Cornish name for Cameron baby

I was very pleased when the Camerons decided to include a Christian name that had a direct connection to Cornwall following the birth of their daughter in the county the other day. Florence Rose are the first two names and they have added Endellion as a third, 'St Endellion' being the name of a parish close to where they were holidaying in North Cornwall. Endellion has got a nice ring to it I think, certainly my own parish 'Calstock' wouldn't quite work as a girl's name. It might be even worse if they had selected another village in this same parish (my parish is large in population terms with a lot of settlements). Take for example 'Gunnislake' or 'St Anns Chapel' or 'Harrowbarrow' - they wouldn't work either!

A quick note about St Endellion: its church has become very well known to serious music lovers because it is the location for two prestigious musical festivals each year. I've never been and would I think find the music on offer a little heavy for my taste. The website is here Having made this remark I have to say that there is plenty of wonderful classical music around, perhaps I don't devote the time and attention to it that it deserves. The other thing is that the inside of a church is a really special place to listen to good music as a rule.

I've just been looking at a press report on the internet and it seems that Gordon and Sarah Brown have sent their congratulations to Mr and Mrs Cameron on the new arrival. In his autobiography Tony Blair includes the words "Emotional intelligence, zero"in relation to Brown. That might generally be so and in many respects I find Gordon Brown pretty reprehensible. When it comes to people's children though his feelings are warm and genuine: I had commented before about the time when PMQs were cancelled following the death of Ivan Cameron. Brown was really choked (he can't do Blair style acting) - he did feel for the Camerons, partly perhaps because of the tragedy he and Sarah had in losing a very young child.

It sounds as if the new arrival in the life of the Camerons is doing well. Good luck to them.

Gordon Brown remains in hiding

It's about time I added to this blog - or gave up altogether! I'll see if I can regain the enthusiasm that I think that I once had.

In my last entry I had expressed a little sympathy toward Gordon and Sarah Brown but that feeling has disappeared now. It would seem that Gordon Brown has not yet appeared in the House of Commons since Labour's defeat in the General Election. So when will he show up? A proud man feeling both bruised and humiliated, my feeling is that the longer he delays making that journey south from Scotland the harder it will be for him. I shall be fascinated to know just how long it will be before he turns up.

Brown leaves a message for Cameron

They say "a picture is worth a thousand words" and it is worth scanning this series of 14 photos taken by 'Guardian' snapper Martin Argles of Gordon Brown's final moments at 10 Downing Street before he leaves to tender his resignation to the Queen. Click here. There is a link on the first photo which takes you to some commentary by Mr Argles of these events.

What I found particularly fascinating though is photo number 13 in which Brown is seen writing a message for his successor - whatever can it be? "There's some milk in the fridge", I wouldn't have thought so. Bearing in mind the antipathy between Brown and the new PM perhaps he wrote "You bastard Cameron!". It's all very mysterious.

Seriously though we have at last seen some evidence of Brown's human side: although there has been every reason to criticise him I must admit that I did feel some sorrow for he and his family, his wife in particular I thought was so very choked by his political demise. Politics may bring many rewards but it is also truly brutal at times! For all of his character defects, his tribalism and all the rest it is too easy to forget his genuine feelings towards the Camerons at the time they lost their son Ivan. Of course he and Sarah Brown know only too well the feeling of losing a child and this perhaps was the one time when Brown really did display some emotional empathy.

Gordon Brown and the election

In less than five days from now I will have cast my vote in the General Election and I'll stay with my prediction that the Tories will win through as the largest party, probably with an overall majority. What seems fairly certain is that Labour can't win outright and naturally many people mean "Gordon Brown" when they talk about Labour.

I've written about Brown before but this is a good moment perhaps to bring my thoughts about him into one blogpost. I am a floating voter: at various times in my adult life and depending on where I was living and the circumstances at the time I have voted for each of the three main parties. It was in 1982 that I moved into this constituency and here it is always a fight between LibDems and Tories, Labour and smaller parties being way outside the reckoning. Not only would my voting for Labour be effectively a wasted vote but the recent behaviour of the party and that of Brown in particular would certainly ensure that my vote won't be heading their way!

What is it about Brown that is so off putting? I'll kick off with his attitude to the military. He has been castigated about an apparent lack of empathy with the armed forces and I have blogged before about my take on this. I had written about how appalled I had been regarding the fact that when Brown first became PM he made Des Browne a part time Defence Minister. That he did this at the time when we were fighting both in Iraq and Afghanistan was unbelievable. But not just that, Brown never praises the troops at the start of a major speech such as at the Party Conference, no it is slipped in part way through. Because of the task they have been asked to do for us and the risks being taken you would think that, like Cameron, he would speak up for the military right at the start. Never seems to happen.

The next thing is why did the Labour Party allow Brown to bully his way into the position of Labour leader and Prime Minister unopposed. Surely in this televisual age they should have realised that his many character defects would be cruelly exposed. I can remember him being caught on camera picking his nose and eating the contents thereof, of meeting someone with one of his trouser legs tucked into his sock: the sort of things that get onto YouTube for the whole world to see in the time it takes to say "General Election". No wonder that Labour spinners have been trying to divert away from "style" to "substance". It might seem very unfair to Brown but the increased preoccupation with style is the way of the world right now, and of course a major reason for the success of Tony Blair.

Talking of Blair it's interesting to see him back for the last few days of the campaign. Some had surmised he wouldn't have wanted to be associated with a likely Labour failure and I thought that way myself about him. Maybe Mandelson had pleaded for him to help the party's cause but I don't think that Blair will save their bacon - it's too late now surely, apart from which I think that Blair will be viewed as one of yesterday's men.

Back to Brown, one of my dislikes about him is his failure to assume any responsibility for our economic crisis. And also it still rankles with me that in reducing the basic income tax rate to 20% he removed the 10p tax band thus making millions of the poorest worse off. If it hadn't been for Frank Field and one or two other principled MPs he would have got away with it.

There is so much more that one could write about regarding Brown but I just can't be bothered right now. I'm just hoping come next Thursday that it's "Goodbye and Good Riddance"

First debate with Party Leaders coming up

This evening sees the first of the three televised debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. As I don't have a functioning TV connection I shall not be watching it live but might well listen to it on Radio 4. I guess the participants are more than a little nervous right now but who, if anyone, will come out on top? A common consensus seems to be that Clegg should benefit a lot because this is a rare occasion when his party gets equal billing with the Tories and Labour. And herein lies a problem: the Lib Dems might hold the balance of power in a hung parliament but they are not going to be, on their own, the next government. So in a sense what they promise, what their manifesto says is slightly irrelevant. With just the two main party leaders the thing has balance but the whole debate will be muddled in my opinion by possibly two of the leaders ganging up against the third. We shall soon know!

Cameron has a lot to lose because expectations are high that he will be very much better than Brown at least. What about Gordon then? This is not natural territory for him and I would hope that he gets well challenged. Surely he will have to get away from tractor statistics and slogans. But can he do that?

Brown versus Paxman - it might not happen

I really have been neglecting my blog, so I had better get on with things!

For those who closely follow politics in this country there are plenty of blogs to read: for me the best I've seen so far is that of Paul Waugh of the 'Evening Standard'. One of his entries today is headed "Is Brown running scared of a Paxo stuffing" and, humorously, underneath is a picture of Paxo Sage and Onion Stuffing! The Paxo in this case is the nickname of Jeremy Paxman, he of 'Newsnight' and 'University Challenge' fame. Paul has pointed out that ever since 1992 Paxo has done an in depth, programme long, interview with the incumbent Prime Minister. However, as yet, Brown hasn't signed up for this particular grilling on Newsnight. Paul states that a senior Whitehall source confirms that the PM hasn't given the green light. Quoting the source directly we hear that "It's not just the airtime, it takes a lot of time to prepare for Paxman, for example." What?!? Are they admitting that Brown has to spend time preparing for Paxman rather than just doing it? We know he is hopeless at a probing interview but this really is very very weak.

His preferred interrogator appears to be Andrew Marr and, it would seem that Andy Marr bowls him gentle full tosses most of the time. It is high time that Brown faced an attack dog who will face him down. Full marks to Jon Sopel by the way on 'The Politics Show' (I watched it on IPlayer) who did pinion him at one point. Although I am a floating voter I do recognise that Brown is a blatant liar and full of self deceit. In fact I would go so far as to say that Brown finds it as easy to lie as tell the truth; I've seen this before, it's almost a psychological condition - lying becomes a way of life, even when it is totally unnecessary from the point of view of everybody.

How can you prepare yourself for a Paxman interview? You can't really, you just don't know from which way the arrows will come. What we do know from Brown is that he is wooden, that he can't think on his feet, that he relies too much on slogans and 'tractor statistics' fired out like a machine gun. He has survived at PMQs because both Speaker Martin and Speaker Bercow have been unprepared to say "The Prime Minister must answer the question".

Brown must be dreading any big interviews coming down the track. I want to see him taken apart - no holds barred. Oh, and my suggested first question from Paxman to Brown, if Brown shows the courage to face his possible tormentor; "With the benefit of hindsight do you think it showed good judgement to sell our gold reserves at the bottom of the market?"

Not looking good for Gordon Brown

Although nobody seems to have landed a knock out punch yet on Gordon Brown he certainly seems to be reeling following the allegations in Andrew Rawnsley's book and the aftermath. I never doubted Brown was a bully boy and liable to really violent outbursts of anger. But does it matter if a Prime Minister is boorish, bullying, socially inept, a liar, psychologically unable to accept he has made mistakes? I'm afraid it does.

Brown now has further revelations in Rawnsley's book to look forward to as well as appearing at the Iraq Inquiry next week and with three leaders debates to come before we vote. Will he keep it together or will he crack is the question. I'm not a betting man but I think he will be defeated at the polls whenever they come.

The Piers Morgan / Gordon Brown love-in

Last Saturday I did a blogpost about the then upcoming Gordon Brown interview with Piers Morgan. I've now seen a slightly abbreviated version of this programme on the internet. In Saturday's piece I said " Personally I don't have a problem with viewers seeing a different Gordon Brown"; I'm now regretting that comment! The interview, let's face it, was blatant electioneering and really should not have been broadcast in the run up to the election. Was it Sarah Brown trying to pull the PR strings? Interesting that the director kept cutting away to the fond wife loyally backing her husband. And it went out on Valentines Day, a bit more than a coincidence perhaps!

It seems to me that she is desperately deploying her skills to portray Gordon as a warm people loving family man. I don't doubt for a minute his feelings towards his wife and children but to what degree should this aspect of his character be shared with the public? For the sake of balance I believe that the TV cameras have been in the home of the Camerons. I guess that we will see more of the 'touchy feely' stuff from our politicians as the years go by. Back to Sarah Brown: she introduced her husband at the last two Labour Party Conferences, this was quite interesting and innovative the first time round but I could see that she had set herself a precedent and that it wouldn't have the same spark when repeated and I blogged about this before. As a one-off to 'humanise' her husband it seemed not a bad idea but repeated it is just banal.

Mr Brown admitted flashes of bad temper and put it down to his impatience to get things done He might well say that but the truth is that he is a bully boy, a control freak, a person who would happily see his own henchmen briefing against other Labour politicians, a compulsive liar when he needs to be, in fact not really a nice man at all. Yes I feel sorry about his eyesight problem and his personal family tragedy but do we need to be reminded again about all this.

In the Piers Morgan show Brown was pretty relaxed (allegedly he had been trained for it by Alastair Campbell!) and appeared to be full of bonhomie. However it is the three one and half long party leaders' interviews that will have a greater effect on the voting public particularly as they will be much much closer to the election itself. I think that the Morgan programme will soon be forgotten.

The Brown interview tomorrow

So tomorrow (Sunday) folk will have a chance to see the more human and caring side of Gordon Brown we have been told. His old pal and cheerleader Piers Morgan will chat to him on ITV - I believe that Mr Morgan is doing a series of these interviews so Gordon's is not therefore a one-off. The difference of course is that GB is this country's Prime Minister and there just happens to be a General Election coming up in the very near future!

The piece of the programme that has been heavily trailed is where Brown displays his emotion when talking about the early death of his daughter Jennifer and naturally commentators are having or will have much to say about this. Cynics of course will say that this has all been set up so that Brown can get the sympathy vote whilst his supporters - and there are some - stress that what most people see is only one side of our PM and that he is much more personable than most believe.

Personally I don't have a problem with viewers seeing a different Gordon Brown, he might get a short lived and small bounce in the polls but I doubt that any benefit will last. I don't think that Brown ever went to the Tony Blair School of Acting - his character isn't subtle enough to do pretend emotion. No you will see genuine grief tomorrow and so you should. I remember that Wednesday in the House of Commons when at PMQs he had genuinely warm words to say about Cameron, the news of the death of Ivan having been announced earlier that day (or possibly the night before, can't remember exactly). I know that PMQs weren't continued and that David Cameron was understandably absent from the House.

Although I have every sympathy with Brown and his wife Sarah over their personal tragedy this doesn't in any way shape or form influence my belief that he is not the right person to lead this country and that much of his behaviour is totally unacceptable. The Piers Morgan thing might do him a little bit of good but I think that will be totally negated by the three leader debates to come.

One thing I'm sure about: come Monday morning the mainstream media and the bloggers will be having a good deal to say about one Gordon Brown!

A rubbish idea in Queen's Speech

I had no real interest in watching the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament; as most commentators are pointing out it is nakedly political and, no doubt, the Tories would similarly play politics if they were in Labour's position and close to a General Election. What particularly made me write the headline above though was the inclusion in the Government's new programme of a 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill'. This would provide amongst other things a "firm and binding statutory basis" for the government's promise to halve the budget deficit within four years. To bind any future government to any budget reduction in a fixed time frame is so obviously ridiculous that I'm almost refraining from commenting on it.

So what happens if a future administration fails to cut by the required 50%? Are legal proceedings taken against the then Chancellor of the Exchequer? In four years time we may have got through 3 Chancellors say, including Mr Darling, so how would blame be apportioned if the target reduction isn't met? In measuring the deficit will inflation be taken into account? And what about all the Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) which I think Gordon Brown tries to keep off the books. A new government might measure the budget deficit using different criteria, who knows.

Reducing the huge budget deficit by at least half in four years can be considered a good statement of intent but how any sort of legislation can be passed regarding that is beyond my comprehension. It annoys me that anyone in power has the idiocy to think this idea is practical or right. They are stupid, stupid, stupid.

Brown to issue Child Migration apology

On 1st April 2007 I blogged a piece about the then proposal that Tony Blair should deliver an apology over the role of this country in the Slave Trade. I criticised the Archbishops of Canterbury and York who wanted the apology to go ahead. My take on it was that the slave trade ended a very long time ago, attitudes in much of society were vastly different at that time and that for Blair to say sorry for something that neither he nor his government had put into place was a total nonsense. I stick with that opinion 100% and see no reason at all to alter it.

The reason I am mentioning this again is that I see that Gordon Brown is set to make an apology, not over any of the mistakes he is responsible for of course. No this bit of news concerns the child migration scheme which over the decades sent thousands of young children from this country to the colonies, principally Australia. Many of them were told, incorrectly, that their parents were dead. Huge numbers were abused. It is now regarded as a truly shameful episode in this country's history and what might seem particularly surprising is that it didn't stop until 1970!

Following the logic of my earlier blogpost I ought to be condemning Brown's intentions I suppose. However the slavery thing was absolutely clear cut but this is a little different. Bear in mind that 40 years ago children were still being packed off to another country - therefore, fairly obviously, there are folk still alive today who were on the receiving end of the policy. I'm still not totally happy with the concept of apologising for something over which you had no say but, having said that, these people should receive some sort of apology and I guess it is down to the Prime Minister to do this. Brown's counterpart in Australia, Kevin Rudd, will be saying sorry to the several thousand still in that country this week.

There is a piece about Australia's child migrants on the BBC website here. You can also read about the 'Child Migrant Trust' by clicking here.

Gordon Brown, the letter and the phone call

Many blogs have commented on the furore that arose out of the letter of condolence sent by the Prime Minister to bereaved mother Jacqui Janes whose son Jamie lost his life in Afghanistan. So I might as well add my twopenneth ... As I see it nobody has emerged from this mess with their reputation intact. I have found it interesting to read comments on the lines of "I really dislike Brown and his policies but I do sympathise with him in this instance". This indicates to me that some at least can put their usual personal feelings aside and bring the British sense of fairness into play and that's pleasing. I will state in Brown's defence that, given that he is continuing the process started by I think Margaret Thatcher of doing these condolence letters, he is absolutely right in writing rather than typing them. If typed there is no certain sense that they are the words of G Brown, it could be a civil servant in 10 Downing Street doing the necessary with Brown signing it along with the dozens of other letters and memos crossing his desk.

OK so yes Brown is absolutely right to hand write such letters, I'll take my hat off to him for that. The problem for him of course is his restricted vision allied to really poor handwriting and he has let himself down by not having his letter checked by someone before posting and also the fact that he clearly altered a name rather than writing a fresh letter. This episode sums up one of his character flaws: he just seemed to be unaware of how essential it was to get everything right in a communication of this sort. I absolutely hate sending out any letter of mine that is incorrect in terms of spelling or punctuation - I'm not saying that I've never corrected an original letter rather than rewriting it but it would seldom if ever happen and certainly not if it was a missive of real importance.

In Brown's case this letter could easily have been written late at night and when he was really tired and when he was alone with no advisers around him. You would have thought though that with his handicap he would have realised just how important it was to pass a letter such as this to a confidante for checking. Well from now on in perhaps he will! Brown unfortunately is ill suited to this televisual age in which we live. He lacks many of the social skills and niceties someone in his position perhaps should have. An example was the instance when he was seen picking his nose in the Commons and before you could say "Tony Blair" there was a video of it on 'YouTube'. Another time he was meeting some dignitary with one trouser leg inside his sock. He is such a complex character - he really displayed genuine empathy when the Camerons lost their disabled son but on the other hand is well known for his unacceptable levels of bullying, his vicious temper and the fact that he will not answer a straight question. He got caught out didn't he with the recording of the phone call with Mrs Janes, very humbling I thought but goes to show how difficult it is to keep anything private these days.

As for 'The Sun' I'm not going to dignify them with a comment.

Sarah Brown gimmick - once was enough

The 2008 Labour Party Conference saw Sarah Brown do a warm up act prior to her husband coming on stage to deliver his keynote speech. It was a departure from anything seen before and yes she is generally well liked and yes it was something that worked on that occasion. As I understand things she is switched on from a media point of view - unlike Gordon of course. But it is a gimmick that you can't keep repeating and I thought she might be savvy enough not to try it again. However at the conference just finished she did introduce him once more and although I've only seen a bit of her speech it was pretty awful - I don't really want to be reminded about her undying love for Gordon, nor do most of the general public surely. Having said that perhaps most of her listeners actually in the hall do lap it up!

The first time it was fresh and original and she used the opportunity to thank party activists for the way they had responded to her as the Prime Minister's spouse. But it should have been a one-off. Imagine for a moment that Brown wins the General Election next year - she would then be on the treadmill of having to introduce him for every year he is PM because now having done it twice in succession there is no way the process can be stopped. Admittedly this is hypothetical because Labour won't form the next government but it seems now that she was a prop that her husband needed and I don't think it has done him any favours.

Ben Macintyre in The Times - you can read it here - doesn't pull any punches. His rant aligns with my viewpoint that the spouse of the Prime Minister should have a very low profile so far as politics is concerned. Sarah Brown is now getting too involved, I can understand that she might wish to present her husband as a more natural and likable person than he is usually perceived. But this just demonstrated the weakness and flaws in his character to my mind. So in my opinion the 'Sarah Show' was a flop this year. Some tricks you can perform once but not twice. I was certainly amazed that she thought that it was an idea worth repeating.

Statement from 'The Sun' bad news for Brown

Once again we have seen Gordon Brown's fortunes take a turn for the worse. Last week he was doing what he likes best - demonstrating in his own eyes at least that he is a world statesman with his visit to the other side of the pond. Yesterday he delivered a passable speech to the party faithful but today received the bad news from Britain's biggest selling newspaper 'The Sun' that with the election possibly still many months away they have already decided to back Cameron.

Now this was always likely to happen at some stage but it's the timing that is so devastating for Gordon. When he might have thought that the content of his speech would be the subject of the day it is the statement from 'The Sun' that is the lead headline on the BBC at least. Assuming the Conservatives form the next government are we going to once again see that awful headline "It's the Sun wot won it".

One or two comments on that speech: I noticed that Brown's praise for our troops in Afghanistan was a very long way into the speech. It gained a short standing ovation but I get the impression that Brown doesn't really empathise with the troops whereas Cameron last year lauded our men and women out there right at the start of his speech. I imagine it will be the same at the Tory conference next week. Whatever one feels about our presence in Afghanistan surely you shouldn't insert your praise almost as an aside in your speech when our forces are risking their lives in that country. Yes Brown is something of a phony when it comes to our armed services.

As is the way of these things Brown made some new policy announcements or in fact reannouncements in some instances. As an example he stated that ID cards would no longer be compulsory. Good I thought - then I did a reality check, wasn't that decision announced a month or three back? Yes it was! So it's a bit of a nonsense padding out a speech with old news!

By all accounts it's only 'The Daily Mirror' that is doing any vigorous flag waving for Labour this morning. The Party might get a small bounce following a conference that is not quite so dire as many predicted. But any upsurge will be small and temporary and the Tories of course have the advantage of being the last of the main parties to have their annual conference and so can react to what the others have said and done.

Sky invites party leaders to TV debate

A very significant entry today by Adam Boulton on the Sky News political blog. Apparently Sky have hand delivered invitations to the leaders of the three main UK parties to participate in a debate before the next general election, now less than a year away. The possibility of such a thing happening has been on the cards for some time but Sky have stolen a march on their competition by actually putting the wheels in motion. A huge raspberry from me to the BBC by the way: although the Sky thing has been news all morning the Beeb have made no mention of it on their News website front page or even on their 'politics' page for that matter. This is an example of the BBC's arrogance that I'm afraid is all too common. I should mention as well that Sky are happy to let their rivals run the programme (unedited) on their own channels.

What of the response so far of the three said leaders? As expected both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg have quickly said "yes" but at the time of writing nothing yet from Gordon Brown. In fairness to Mr Brown he, not before time, has said some more about the release of the convicted Libyan terrorist Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, so it could be argued that he didn't want to get sidetracked into commenting on the Sky invite. One of Brown's big problems (and many have commented on this) is that faced with an awkward question he is nowhere to be seen but failure to respond in the next day or two to whether he appears on the debate will only reinforce the suggestion that he dithers and lacks courage. It sounds as if we will see an empty chair if he fails to turn up - always assuming that he hasn't resigned or been forced out by then!

In this highly visual age Brown has the misfortune to be mediocre in front of the camera - witness his performance on that YouTube video. On the other hand both Cameron and Clegg are much more comfortable in these sort of surroundings and certainly the former can think on his feet in a way that Gordon certainly can't.

I have to say that I'm very pleased to see this move by Sky, it is high time that the electorate had the opportunity to connect with government in a way that has been lacking for many years now. One of my many criticisms of Tony Blair is that at election times it was next to impossible for the ordinary voter to get to ask him a question when he visited somewhere or other - his minders would hand pick his audience so that he wasn't faced with penetrating questions; in other words a total abuse of democracy! Fans of Blair might want to negate my view here, pointing out that he took on a TV audience at the time he was committing this country to the Iraq adventure, credit to him for that, but that situation had a single issue and obviously he could have his various answers well prepared in advance.

Any reservations on my part? The first difficulty is the little matter of finding the right person to chair the debate. Some might suggest Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys as attack dogs who wouldn't let the politicians get away with things but they are wedded to the BBC and I can't imagine that organisation allowing them to do such a thing! Can someone totally neutral then be found who would make sure the party leaders did answer the questions posed. Also there are the minority parties such as UKIP, the Greens and BNP. I can imagine them crying "foul" if they don't get similar air time to put their points across. These last mentioned would I believe have to be in a separate programme because more than three parties at any one time is totally unmanageable if one wants to get in depth answers about policies. It seems that Sky would be happy to host separate programmes for Scotland and Wales (and presumably N Ireland) so that the nationalist parties from each of them could have their say. These doubts in my mind are relatively trivial though and it will be fascinating to see how things pan out.

My take on the elections

The political events of the last few days here in the UK are keeping bloggers and other commentators very busy so I'll put in my twopenneth for what it's worth ... First then the council elections: previously there had been a two tier system in my county but it's 'One Cornwall' from now on in whereas my local authority area had been 'Caradon'. For this ward there were plenty of applicants for just one seat on the new council. I had voted for Dorothy who was standing as an Independent but she was to come second. Now some of my political views are quite different from hers especially on the EU but I was quite deliberately voting for the person here; this was a classic example of me casting politics aside and voting for the person who I thought was the very best one to represent my and other people's interest. However it was not to be because it was Russell who won. Now he had been long established as a member of the old Caradon District Council and because of length of service had already gained 'a head of steam' as it were. This can make things disproportionately difficult for a newcomer to try and get elected. Incidentally he was fighting under the Conservative banner whereas in days past he was a LibDem. Call me a cynic ("You're a cynic Brian!") but I just felt he had a feeling of which way the political wind was blowing and moved accordingly. Perhaps I'm maligning him.

There was a Green Party candidate, Nigel, who picked up a fair number of votes. All credit to him for going round knocking on doors to talk to people. I was out when he called but was able to chat with him briefly when I was walking up to the village and would like the chance to talk green politics in depth with someone like him one day. Over at Totnes in Devon's South Hams Paula Black from the Greens won a seat on that council.

Both Devon and Somerset County Councils turned from LibDem yellow to Tory blue so far as overall control is concerned. Nationally of course the South West is seen as one of the LibDem strongholds and could prove to be a real battleground in a General Election - whenever that election comes don't be surprised to see Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg paying our region a considerable amount of attention!

Votes were split for the new Cornwall single authority with the Tories now by far the largest party but not having an overall majority. The five LibDem MPs might be getting a little worried and I shouldn't be surprised to see a very close result where I live in 'SE Cornwall' where my present MP won't be standing (nothing to do with MP's expenses, Colin Breed had made the decision a long time ago).

Moving on to the European Elections the drubbing received received by Labour all over Britain is the big story of course. In the South West Region they were particularly poor, losing their one MEP and UKIP, who came second overall in the whole of Britain, did really well to return 2 MEPs this time compared with 3 for the Tories and one for the LibDems. Not only were Labour fifth in this region being beaten by the Greens but in Cornwall they dropped a further place as the Cornish Nationalists (Mebyon Kernow) surged ahead of them. For the governing party to finish sixth in one county is unbelievable!

Making a judgement on who to vote for in the EU elections is a really difficult one to make I reckon and obviously it's an opportunity to give Gordon Brown and Labour a real kicking. I voted for Libertas who want to instigate very radical reform of the EU and have that referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They did poorly everywhere I think, partly because having joined battle very late in the day they just aren't well enough known to the voting public.

I suppose I had better make a quick mention of the BNP. They have now got two MEPs up north, gaining many votes it would seem from disaffected former Labour people. I think I'm right in saying that parties of a similar ilk from other parts of Europe have made gains in these elections. The impression I got watching the BNP being interviewed on TV was of the interviewers finding the process very distasteful. I'm trying not to be biased but Nick Griffin and his colleagues seem to be people you just wouldn't want to meet alone.

It would be good to get off purely politics for a while - there are a lot of other things I want to write about believe you me!

Brown's bare faced lie

Once again Gordon Brown has demonstrated his total lack of judgement: this time in convening a Press Conference yesterday in the aftermath of awful Labour results in the local elections and a hasty reshuffle of the Government. So why did he do it? There's no particular reason or convention so far as I can see to have a televised session with the media in these circumstances. Any Prime Minister would find it tiring enough to do a reshuffle in a day without having to talk to the press but in this instance with the PM on the ropes and he not being able to carry out all the changes he desperately wanted to surely he was putting himself in a no win situation.

Brown prattled on about his honesty and almost in the next breath told a massive barefaced lie - that he had never had any intention to sack his Chancellor! Surely he must have realised that someone would raise this question, a question that no PM would feel comfortable about answering honestly. It doesn't make sense to put yourself needlessly into that position. I'm reminded of the times in 'Dad's Army' when Wilson would say to Mainwaring "Do you think that's wise?" when the latter was going off on some madcap plan. But it seems that in the Brown bunker there are only 'yes men' with nobody cautioning Mr Brown on his actions. The 'YouTube' embarrassment was another case in point.

How can Brown go on talking about cleaning up our parliamentary system when he is prepared to lie so brazenly. Many commentators now are flagging up his psychological flaws ( I think it was one 'A Campbell' who originally used the phrase "psychologically flawed" in relation to Brown). The worrying thing is that Gordon just cannot accept he can make mistakes, that others with a differing viewpoint just might be right. Whatever he says he will do things for narrow political purposes rather than what's right for the country, witness the 10p tax rate removal which was to leave millions worse off. It was only the courage of Frank Field and a few other backbenchers who were prepared to stand up to the government bully boys that saw this wrong being righted.

Gordon Brown is the ultimate 'Jekyll and Hyde' person. Those who know the private side of his character like J K Rowling and Mariella Frostrup speak highly of him but as a leader he is absolutely awful. People say he can't connect with the ordinary person but that might be down to shyness and insecurity. Yet he having had the misfortune to lose a child displayed massive empathy to the Camerons when their son Ivan died. It's interesting to compare Brown to the possible next leader of the Labour Party, the former postman Alan Johnson. Now the genial Mr Johnson is the sort of guy one would happily talk to over a pint in the local but as to Gordon ... It was the same with Blair and Brown, for all Tony Blair's many faults he was the sort of chap that could relate to a very large part of the population, something difficult for Brown to do.

With most of his authority gone and the Euro poll results out on Sunday evening how much longer can Brown survive?

Gordon Brown slow off the mark again

Both the mainstream media and bloggers are having a field day with the steady drip drip of information coming from 'The Daily Telegraph' regarding MPs allowances and expenses. For this particular post I'll just confine my attention to one small aspect - Gordon Brown apologising. Today it's the turn of the Tories to be in the spotlight and David Cameron sensibly pre-empted this by saying sorry for the misdemeanours of members of his party. Now we have the news that Mr Brown has just apologised on behalf of all the political parties over this scandal.

Interestingly then GB has said his bit after DC, even though the first revelations were about Cabinet members, to be followed by other Labour MPs. So did Brown make his apology today because politically he had to following the remarks made by Cameron? One must remember that saying sorry is something very very difficult for Gordon to do; it wasn't very long ago that there was again a long delay in apologising for the 'Smeargate' affair and I had the feeling then that Brown was told that he really had to do the necessary even though it went against the grain for him.

This reluctance on Brown's part might be either forgotten or not noticed by many people but sadly for me it is yet another indication of why I think he shouldn't be our Prime Minister.

Some thoughts on the Budget

I'm not going to write a lot about yesterday's budget because apart from anything else I've not really looked at the detail but there are one or two random thoughts I want to record. So here goes:

• Bearing in mind that Gordon Brown was Chancellor for the first ten years of the 'New Labour' administration and that he is a control freak I can't help thinking that he had a lot of input into this budget. Sure much of it is Alistair Darling's work but because of Brown's previous position I think he, Brown, will have had his fingerprints on some of the decisions.
• The Budget predictions for a rapid return to growth have certainly raised a few eyebrows. When one remembers the simply colossal revision that has had to be made by Darling of his figures in the pre-budget report, projections only five months old, then it is easy to see why nobody is giving the latest figures any credence. I would like to share Darling's optimism but can't; of course if the recovery is slower than he anticipates then there will be more borrowing / more tax hikes / cuts in spending.
• One of the cleverest taxes that Gordon Brown brought in - it was some years ago now but I can't remember just when - was a 5% tax on insurance premiums. I have a feeling that quite a few people may not even register the fact that it exists. It surprises me that no attempt was made to increase the rate yesterday (or perhaps it has been for all I know) because this is a tax that is relatively painless and as so many people pay for their insurances on a monthly basis it is one of those government sources of income that comes in on a very regular basis.
• Car scrapping scheme. Instinctively I dislike this idea. One country that has been mentioned having a similar scheme (apparently successful) is Germany. First thing to note is that we are not Germany, it is always dangerous to assume that what works in one country can be applied to another. Briefly then if one has owned a 10 year old car in the UK for at least a year it will be possible to have that car scrapped and then purchase a new car at £2000 off its purchase price. Of this £2000 half will be stumped up by the government, you and me in other words, whilst the other £1000 will come from the motor industry. I think that the Treasury have earmarked enough money for 300,000 new cars to be bought using this scheme. Now I don't know about other parts of the country but in Cornwall I can't imagine very many people being able to go from a 10 year old 'banger' to a brand new car even with this £2000 discount. It's the supposed environmental plus of having a new car that really gets to me though. Yes of course technology has moved on and we now have 'greener' cars but no mention is ever made of the environmental cost of making a new car which is much greater than that of the repairs / servicing of the older model. It seems so wrong to me to remove a serviceable but elderly car from the roads just to appease the motor industry. I do have my doubts about the practicalities of the scheme and will be very interested in seeing the extent of any take up.
  

Gordon Brown shows empathy

Commentators have pointed out in the past, and with some justification it has to be said, that Gordon Brown finds it difficult to empathise with people. So his dignified and heartfelt statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday over the death of Ivan Cameron was something good to hear. Normally there is a tremendous amount of antipathy between Brown and David Cameron but here was an occasion where GB showed a very human side to his character. Of course the Browns had lost their first child Jennifer and Gordon one sensed really felt for the Camerons; it was noticeable that he even referred to them by their Christian names - David and Samantha. When Tony Blair was the PM one could never be sure about his sincerity (eg when referring to Diana as "the People's Princess" after her death) . But Brown mercifully doesn't do acting, what we had from here was something genuine. The responses from William Hague and Vince Cable were good as well, and we need to remember with Cable that his wife died before time as it were so he has known personal tragedy as well.

Wednesday of course is normally the day for Prime Minister's Questions but, correctly in my view, it was cancelled. I don't think that the HoC was in any mood for the usual clashes that PMQs provides and it was right to suspend the sitting until 12.30. I notice that one of the Parliament watchers commented on the fact that Dennis Skinner tried to engage fellow MPs in conversation whilst the statements about Ivan Cameron were being made. What a totally outrageous person Skinner is - yes his hatred for the Tories is well known but his absolute lack of respect on this particular occasion puts him beyond the pale. Now aged 77 it's high time he was pensioned off.

There are plenty of enough reasons for people to be cynical about politicians but this was one time when almost all of them showed a degree of humanity.