Why the hiatus?

Really it is all self-evident. Who could possibly be interested in what seems to me like the silliest election campaign I can recall though that may be just because I have blocked details of previous campaigns out? So silly and pointless has this one been that people are getting excited about Ed Miliband's rather silly and desperate comment about non-doms, especially since the tape of Ed Balls saying in January that such a reform would lose Britain a great deal of money. But, at least, people are saying, this is an issue to discuss rather than endless chewing over opinion polls that tell you nothing or yet more pictures of Nigel Farage looking ever more ridiculous.

I have to admit to not watching the preposterous 7-way debate; I do not think those debates have any significance in the UK system and to have seven party leaders up there made it all look even more of a farce than it was last time. I cannot help wondering whether Cameron insisted on the format for that very purpose. One thing has come out of it: the media and its audience have finally realized the Alex Salmond is not the Leader of the SNP and has not been for a while.

I am not impressed by Tony Blair's sudden intervention. One can see why the Labour Party might have thought that bringing on a leader who had, unusually for them, won three elections but those days are gone and there is little he can say that would appeal to anyone. Interestingly, it is usually the Conservatives who produce the dinosaurs like Ken Clarke or Malcolm Rifkind (ooops, no, maybe not him) and that never works either.

I hear tell (as no doubt do many of this blog's readers) that UKIP has once again abandoned the idea of target seats and decided to concentrate on South Thanet to get the Dear Leader into the Commons or, at the very least, prevent Craig McKinlay from getting there. (Farage and McKinlay go back a long way.) Not sure it will work: it did not in the last election and though the circumstances have changed one thing has not and that is the fact that our Nige is not a vote winner. Whenever I am told that he has the support of the overwhelming majority of this country (yes, indeed, there are people who say that though, to be fair, a good many UKIPers do not) I point to their so far lamentable electoral achievement and, in particular, Farage coming a bad third in what was billed as a two-horse race in 2010.

Things might change this time round but even if they do and even if the Dear Leader gets in that will give UKIP one seat and the only other one they can be certain of is Clacton.

That leaves the question of whether the Conservatives will win an outright majority or whether it will be another hung Parliament. Much to be said for either and all of it is very dull. For what it's worth I think at present that the Conservatives will have a small majority. But, as a previous Conservative Prime Minister once memorably said: "events, dear boy, events".

And that's enough election gumph. My next posting will be considerably more interesting.

Post-election blues

Well, blues and oranges actually. As we watch from a safe distance the behind-the-scenes negotiations between all and sundry (Conservatives with Lib-Dims, Lib-Dims with Labour, Oceania with Eastasia or is it Eurasia) many of us can draw some satisfaction from saying: well, what did you expect?

Allister Heath in City AM says that if this is the new politics he is heartily sick of it already. Jonathan Isaby, rightly, points out that this farce (as I cheerfully called it on Friday and on Saturday when taking part in discussions on the BBC Russian Service) is the best argument for changing the electoral system. If we had proportional representation we would have this sort of thing going on after every election not just once in a while with the party that got fewer votes than the others calling the shots. The counter-argument that other European countries go through this leaves me cold. I have no desire to go through many other things that other European countries accept as routine.

The Lib-Dims are unhappy and the Conservatives drown their sorrow in that constant refrain: isn't it appalling that Labour is negotiating with the Lib-Dims in order to stay in power. Of course, no British government is in power while the real government is in Brussels but the idea that the Conservatives consider themselves to be in a position from which they can accuse Labour of being dishonest and unprincipled in order to stay in office makes one think of pots and kettles as well as stones and glass houses.

Meanwhile ConHome hits a new low by Nigel Jones reminding his readers that today is the anniversary of the creation of the 1940 coalition government. History must be repeating itself with Cameron the new Churchill. Indeed. Apart from the fact that the country was in an all-out war and the new government had to make decisions that would allow Britain to survive (even though the German's ability to invade was vastly exaggerated) everything is just the same. I suppose, when it comes down to it, Churchill was a largely incompetent politician who managed to make some catastrophically bad decisions in his previous career, during his second government (though mostly he was not in any sort of state to make decisions) and, even, during the war. He was still a greater and more fascinating personality that Cameron will be if he lives to a hundred.

Meanwhile, I had another e-mail from the Boy-King. He thanks me for my vote and all my efforts (if only he knew) but makes no reference to that offer to join his government. It would seem that the people who were supposed to be part of the Conservative government come second to the Lib-Dims who were the enemy not so long ago. Did someone say Oceania and Eurasia or Eastasia?

The Boy-King chortles on with great excitement about his and his party's achievements:

Second, we should be proud of the results we achieved. We gained more seats than at any election since 1931. We became the largest party in the House of Commons by a considerable margin. And we got two million more votes than Labour - and indeed, more votes than Labour did when they won in 2005. The swing we achieved was massive by historic standards.

Most of that is tosh. Numbers of seats, swings and other suchlike matters cannot really be compared withoug pointing out how many constituencies there were at the time, how many parties, what sort of turn-out and so on. But the man had to say something. After all, under his leadership his party lost what looked like an unlosable election and now they are facing the need to form a coalition with the despised Lib-Dims or a minority government that will have to take some very unpopular decisions.

At this stage it might be worth reminding everyone that the only part that achieved its stated electoral intention was UKIP. We have a hung parliament, largely through UKIP's actions though, in the end, it was the voters who decided that they really do not like the three main parties all that much.

Heh! I told you so

Actually, I am feeling rather chuffed. Almost all my predictions that I held tenaciously (some would say pig-headedly) against friend and foe as well as all the pundits have come true. Let's just have a look. I maintained the following:

There will be a hung Parliament with Conservatives getting the most seats but no majority. Admittedly, quite a few people said this but there was a great rush among some pundits to predict a last-minute Conservative majority. No, I said, it will not happen,

The Lib-Dim effect will evaporate. The Nick Clegg bubble would be just that - a bubble. In fact, the Lib-Dims lost votes and seats and by all rights Nick Clegg should resign as he did not fulfil his promises. Indeed, he worsened the situation and that despite the fact that in an election where a hung parliament was expected it would have made sense to vote Lib-Dim if that is what people had wanted to do.

[ERRATUM: It has been pointed out to me with complete accuracy that the Lib-Dims did not lose votes. In fact, they increased their share by just under 1 per cent, which is still somewhat lower than the great hype would have led one to expect. They did, however, lose five seats and there are various constituencies around the country, such as Islington South and Finsbury, which was confidently expected to go Lib-Dim but did not. Indeed, in that particular case, the tiny Labour majority of around 500 votes went up to around 3,000 votes.]

The TV debates would not make the slightest difference to the vote. That one I had to defend strenuously against my closest friends and allies. Can anyone seriously say that those debates had any effect at all?

Attacking Gordon Brown would backfire. It did spectacularly. His own vote went up; Labour held Rochdale, place of "bigot-gate"; a number of candidates, both Tory and Lib-Dim who campaigned against Brown rather than their own sitting MPs did very poorly. Astonishingly enough, the Conservatives are continuing with their personal attacks, demanding that he vacate Number 10 immediately, which is not necessary constitutionally, and behaving as if he and his party had not done considerably better than the Boy-King and his party.

The UKIP effect will be important. I have not done my own calculations yet but shall do so as soon as there is a full list of all constituencies but, according to the Boss over on EUReferendum, Tories could have had another 20 seats if it had not been for UKIP. The question of who is to govern Britain would then have been decided fairly swiftly. Will the Conservatives learn anything from that? I suspect not.

The turn-out will not be high. And nor was it, despite sudden hysterical outbursts just before and during the election. It seems to have been 65.1 per cent, which is low by historic British standards. Admittedly, that is higher than the 2001 and 2005 turn-out but that was pathetically low. It is, as I thought last night, lower than the 1997 turn-out, which was considered to be particularly low at the time.

Now for the things I got wrong:

At about 12.30 am I predicted 297 seats for the Conservatives. It looks like someone else who predicted 310 will be closer to the result.

I assumed that Nigel Farage would not win Buckingham but would come a close second. The fact that John Stephens, a europhiliac ex-Conservative and something of a joke as a candidate beat him by about 2,000 votes was the only result that truly surprised me.

I thought my own Conservative candidate, Shaun Bailey would do better than he did. He did seem to have all the right qualifications and, in a way, it is a great shame that he did not get in, particularly as Andy Slaughter is a nauseating specimen even by Labour standards. It is good to know that the Lib-Dims and the Greens did particularly badly. My own suspicion is that Mr Bailey was not helped by the fact that a succession of Tory grandees came to campaign for him, making him look like the Boy-King's particular pet rather than a local chap with useful experience from outside politics. If Mr Bailey would like my advice, I am ready to offer it: hang on in there because there will be another election soon and next time keep the Tory grandees away from the constituency.

Here are some more predictions:

The Lib-Dims will overreach and it will not be possible for either of the other parties to form a government with them. The Conservatives will have to form a minority government and bear the brunt of the problems that are facing us all.

There will be no difference on most issues because the real government remains in Brussels.

There will be another election in 12 - 18 months' time.

There! I have put my head on the block.

Some thoughts

First of all, let me say that my enquiries have confirmed that as far as is known Nigel Farage is doing well. He is in the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford and is not only conscious but talking and, indeed, swearing fit to bust. He will be missing the count and that is enough to make anyone swear. The pilot of the plane seems to have been more seriously injured but is also comfortable and conscious. Things could have been worse.

As readers of this blog and of EUReferendum know, I do not share the Boss's vitriolic attitude to Mr Farage, despite the fact that I have known him for a lot longer. Indeed, I am responsible for recruiting him in what was then the Anti-Federalist League and he, in turn, is partially responsible for my speedy exit from the organization it then became: the UK Independence Party or UKIP. Anyway, this is just a preliminary to saying that I imagine we all wish Nigel and the pilot of the plane a speedy recovery.

Moving on to other events or non-events, I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand the hyperbole that surrounds this election. The media tells us in various ways that this is the most important election for Britain in its entire history; that the world will collapse into complete anarchy if we have a hung parliament; that the votes cast today will decide what the country will be like for generations to come.

Ahem, no. It is an election. This country has had many of them in its history and quite a few were more important than this one. Given the economic situation and the many lies the three main leaders have told us about what they will do when elected (spend more money and that will miraculously reduce the deficit) the likelihood is that the government elected today will be out on its ear very soon and possibly out for a very long time. That being so, it seems quite extraordinary to me that anybody wants to be a Prime Minister at this point. In fact, the explanation for the appalling campaigns we have been watching, particularly the Conservative one, may well be that, belatedly, all three leaders realized that they do not actually want to be in Number 10, having to take those inevitably painful decisions.

In any case, the real government stays in Brussels and we are not voting on it. It would appear that the less important the choice we are presented with the more hyperbole we are likely to hear.

As it happens I had another missive from my friend Dave the Boy-King. He is no longer offering me anything - no place in the government, no contract, nothing. I wonder what Mr Barroso has to say on the matter. Instead, the Boy-King is demanding that I vote for his party.

He tells me that if I vote Conservative today I shall get change tomorrow. Hmm, I didn't realize my Conservative candidate can wave a magic wand. Maybe the Boy-King is really the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

This one day will decide Britain's future at a crucial time for our economy, our society, and our politics.

We all know that it's time for change, after thirteen years of this Labour government. But there's only one way to bring change - and that is to vote Conservative.

Any other vote could mean we are left with another five years of Gordon Brown - and the uncertainty of a hung Parliament could kill the recovery.

Still no reference, I see, to the amount of politics that comes out of the EU and cannot be changed by the next government.

Nor am I too impressed by the bogeymen I am being threatened with. Either we get another five years of "Gordon Brown", actually a Labour government but it seems that the Conservatives still have not managed to learn the lesson that personal attacks on Brown do not work, or we have a hung parliament, which is unlikely to go on for five years.

Incidentally, the idea that a hung parliament will slow down recovery is tosh. Recovery will not come from parliament or politicians. What will have to come from them is essential and far-reaching cuts in the public services and it might be difficult to achieve them in a hung parliament where every vote needs endless negotiatons between parties (something that will become a permanent feature if we go over to any form or proportional representation). But then, the Conservatives are not talking about cuts, anyway. Far from it. They are promising to spend more of the money they will not have. So why not a hung parliament?

Elections? How very dare they?

EUObserver reports that

Britain's civil service has decided to delay the publication of farm subsidy payments until after this Thursday's (6 May) general election. The deadline for publishing the data outlining who received what under the EU's common agricultural policy (CAP) was midnight last Friday.

A message on the UK's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) website simply says: "Due to the general election campaign, this website will not be updated with the 2009 figures until after the election."

UK officials said the practice is standard procedure. "It is not appropriate for us to publish this information at this point on the basis that some of the details may refer to people standing for election," Defra spokesman Paul Leat told this website.

"It could be seen to be favouring the ruling party of specific individuals," he added.

It is, indeed, standard procedure to hold back with the publication of any controversial material that might affect voting. At least in theory, the British civil service cannot be seen to take part in party politicking.

Understandably, the European Commission does not see matters that way. Election? What has that to do with the EU?

The European Commission said it was unhappy, however. "The commission is disappointed and is going to write to the British authorities underlining that this is not in line with the directive," said EU agriculture spokesman Roger Waite.

Quite right, too. Can't have all this democracy interfering with our management.

Only six five more days to go - Part 2

The count-down has well and truly begun. Only five more days of this appalling election campaign to go. I am not going to say that we have reached rock-bottom in silliness, lack of ideas and media hype this time round. Whenever one assumes that rock bottom has been reached one finds another, completely new chasm before one’s feet. However, there is some hope that the actual results will be unusual enough for a political realignment of the kind this country has seen on numerous occasions in the past (and not just in the last thirty years) to begin. By this I do not mean that the Lib-Dims might overtake the Labour Party in votes and seats. They might but the difference between the two is not big enough for anything remotely resembling real political change, no matter what Nick Clegg and the various hacks have been saying.

The Boss on EURef has written about that final debate (no, I did not watch it) and the fact that next to nothing can be read from it or from the opinion polls that followed it. On average 8½ million people watched it but we do not know how many of them watched it from beginning to end or even long enough to make any kind of a decision. In any case, the majority of the electorate did not bother to watch this or the previous debates. So, what conclusion can we draw from that? None at all.

One thing has been clear, though. Those opinion polls have not moved all that much. The Conservative vote has remained reasonably steady at just under 40 per cent, give or take a few points. Unless there is a sudden rush of support for the Boy-King and his merry men and women, this is not enough to give them a majority though it will probably give them more seats and more votes than any other party.

Which leaves another consistent phenomenon: in every opinion poll there is a group of between 10 and 15 per cent who do not support any of the three parties. This may be an understatement, since most of these polls seem to concentrate on those three main parties, carefully not mentioning any other that people might say they will vote for.

A friend called my attention to an opinion poll published in the Economist (which has now, apparently, come out on the side of the Conservatives for reasons one cannot quite discern). This one did actually ask about the smaller parties and the results are quite interesting.

While Conservatives poll 33 per cent, Lib-Dims 30 and Labour 23, of the smaller parties, UKIP is at 5 per cent, BNP and Greens at 2 each, the nationalist parties at 2 and others at 3. If UKIP can take that up to 6 or 7 per cent (a big if), the Conservatives might find themselves in serious difficulties and the face of British politics might well change even more. Incidentally, one wonders, given these figures, why so much of the media persists in regarding the Greens as the fourth party in this election.

Of all the many things I have hated about this election campaign the emphasis on the leaders of parties has been among the worst. Not only that meant that we had far too much about three people, none of whom is particularly likeable or attractive; that one could bear, just about. What is particularly appalling is that it displays a complete ignorance of and disregard for the British constitutional structure on the part of the media and the politicians – those in the Westminster bubble, to be precise.

I have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to explain to numerous political illiterates who all fancied themselves as experts that there is no such thing as an elected or unelected Prime Minister in this country. We elect MPs and the party that has the largest number of them decides which one of them will be in the position to be sent for by the Queen and asked to form the government. Gordon Brown was most certainly elected to be an MP and his party most certainly was in the position to form the government, having one three handsome victories.

Since then matters have become worse. Not only has the Boy-King made fatuous and meaningless promises about “unelected prime ministers” but a good deal of the electoral campaign on various sides was conducted on the assumption that we have a presidential system.

Surely, someone said to me, you do not like Nick Clegg’s policies. They are not Nick Clegg’s I explained patiently (well, fairly patiently) but the Lib-Dims’ policies and, as it happens, some of the ideas about tax reform are quite sensible whereas the Conservatives have no sensible ideas at all on the subject.

Nor have I been terribly impressed by Conservative and some Lib-Dim candidates in Labour held seats campaigning against Gordon Brown rather than their immediate opponents. If you do not elect me, says my Conservative candidate, you will get another 5 years of Gordon Brown. Stuff and nonsense. The chances of the next government lasting five years are, at present, rather slim and, in any case, Labour might end up forming the government even if Shaun Bailey is an MP. And vice versa.

In one particular North London constituency, all three main parties (and even UKIP, oddly enough) have fielded women candidates. There is nothing special about the three – all party creatures in their late thirties or early forties, they even look similar. The constituency was won by Labour last time but only just. The Lib-Dim version of the Stepford politicos has a very high chance of getting in. At no time has the wretched woman mentioned her opponent who was the sitting MP until a couple of weeks ago; all her literature has nice pictures of her and ugly pictures of Gordon Brown. But she is not standing against Gordon Brown.

And so it goes. The hysteria around “bigot-gate” like earlier hysterias around “bully-gate” and “letter-gate”, all whipped up by Tory spin-meisters and all unsuccessful (well the first two were as they brought sympathy to one of the most unsympathetic politicians in this country’s history) has been a substitute for any reasonable political argument as one cannot call the nonsense these people come up with that.

Meanwhile, I am still chuckling over an exchange I had with a friend. He has explained that he no longer cares who wins, an attitude I fully agree with, but then added that he would like to see Nick Clegg in Number 10. Hmm, I replied, while I don’t mind if the Lib-Dims win (after all, they are all flakey when it comes to the EU), I would prefer someone like Vince Cable. But Helen, said the friend, you talk as if I was offering Nick Clegg a bed of roses. It will be a bed of nails for anyone who gets in there. Indeed, it will, which makes one wonder, what kind of an idiot wants to win this election and be faced with all the problems, some only half-understood, possibly with a minority government.

Only six more days to go - Part 1

It is rather a joyous thought that this election, the dullest and least political of my memory (and being a hereditary political geek I can remember quite a long way back) has entered its final week. It must now be everybody's aim to tell as many people as possible that there is not much to choose between the three main parties or their acolytes and enumerate all the lies they tell. That applies to the party formerly known as Conservative in particular, since they and their intrepid leader, the Boy-King, are positioning themselves as the Eurosceptic party in this election. The one that is never going to upset the colleagues in Brussels. That Eurosceptic party.

I understand that, having produced a list of people who are having a good election, Iain Dale is now looking for suggestions as to names of those who are having a bad one. It seems to me that he is going to be hard pushed to have only ten on that list. More to the point, the possibilities of disasters in the last six days are beyond computation; it is, therefore, somewhat early to start counting who has had a bad election. But, thirdly, I can nominate the Boy-King straight away, whether the Tories win or not.

This was going to be the election, the Conservatives could not lose. The very fact that we are discussing that possibility is an indication that something went horribly wrong and that something was the Boy-King and his team.

In the meantime, I had another e-mail from the Boy-King. We are still on very chummy terms and he is reminding me that he had asked me to join his government. Sadly, he seems to have had not comment from Mr Barroso which means that the offer can be regarded as temporary only. In the meantime, he is offering me a contract. However, there is no mention of such important matters as emoluments, expenses or troughs in the contract so I cannot take it very seriously.

A contract between the Conservative Party and Helen Szamuely

We go into the general election on 6 May with trust in politics and politicians at an all-time low. And I can understand why: the years of broken promises, the expenses scandal, the feeling that politicians have become too remote from the people -they've all taken their toll. That's why I'm making this contract with you.

For too long, you've been lied to by politicians saying they can sort out all your problems. But it doesn't work like that. Real change is not just about what the government does. Real change only comes when we understand that we are all in this together; that we all have a responsibility to help make our country better.

This contract sets out my side of the bargain: the things I want to do to change Britain. But it also makes clear that I cannot do it on my own. We will only get our economy moving, mend our broken society and reform our rotten political system if we all get involved, take responsibility, and work together.

So this is our contract with you. I want you to read it and - if we win the election - use it to hold us to account. If we don't deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years' time.

We will change politics

Our political system needs to change. Politicians must be made more accountable, and we must take power away from Westminster and put it in the hands of people - individuals, families and neighbourhoods.

If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:

1. Give you the right to sack your MP, so you don't have to wait for an election to get rid of politicians who are guilty of misconduct.

2. Cut the number of MPs by ten per cent, and cut the subsidies and perks for politicians.

3. Cut ministers' pay by five per cent and freeze it for five years.

4. Give local communities the power to take charge of the local planning system and vote on excessive council tax rises.

5. Make government transparent, publishing every item of government spending over £25,000, all government contracts, and all local council spending over £500.

We will change the economy

Gordon Brown's economic incompetence has doubled the national debt, given us record youth unemployment, and widened the gap between rich and poor. Unemployment is still rising, and this year we will spend more on debt interest than on schools. We need to get our economy moving.

If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:

1. Cut wasteful government spending so we can stop Labour's jobs tax, which would kill the recovery.

2. Act now on the national debt, so we can keep mortgage rates lower for longer.

3. Reduce emissions and build a greener economy, with thousands of new jobs in green industries and advanced manufacturing.

4. Get Britain working by giving unemployed people support to get work, creating 400,000 new apprenticeships and training places over two years, and cutting benefits for those who refuse work.

5. Control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s - meaning tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour.

We will change society

We face big social problems in this country: family breakdown, educational failure, crime and deep poverty. Labour's big government has failed; we will help build a Big Society where everyone plays their part in mending our broken society.

If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:

1. Increase spending on health every year, while cutting waste in the NHS, so that more goes to nurses and doctors on the frontline, and make sure you get access to the cancer drugs you need.

2. Support families, by giving married couples and civil partners a tax break, giving more people the right to request flexible working and helping young families with extra Sure Start health visitors.

3. Raise standards in schools, by giving teachers the power to restore discipline and by giving parents, charities and voluntary groups the power to start new smaller schools.

4. Increase the basic state pension, by relinking it to earnings, and protect the winter fuel allowance, free TV licences, free bus travel and other key benefits for older people.

5. Fight back against crime, cut paperwork to get police officers on the street, and make sure criminals serve the sentence given to them in court.

6. Create National Citizen Service for every 16 year old, to help bring the country together.

The trouble with all these offers is that they make very little logical sense. To start with, I cannot see how they can change politics or, indeed, anything else without at least thinking about how to tackle the problem of Britain being in the European union and the fact that a very large proportion (let's not get into the debate of what proportion but even the Boy-King once acknowledged that it was more than half) of the legislation comes from Brussels and cannot be rejected by Parliament even if it goes through that august institution.

Among many other things a Conservative (or any other) government will not be able to do is to cap immigration as they cannot stop people who are coming here from any part of the EU, no matter where they may have originated from. So, what price being lied to by politicians?

Changing the economy by spending a great deal of money on all sorts of benefits and non-existent green jobs while promising to cut down the deficit argues a lack of knowledge of basic maths or an assumption that the knowledge is lacking in the electorate. So what price being lied to by politicians?

Changing society seems to consist of throwing yet more money at every problem, getting the state to intervene in everything and creating unnecessary new organizations at the taxpayers' expense instead of reforming the rules that make it so difficult for the boy scouts, girl guides, cadets and other already existing groups to operate. So what price being lied to by politicians?

On balance, I don't think this is the contract for me. Maybe Mr Barroso will come up with something better.

Can this really be true?

This comes under that hackneyed headingof "you couldn't make it up". Following up Roger Simon's somewhat belated blog on the subject I found this article in the Daily Mail.

It seems that the Boy-King turned to President Obama's former aide, Anita Dunn, her who named Chairman Mao, possibly the world's biggest mass murderer as well as a degenerate crook, as one of her favourite political philosophers, in order to spruce up his act and his image. As President Obama's support has been plummeting and the outcome of his various political decisions has been disastrous for all concerned, this proves that the Boy-King and his party are not in the slightest interested in what they will do after they win the election next week (if they do). All they are interested is getting there.

However, looking at the date of the article we see that this momentous decision was taken before the first debate. So we all know how successful Ms Dunn has been in making the Boy-King popular. Perhaps, his image is beyond her help.

That deficit

While the political world is convulsed by the most exciting bit of news since Oliver Cromwell disbanded the Long Parliament that had sat too long, namely Gordon Brown saying one thing to a potential voter's face and muttering something else about her once he turned away, I have been sent an interesting summary of what sort of figures we are talking about if we really do want the deficit to shrink.

This comes from Ian Milne, Director of Global Britain, erstwhile editor of eurofacts, and a man who seems to understand millions and billions the way most of us understand tens and hundreds of pounds sterling.

• Four months ago, in January 2010, Global Britain (in Briefing Note No 57: How Much Should Public Spending Shrink ?) estimated that, in order to return UK public finances to sustainability, public spending needed to shrink immediately by £ 100 billion a year compared to its level in 2009/2010.

• Other serious commentators (e.g. Roger Bootle, Trevor Kavanagh) have also come up with that £ 100 billion figure for the level of shrinkage (perhaps combined with increases in taxes) needed. Damien Reece, in his article on the Institute for Fiscal Studies report in the Telegraph’s Business Section of 28th April, plumps for £ 70 billion per year as the “need for a national belt-tightening”.

• As we know, the three main parties are arguing about “savings” (most of them spurious) or tax increases in single-figure billions, for example (Labour) by increasing National Insurance contributions. We have no idea how the three main parties would achieve reductions of the order of magnitude needed - and probably neither do they.

• Given the already high level of UK taxes – 48 % of GDP in 2009/10 – the argument that even higher taxes will damage economic growth is compelling. Yet, all three main parties seem to think that taxes need to rise.

• UKIP is the only party to demonstrate how savings of those magnitudes (from £ 70 billion per year upwards) can be permanently achieved without increasing taxes: by leaving the EU & freeing the UK economy from its £ 120 billion per year EU-caused burden.

• The UKIP plan would not be realisable instantaneously, since leaving the EU, then unravelling the huge amount of EU-derived legislation & regulation embedded in UK law, would take time: at least two years, perhaps four.

• So in practice, on coming to power, a UKIP government would immediately have to implement public spending cuts of the order of £ 100 billion per year, probably for the first two years of its term. Thereafter, as the savings from leaving the EU began to flow through, there would be room to invest in expanding the armed forces, rebuilding our power stations & restoring & increasing our transport networks as set out in UKIP’s manifesto.

Let me make it quite clear: I claim no credit for any of the calculations. They are Mr Milne's but I thought readers of this blog would be interested in them.

Fulminating

Well, it's a nice long word and sounds better than "I am fed up". Readers of this blog will guess what I am fulminating about: the fact that there are still two weeks of this unbelievably (I really would not believe it if I was not living through it) trite, boring and superficial election campaign.

Instead of the second Leaders' Debate that has sent even more people into a catatonic trance we could have had the election yesterday (well, it was Thursday, after all). There will be nothing new or interesting said by any candidate from any party, big or small, between now and May 6. There will certainly be nothing said by any of the main three parties that could even begin to change anybody's mind about the way they intend to vote. They have nothing to say and neither do their acolytes in the media or the blogosphere.

This morning brought me the leaflet of my local UKIP candidate who informed me that it is the only party to vote for because Brussels now decides on our train timetables (a statement that falls considerably short of the truth) and the world has gone mad, which may well be true but remains irrelevant to my voting intentions.

That is, however, of little importance, compared to the idiocy that is being spouted by the various geeks and so-called analysts. I do not think I have lived through an election that has been so little discussed outside the circle of politicians and their hangers-on. In all this time I have overheard just one discussion about what is happening and a few people, knowing that I, too, am a kind of a political geek, have made polite comments to me. Most of those comments seem to have consisted of the fact that they are bored by the whole thing or, as one young lady put it, supremely unenthused.

The more people switch off the process, the more hysterical the media, old and new, gets. According to some, yesterday's uninteresting and unilluminating debate was the most important political event of modern history. There seems to be some division of opinion about who came out best, in itself a sign that there is not a great deal to choose between the three.

Interestingly, the Conservatives, having spent the last few years trying to lassoo the Guardianista vote, are repeating their manoeuvre of last June's European elections that turned out to be completely unsuccessful. It has dawned on them again that there is a large eurosceptic vote out there, which may not go their way. They must try to capture it and, undoubtedly, they will be using Daniel Hannan MEP in their attempts to do so.

At present, their great tactic is to inform us all that in Brussels they are salivating at the thought of Nick Clegg winning as he is one of "them". The truth is, of course, that in Brussels they do not care who will win as nothing much will change.

Ah but David Cameron, as Tim Montgomerie informed us yesterday [scroll down to 8.14 pm], "is the only Eurosceptic in this debate". The other two are defending the EU. And Mr Cameron is saying what? Well, apparently, we want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. That is Eurosceptic? Mr Montgomerie, who was once a star member of Better Off Out, is easily pleased.
I do not think this will work. It didn't last June and it will not now, despite the dynamic of a general election being different from that of the European one. There will be some people who are so anxious to get rid of Brown and his dysfunctional government that they will hold their noses, grit their teeth and put a cross against the Conservative candidate's name. But I do not think that will apply to people who are even half-way knowledgeable about the EU and Britain's membership in it (an ever larger group of people). They are not likely to be taken in by the Boy-King's indignation about Labour and the Lib-Dims depriving the people of Britain of the possibility of voting about the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty.

So do I really care who wins on May 6. My American friend keep asking me that and the answer has to be not really as it will make precious little difference. A hung Parliament sounds like a good idea because the thought of Ministers having to negotiate in order to legislate and MPs actually doing some work and reading those Bills they usually nod through is an appealing thought. Some people say that a hanged Parliament is an even more appealing thought but I couldn't possibly comment.

The worst possible scenario would be the Conservatives losing because of votes going to the Lib-Dims. That may sound like a good plan to people who hate the Boy-King and all that he stands for but a little thought would make it clear that if the Lib-Dims do well, the chances of a new Conservative Party that actually deserves its name arising from the blood-bath that will follow a defeat, will be slim. The Cameroonies will declare triumphantly that the party lost because the project had not gone far enough and the party will not be able to respond. Cameron might even survive.

A Conservative defeat with no clear majority going to anybody because of votes going to UKIP (despite the silliness of some of their candidates) would produce a better result in the long run. In the short run, of course, none of it matters. Only two more weeks to go and I can spend that time concentrating on real politics.

Yes, I missed it again

For all the good these Leaders' Debates will do we could have had the election today (it being Thursday). What exactly are we going to hear from any party, big or small, that might influence anybody?


I did not bother to watch the second Leaders' Debate. The fact that they were discussing the EU under the heading of foreign affairs makes it quite clear that neither the Leaders nor the media has the faintest idea what the situation is. We do not have a relationship with the EU any more than Devon has a relationship with the United Kingdom. We are part of the EU and its government is our government. Any discussion that does not start from that point is a waste of time.

It is probably a good thing that I did not watch it. After all, I might have died laughing when the Boy-King, the only eurosceptic of the three, according to various commentators, came up with that old chestnut of the Conservatives "wanting to be in Europe but not ruled by Europe". So neither he nor his party have learnt anything and have forgotten the little they ever knew. They do not deserve to win. The trouble is, neither do the other two.

Spot the differences

This is a little like those quizzes in newspapers that I can never resist: two pictures that look exactly the same but there are five differences and you have to find them. The same can apply to the list of different attitudes to Key EU Policies expressed by the three main parties (the others apparently do not exist) as summarized by Open Europe.

There are, apparently, minute differences - the odd bracelet missing and the handbag has a different clutch. Here and there you get one party being in favour of more integration or partially in favour of more integration or, actually, against more integration but not really knowing a great deal about it.

At the end Open Europe gives its judgement of the differences and try as they might they cannot really show that the Conservatives are that different from the other two. After all, it is only on major transfer of power that they are promising a referendum and nobody can quite define what a major transfer of power is. Nor is it particularly clear how they intend to repatriate powers from the EU. As for the CFP, that all parties wish to reform, the Conservatives had a perfectly good policy that was ditched by the Boy-King as soon as he became leader. It involved Britain pulling out of the CFP and he could not countenance that. In fact, even Open Europe has to admit that neither party advocates withdrawal from the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy. Since wholesale reform is not possible, given its structure, we are at an impasse.

Is there any point in talking about it?

It is possible that this is the only political blog around that has not mentioned the Leaders' Debate at all, though the Boss reporting on the electricity usage on the night is an interesting way of approaching the subject.

The truth is that numerous debates in the United States have proved that performance in them and immediate reaction on the part of the audience makes no difference to the voting pattern. They are, in other words, an expensive waste of time and, as usual, whenever there is something useless in the American political world, we adopt it. Somehow we never seem to be equally keen on adopting more useful aspects.

So, let me be quite frank: I am unimpressed by the sudden rise in the Lib-Dims' popularity just because Nick Clegg seems to have performed better than the other two on the night. In parenthesis, I might ask, having not bothered to watch or listen to any of it, just how bad were those two. Apart from the blip, opinion polls have been surprisingly consistent with the odd point or two (statistically unimportant) moving this way and that.

Conservatives are stuck around 40 per cent, or just under, Labour around 32 per cent or under and Lib-Dims around 23 per cent. The permutations fall and rise but whichever way one looks at it there is always an unusually large group that does not support either of the three main parties. Astonishingly, Conservative chatterers and analysts who get excited by one point going from Labour to them or back again seem completely uninterested in that group. Yet the election may well be decided by them. Will they stay at home or will they vote for one of the smaller parties? If the latter, which will it be? Will enough of them vote for UKIP to make a difference? These are the only questions, in my opinion, that are worth asking about this incredibly dull election. As for the rest, we could have the election tomorrow or, in order to be traditional, this Thursday. No party is going to say anything we have not heard hundreds of times before and no voter is going to have a sudden revelation.

However, UKIP has come up with an interesting piece of news: Lady Pearson of Rannoch has decided to join the fight more directly. She is standing for Parliament in the constituency of Kensington and Chelsea. One in the eye of Samantha Cameron, I think.

The Boss got there first

Iceland's revenge, I thought, as I listened to an announcement on Hammersmith station about that volcanic ash and no flights. Mind you, I could see no ash but that is irrelevant. Then I found that the Boss on EURef already put that posting up and there is nothing more for me to say. Well, apart from pointing out that this revenge is not about to prevent that ridiculous performance by the three muppets this evening. What use is it? Iceland must do better.

Them are strong words

Not to mention dishonest ones. The Boy-King seems to have waxed indignant over the fact that the people of Britain have been denied their chance to vote on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty. Well, Mr Cameron (or Dave, given our amazing new friendship), there is a way of rectifying the situation. It is not unreasonable for an incoming putative Conservative government to call a referendum on that, precisely on the grounds that the people of Britain were not consulted on the subject. In addition, if you announce another cast-iron guarantee (though may I suggest you phrase it somewhat differently) your popularity might rocket instead of staying stagnant.

Apparently, that cast-iron guarantee is not being renewed and the Boy-King is happy to state the fact that the people of Britain have been cheated without offering to do anything to remedy the situation. What he is offering instead is that old chestnut, a referendum if there are any attempts to transfer major powers to Brussels (assuming he can find some more major powers that have not yet been transferred).

This blog has already expressed its opinion of that, giving reasons why that is as fraudulent a promise as the cast-iron guarantee had been.

Thanks but no thanks

This morning I received an e-mail from David Cameron a.k.a. the Boy-King of the Conservative Party. No, really. It was addressed to me and began with the words "Dear Helen". To be honest, I was not aware of having ever met the man or even seen in him during my perambulations through Parliament, let alone of being on first-name terms. But, apparently, we know each other far better than I had realized.

The e-mail was nothing less than an invitation. Yes, indeed, I am being invited to join the government of Britain. Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather. Had someone put my name forward to become a Commissioner? Will I get the same salary and perks as the sitting ones do? What will Mr Barroso say about it all? These were the first questions that flitted through my mind.

Answer was there none in the e-mail and, rather rudely, no way of RSVPing to the invitation. After all, how does the Boy-King know that we all want to accept it? There should be a way of being able to respond. Well, of course, there will be on May 6 but, like the long-suffering heroine of Matt's cartoon, I feel the date is moving further and further away.

Anyway, this is what the e-mail actually said:

Next month, you'll get to choose a new government. But don't just choose it, be a part of it. I mean it. We've got big problems in this country and the truth is politicians can't do everything on their own. We need your energy, your ideas, your passion to get this country moving.

That's why this email is an invitation to you to join the government of Britain. It might not be embossed on a thick white card, but it's still heartfelt. If we win this election, we're going to give you more control over your life, more power to make a difference to your neighbourhood, more opportunities to change our country for the better.

Just imagine: a country working together to dig ourselves out of this debt and get our economy moving. A country working together to protect our NHS and improve it for all of us. A country working together to mend our broken society. A country working together to make politics and politicians work better.

So come on then Helen, get involved. The more people join, the stronger the force for change will be. I want millions to be inspired and mobilised to play their part - and that movement starts here. So please, spread the word. I'm asking you to send this invitation on to just three friends, workmates or family members. Get them involved too. Extend the invitation. Together we can build the future.

I think I might have coped with that ridiculous jolly hockeysticks call if the whole missive did not remind me so forcibly of the Young Pioneers.

Let me make it quite clear: this country has had a system in which some, later more and later still all people could get involved in government for some centuries. The Cameroonies did not invent the idea of elections, of local government, of political representatives. We elect a House of Commons for them to legislate and hold the Executive to account. They do neither. Jumping up and down and hallooing for people to get involved in the great movement is no substitute for the fact that our politicians do not carry out their tasks or for the fact that our real government is in Brussels (and a fat lot the Boy-King intends to do about that).

I have no desire to be part of a movement that is organized by a political party, much less if that party is in government. Been there, done that and my parents made enormous efforts to save me from that in the future. I have no desire to protect the NHS and the only way to make it better is to release it from the dead hand of the state not by inviting us all to become part of that state.

Finally, let me point out again: a Big Society that appears to consist of lots of jolly volunteers, compulsorily gathered together by the state should be no part of a Conservative Party's thinking. Leave that sort of thing to the socialists like Barack Obama, whom the Boy-King appears to be imitating both in style and, for want of a better word, substance.

Meanwhile, what of the real government in Brussels?

Whoop-de-doo!

Iain Dale gets excited about a promise the Boy-King has been making and has repeated in his Sunday Telegraph interview. Cameron, Mr Dale tells us, has committed to early legislation on an EU referendum, telling Patrick Hennessy about his "promise to legislate in the first year if a Tory government on the obligation to have a referendum before any further transferance of powers to Brussels".

Let us not look too closely at the spelling either in the title or the text - even Homer nodded, we are told. Let us, instead, look at what the Boy-King really promised without, this time, giving a cast-iron guarantee:

Among the first things Mr Cameron wants to do, he discloses, is pass new legislation ensuring a referendum will be held in Britain if the European Union makes a major new effort to transfer powers to Brussels.

Uh-hu! And what's a major new effort to transfer powers to Brussels? How does one define that? What about routine transference of powers that is happening all the time under the treaties already agreed to, not to mention other agreements such as the Hague and the Tampere ones that affect immigration, asylum seekers and other domestic matters?

Even if we disregard the Boy-King's word games, what of the powers that have already been handed over, some of them very major, indeed? For as long as I can recall this has been the Conservatives' leitmotif: what's done is done, let us move on to the next issue. There are, as it happens, very few issues left to move on to. That, presumably, is exactly what the Boy-King is relying on as he prefers to make empty promises or cast-iron guarantees to facing up to the reality of our membership of the EU.

Suddenly Nigel Farage's chances have improved

The campaign in Buckingham will start in real earnest on Tuesday, April 13 with Christopher Booker and Lord Pearson of Rannoch helping to launch it. Well, that may or may not help Nigel Farage. My own suspicion that the joint personality of Mr and Mrs Bercow will be far more helpful than anything UKIP might come up with.

However, this cannot possibly do any harm: Martin Bell, the self-important hack and electoral loser (also here), has announced his support for another independent candidate, the former Conservative europhiliac John Stevens. The sight of that has-been in his crumpled white suit (surely there must be several or it would by now have become extremely filthy) telling the good people of Buckingham that the Conservatives are not europhiliac enough will send them into the polling booths detemined to put that cross against Nigel Farage's name.