Newsflash: The Pope really does excrete in the woods

Surprisingly, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has said the taxpayers should pay for the Pope's visit

I'm shocked, truly...does he also believe Jesus was in fact the son of God?

What's even the point in asking his opinion...of course he bloody thinks the Pope should come here, he probably also thinks we should all join his church

While I agree on the point about state visits - this is not really a 'state' visit, he's the leader of a religion, he does not come representing the national interests of the Vatican as a country, but his own religious views

And while he may represent 1 in 5 people on the planet (a statistic Catholics love), it's more like 1 in 12 in the UK (or 8%), and probably far less in actuality, polls show a minority welcome the visit, most not caring about it but also not wanting to waste money on a visitor who can easily self-fund and provides no tangible benefit in coming

We cut national services and yet spend on this abuse-riddled organisation to self-promote?

The argument follows that he was invited - true, but following up on that whole democracy thing, where most of us don't want to pay, which democratically elected leader invited him?

That's right, Gordon Brown, in February last year - the same government who created a load of expensive new commitments just for electoral purposes forced their successors' hand once again, knowing full well they would not be the ones to welcome the old git

Would Blair, the elected leader, the man who avoided any ties to Catholicism til he left office, have invited the Pope to these shores for the first time in history? Unlikely

If Brown wants to meet the Pope maybe he, or the Labour party should fund the visit

Sleep sound

Honestly, I didn't watch the debate...global affairs? Who cares, there's little between them on the EU, there's no cold war anymore, this election is wholly domestic for me

All I've really come to say is that I am amazed Brown actually said Clegg threatens our safety by opposing Trident

Seriously? ...That year I spent in Australia I was in constant fear...

(oh and the same line about the economy to Cameron was equally shallow - where's the substance, Gordon? It's all how evil the opposition are and NO POLICY)

Why do they deserve to vote on the system that produced them?

News reaches me that Labour are to try and bring in an AV system

Good, I guess, but my first reaction was - what right do a party elected by this severely flawed system, led by an unelected and unwanted prime minister, who will almost all be thrown out in three months time, have to decide our electoral system, which they have gerrymandered no end?

Meanwhile the opposition are totally against it because...well, they like winning

and Labour are only doing it t paint said opposition as anti-reform


I despair

(in fairness anything Brown tries to introduce makes me wince - because I cannot recognise him as our leader, because he's not, we were never asked)

Can you blame them?

I rarely defend politicians, particularly Messrs Brown and Cameron, and I hardly condone using armistice day as a photo-op

(Slightly more moderate article from the BBC here)

But I am in reflective mood, and when I think about it - it's hardly their fault is it?

They do it because they know we want it - Brown is a clumsy fool and always comes off insincere when he talks to real people, Cameron is a smarmy PR man, but they both play the game, our game

But much like how football's lax rules allow the Henrys, Maradonas and Ronaldos to get away with it while we watch, so too does the political game allow Brown and Cameron to perform these stunts

In reality I want a thoughtful, rational government that doesn't resort to appealing to the lowest common denominator - but if that happened what would we get? They'd be ripped to shreds, they'd be seen as ditherers, weak, boring and so on - because image is king

And we ask for it, we let the media peddle their stories - had Brown and Cameron not showed some heartfelt compassion they would've been seen as ingrates, this time they misjudged it, but for the most part people want them to do completely pointless gesture politics, such as visiting flood victims... or talking to Mumsnet

What the hell can Brown do about floods? Nothing could've prevented a month of rain within a day, this was basically a morale booster - and faced with the choice between our two unelected leaders, I'd prefer the unused, neutral one was put to some use (and while I remember, Peter Hitchens really shows his true colours in this week's column)

But we want our leaders to be 'human', to show compassion - and that ultimately is going to come down to who is the best actor (or not in Brown's case)

I doubt that Brown could ever be an effective leader, but who knows, either way we get useless politicians who can't make a decision for fear of the media and its various agendas, and this is only compounded by the fact that the nature of the game drives away the best sort of people for the job

So I don't blame Brown and Cameron for being shameless media manipulators - we get the politicians we deserve

Still Alive! I think...

I have finally risen from my bed, thankyou to those who expressed concern (and don't worry spidie I wouldn't go near any hastily-manufactured vaccines), I was sick a bit longer than I anticipated - a mild case of food poisoning which seemingly led into other issues, nothing major, but it was 'unpleasant' and I shall leave it at that

Think I'll be keeping blogging light for today, I'm still slightly malnourished - some things I noticed at the weekend

Is it just me or do both Cameron and Brown look ridiculous? Brown is obviously trying to look solemn and is pulling a fierce frown, for fear of disrespecting the dead (you were never going to get out of that one, Gordie) while Cameron looks like a plucked chicken

Now, I know I should not be judging on looks, but they do have some relevance and Cameron looks like such a wannabe to me, he just looks weak

Conclusion: based on looks, Clegg all the way...

Secondly I noticed this over at Nick Robinson and you know when your net drops out and the site doesn't load very well, all the scripting fails or something and the banners and pictures don't load (or not, maybe it's me)

Well here's what we normally see

and here's what I saw yesterday

Can you read that?

Is someone at the BBC being silly with their descriptions, or are they just being very literal? Either way struck me as an odd thing to put there

Please Go

I received an e-mail in response to the please go petition I, and more than 70,000 other people signed

Here it is

What has that got to do with a request for a resignation?

I knew he would never go because of it, but he can at least respond to it properly - we already feel shut out because he wasn't even elected and the party we elected have completely changed tack since the election (not that I voted for them, but I do respect democracy, and manifesto pledges)

Just feels like a dictator telling us all to bugger off and leave him alone - but he has no right to do that job

...and they spelt 'focused' wrong

Riot, please, just riot!

I can't take this any more, I was going to write about the Youth Parliament last week, but I've seen Hattie's latest comments and entered a world of despair

But Miss Harman yesterday suggested that the report could be shelved if it goes too far.
She said a final decision would rest with the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), whose members will be vetted by MPs before being appointed.
Miss Harman said Ipsa will have to be sure that MPs ‘can both be in their constituency as well as in Westminster’.
She added: ‘No one wants to get back to a situation where MPs were sent to Westminster and then they said to their constituents “see you again in five years”.

I wasn't aware that had changed...

MPs are furious at the prospect of having to sell their second homes and move into rented accommodation. Some warn it will make it impossible for all but the wealthiest MPs to have their families with them in London.

Really? Have these people never rented before? You can rent whole houses you know

The Prime Minister is expected to tell him that the new expenses system must not be so harsh that politics ‘becomes the preserve of the independently wealthy and that ordinary people with families must always be able to become MPs’.

Gold star for Gordon, that's the original reason for introducing MP salaries over a century ago - I'd love to know how 65k plus fiddled expenses is anywhere near what 'ordinary people' support their families with

What exactly would the preserve of the wealthy be? You can still own a house, funded by your big salary, then rent a second house for work on expenses (I really don't get their issue with renting - they do realise they won't have to pay for it, right?), claim travel expenses that few commuters would get, and an office for work - what's the problem? What is so disabling in that scenario - I'd do it, and so would a lot of ordinary people I know - do I need to break out the graph that shows where ordinary people are and where MPs are (top 9%), and the list of Labour MPs who are millionaires or professional politicians?

These people really are just living in a bubble

...pop it

Sorry...What?

Gordon Brown has made his decision about televised debates, but he isn't going to tell us what that is

eh? Maybe he realised that Ollie Cromwell was right and that this implied he has to call an election

But seriously - shall I add 'na-na-nah-nah!'?

I'll take the risk

Apparently Brown's idea to reduce the nuclear fleet from four subs to three is unworkable, as we need four to adequately defend Britain

I think I'll take the risk on something that has never been used, and never should be used

[John Hutton] (former defence secretary) added that Britain would 'rue the day' it became vulnerable to blackmail or aggression.

Do you find it a bit odd that John Hutton (who incidentally is the only named critic) is being cited by the Mail as some sort of expert because he was Defence Secretary, when they regard his successor, Bob Ainsworth, as the devil?

Maybe Hutton was a far better candidate with some sort of defence background? Nope he's a lawyer and career politician who held the job for 8 months....

I don't doubt this is a foolish move, but at least bring me a general!

I understand the arguments for 'the deterrent' - but seriously, what does it achieve? It protects us from aggression and blackmail - I guess Germany, Canada, Japan and Australia are all under someone's thumb?

I appreciate that if we gave it up we'd be weakening our defences, we could be bullied by the Yanks, Russians, or Chinese (not the French) if they so wished - but seriously, are we the last line of defence for Europe? It's giving away a very big weapon that makes it look like we could deal with the big boys on our own, but in reality what does it do?

Like I say, I understand the rationale for it - it's very hard to give up and place this sort of capability solely in the hands of other nations, having to trust the US essentially - it's hard, and my ideal preference would be to get all the powers to disarm, I have little fear of anything North Korea decide to send our way, but let's face it - this is all about saving face - we want to think we're independent

But the question remains - how do Germany, Japan etc. survive on relying on other nations - do they even fear the threat? Maybe because I'm now in Australia I can be a bit more reflective - because they certainly don't regard it as an issue - the issue for Britain is not about having them, it's about giving them up

I would say that while I like having an independent deterrent of our own, primarily because I dislike the idea of the yanks having all the cards, if there need to be countries like Britain and France there to maintain the balance for everyone else in the western world then they shouldn't be funding it on their own

If the other countries don't even care about the balance then I think we should become as grown-up as them and ditch the bomb - it's all about ego, because while it 'could' be useful, it's far more likely to result in the end of the world if we start having to use the bloody things - think about it - there's actually a world situation where Britain needs to defend itself with cataclysmic weapons, where it can survive as a nation in a world where probably no-one else would? I think a lot of the world just accept that if they do get used then we're all toast - it's just bravado to keep them

Of course what I really love is that Brown, by taking the middle route, has completely fudged the issue - all he would do is undermine the military capability to save a paltry £2 billion, pleasing absolutely no one

*I must also admit one of my favourite bits was this

There are also concerns about the impact on jobs. Some 15,000 posts are claimed to be connected to the Trident replacement programme. The submarines are likely to be manufactured by BAE at Barrow-in-Furness, a constituency represented by Mr Hutton, with their nuclear engines made by Rolls Royce in Derby. The submarines are maintained and decommissioned in Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth, and operate from Faslane naval base in Scotland. Aldermaston in Berkshire, where the missiles are made, employs 4,000. The weapons programme also supports jobs at the nuclear reactors that create the bomb-making material, including Sellafield.

In my recollection, the government creating non-profit, public-sector jobs (or using financial stimuli) is bad in the Mail 's eyes

Unless it's to make bombs, of course

Time for Scotland to go independent?

Har...har - Baroness Scotland of course

This story is confusing me somewhat - Baroness Scotland employed an illegal, she did not take the necessary measures to ensure she was within the law, and was duly fined five grand

What I want to know is if Scotland had the relevant copies, would she be fined? From the BBC

It is understood that she had seen the woman's passport, a letter from the Home Office on her right to work, her P45, her National Insurance details, references and a marriage certificate.

Labour are in full-spin I see - so, had she photocopied these would she have been fined? Clearly they were somehow false, or weren't actually valid - and an employer is obliged to properly check these documents (photos, signatures etc)

So was she fined for not following protocol, or for actually hiring an illegal? Which the law says is an offence even if it is unwitting - these checks are supposed to prevent it from happening so surely the logical conclusion is that even these documents would not help her escape a fine - you are not fined for not having the relevant documents, i.e. if you hired me, although you are required to obtain these documents, you would not be fined by the Borders Agency as I'm a citizen - so unless she was well and truly tricked she is culpable?

Let's peruse the documents shall we -

1. Passport, presumably foreign (rather than forgery) as she had a letter about right to work, so not valid
2. Home Office letter - I have a right to work in Australia until next year, it has conditions on it, presumably hers said something along the lines of while engaging in studies (she had a student visa), hardly seems a good defence, unless the Home Office are that stupid (hmmm...)
3. P45 - proves nothing!
4. National Insurance - Not a proof of entitlement to work, as outlined in her own guidelines! NI numbers are given to people who have HAD a right to work here at some point, doesn't mean she still is entitled
5. References - same as p45, prove nothing
6. Marriage certificate - This, I think was the clincher - married to a British national, so she must be eligible - well not any more, thanks to marriage visas

I see nothing that would absolve the most powerful lawyer in the country from this

And you know what? - that is the whole point, I don't think I'd care if someone employed an illegal as a nanny, I'd even let Harman off for something this trivial - I have sympathy with Ms. Tapui's situation - she is actually eligible to work in Britain and is only 'illegal' through a technical measure, most people would deserve sympathy in this situation

But not the Attorney-General, who effectively created this law where ignorance is not a defence (standard common-law practice anyway) and must be seen to follow it - for a person in her position to commit this offence is a joke

I know it's a civil matter, not a criminal one, and I wouldn't call for the head of most ministers in this case, but because she basically made this law, she must go - this is not like forgetting to pay the congestion charge (her own comparison), or speeding - this is directly linked to her job and undermines her position as chief lawmaker

It is unfortunate, I admit, but she should be stepping down for the dignity of her role - she can't be seen as a hypocrite

And that was rather longer than I intended - what I meant to get into (rather than wittering on about this like everyone else) was the government:

Once again we have an unelected, unaccountable person refusing to leave, despite it being in the public interest - traditionally of course, a person in her position would never be elected, and rightly so - but this is just compounding the case against Labour - their refusal to act just further highlights their incredible amount of power that is based on people who are completely unelected

Normally we could pressure the elected government to push her out of this esteemed position - but we already have an unaccountable prime minister, propped up by an unaccountable and unelectable 'Lord' Mandelson and a cabinet made up of cronies from the Lords, further supported by other unelectable people like the Kinnocks in the Lords and EU

If ever there was a serious case against the appointment system we have, it is this - we have tolerated the Lords for a long time because they're actually quite handy, but the danger of having such a lot of power in unelected positions (compounded by the undemocratic EU) is quite evident now - and while we may hate elected politicians, we need to take the hit and stop governments relying on their mates who they have appointed for life, Labour would've been out if they had to rely solely on the Commons by now - something which all recent governments have done

zzzzzz...hmm? oh...Who is the real 'Nasty Party'?

Well that was a lively speech...

I have no interest in picking over it, but I did want to pick up on a few things:

Labour says the Tories are planning a "ruthless" cull of frontline services.

Labour says the Tories are "foaming at the mouth with excitement" at the prospect of "savage" cuts.

(Both from BBC politics top stories)

Those are some very nasty words, do the Tories use such emotive wording?

The Conservatives had accused Mr Brown of being evasive on the issue

[Osbourne] accused the government of seeking to "try and pump the bubble back up with more government spending and debt-fuelled consumption".

hmm, a little more polite, no accusations of being 'ruthless' or 'savage culls' from the Tories, nor of course, the Lib Dems

But Labour on the other hand, stick to the 'nasty party' line - they may not openly say it, but this sort of language is clearly emotionally charged, and it's British politics at its very worst

The thing is, they accuse of the Tories of pretty much being evil, when they are the only party casting around such nasty words - the two opposition parties focus on the argument while Labour call their opponents 'ruthless', nobody feels the need to resort to calling Labour evil socialists

I'm under no illusions that the Tories can, when they want, be nasty, but clearly right now Cameron has dropped the tactic, and yet Labour get away with what is basically slander and accuse the Tories of committing the crime where they are clearly the worst offenders

And here is the Labour argument: 'we will make nice cuts, the Tories will make nasty ones, yah-boo!' - aside from their horrible use of language, their argument is made up of nothing but slandering the opposition, clearly Cameron is happy to let Brown shoot himself in the foot on this

But what I really want to know is - who does this appeal to? Do the hardcore labour votes really love to simply hear that the Tories are nasty? Unfortunately they probably do, sad really - but this line of argument where Labour have basically descended into the mindless tribalism of the 80s will never convince 'Middle England', where the election will be won - they do a disservice to politics by behaving like this

All this leads me to think that the Labour strategists have pretty much given up on winning and want to shore up their own base for fear of what happened at the European elections

The BBC - licking labour's boots yet again

I see those dastardly chaps, Nick Robinson and Robert Peston, are at it again - Peston having had a 'lovely chat' with Brown according to Frankos at B-BBC


And just look at this glowing review he gave him after that 'lovely chat':

I have just interviewed the prime minister. Which is often challenging, because of his famous habit of ignoring his interlocutors' questions and saying what he intended to say all along.

And, I'm afraid to say, he didn't choose today to engage precisely and directly with my lines of enquiry.

Translation: "My love for the great leader is undying!"

And meanwhile, Robinson is even more simpering:

Peter Mandelson has been re-writing the government's line on public spending cuts but no-one can re-write political history.

I suggested on the Today programme this morning that if you listened hard you might just hear the sound of shredders in Whitehall as Gordon Brown's "lines to take" on spending were disposed of - in particular, the prime minister's insistence that the choice facing the electorate was "Tory cuts" versus "Labour investment". Lord Mandelson suggested that the words had never actually been used. Not so. [here follows several Hansard examples]

Unquestioning loyalty!!

Hmm, it does appear that my allegation of bias is a little weak here...

Aha! You see, they have realised Labour are a lost cause and have jumped ship

The BBC - even when they're not biased, they're biased

*satire

Even the Ozzies mock Brown

I am no fan of twitter - I believe, and hope, it is just a mindless fad for the media types - the fact that the media have adopted it so readily means that 'the kids' won't touch it on principle

But it does occasionally throw up a doozie, here we have Joe Hockey, the shadow treasurer in Australia, who got in trouble for tweeting while sitting in parliament:

At least she likes one man

The Union-leading husband of the rabid feminist we call Hattie is apparently to be gifted a safe seat

He will be given the seat for apparently supporting Gordon (although this is the Mail we're talking about here)

Like her or not, this ain't right - people shouldn't be being placed in Parliament because of who they know, that's not democracy

Well, in actuality the whole concept of a 'safe seat' is thoroughly repulsive to democracy, and I'm certainly not naive, I know it's how almost all of them got there - but as this is the 'equalities minister' we're talking about it seems fair for me to be a little idealistic

When even the resident feminist is getting jobs for the boys you really do have to wonder if our Parliament will ever regain some authority

Furthermore, he's getting this for supporting one of the worst Prime Ministers in history, who will soon be defeated and drag down scores of real MPs - this isn't even in the interest of the party, let alone the country (I have long since abandoned that ideal)

Politics at its worst

Harman is the worst kind of bigot

That being 'one with power'

I promised myself I wouldn't go too mad on this, she's 'in charge' for two weeks and is doing whatever she wants, we all knew this would happen, and plenty of others out there are whinging about it, I don't need to lose sleep over it

But dear god, she's mad!!

Railroading changes to rape law, sticking wife-beating issues into the national curriculum, making hypocritical remarks about men-only leadership

All in the face of the mostly moderate British public, this is a woman with a massive agenda, blinded by her own warped ideas on the world - but it's nothing new, I just wished to express my exasperation

The good news is she'll never be electable and will be gone within the year, but Alice Thomson puts a different spin on it - at least she's sparking debate, even if we do all hate her

I'm not sure what to think - yes, it's been awful having such a pathetic excuse for a government and it's far more fun to get angry at Harman's 'conviction' politics, it's nice to hear some actual views for once, no matter how insane

Only, my concern is that she actually has power - fine, start debate - but this is not just starting debate, this is starting debate by controlling government with your agenda when you have no democratic right to do so - right-wing fascists start debate, would you like to put one in charge of government so we all take notice?

No, I thought not - it's dangerous, and while it may be more entertaining, there is a real crime here - our government are so bad that we actually have people supporting having this looney in charge just for the fun of it

*And in that link, the Mail win this week's Gruniad award:

The Government claims that violanguagelence against women is costing Britain an astonishing £40billion.

**I would also like to lend weight to the theory that this is part of Brown's plot - we'll all be begging for him back by the end of next week

I lol'd

I just had to post this:

(From the Indie)

Quick...look busy

What depths will the government sink to to create positive news?

Now they are funding 500 places on Operation Raleigh for graduate bums like me who can't find a job

Now while I am somewhat irked that I once again would've been rewarded by hanging around in Britain as a 'NEET' I can't help but laugh - 500 spots?

The Times lends it weight to the idea that it's to massage the figures - but frankly what's is 500 in the 100,000+ unemployed graduate pool? Not to mention the 2 million+ unemployed

No, this is a cheap gimmick to make a headline and make it look like they are being productive and doing something positive in the recession - I already went on a bloody gap year, because as the Times pointed out: "Careers experts say that 80,000 will hunt in vain for work this summer" - this is just rewarding people who aren't smart enough to have decided on a gap year yet - as always you have to be dim to get any help off the state

Depressing times...as always

Chicken Soup

I've been a bit quiet the last week or so, laid down with the flu - yep, real flu, never had that before - it is in fact an outbreak down under and is actually physically worse than swine flu, but whatever, it doesn't get the reader numbers up

Anyway, I'm mostly recovered now - I did notice Guido was having his own story with swine flu, he really shouldn't worry - it's complete bollocks, it's milder than real flu and almost completely harmless, half of me only thinks the governments responded because the media liked it (by 'half' I mean all of me)

Missed a fair bit so I'll work my way in slowly - the one issue that's got me is this ridiculous gay 'issue' - it's all gesturing, I never realised how much the gay vote was worth, must be nice to be a wanted demographic - but Labour are the dogs for attacking the Tories first with a completely underhanded swipe

Once again it showed off their true colours, trying to smear the Tories with emotive labels and make them seem nasty, when they're the ones doing all the name-calling - this ridiculous battle-line idea Brown is clinging to is shameful

But the bit that really got me - saying 'to oppose the Equalities bill is to oppose equality' - cheap underhand trick, mark my words give it five years and all our legislation, such as a dodgy terrorism measure, will have titles like the 'saving puppies' bill - so if you oppose it you're nasty - 'who opposes saving puppies!?'

Sounds daft, but this is already what they're doing

Class Dismissed

I couldn't help but comment on Janet Street Porter's analysis of the expenses saga - to her it shows that the class system hasn't changed

The class system still existing is an interesting theory - I don't see how you can regard those who own moats or servants' quarters as representative of a broad social class - no doubt they are 'upper class' but they represent such a tiny minority it is hardly worth noting, they are the remnants of it, and are mostly left in just the political arena

The true debate over class has always been the middle vs working classes, who make up 99% of the population - the items she describes the Labour MPs as claiming for are no different to what any average middle class person would consider (e.g. treating dry rot), few in the 'middle' classes would be claiming for silver tea trays and moat cleaning

Janet presents the Labour MPs, who claim for biscuits and jellied eels, as essentially working-class heroes (although she herself says only 10% of MPs are working class, don't ask me how she worked out that figure) - while the Tories claim for conservatories, duck pond houses and moat cleaning - therefore they are middle or upper-class toffs

I fail to see what exactly that proves - the Tory party is stuffed full of millionaires and toffs, the core theme being that their status is inherited rather than earned, it always has been this way

Does that really show a class divide? Tory voters are the average middle-class person, they tend to work, own their homes and dislike paying tax - nothing about the average voter relates to the fact that the average Tory MP lives in a castle

What it does show is that Tory voters are idiots for being duped into allowing the landed wealth to represent them - these people are a tiny proportion of society, if they are actually a class, they do not represent the broader class divisions across society - they merely show that parliament is for the old elites and the wealthy

This has little bearing on the Labour members - who may all feast on jellied eels, but have the niece of the 7th Earl of Longford on their front bench (that'd be Hattie), as well as 'Son of the Manse' Brown, and of course Blair, almost as privileged as Cameron himself - for every Prescott or Johnson, there's a Blair or Harman

You want to make this about class? Then the real facts are that most MPs are professional middle-classes, gaining their second home and buying big tellies, granted a fair chunk of Tories are gentry, but there are plenty of those middle-class people who don't own half of Oxfordshire on the blue side - the fact is, almost all of them are in there through privilege or contacts, the rest came in from the unions (which presumably is the 10% Janet mentioned)

If you need any further evidence of Janet's slant - note her argument, she starts 'comparing' food - listing the apparently working class food (pork pies, biscuits) of Charles Clarke (privately-educated Cambridge man) and Nick Brown, but then compares that to a Tory buying orchids and getting an aga serviced, nothing about the food they bought - she also omits the fact that Nick Brown has claimed £19,000 in food bills in four years, considering few think 'food' is a legitimate expense ('do you eat twice?') this seems pretty suspect - oh and using the Tory leader as pretty much the sole named example...he who is descended from William IV, hardly a representative sample - my (Tory) MP claimed for a £300 washing machine - yes, he actually does his own washing!!

I don't know why she picks on the aga - I wouldn't be surprised if Janet had an aga herself, they're a common staple of the middle-classes, any MP could afford one on their salary, or indeed a house big enough for one - they're in the top 10% of earners after all

But she goes on to paint the Labour MPs as 'desperately trying to claw their way up the property ladder' - the use of the term desperate for someone on double the average household salary, with one of the best pensions you can get, seems a tad extreme, especially considering over half of the Labour party have been in government, meaning they earn even more! But no, no Labour MPs struggle to make ends meet - employing mates to do some plumbing on the cheap - does this not hint of someone engaging in complete fantasy? I am unashamedly middle-class, my parents combined income is below an MPs salary, and they live the middle-class dream pretty well - if Labour MPs are having trouble paying the mortgage I suggest they seek a financial advisor

The article is also misleading, for all Janet's disparaging of Labour's failures over the past 12 years there's some rather obvious psychological warfare buried in this - the basic premise is: criticise Labour, because they're crap - but the Tories are toffs, Labour are decent people, so keep the faith in Labour, all wrapped in what seems like a general swipe at politics...not very subtle

The average person is not represented by any party, Labour are no more 'the working man's party' than the Tories (or even the Lib Dems), so don't be duped by Janet that Labour is full of hard-working commoners representing us humble peasants - they are all members of the 'political class'

Why does he lie?

Why does Gordon continue trying to take us for fools?

All this guff over "Tory cuts, Labour 'investment'" is just Gordon trying to draw a simplistic line between the two parties - the way in which the Labour members jeered suggests they're happy to play this game

The fact is that every economist, every blogger, every journalist has pointed out that there is a real-term cut - Gordon is actually lying by saying it's a real-term rise, it is a cash rise - in as much as 628-632 is a rise of 4 billion in cash, but *not* in real-terms (which he persistently said)

That's a bit like getting paid £100 one year and then thinking £101 the next year is more - it's not

Anybody who thinks one of those list of numbers he read out (seriously, it was bingo calling) represents a rise is having a laugh - do you know what 4 billion out of 628 is? It's 0.6% - take out inflation and it's a decrease (or 'cut'), further take out interest repayments, which are in no way an 'investment' and it's pretty whopping

But as I said - we all know Labour's budget holds a real-term decrease, does he expect people to believe his 'Tory 10% cut' line?

Will Labour voters swallow this? I really hope they can't because Gordon just stands there and lies - he likes the line, it's always worked before, but this time people appreciate that spending must fall or we go bankrupt

Nick Robinson thinks that even though it's a lie, people are affected by the argument and might be swayed - oh great

So the question for the election will probably be - do you believe we need to pay off our massive debt or not -

It will appeal to Tory voters, and somehow I doubt Gordon can sway many people, add to that Labour are a spent force