PTSD in Political Parties

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is pretty well recognised in humans; I think it also happens in political parties. In fact, I think it is one of the reasons why the dominant political discourse in our country is so anondyne. In the past 20 years, both of the dominant political parties in this country have had PTSD.

For Labour, it hit them in 1992 when Neil Kinnock managed to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory. The party had already changed – it had moved to the centre from the alarmingly leftist Labour party of 1983. But it still hadn’t won – despite facing a tired government led by a weak-willed PM. At that point, the party changed. The desire to win became everything. And that led to the gutting of any real ideology. It led to the election of Tony Blair as party leader. The rest is now, mercifully, history.

For the Tories, it probably hit about the time they decided to concur with what just about everyone else was telling them – that IDS was an utter disaster as a leader. Their PTSD took a little longer to fully manifest itself, though. Of course, that manifestation is embodied in the incumbent Prime Minister – a man who dragged the Tory party to the centre ground and away from any controversial opinions or positions whatsoever. He gutted the Tory party just as surely as Blair did for Labour.

And herein lies the problem – both Cameron and Blair have gone on to get the top job in British politics, whereas many of their predecessors as party leaders did not come close. And that is what tends to silence the ideological critics in both of their parties – it is pretty difficult to argue with success. So we can trace the impact of debilitating events such as the 1992 General Election defeat for the Labour party and the failure of the IDS leadership for the Tories through to the eventual return to success – but at the price of shedding much of the ideology that made the different parties distinct in the first place. Success – but at what price?

Don’t get me wrong, an election defeat is a clear indicator for a political party that something needs to change, and the answer is seldom a superficial change like a new leader. This is a lesson that the Labour party – post-2010 – has still yet to learn. Yet the extent to which a party changes is the crucial issue; recent politics gives us two examples of political parties who sold their souls for a chance for electoral glory. They gave into the panic of PTSD, and lost their way as a result.

So what hope do we have that parties can start to take defeats – a natural part of any engagement in a democratic political process – as a reason for change, but not a mad dash from ideological commitments to the centre ground? Well, Blair is utterly discredited and a strong candidate for the dubious title of Worst Prime Minister in Living Memory (along with his successor as PM). And while Blair – for all of his flaws – did win a stunning victory in 1997, Cameron is only in power through a coalition with the Lib Dems. Labour gained 145 seats in 1997, the Tories 97 in 2010. The law of diminishing returns seems to be rearing its head for those party leaders who choose success over political commitments.

So my point is this – any defeat is difficult for a party to take. Any failure to be returned to power or to win an election is potentially traumatic. But the key thing is how parties deal with that trauma. Gutting yourself in order to win next time or the time after that is undeniably one option, but there are others – the options that allow a party to both win and lose at the next election, but to do so with dignity.

Prime Minister David Davis

I love a good counter-factual. I even love a lactlustre one, like this effort. And there can be no doubt that recent politics will generate more than a few “what if?” scenarios. What if Miliband Major had been elected Labour leader and therefore Prime Minister in 2009? What if Brown had been challenged properly rather than just being crowned as Prime Minister? What if the Labour party had scored a few more seats at the last election, and been more open to meaningful negotiation with the Lib Dems?

Inevitably, a lot of these scenarios focus on Labour – after all, they did spend over a decade in power. But I’ve got an alternative counter-factual. What if David Davis had won the Tory leadership contest in 2005?

If is an entirely realistic scenario. He was the front-runner for ages, and he clearly bested Cameron in their TV debate. In fact, all it might have taken to make Davis Tory leader is a decent speech to the party conference. It was that hurdle he failed to clear, and it was at that point that he ceased to be the presumptive leader.

Had he won, I think he would have made a formidable leader of the opposition. He wouldn’t have started with the aspiration of ending the Punch and Judy side to modern politics – from the outset, he would have relished it. Furthermore, his commitment to civil liberties would have enabled him to put clear blue water between his party and the Labour government very early on. And as leader of the opposition, he probably wouldn’t have gone ahead with that faintly pointless stunt of resigning his seat in the Commons (although quite how his impatience and desire for a fight would have been sated throughout his time as opposition leader is an open question).

Furthermore, his relatively humble background would have enabled him to avoid all the tedious charges of poshness that have dogged Cameron. Indeed, Davis’s status as a self-made man would have answered many concerns about the Tory approach to social mobility. And not being distracted by such concerns, Davis could have spelt out a more meaningful version of modern Conservatism than Cameron’s notoriously vague “Big Society”.

So Davis would have entered last year’s election campaign in a strong position. And in that campaign, he’d probably have excelled. Imagine him in the debates – he’d not only have seen off Brown (which, in all honesty, isn’t that difficult) but he’d have nipped Cleggmania in the bud. In fact, a Davis leadership might have meant the end of Clegg as party leader as well as Brown. Because I think Davis, with a pugnacious attitude and clearer alternative to the Labour agenda, would have won the election outright. It wouldn’t have been a massive majority, but it would have been enough for the party not to need a coalition in order to govern. And with his party's mediocre showing in that election, Clegg would have fallen.

But there would have been a downside as well. Because if Davis hadn’t won the election outright, it is difficult to imagine him being as open to a coalition with the Liberal Democrats as Cameron. Furthermore, his personality – which often comes across as difficult, idiosyncratic and monomaniacal – would not have been conducive to the needs of running a minority government or even a government with a small majority. Indeed, it is difficult to see how Davis would have inspired a team across his time in opposition when he himself is so clearly not a team player.

Still, these problems notwithstanding, a Davis premiership would have given us one of the finest sights modern politics could imagine – David Davis against Ed Miliband at Prime Minister’s Questions. He’d have eaten Miliband Minor alive.

So my point is this – counter-factuals are great, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that the leadership choices made by the Tories in the last parliament are just as important as those made by the Labour party.

Five Days that Didn't Change Britain

Nope, didn't watch it. Mainly because I watched it pretty much live on various news channels when it was actually happening. It was dull then: therefore, definitely not worth reliving now.

But what also bothers me is the title - these weren't five days that changed Britain. They were five days that changed the figures at the head of Britain's government. And the change is not as radical as so many seem to want to suggest. We've had Tory led governments before. We've had coalitions before. And Labour has been booted out of office before.

Furthermore, why would the inauguration of the ConDems really change Britain? Sure, their leaders are far less awkward, maladjusted and downright weird than Prime Minister Brown was, but being less dysfunctional than your predecessor doesn't mean you represent a radical change from what has gone before. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats adhere to the same fundamental assumptions about the limits of political action as the then outgoing Labour government. It's a bit like finding out that your brain cancer has gone but you've been diagnosed with heart disease - basically, you're still fucked, just in a slightly different way.

It ties in beautifully with the ConDem assertion that we have a new politics in this country to claim that the negotiations to form the coalition were "five days that changed Britain". Unfortunately, it doesn't really connect with the reality of the situation. Then again, the title of "Five Days That Maintained The Political Status Quo in Britain" is far less punchy, and also far less likely to attract the sort of viewer who is desperate for the next installment of Eastenders...

Labour: Hated and Reviled

A little bit of self-deception from some twat writing on LabourList:

Over on Political Betting, Mike Smithson has suggested that the reason the polling for the general election was so inaccurate was a "shy Labour" phenomenon. In other words people were ashamed to admit they were Labour supporters.

I'm inclined to think that there's something in that theory. It's certainly more plausible than the idea that hundreds of thousands of people woke up on election day as Lib Dem supporters but changed their vote to Labour at the ballot box. I believe that the pencil can waver, just not that much.

If this is true then we're in a similar position now to the one Tories were in through the nineties - people are embarrassed to admit that they're Labour supporters. I don't believe we're hated or reviled in the same way that the Tories were - but I think a certain amount of soul searching is necessary if we're to realise why people might be wary of openly admitting support for Labour.

Ok, I'd like to say this - I hate and revile Labour in a way that far exceeds the contempt I feel for pretty much any other party bar the BNP. The Nu Labour years were a fucking disaster for this country; we are going to be feeling the consequences of their economic incompetence, idiotic war-mongering and general hatred of liberty for years to come. So don't deceive yourself, fella. People do hate and revile Labour. I am just one of them. And for anyone reading this, if you are too, then stick a comment to that effect on this post. Let's reassure our LabourList writer that the Labour party are actually hated and reviled.

And don't deceive yourself either about the extent of your defeat. The result of the election may well have been a hung parliament, but Labour's result represents a pathetic collapse in their support from 2005. Sure, Labour might have done better than some of the polls suggested, but that party was beaten by a damp squib of a man whose sole selling point was the fact that he was not Labour. Don't let a discrepancy in the Lib Dem polling figures against their actual support fool you - people deserted Labour in droves.

The Labour party has a big problem - it is hated by many people in this country, and those running for leader are unlikely to change that. Labour supporters can clutch at straws as much as they like, but they shouldn't think that they are able to hide the fact that the last election was a fucking disaster for the Labour party.

Now it's all over...

Some observations of the past five days now that we seem to be on the way to having a government again:

• Labour's desperate attempt to cling to power was utterly appalling, undemocratic and completely reprehensible. I praise the few Labour MPs who broke ranks and pointed out that their party had lost the election, but at the same time hope that the party as a whole is punished severally by the electorate for their attempts to turn their clear defeat into an excuse to stay in power. The sight and sound of numerous Labour supporters demanding that their party stay in power despite the electoral defeat made me despair more than ever of the stupidity of those who make up that party, and helped me to understand just why their leaders are so jarringly crass. No party deserves to be in power in perpetuity, particularly not a party in democracy that has just lost an election. Labour lost with no grace whatsoever, and in such a way that was painful and disgusting to watch.

• The Liberal Democrats made the best of a near impossible choice. Whatever happens now, Clegg can be sure that he will lose support from some sectors of his party and from some parts of the electorate. But there was no way in which he could have avoided this, regardless of the choice he made. At least this way he can defend his choice as a fair one, since he backed the party with the greatest support from the electorate, and is also aided by the apparent refusal of the Labour party to properly engage in negotiations with him. Plus, I'd imagine Clegg is now heading for Cabinet in a relatively stable government - something he would never have achieved without joining forces with the Tories.

• The Tories actually behaved well here. They opened up negotiations with the Lib Dems, and appeared to conduct them in a constructive manner. They focussed on coming up with a stable government, rather than scoring points off Labour. They appeared both as a party hungry for power but willing to compromise for power. Crucially, they also came across as if they had the nation's best interest at heart. No doubt time will change this perception, but for now I think Cameron and his colleagues behaved with a certain dignity - something I definitely wasn't expecting.

• This country has survived five days with no meaningful government - and with remarkably few ill effects. It has certainly cost us a lot less than what has passed for politics for the last 13 years. A government not constantly trying to pass programmes and spend money is actually no problem for the nation - the incoming coalition government should heed this as it begins to govern.

Time will tell who really won from the deal-making and politicking of the past few days; instinctively, I'd say that we have a fair outcome in that the party promising change is backing the former opposition party that did best in the election, while the outgoing government is finally surrendering what has been a desperate, and difficult to shift, grip on power.

Is David Cameron about to become the British Al Gore?

Remember the outcry when Al Gore was cheated of the US Presidency in 2000 by Bush? Remember how, throughout Bush's terrible presidency, Gore was presented as the innocent victim of an act of political theft? Well, if Labour and the Liberal Democrats do a deal and force yet another unelected Prime Minister on the country, then David Cameron will become the British equivalent of Al Gore.

Think about it. Cameron won the most votes in the election of any party, and it is only a quirk of the electoral system that prevents him from being named as Prime Minister - just as the electoral college system prevented President Gore in 2000. Sure, had the recount not been stopped, then Gore might have won - but what stopped the recount? A combination of politicians hostile to the election's biggest vote-winner making deals behind closed doors - just as Labour and the Liberal Democrats are doing at the moment. If Cameron is prevented from forming a government, he and his supporters will be an excellent and credible position to play the martyr. And if a deal is struck between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, then the ensuing government will be forever compromised, just as the first Bush administration was. The Lib-Lab coalition will be handing both the opposition and democrats throughout the country a massive stick with which to whack them.

Quick Question

Given he lost the election, and that the other parties are studiously working to create a coalition that does not involve him, and given his own party have stopped their normal, platitudinous and always unconvincing support for him, given all that, the question has to be asked: why the hell is Gordon Brown still in Number 10?

There's a constitutional precedent and maybe even a constitutional need for him to stay on until a coalition or a minority government can be confirmed. But the longer he stays there, the more awkward it will become. For his party, for the (likely to be) incoming government, for his country, hell, even for him. So maybe the quick question needs to be rephrased:

At what point does Gordon Brown go?

Election 2010: The Lib Dem Performance

Nick Clegg:

This has obviously been a disappointing night for the Liberal Democrats. We simply haven't achieved what we had hoped.

Many will be asking why the Liberal Democrats haven't done as well as they hoped. Probable answers will be the relentlessly shrill campaigning by the other two main parties against the idea of a hung parliament, and that the recent bout of Cleggmania was mania for an individual, not his party.

But I'd like to question whether the Liberal Democrats have actually done that badly. Because, prior to the debates, I thought that the Liberal Democrats were heading for absolute disaster at this election. The fact that they haven't done as badly as they could have done is actually something to be celebrated. Because Nick Clegg has only come into his own over the past few weeks. Had he performed for the past few years as he had done recently, his party would have done far better. As it stands, the radical improvement in his performance is probably what stopped an electoral meltdown for his party.

And there is everything for the Liberal Democrats to play for. Clegg has found his voice; he needs to keep on using it. And the Liberal Democrats are now in a position, if they so wish, to play kingmaker. This is a massive opportunity, and a massive risk. Clegg needs to tread carefully. A deal with the Tories would be controversial; a deal with Labour would be an absolute disaster. If he wants to back a party, he should back the one with the strongest endorsement for the electorate. To back Labour would be a disaster, and it would undo all the good work Clegg has done recently.

Cleggmania hasn't given the Liberal Democrats the breakthrough they wanted, but it has prevented the massive step back that this election could have been for that party.

Election 2010: Moments of Joy

Of course, the results are still coming in, but here's a few things to savour from the election result:

• Jacqui Smith, the worst Home Secretary in living memory (and given how shit the most recent ones have been, that's quite an achievement) loses her seat. Guess you should have got your husband to pay for his own wank films, rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
• Lembit Opik, a man most famous for who he knobs rather than anything political - and a man who was implicated in the expenses scandal - is out of Parliament.
• Charles Clarke, draconian former Home Secretary and all round horse's arse, is also seeking alternative employment today.
• Esther Rantzen made a complete dick of herself in her pointless campaign.

Yes, I wish Balls had been booted out too, but you can't have everything. Besides, his survival will make the coming Labour leadership election even more bitter and divisive...

UPDATE

Via the comments section, The Moai points out that the BNP has taken a good kicking across the nation. Which is awesome.

And George Galloway was also bitch-slapped...

The Tories Should Form the Next Government

You're going to hear a lot of spin today. You're going to hear from the Tories that Labour have lost their mandate to govern. And you're going to hear from Labour that convention dictates that the sitting Prime Minister has first dibs on forming a government.

Of course, both of these things are true, but as always, what isn't being said is as interesting as what is being said. Yes, the Labour party have lost their mandate to govern. But the Tories haven't gained a clear mandate to govern either. They've done well in this election, but they haven't won it outright.

And convention does dictate that the sitting Prime Minister gets first dibs on forming a government. However, that doesn't mean that the convention in question is correct, and that it should be used to inform the actions taken today. We're going to hear February 1974 mentioned a lot today as a justification for the Labour party clinging to power. However, just a simple look at the results of that election shows that it is not relevant to what is happening today. In 02/74, Labour had four more seats than the Tories, but had not gained as many votes. In contrast, Labour has been hammered in this election, and trail the Tories both in the number of seats and the number of votes gained. Had Heath done as badly as Brown has, I think that there would have been little debate about Wilson being the one to attempt to form a government.

In short, I think the results speak for themselves - Labour have been rejected. Brown has been rejected. To try to cling to power despite losing the election would be an appalling thing for Labour to do (which, given Brown's appalling attitude, might not stop him and his party). In this instance, convention be damned. The Tories have the biggest claim to a mandate in this election; they should be the ones to try to form a government.

Labour have lost. They should now let the most popular party try to form a government.

Don't Panic.

Obviously there's going to be a lot to say about the election result, but I think the first thing is very simple: can we all calm down, please?

We're looking at (not facing, as some people delight in putting it) a hung Parliament. Not a descent into civil war, not the biblical end of days. Just a hung Parliament. It has happened before, and it will probably happen again. It will all be ok.

In fact, a hung Parliament is actually quite a good result, because it will restrict the ability of whichever party heads up this government to shit all over the people in the manner of Nu Labour when it had those massive majorities. The worst excesses of the governing party will be constrained and controlled by the need to get the support of other parties in order to get legislation through Parliament. Furthermore, this may act as a humbling experience for the political parties. They may question why they haven't achieved an overall majority, and work out more voter pleasing policies as a result. Or they might just blame the hung Parliament on the electoral system, and plough on regardless. We'll have to wait and see.

But seriously, let's not get hysterical about this. A hung Parliament is the result of democracy in action. Politicians paint it as a terrible thing, but the reality is it is only truly bad for them - because they have to compromise in order to get things done. Which might not actually be such a problem for the poor fuckers they govern...

On A Hung Parliament

Nick Robinson:

Already senior Labour and Tory figures are rehearsing what could turn out to be the major argument of tonight and tomorrow over who has the right to govern if there is a hung Parliament.

Well, if the exit polls are correct, and the Tories do as well as is being projected, then it would immensely self-destructive of the Labour party to claim they have the right to govern. It would be the very definition of self-defeating. The electorate would remember who won the most votes, who won the right to govern, and would judge Labour for claiming the right to govern when it was no longer their right to claim.

Voters never like a bad loser...

An Election Wish

Well, we're just hours away from the first results in this much postponed and bitterly fought election campaign. I've no predictions - there are other blogs for that - and I've no real observations. But - in part inspired by Bella's post to the Election Fairy - I'd like to offer some wishes for this election. Actually, just one wish. One cherished wish...

I have no faith in any of the major parties vying for election today; not even the one I voted for. But I have absolutely no hope for this country unless we change our Prime Minister. So my hope is simple. Very, very simple. I hope this election ends the premiership of Gordon Brown. I hope that we are in the final hours of the Brown administration. I hope that, come tomorrow morning, Gordon Brown becomes an ex-Prime Minister. I hope he becomes a man writing his memoirs. I hope he becomes an answer in a quiz, where the question is "who was the worst British Prime Minister of all time?"

Yep, my one hope for this election is that Brown is forced from office. And surely that can't be too much to ask for?

Vote... tactically.

So, I've been thinking for quite some time about who to vote for today. And it hasn't been easy. Every party - other than the idiot ones* - have some policies that appeal, and some that don't. And, generally speaking, the policies I like are outweighed by those that I hate. Leaving me with more reasons not to vote for parties than reasons to vote for them.

Consequently, there's no-one for me to vote for, this time out.

Fortunately, there is still a way for me to vote. Not by voting for someone, but instead by voting against a party.

Yep, my vote this time out will be cast in an attempt to get the Labour party out of office. I'm voting against Labour.

Of course, this means voting tactically. Which means holding my nose and voting for a party that I don't really believe in. But fuck it - it's worth it. Because this Labour government has been utterly atrocious. It has bankrupted the country, and decimated civil liberties. It has bailed out failed banks and upped taxes as a result - with no net gain for the taxpayers they are supposed to represent. They have foisted an unelected and absolutely incompetent Prime Minister on us. And, time and time again, they have been caught with their hands in the till. And there's even more: they have dragged us into illegal wars and not bothered to equip the troops tasked with fighting those wars. This government has been atrocious.

So, if like me (and if you don't happen to have a Libertarian candidate - if you do, please vote for them) you can't bring yourself to vote for a party, then vote tactically to not only get rid of this Labour government, but to reduce it to a mangled, charred rump of what it once was. I don't want Labour to just lose this election, I want them to be destroyed at this election. If you agree with me, and don't feel a tribal loyalty to any one of the other parties vying for office, then join me in using votes as weapons to show this incumbent government of thieves and morons precisely what we think of them.

A good result tomorrow morning is one that shows that the Labour party has been utterly broken and humbled at the hands of the electorate.

*The BNP is also an idiot party, but I'm not linking to those knuckle-dragging racists.

"You deserve to lose. I don't care to whom."

A comment on The Guardian website in response to the latest pleading article from Gordon Brown where once again he makes the utterly unconvincing case that Labour are the party of and for reform:

Real reform?

Why now? Why not when you had a decent mandate?

You deserve to lose. I don't care to whom.

I think this sums up my thoughts about Gordon perfectly. And also illustrates why Labour, alongside the BNP, will definitely not get my vote tomorrow.

How to fuck up a poll result, by the Guardian

According to The Guardian:

Gordon Brown is regarded highly for his leadership abilities and yet continues to suffer in wider popular opinion, raising interesting questions around what matters most to voters.

Or, perhaps, the interesting questions are around what The Guardian considers to be interesting questions about the voters and what constitutes leadership abilities. Let's take a look at these questions, culled from a poll published by the newspaper in question:

Q: In choosing between Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Nick Clegg, who do you think...

Because they are the only party leaders in this country, aren't they? Oh, wait...

...would be best in a crisis?

The majority of government is not about being best in a crisis, it's about being able to manage a country effectively. Expecting a leader to be great in a crisis would be a bit like making a fireman the CEO of a supermarket chain, just in case a store somewhere one day catches fire. It might happen, but is not a certainty. So let's consider other criteria as well then, eh?

...is most capable?

At what? Being an incumbent Prime Minister? Well, that would be Gordon Brown. At being the incumbent Labour leader? Again, Gordon Brown. At being Gordon Brown? I'm guessing that would be, well, Gordon Brown. At not being a total fucking wanker? Well, that would be anyone other than Gordon Brown. See, this question would be more meaningful if it was just a little bit narrower.

...best understands world problems?

Well, Gordon Brown might be the best at understanding world problems, but then again he has been surrounded by international policy experts since he became Prime Minister. Clegg or Cameron could be just as informed, and therefore good at understanding, if they had the same access to Britain's civil service. And besides, understanding a problem is not synonymous with being able to solve that problem. Had the poll asked who would be best to solve world problems, then they might have got a very different answer. Because Gordon Brown could understand every world problem under the sun, but because he is a total and absolute twat, he'd still be unable to solve those problems.

So I'll say this to the Good Ship Guardian and all who sail in her - you want to know why your poll results are shit? It's because your questions are shit. You bunch of dickheads.

The Non-Labour Labour candidate

I'd agree with this fella - which is unusual, as the tool in question is a Labour candidate:

A Labour candidate has launched a personal attack on Gordon Brown, saying he is "the worst prime minister we have had in this country".

Manish Sood, who is standing in North West Norfolk, added that Mr Brown was a "disgrace".

Mr Sood called Labour ministers "corrupt"...

He's right in much of what he says. But there is one small problem. If he believes all that, then why in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the little baby orphans is he running as a Labour candidate? I really hate the Labour party too, so I'm not going to vote for them. I can't help thinking that this will be far more effective than Sood's strategy of wasting his life by being a Labour candidate.

Still, there is a novelty factor in Mr Sood. He is the self-hating Labour candidate. And I suppose that this is the political epoch that would generate self-hating Labourites...

So, this is a political blog and we're nearing the end of a General Election campaign - and this is an election that is being more closely fought than any other since 1992. And you want to know what topic is bringing the most views to this blog? Doctor Who.

This could be because I write a lot about Doctor Who, or because people go elsewhere first for their political news/commentary. But I like to think that the reason is because this general election campaign has been pretty dull, and is nowhere near as interesting as the new season of Doctor Who. After all, only the latter offers real and fundamental change. Even if the Prime Minister does regenerate into the pudgy faced form of David Cameron, the change in government is simply going to be cosmetic rather than the real, and exciting, changes that we've seen in this season of Doctor Who...

Labour's Election Communication

Ooooo, looky, "Election Communication" just popped through my letter box. From the Labour candidate - some idiot who goes by the name of Chris Leslie. I know very little about Chris - despite having just read his leaflet - other than the fact that he has a wife and a kid. And that he is backed by Sarah Brown. No, really, there is an endorsement from Mrs Brown. Next to a picture of the Prime Minister's wife looking faintly surprised and upset by the camera thrust in her face, the endorsement reads:

Chris Leslie will be a great champion for Nottingham. He will work hard for our city and for our country.

Which would be great if I had an iota of respect for the startled looking woman in the photo. Unfortunately, her bland, platitudinous endorsement of Leslie is criminally undermined by the fact that Sarah Brown is a terrible judge of character. If you want proof, just look at the terrible cunt that she married.

But Chris Leslie wants to know what I think. Well, sort of. Because he's asked for some thoughts on the back of his worthless leaflet. Under the heading I want to hear from you he wants people to tick the option that applies to them. The options are:

I'd like to talk to Chris Leslie. Please contact me.

Yes, I'll be voting Labour. Count me in!

Yes, I'd like a poster.

I would like a lift to the polling station on election day.

I'd like to get involved in Chris' local campaign.

Unfortunately, the most relevant option for me - that I would rather immolate myself than vote Labour and also wish that Chris Leslie's future, at best, contains a particularly virulent urinary infection - sadly isn't mentioned on his leaflet. But such is life. I guess it just means that I don't get to return his crappy form to his campaign HQ. Which appears to be in the UNISON building....

My Authoritarian MP

According to Liberal Democrat Voice, my MP is just about as authoritarian as he could possibly be. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. He is a Labour MP after all.

Fortunately, he's standing down. Good riddance to bad rubbish.