full of nice people. But what we need in positions of power and influence is competence. Niceness is a bonus but it is not required. Nice people can do a lot of damage if they are not wary and we might reflect on the fact that Jacqui Smith, as Home Secretary, was responsible for great losses to many of our ancient freedoms while putting the state's security at more risk. That's some achievment for a "nice" person.

And what is all this nonsense about the Home Office being an impossible job? Difficult maybe, but never a political graveyard. All Home Secretaries up to and including Jack Straw did not appear to be overwhelmed by the job; that has only happened with the last three Home Secretaries. And when you consider who they were there is no need to make any excuses.

Shuffle

I've always thought it odd that cabinet reorganizations are called "reshuffles". Shouldn't it be termed a shuffle first before it becomes a reshuffle? No harm in a little pedantry!

The bigger question is whether these things actually work. If it's Brown's intention to convince voters that his new cabinet is full of ideas, drive and energy (and maybe we should add honesty and probity) then it won't work. The majority will have the same impression of Brown and his government the week after the new cabinet as before. Remember he started off with the C list of Labour talent two years ago - Tony Blair had already used up the A list and the B list.

I expect we shall be back to another group of teenagers and never-wozzers trying to deal with a succession of cock-ups. Business as usual.

Caligula's Horse

Guido drew a brilliant parallel the other day between Caligula appointing his horse as consul and the potential arrival of Ed balls in number 11. Today's revelations of more expenses jiggery-pokery by the present Chancellor probably ensure that it's "Goodbye Darling" on Friday.

I also noted this morning that Harriet Harman on the Radio Five phone-in insisted that all MPs and cabinet ministers should be treated exactly the same. Was that a criticism of Gordon Brown's handling of the issue? Nobody picked her up on that.

It was heavy going for poor old Harriett. If that's a sample of questions directed at MPs it's going to be a tough period for them.

And where is Gordon Brown? Apparently working on some opaque plan that may or may not see the light of day and steering clear of voters. You can't help but notice the difference between this man and Tony Blair, who would have been out there, doing the "hair shirt" thing and to some degree diffusing the anger.