Going Postal

There is nothing more annoying than doing everything you can to make something work, but being scuppered by forces beyond your control. Especially when the result is that you cannot fulfil your responsibility.

I have had just such an experience this week, courtesy of our increasingly erratic postal service. It's not as if I live in the middle of nowhere; a fairly central London address should, you'd think, at least mean you'd get your post on time. But no - it turns up when it feels like it. Delivery can be at any time from, on current form, 8:00AM to 2:15PM, and I don't have the time to stay in to wait for something important. And First Class post can mean next day or it can mean three or four days hence.

I am avowedly anti government interference, but I am also pro stuff working. Therefore I accept that there are certain things which Government can usefully do. Amongst them are run the postal service - something which actually can be usefully centrally managed, to standardise and maintain predictable levels of service across the country, since post goes everywhere. Governments can also run railways - my recent experience of French railways, contrasted with my recent experience of those in Britain, has convinced me of that. Not that I'd trust this lot to run anything, but the current system really doesn't work.

So there you have it - Government has a purpose. It's a carefully limited thing, but it exists. Trouble is, when you acknowledge that, they quickly announce that they want to decide what colour your socks should be too.

The gap between rich and poor

Question Time this evening has yet again been a polarised affair. Polarised, that is between people talking rubbish (Shirley Williams, Geoff Hoon and George Galloway) and people talking sense (Sayeeda Warsi and, especially, Clive James). 

There has been plenty of nonsense talked over the past few months, but the basic wrongness of some of what has been said this evening, needs to be refuted. I particular, I'm amazed that people are still fooled by wailing about "the gap between rich and poor". 

Shirley Williams sat there this evening complaining that bankers make lots of money. Much more money than people who aren't bankers. Some people make only a hundredth of that bankers make. Boo hoo. This is a very old argument, and it's wrong. Just because the gap is bigger doesn't mean that people are worse off. It just means that the richest people have got richer faster, which is only a bad thing if you suffer from Shirley Williams / George Galloway style envy. The poorest people in the country, and in the world in general are hugely better off than they used to be: they're living longer too, which gives the population alarmists a reason to twist their knickers yet further. 

The gap between rich and poor is not a problem. It's part of wealth creation - it's not pretty, but it exists. And Shirley Williams really ought to have got over it by now. 

MPs' expenses: an awful lot of humbug

On this evening's Question Time, we had Menzies Campbell, Margaret Beckett, Theresa May, Benedict Brogan and Steve Easterbrook. There was a general, shouty indignation within the audience about the expenses claims (generally, it has to be said, for fairly small amounts of money) but look at the panel for a moment:

Menzies Campbell: old and useless. 

Margaret Beckett: old, useless and mendacious. 

Theresa May: useless and vague. 

Benedict Brogan: disingenuous and smug. 

Steve Easterbrook: CEO of Macdonalds and smug git.  

What a shower. Hopeless, vague MPs, a smug journalist and a purveyor of mashed cow bits. Most of the programme was, of course given over to the audience shouting in a self-righteous manner. 

This whole business of MPs expenses has, of course, been eye-opening. It was certainly enlightening to discover just what our elected representatives have been claiming for, and some of it was astonishing in terms of its pure brass neck. And no matter how big the cheque Hazel Blears writes now, the point remains that she shouldn't have claimed the money in the first place. 

However, a few points need to be made:

1) MPs work very, very hard. At least most of them do. Notwithstanding the fact that many of them are hopeless, they have what amounts to two full time jobs in two different places.

2) The annual salary of an MP is £64,766, which may seem like a lot of money (it's certainly more than I make) but its considerably less than Wayne Rooney makes in a week.

3) We expect MPs to be perfect, but we'd be pretty cross if we were held to the same standards. How many journalists, for instance, would be willing to have their expenses claims scrutinised by the same standards?

4) This whole business has obscured things that actually matter. A few thousand pounds here and there is nothing compared to what's going on in Sri Lanka and Burma right now, for instance. I'm sick of news programmes dedicated to shouting at MPs. Let's get on with real life now. 

Cambridge is elitist. That's the point.

Today a whole bunch of whining liberal idealogues have got all upset because Cambridge have done the logical thing. They've seen the introduction of the new A* at A Level and decided to use it as a way of differentiating between the best and the second best. 

The big complaint seems to be that this is elitist. But Cambridge has always been elitist - it selects the intellectual elite. If it did anything else it wouldn't be the top university in the country; it wouldn't be one of the top universities in the world.   

One of the whingers, John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “I am extremely concerned about this. The effect of the A* on the system is unknown, so at the very least this decision is premature. I trust it will not be followed by other universities. There is plenty of other evidence on which we can discriminate between candidates.”

Like what? Their sock drawer? Or should we just ask them if they promise to work really, really hard?

None of this would be necessary if A-levels hadn't been getting easier for the last twenty years. Anyone who says they haven't is kidding themselves: kids certainly haven't been getting cleverer, and schools haven't, in general, got better. In the meantime, let Cambridge use the A* grade. The best thing about it is that you can't get it if you resit any module of your A Level - so the now-standard resitting-to-get-a-better-grade is eliminated. Worth a go, I say. 

Modernising Royal Mail is a contradiction in terms

Our government have now decided that, because all their previous attempts at public-private partnerships have been such overwhelming successes (I travel on the Tube more or less every day, so I know what I'm talking about) they are going to part-privatise the Royal Mail.

My experience of the Royal Mail over my lifetime has been this: it used to be reliable; it had some problems; they reorganised it (losing second post, for instance) and it got worse. Now it is not reliable. I live in North London and my post arrives anywhere between 10AM and 2PM; things get lost; there are no apologies or even admissions of liability.

The Royal Mail is not a modern invention and its service is not something that can be improved by modern methods beyond the internal combustion engine. If we actually care about it, we need to accept it must be properly funded and organised. Organising a national postal service is one of the few things central government can usefully do - and ours can't even do that.

We're not good at trains

Today, the government awarded a £7.5bn contract to build a fleet of intercity trains to consortium including Hitachi, a Japanese firm. They didn't give it to a consortium including Bombardier, who make trains in Derby, employing 2,000 people.

I'm not surprised. We are rubbish at trains in this country. If you exclude the Eurostar, which isn't ours, the best train we have is the Virgin Pendolino, which is always late and often broken. We aren't good at these things. The Japanese, on the other hand have the Shinkansen (bullet train) which is never late and always works and travels at 168mph or faster, depending on the line. I've been on the Bullet Train between Tokyo and Kyoto, and I'd choose it over our trains any day. The Japanese know how to make fast trains. We don't.

Apparently Hitachi have agreed to have the trains assembled in the UK. I hope they don't expect them to be ready on time.

I'm with Clarkson - Brown is an idiot

There has been a lot of huffing and puffing today about something Jeremy Clarkson has said about our dear Prime Minister. Comparing him to Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, Clarkson described Gordon Brown as a "one-eyed Scottish idiot". He also accused Brown of lying to the public. 

Now, Jeremy Clarkson has a talent for offending people, and in this case has managed to offend Scottish people, blind people and idiots all at once. He has since apologised for making a comment about Gordon Brown's "personal appearance" but, notably, has not said sorry for calling him a liar and an idiot. And he shouldn't. 

Gordon Brown having only one working eye is irrelevant, so it was a cheap comment to make. But Gordon Brown being Scottish is not irrelevant, as shown by the furious response from Labour MPs and the Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray. Indeed Gordon Banks MP called Clarkson's comments "unforgivable". But why is it unforgivable to point out that Gordon Brown is a Scottish idiot?

Ever since Tony Blair (also Scottish, don't forget) brought the Scottish Parliament into being in 1999, we have been in the bizarre situation where England is run by Scottish people (Blair, Brown, Darling, Alexander, Murphy et al), Wales and Northern Ireland, despite having their own assemblies, are more or less run by the same bunch of Scottish people, and Scotland is run by two different sets of Scottish people.

Scottish devolution has created an imbalance in the power bases in the UK which will eventually need to be sorted out. Gordon Brown being Scottish is undoubtedly relevant, as is his being an idiot and a liar. We know he's an idiot, and a stubborn one at that; and if you count hiding public expenditure off balance-sheet and redefining the economic cycle so as to claim he has met his golden rule as lying - and I do - then he is a proven liar. 

I agree with Clarkson - and people need to stop bouncing up and down in indignation whenever people like him say anything mildly controversial. If they stop and think about it, they might realise he has a point. 

Public Health - Private Choice

Despite my libertarian tendencies, I do accept that there are certain things that government has to do and for which government is necessary. The maintenance of basic infrastructure, the enforcement of the rule of law and the defence of the nation for instance are all things that would be very hard to organise properly any other way. 

However, there are many areas where government interference is not just a bad idea, it is expensive and counterproductive.  One such area is "public health": a carefully self-justifying phrase. It sounds like an obviously good thing - after all, that's health for all of us, right? But actually "public health" is generally a euphemism for "telling people what to do".  The constant barrage of "public health initiatives" under this government has not made people any healthier. Despite the enormous amounts of our money spent telling us not to eat junk food, not to eat salt, not to drink alcohol, not to smoke and so on, we are forever being told that as a nation we are fatter, less healthy and more prone to binge-drinking and the resulting general thuggery.

This is not surprising - the "public" is not, as government bodies assume, a single entity, but a group of individuals. As an individual, I will put as much salt on my food as is required to make it taste nice, no matter what the government say. If I had children, I would do the same for them. And if I want to go out and drink beer in the pub with my friends until closing time and then sway gently home, I will do this too. It really doesn't matter how much the government tell me not to: if I like it I'll do it - it's my choice, after all.

And this is why people like Dr Alan Maryon-Davis are so wide of the mark. He is such a fan of these public health initiatives (we pay him to be, whether we like it or not) that he wants to extend them yet further. In the article I've linked to, he proposes banning people from smoking in their car if there is a child on board. But a car is private property - so legislation like this would logically lead to all sorts of other rules about what we can and can't do, even in our own homes. I surely can't be the only person to think that this is not just a bad idea, but wrong. 

Public health sounds like a great idea, but the reality is often expensive, illiberal and ineffective: inform us by all means, but stop the "it's for your own good" nannying. 

The problem with Gaza - we still lack humanism.

It may seem presumptuous to suggest that I know what the problem is with the Middle East. But I think I do. I don't know how to solve it, unfortunately, or rather I have no sensible way of achieving what needs to be achieved, but I can see where we're going wrong.

Gaza is, like so many violent flashpoints, riven by religious divisions. In this particular case, we have to go back to 1947 when the British Mandate of Palestine, designed to provide a "national home for the Jewish people" and accepted by the League of Nations, was interpreted by the UN as a partitioned Palestine: part Jewish and part Arab. Indeed, Jerusalem was to be an international city, presided over by the UN.

The state of Israel, unhappy with this arrangement, then declared independence in 1948, which started a war with its neighbours. A war which has, to all intents and purposes, never stopped. 

The problem here, and it is fundamental, is a lack of humanism. The Jewish people and the Arabs are not different in any significant way. Indeed, one could argue historically that they worship the same god, more or less. But that's just it - worshipping under a different set of rules shouldn't matter.

The Jewish people feel that they have been persecuted over the centuries. This is undoubtedly true, but they are far from being the only religious/ethnic group who have suffered, and they must not use this as an excuse - all it amounts to is "he hit me first" - which has never been accepted by parents dealing with brawling children, after all. 

On the other hand, we currently have Hamas, a bunch of Islamists who are undoubtedly as bad as the serious Zionists. Their presumption (and it drives them) is that people of other ethnicities and other faiths are inherently inferior. Evil, even. This is so ludicrous I almost don't want to discuss it, but I do think it's important to explain why they are wrong.

I don't expect everyone to love each other. That's not how people work. Jesus was a great teacher of loving kindness, but he was an idealist too. Nevertheless, we must understand that if the human race is to operate in any sensible, productive way, we must rise above the ancient religious bickering and start to respect the human. Because we are all human: the reason agnostics in Milton Keynes get upset about the slaughter of children in Gaza is not because they are Hamas supporters; it's because they are witnessing entirely needless human suffering. And it isn't helpful to blame one side or the other.  That merely reinforces an artificial divide. 

The Middle East is being torn apart by the great falsehood of the ancient religions: that by adhering to your particular religion, you become better than those who don't. This isn't true. I hope this is self-evident. A human being is a human being, not inherently better or worse than any other. If that human is doing nothing to harm anyone, it should be left alone to get on with its life. 

This surely shouldn't be so hard. But for millennia it has been. Humans feel threatened by difference, but they shouldn't: if someone is trying to hurt you, they are bad, and you should fight it. But if someone simply wants to live next door, or even share your country then have a good look  - is this person actually any sort of threat? Or are they a simply another human just like you?

Ken's back, and not a moment too soon

It was with great relief that I heard today that Ken Clarke is officially back in the shadow cabinet, after an absence that really has been too long. One of the few really credible, capable and knowledgeable politicians in the House of Commons was wasted on the back benches and if ever we needed him, it's, well, about two years ago, actually, before this whole credit business came to a head. His has been one of the few really sane voices in the whole debate: a soothing balm of common sense to alleviate the pain of being forced to listen to Gordon Brown and his idiots, sorry, team, talking about getting into lots more debt to solve a problem caused by, er, too much debt. Putting out a fire with petrol has never been a good idea.

As shadow Business Secretary, Ken is up against Peter "Mandy" Mandelson, whose return has not helped at all. Here's hoping that Call Me Dave actually listens to Clarke - we might even end up with some vaguely sensible alternative economic policies from Her Majesty's Opposition. 

The Conservatives will have to do better than a desperate housewife

Last night's BBC Question Time panel was a woeful sight. From left we had:

Lembit Opik, whose calls for a "mature debate" sit uncomfortably with his childish publicity-seeking behaviour.

Will Self, the self appointed guru of pessimism, who clearly (erroneously) believes himself intellectually superior to the rest of the human race. Sitting next to Lembit Opik, his face looked almost normal.

Nadine Dorries, a Conservative MP and former nurse who appeared to have no real opinions at all as she sought to say almost anything which would get her a bit of applause.

Jim Knight (who?), the Schools Minister, who sat and merrily parroted the script he'd had written for him in an affable but vacant way.

And the awful, horse-faced Esther Rantzen, whose recent time in the jungle appears to have so addled her brain that she thinks Gordon Brown has been a great steward of our economy.

Most depressing, for someone who cherishes the prospect of a new, better government in the near future, was that the Conservatives had seen fit to put forward Nadine Dorries. She was so out of her depth she really needed a snorkel, and she wasn't up against the hottest political opposition, either. It was like listening to one long vox pop from a suburban housewife who had read a Conservative press release, rather than a spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition. Even Lembit "I'm a Cheeky Boy, look at my Segway" Opik sounded serious by comparison.

Come on, Dave, you can do better than this. At a time when proper Conservatism is more important than it has been for years, we need to hear credible Conservative voices, not token blonde women.

Welcome to Devon

This weekend I went to Budleigh Salterton, near Exmouth for a pretty hectic 48 hours. In this time I was struck be just how friendly and helpful the locals were (with the exception of the staff in the CoOp, who were deeply suspicious of us) and how relaxed the whole place seemed to be. As a Londoner, the following story more or less sums it up.

At the end of the first night, after a rehearsal with the band and a trip to the pub, I was walking back to my hotel. Unfortunately, I was walking back a different way to the way I had driven earlier, and I had taken a wrong turning, and ended up in an unidentifiable residential street - street lighting is sparse. When I realised this, I stopped to get my Sat Nav out of my rucksack, which seemed the sensible thing to do to find out where I was. As I did this, a police car approached. I thought nothing of it - in London, police cars are around all the time. But the policeman (who was alone in the patrol car) stopped and asked me if I was alright and if I knew where I was going. I told him where I was staying and said I was going to check on my Sat Nav (which I had in my hand), so I was fine. He got there first with his and offered me a lift. In fact, he insisted on giving me a lift to my hotel, sympathising with my plight - "it all looks different at night, don't it?". 

A policeman with so little to worry about that he can give a lift to someone who is perfectly capable of finding his own way? That's Budleigh for you.

New info in the sidebar

Courtesy of http://www.conservatives.com/ I now have a widget (to the right of this post) to show me what my current share of the national debt is, updated in real time. It's also your share of the national debt, of course. And everyone else's.

Gordon Brown is a complete idiot

I know this isn't an original sentiment. And I know it may seem like an obvious, if blunt thing to say. But I think on the evidence of recent days and weeks it is so self-evidently true that it needs to be said. I shall explain my reasoning.

First of all, Gordy has lost all sense of proportion. Whenever anything unfortunate happens and is heavily reported in the media, he has now decided that he must promise "change". This means that, in addition to everything else he has got on, he now has to find time to prevent a small child ever being abused by a parent and to prevent anyone ever raping a relative again. This is silly - of course they are hypothetically laudable ambitions, but they are also impossible, and he knows it.

Second of all, El Gordo and his puppet chancellor Alistair "Captain" Darling have decided to sell the whole country down the river because they're determined to be seen to be doing something about the inevitable recession (inevitable, of course, because of their terrible stewardship of the economy). In particular, they have decided to something immensely expensive (knock 2.5% off VAT) which will make no real difference. I know this, because I asked an expert: me. Me, I said, will you now go out and spend more money because Captain Darling has reduced VAT to 15%? No, I replied, it won't make a tiny bit of difference, especially since he has carefully made sure that the fun stuff, like whisky, won't be any cheaper. So why all the extra borrowing to finance it? And why punish those of us who are actually working by putting up National Insurance contributions?

Thirdly, Gorders has developed a messiah complex. Everything he does now is as a sort of superhero, come to save the world. And from what? Mostly things of his own making. His current behaviour is disastrous - both for the economy of this country in years to come and for any chance of sensible reactions to unfortunate, isolated incidents. He can't save Baby P, he won't save the economy and he should do the only sensible thing and leave well alone. As P.J. O'Rourke so incisively put it, "Giving money and power to the government is like giving whiskey and the car keys to teenage boys". Trouble is, Gordy B has already got through a bottle of Old Moorhen's Shredded Sporran and is currently attempting to drive the British economy backwards up a motorway in rush hour. 

Boris Godunov at ENO

It's been a while since I posted about something musical here, so here goes - a short review of ENO's new production of Musorgsky's Boris Godunov, which opened last night at the Coliseum.

The piece, for those who don't know it, is pretty dark, and ENO's production, directed by Tim Albery makes no attempt to lighten things. The dark, troubled times in which Russia finds itself are reflected in a mostly grey, heavily crosslit design; the parallel with the turmoil in Tsar-elect Boris' mind is made clear, as he struggles with his guilt at having murdered, years before, the young heir to the throne for which he has now been chosen. The excellent ENO chorus (plus extras) are both a crowd and an organic part of the design - a moving part of the grey, bleak backdrop to the story of a man failing to find any peace with himself.

The production ran for two and a quarter hours without a break, so the drama had to be convicing. Generally, it was - Albery's direction did a very good job of keeping the story flowing, despite the fact that really, not an awful lot happens. The production is also blessed with some excellent singing from, amongst others, two of this country's finest basses. Peter Rose as Boris sang beautifully, and acted with an intensity which I cannot remember seeing from him before. The moment, rather reminiscent of Macbeth, where he sees a vision of Dmitri, the boy he murdered, was fantastically powerful, and dramatically chilling. Brindley Sherratt, as the monk Pimen, produced the most gloriously rich, dark tone and carried off the portrayal of an aged monk with great dignity. Both were admirable for their clear diction too.

Of the rest of the cast, this cut version (more reminiscent of Musorgsky's first version than his final one) allows few other principals much time. Nevertheless, Robert Murray was excellent as the simpleton, Gregory Turay made a lovely sound as Grigory, and Anna Grevelius was an utterly convincing boy as Fyodor, Boris' son.

The ENO Orchestra under Edward Gardner's fine conducting were superb - and this is, finally, what made this evening more than just a very miserable, grim story where the title character dies at the end. The musical standards were very high, the production fitted the drama, and the overall effect was moving. Don't go and see it for laughs - I counted two. Go and see it for the drama, because it's very good.

Organised religion, or, a series of squabbles.

On this day when, in the UK, we remember the fallen in ways that are generally couched in our officially established religion, it was interesting to see what was happening in Jerusalem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm

Apparently, some Armenian Christians wouldn't let some Greek Christians do what they wanted, which seems to have been to put one of their number (presumably dead) in a box. This resulted in a very un-Christian fistfight (in fact, the Greek priest interviewed by the BBC pronounced 'feast' as 'fist' - as in "the Armenians have today their fist" - how right he was).

For someone who embraced Unitarianism (or Unitarian Universalism, as this particular flavour is often described) years ago, this is further vindication of my decision. The fact that two groups whose theology is virtually indistinguishable can come to blows over whose turn it is to have their celebration shows what I had already realised - dogmatic, organised religion is not about God, or about spirituality. It is about power, control and strength in numbers. And thus it leads to violence over things which really don't matter in human terms. See the crusades; see Al qaeda for examples of what I mean. These people don't (didn't) actually differ significantly from their supposed enemies. They just have different dogma. And to me, dogma is a poison - whether it is Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or anything else: if it tells you you are superior to other human beings just for saying you believe something that they don't, it is a poison.

I should make clear, I don't oppose religion in itself. I think spirituality is a good thing, when practised by an individual for their own fulfilment and enlightenment. But exclusive, combative, dogmatic religion is exactly the opposite of what humanity needs. Jesus' message of tolerance was spot on. Unfortunately, many of his followers seem to have missed the point.

Barack Obama and the promise too far?

I'm glad Barack Obama won the US presidential election. If he hadn't, it would have looked like a step backwards, and that would have been a bad thing in terms of global politics.

However, while I really hope that Obama can make America work, it is hard to see how he can make his promises work. It's a truism, but in opposition you can promise anything you like. Government tends to make things much more complicated.

Amongst the things Obama has promised is not to behave like Bush did on Kyoto, blocking it and refusing to sign up. But there is a good deal of misinformation on why Bush did what he did - he recognised that to implement Kyoto would cost an incredibly large amount of money and have a negligible impact on carbon emissions. It was just a very expensive gesture, and so Bush decided not to take part. This was seen as an abdication of his environmental responsibilities, but in many ways it was justified. Negotiating another treaty, presumably even more expensive, is probably politically necessary but will be risky in the longer term. And promising to create 5 million "green-collar" jobs is also a very costly commitment.

The biggest problem is what has been referred to by the BBC as Obama-nomics. That is to say, his attitude to economic policy, particularly in the current unstable climate. Not only is Obama intent on spending, sorry, investing lots of borrowed money to "stimulate" the economy, which is worrying given the already astronomical national debt he will inherit, but he has promised to protect American jobs and tell companies not to send jobs overseas. He also wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade agreement. This is bad news - an American president who opposes free trade and proposes a protectionist trade policy is not what the rest of the world, especially the developing world needs.

I still hope that Obama will prove to be a success - America needs a successful president. And if that successful president is half-black, it will improve America's image. But I am worried by some aspects of his manifesto. I hope I'm wrong.

Proportion, or lack of it

Today has been a funny news day - and a day when any sense of proportion was lost.

First of all, we heard yet more about the silliness perpetrated by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, when they called Andrew Sachs on Brand's BBC radio programme and left offensive messages on his answerphone. This was, clearly, an immensely childish thing to do, and deserves to be treated as such. I have no respect at all for Russell Brand, who is a talentless idiot with backcombed hair; and whilst I do sort of respect Jonathan Ross, they should both be relieved of their radio presenting responsibilities over this. They are paid out of our license fee to do these jobs, and I don't think arseing about making prank calls to upset people counts as doing their jobs.

However, the whole business has gained an unnecessary level of prominence - our Dear Leader (how I wish I could post without mentioning him) has condemned their behaviour; and yet, I feel that there are more important things our PM could be dealing with. Although, come to think of it, at least when he's talking about this he's not coming up with ways of spending more borrowed money.

On a more serious note, a senior civil servant has been fined £2,500 for leaving top secret documents on a train. Good. Hang on... This man, it is safe to say, was making a lot of money, certiainly in six figures per annum, when he made this extraordinary mistake. If you are willing to take on the responsibility of looking after really confidential documents (and apparently he took them home "by mistake" in the first place) you must be held properly responsible. The fine he was given is ludicrously small. It seems that he was "under extreme pressure" at the time. Oh dear. Remind me to care next time someone charged with top security work cocks up unforgiveably because of "extreme pressure". It seems he has since been demoted. So it is, by implication, only a bit naughty to leave top secret documents in public view.

If our civil service is to work at all, we need to maintain proper security. "Extreme pressure" doesn't come into it. Sort it out.

Responsible borrowing? Ha.

Gordon Brown might as well get a second face tattooed on the back of his head. He has certainly mastered the art of facing both ways on all matters economic. Having presided over the extraordinary and unsustainable expansion of personal credit whilst preaching financial prudence, he has recently taken to condemning bankers and speculators for their excessive risk-taking and general financial skulduggery whilst borrowing tens of billions of pounds extra on our behalf.

Apparently he believes that it is "right and responsible" to maintain "investment". Think about this for a minute - our Prime Minister now wants the government to save us from recession by "investing" (spending money). What, precisely, are they investing? There is an important truism to remember here: all government borrowing is deferred taxation.

Ken Clarke, the best Chancellor of the Exchequer in my lifetime, made the important point on Newsnight this evening - Gordon Brown has been spending too much and borrowing too much for years, enjoying the impunity of a booming economy. To promise more of both before the recession really bites, is at best, foolish. At worst, it is downright irresponsible.

Gordon Brown - Zero to, er, Zero

I watched with astonishment the BBC news this evening. Apparently, our Prime Minister is being feted as some sort of hero amongst EU leaders. Now, in fairness, most of the these EU leaders wouldn't know a solid economy if it bit them on the ankle, but that's no excuse. Along with Bill Clinton's social agenda in the US (see previous post) a major contributor to the current problems is Gordon Brown's "light touch equals no touch at all" attitude to regulation, especially in the City of London. During the heyday of his "successful" reign as Chancellor, Gordon was busy defending the speculators and city bonuses, because everything was rosy. Now, he is falling over himself to criticise them. Those of us with memories more capacious than that of a goldfish are now wondering how he has managed to forget all the things he did and said in his old job.

The upshot of all this, and it is actually quite unfortunate, is that the Conservatives are in a difficult position. When Tony Blair took office, he inherited Ken Clarke's legacy - an economy which had been through difficult times, but which was now on the up, fundamentally sound and with a moderate national debt. When Cameron takes office (and he almost certainly will) in 2010 he will inherit probably the largest national debt this country has ever had, an economy in tatters and very low business morale, and will have to rebuild things from scratch. This will be difficult.

Remember, Gordon is not a hero. This is, at least partly, his fault. And now he is intent on spending an awful lot of your and my money, to try and stabilise the problems he and his mate Bill caused. Incompetent? Yes. Unforgivable? Absolutely.