Day 2524: Could Gordon Go?

Thursday:


Cash Under the Counter continues to spiral OUT OF CONTROL today, with Ms Harriet Harpy pointing the finger at Mr Frown, and Mr Huhney-Monster dialling 999!

Mr Frown has called up the old hatchet man Mr Jack Man O'Straw to issue another round of denials.

"Mr Frown has no idea what's going on," said Mr Man O'Straw, not completely reassuringly.

The police are going to investigate and no doubt they will work DILIGENTLY until the find the proof that Mr Frown is COMPLETELY INNOCENT.

But there is actually a BIGGER question. Can Mr Frown SURVIVE as Prime Monster?


Further TRIVIAL IRREGULARITIES have hit the headlines: sepia stained stool-pigeon Mr Peter Vain "accidentally" overlooked the need to declare a five-thousand pound receipt that just HAPPENED to come from the man at the centre of the affair, Mr Jon Meddlesome; a Labour MSP has resigned because he obtained an illegal donation to Ms Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign of £950.

In the NORMAL course of events, these would be silly mistakes that would be forgotten with yesterdays CHIP PAPER. But added together, they begin to look like a PATTERN – nothing deliberate, but certainly ENDEMIC: the Labour don't think the RULES apply to THEM.

According to Mr Man O'Straw, Mr Frown would DEFINITELY have put a stop to THIS SORT OF THING if he'd had a SNIFF of it – which reminds me ALL TO DISTURBINGLY of a dodgy reverend in Boston Legal (series two, episode four: "A Whiff and a Prayer").

Of course, you MIGHT remember that Mr Frown's leadership campaign – the one where he successfully campaigned to defeat, er, no one – TURNED DOWN the offer of a five grand slice from one of Mr Abrahams front ladies. Why do that if there was no WHIFF of what was up?

Well, obviously, there IS a perfectly natural explanation. It's just that – understandably – that ISN'T the one that the Prime Monster's campaign co-ordinator can use.


It all begins to add up: coming on top of the Northern Rock disaster and the calamitous incompetence at Mrs the Queen's Customs and Revenue – and indeed after weathering all the crises of the summer, one after the other – it begins to look like Mr Frown is a bit of a DISASTER MAGNET.

It has its impact on the opinion polls too, with the Conservatories racking up their biggest lead since Queen Maggie was on the throne!


(Though before the Conservatories get TOO arrogant, it's not like THEY'VE done anything – and if you judge by the BBC's Questionable Time audience response (which IS questionable, obviously) then there is no great love for the "Two Tory Toffs". Mr Balloon's failings and follies of the summer haven't gone away, they just aren't as newsworthy as the ongoing DOG'S BREAKFAST that Mr Frown is serving daily form the Downing Street bunker's canteen. The Conservatories, now, are just the LESSER of two RUBBISHES.)


Everyone remembers what Mr Frown's REAL plan was: get rid of Lord Blairimort, nice little 2p tax cut, snap election in Spring '08, home and dry for five years and then retire to grow English roses. Unfortunately, things got a LITTLE ahead of themselves – people talked up an EVEN EARLIER election this Autumn, Mr Frown got Frit and… let's call the whole thing off.

Since then, the media have PUNISHED him incessantly for what was – basically – THEIR mistake. THEY got their knickers in a twist with excitement and then he let them down. And they are NOT going to forgive him. This is NOT, as the Labour keep trying to sell it, a passing fancy. The media have made their choice: Mr Frown is a FLOP. They will hound him for the rest of his term, just as they did when Mr Major Minor flopped out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

(And just as it was Mr Frown who saved the Conservatories, so it is Mr Balloon alone now who could save Mr Frown from our BI-POLAR MEDIA if HE managed to p…disappoint them off more.)

But, despite being DREADFUL, the Labour these days are not STUPID. Blind to their own faults, yes, insanely convinced of their own self-righteousness, true, but not actually DUMB. NuLabour is a MACHINE for getting ROBOTS elected, and it isn't programmed for failure. So how long is it going to be before the GREY ROBOTS come for Mr Frown with the equivalent of the old Conservatory PEARL HANDLED REVOLVER – some sort of REBOOT disk, probably?

Who, if anyone, could replace him? Queen Maggie wrecked the Conservatories by eliminating all competition and leaving them with a generation of PYGMIES. Between them, Lord Blairimort and Mr Frown have almost done the same to the Labour. Almost, but not quite, because in amongst all the grey technocrats there is a BIT of a new crop of potential leaders in waiting.

So, has the HOUR of the MILLIPEDE come upon us? Well, obviously not YET. Our esteemed Secretary of State for Looking Uncomfortable When Innocent Teachers Are Banged Up For NO GOOD REASON is barely out of SHORT TROUSERS and still cannot grow a proper BEARD.

And of course, Mr Millipede may be thinking: "I'll just let YOU lose the next election, Gordo."

Nevertheless, the Blairimort faction of the Labour grows RESTIVE. If they thought it would pull their collective Secretary of State for Education out of the fire, they would dump Mr Frown in an INSTANT. It is probably Mr Frown's one stroke of luck that Lord B couldn't be bothered to stick around in the Commons, or there would already be a campaign to have him – oh, reluctantly – take back the PANTS of POWER.

Both the Conservatories AND the Liberal Democrats have been seen to replace their leader after only two years. Of course, Sir Mr the Merciless took the honourable path and went BEFORE he damaged the party – Mr Iain Drunken-Swerve clung on by his finger nails and had to be dragged out screaming (very quietly).

Which option will Mr Frown choose? Dignity and quiet humility or an embarrassing coup? Or the Mr Major Minor SUICIDE FLOP?

Day 2523: Welcome to CASH for CORONETS II: CASH UNDER THE COUNTER!

Wednesday:


After all the FUSS caused by the Bernie Ecclestone BUNG, Mr Mandy Mandleson's MORTGAGE, the Hinduja Brother's Passports and of course Lord Blairimort's CASH FOR CORONETS you would have thought that the Labour would have put its financial house in order.

Not so, as it turns out.

Hold onto your hats because the latest goings on are going to get a bit twisty-turny, and developments are still developing! And the money involved, like some kind of out of control roll-over lottery keeps going up and up: first it was £400,000, then £500,000, then £600,000. Latest: a devilish £666,000.

It all starts with a newspaper investigation of some of the biggest donors to Mr Frown's Labour Party: Mr Ray Ruddock, an itinerant builder, and Ms Janet Kidd, a secretary. They deny everything…

…then they change their story. Ms Kidd works for a North-Eastern Business Man with a, well if not "shady" reputation, at least a reputation that is, shall we say, not without shade, Mr David Abrahams. Mr Ruddock occasionally does some building work for him. Yes, they admit that he gave them the money in order that they might pay it to the Labour for him and thus keep his name off of the list of donors that goes to the Electoral Register. Mr Abrahams denies everything…

…then he changes his story and admits that he is the mystery donor. But this is against the law; the Labour has broken electoral law by hiding the true identity of their donor. The General Secretary of the Labour, Mr Peter Watt QUITS.

Mr Watt clearly has not been replaced by an energy saving light bulb and looks rather DIM. Perhaps he saved energy by not switching on his computer! Otherwise he might have read the e-mails from the Electoral Commission explaining the law WHICH HE WAS IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE THE LABOUR FOLLOWED. He says that he and he alone knew about the SPECIAL donation. Everyone else denies everything…

…then they change their story. It turns out that some other people in the Labour DID know what was going on. More fake donors emerge. The amount of money gets larger. Mr Abrahams – clearly not satisfied with dropping one Labour supremo in it, goes for another one and reveals a LETTER from Mr Frown's new chief fundraiser, Mr Mendelsohn that shows that HE knew about the scam. Mr Mendelsohn denies…

…well, actually he admits knowing it but claims he was trying to fix the problem on the quiet before anyone found out. Although THAT may not stack up as he appears to have sent the letter in question AFTER the newspaper investigation began.

Meanwhile, the scandal reaches CABINET LEVEL when it is revealed that Minister for LANDFILL, Mr Benny Hill, was offered a donation to his deputy leadership fund on the same would-you-take-some-dirty-money-from-me-via-my-unknowing-chums basis. Tipped off by Lady Jay, he turns it down. Not so cautious is the victorious but unwise Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Ms Harriet Harpic, who pockets five grand from Ms Kidd. Ms Harpic defends her actions as "in good faith".

…but she still admits she's going to have to give the cash back.

Mr Frown faces the press and is repeatedly asked to give her his full support. The Prime Monster denies everything…










It is no wonder that Mr Frown was under fire in today's Prime Monster's Questionable Time: the fire was coming from HIS PANTS!

The Prime Monster – only last summer the MASTER of all CRISES – seems to have totally lost control.

As Mr Power Cable puts it:

"Mr Frown has gone from SECRET STALIN to BLATANT Mr BEAN in a matter of weeks!"

Not only does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing, it clearly doesn't realise that it DOES know what the right hand is doing and tipped the right hand off that the coppers were on to it, only to conveniently FORGET everything and look I plead the FIFTH!


Mr Frown has set up an inquiry, headed up by Lord McCluskey, a retired judge and close personal friend of, er, the late Labour leader Mr John Smith. Still at least he's got the former Bishop of Oxford on board to keep him honest.

There are several questions that they could do with answering:

• Who knew what and when?

• Why didn't any of the people who DID know DO anything about it?

• How come none of the people who work for the Prime Monster thought it was worth TELLING the Prime Monster what was going on?

• And, most importantly, are we ABSOLUTELY SURE that this is the ONLY time that this has happened?

The man at the CENTRE of this affair, Mr Abrahams, complains that these events have CRIMINALISED HIM – well duh! That is because you are a CRIMINAL!

You broke the law about disclosing his identity… mainly on the grounds that you really didn't feel like disclosing your identity.

It is quite simple: the law says that you have to declare the ORIGINAL source of the money, not just the last person to handle the lolly. Let us think about WHY. The POINT of declaring who the donors to a Political Party ARE is so that the public can easily SEE if the Party is trading favours for funds.

It is in people's INTEREST to know if, just for example, a person made a LARGE donation and then had, say, a controversial PLANNING APPLICATION to which the objections were suddenly dropped; or if they got selected for a SEAT in PARLIAMENT – or the House of Lords Club, remember that!

People OUGHT to be able to trust that decisions are made for the RIGHT REASONS and NOT because their supposed representatives have received a FIGURATIVE "brown envelope". They OUGHT to be able to, but SADLY years of GOINGS ON from the Poulson Buildings Scandal to Cash for Questions have tarnished that trust.

Because of this, the Labour – quite rightly – brought in more rules for political parties about the money that they receive. Unfortunately they KEEP on reminding people of this as though it is some sort of EXCUSE for immediately going out and finding a whole load of ways AROUND their own rules!

Just because they SAID it was wrong does not make it impossible for them to DO IT ANYWAY.

I mean, I think that stealing STICKY BUNS is BAD – but that is NOT proof that I wouldn't yum them up if I got my fluffy feet on them!

All political parties – including the Liberal Democrats… even the Conservatories – struggle with this. They are all always in need of more funds, and short of staff and under pressure the requirements of open democracy make if difficult to get it right every single time. People do the best they can, yet still mistakes can be made. But some people seem to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make "mistakes".

Loans instead of donations; hiding donors behind stolen identities. It is possible that the Labour's motives really ARE pure… but you have to wonder why they KEEP ON looking for underhand, under-the-counter ways of receiving the cash.

Democratic accountability RELIES on the people being able to SEE what goes on so that they can make FULLY INFORMED decisions. It isn't good enough just to CLAIM that you are whiter than white – people also have to be able to do the doorstep challenge on you!

(Though, when the POLICE do the doorstep challenge on THEM the Labour complain that it is unfair victimisation!)

From everything that has happened, it seems that the Labour quite simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND this simple truth.

Which ought to be FUNNY coming from the "if you've nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" people!

PS:

Even after I took them along to the London Hustings, my Daddies STILL cannot choose between the excellent Mr Clogg and the excellent Mr Huhney-Monster.

Making speeches

Clearly the PROBLEM with the Liberal Democrat Leadership contest is that there has been a TRANSPORTER ACCIDENT and Captain Kirk has been split into his AGGRESSIVE KILLER side and his FLUFFY BUNNY side.

An elephant with the answers

The ANSWER is obviously that we need Mr Scotty to FIX it so that we can RE-COMBINE him.

A vote for the best candidate!

Day 2392: Lord Blairimort Plays his "Get out of House of Lords Club Free" Card

Friday:


So, no one will be going to gaol over the Cash-for-Coronets affair.

This came at a perfect time for Mr Frown, since it drew a line under the time of Lord Blairimort on the same day as the Ealing and Sedgefield by elections showed that Mr Frown was a WINNER in his own right.

(Only a CYNICAL READER could think that he leaked allowed the news to become known the evening of the by-election results to give the papers something else to talk about in case things went wrong for the Labour!)


This outcome is not terribly satisfactory for either the people who were accused OR for the people who thought that the probably DID IT – which probably explains the level of HYPERBOLE that both sides are employing.

For those who think that Lord Levy and chums were in it up to their perma-tanned eyebrows, the failure to attempt a prosecution smacks of "they did it but we've not got enough evidence to prove it". Hence we get cries of COVER UP and wails of WHITEWASH!

For the four people who were arrested – plus the ex-Prime Monster who wasn't – they are left without the opportunity to clear their names, their reputations besmirched because people think there's "no smoke without fire". Can you honestly put your fluffy foot on your fluffy tummy and say you could treat them as INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY? This means we get over-excited over-the-top claims of VIRTUE and accusations of GESTAPO TACTICS and a WITCH-HUNT.

Fluffy Mr Sir Alan Sugar off the Apprentice came on the radio to say: "look, I know nothing at all about this case and I haven't looked at the evidence but my mate Lord Levy was a bit upset so you're all fired!"

Another object lesson in how NOT to react to the news came from the Labour now-ex-minister Mr Dennis the Menace McShane who was on the Newsnight Show within minutes of the story being leaked becoming known. He made himself look a complete Nargle by ranting and raving about how it was TERRIBLE TORTURE for people in the Labour to have these allegations hanging over them!

Sorry Mr the Menace, but "TERRIBLE TORTURE" involves the CIA sticking you on an INVISIBLE JET out of Heathrow and handing you over to the SAUDI SECRET POLICE no questions asked. Nor does the nagging worry that the police might find the secret documents that prove that YOU ACTUALLY DID IT really compare to the more imaginative photographic poses of the Abu Ghraib guards.

Mr the Menace also wanted us to be looking at ways to stop jumped-up little oiks from the Scottish Nasty Party having the right to – horror – write to the police asking them to investigate what PRETTY OBVIOUSLY looked like seats in the House of Lords Club being sold for ready money disguised as "loans".

As Mr James points out, though, it is not like the Labour didn't do anything wrong – on the hidden loans, they merely got off on the technicality of their offence not having been made illegal at the time they committed it.


Having a CONFUSION between what is ILLEGAL and what is WRONG seems to be quite common in this business. BBC interviewers on the subject would just keep on proceeding from the point of view: "Well, we all know that this is how political parties raise their money, and this sort of thing has gone on for hundreds of years."

Well, for hundreds of years people used to pour their SEWAGE straight into the THAMES and that was NOT VERY CLEVER either. And that caused a BIG STINK in PARLIAMENT too!

(But isn't it just TERRIBLY BRITISH to be less worried about the people who can apparently BUY POWER over us and more worried about the people who cause a FUSS complaining about it!)

SURELY this must mean that it is time to consider the two REFORMS that would put an end to this sort of blatant patronage and the corrupting influence of cash: making the House of Lords Club PROPERLY democratic and sorting out how we finance political parties.

Certainly that is what Sir Mr the Merciless has been saying.



Party funding is a TRICKY ONE.

Political Parties cost money to run – all those leaflets don't just photocopy themselves, you know – and that money has to come from somewhere.

People intrinsically dislike the idea of their tax money going into the pockets of politicians to fund them being political. Not least because most people do not seem to WANT political campaigns forced down their throats anyway!

They often say: "if they're own members can't support them then they're not worth supporting."

It seems VERY ODD, though, that loads of people ALSO complain that the two big parties are VERY NEARLY THE SAME, and yet they both seem to be able to raise shed loads of DOSH.

There are two ways to do this. One way is from the party members: membership fees, appeals, raffles, cheese and wine parties, all the usual.

The other way is to attract money from rich people… from VERY VERY rich people[*]… people who generally want a FAVOUR in return.

[*]Of course, the Labour ALSO raises money from the Trades Unions. Unions are supposed to be a way for a massed workforce to get a political voice – in negotiations with their bosses, or in negotiations with the government – by teaming up and having a few people speak for all of them. They can also pool their money so that their spokespeople can ACT like they are VERY VERY rich people, although (theoretically) in the interest of their membership.

(In the old days, Trades Unions used to offer PROTECTION for their members in return for some of their wages... there is a name for this process but it eludes me at the moment.)

The point still stands about them wanting a favour in return.


That favour could be POLITICAL: maybe a government that recognises that they have lots of money already and want to keep more of it, or some (other) ULTERIOR motives – wanting to keep gay-daddies off their busses; wanting to teach made up stories about the creation of living things; or just wanting to float Great Britain PLC… as far away from the continent of Europe as they can manage.

Or it could be a QUID-PRO-QUO sort of favour: the power of patronage – you scratch my back, I'll give you an ermine-coated-tickling-stick for yours – that is as old as the hills. In fact, "the hills" are among the things that the King used to give away in return for support from his barons. In those days, you had to do as you were told by your OVERLORD because he was the toughest in town and in he in turn would do as he was told by the OVER-OVERLORD all the way up to the king – this was a system called FEUDALISM which is Olde English for BULLYING.

So generally they are using their money to either buy something for themselves, or to buy a government with polices for themselves.

But this cannot be good for a DEMOCRATIC system – having a party owe more (in the case of loans, LITERALLY owe more!) to a SMALL number of VERY VERY rich people than it does to the LARGE number of ordinary members.


Could it be that certain VERY RICH people (or Trade Unions) only give money to the Labour and the Conservatories (or even BOTH) because they think they might win and be good for a favour later, rather that because they believe in the policies (or lack of where the Conservatories are currently concerned) of those parties?

Democracy depends on people having a wide choice of policies and picking the ones they think are the best. But this COSY SYSTEM seems to keep choices down to the minimum, which is handy for the VERY VERY rich people – they COULD place an each-way bet on the Labour and the Conservatories and whoever gets in, they would get the same policies and be owed the same favours. This is called WIN-WIN!

Which brings us back to the policy of paying for political parties from the public purse. Golly, what a lot of "P"s!

But how do you divide up the money? Say you give out cash on the basis of the parties turn out at the last election – doesn't that AUTOMATICALLY mean you are giving the biggest share to the party that is already in government. Is that really the way you want to bias the system? Or suppose you give a flat allowance to any party standing: that would be a million pounds each for the Labour, the Conservatories and the Liberal Democrats… but also for the British Nasty Party… or the "Eat at Cath's Caf" Party! Indeed, don't we have deposits for elections precisely to STOP frivolous or self-interested people abusing the political system? But how do we tell the difference between the "Save with the Woolwich" party and the "Save St Mungo's Hospital" party?

In any case, SOMEONE would have to decide which parties get what money and, whether that's the government or a commission of the "Great and Good" or even the National Lottery People, surely that is CENTRALISING control over politics: taking power AWAY from people and letting some arbitrary authority decide which parties – and which POLICIES – get talked about and voted on.

And who are we to BAN people donating to political parties if they want to, anyway?


So, wouldn't it be a BETTER ANSWER to try and make sure that party funding comes from the largest numbers of people based on their own individual preference.


You could put a VERY LOW CAP on an individual's donations: how about five-thousand pounds in any one year, with perhaps a larger limit for bequests – say one-hundred thousand pounds (because Daddy says you could invest that much for around five-thousand pounds a year in interest). That way the parties' funding depends on the BREADTH of their support and no small group of individuals can bend the party out of shape.

The other thing would be to cut down on the amounts that parties SPEND, and be much more strict about it! It seems obvious to me that you would need fewer million pound donations if you were spending fewer millions of pounds on getting elected. The OBVIOUS thing to do is to say people cannot have advertising on billboards – that would save TONS of money! Another good thing would be if all the party leaders could agree to cut down on the amount of travelling around the country in aeroplanes and battle busses that they do; that would be good for the election's CARBON FOOTPRINT too!


Anyway, no doubt Lord Blairimort will be VERY RELIEVED to have got away without a spell in the SLAMMER over this.

"Well, you known, I never doubted… that we'd have the right outcome," he said. "After all… I could always grant myself a Royal Pardon."

Now that this is over, he can get on with his new job of bringing about the APOCALYPSE as Envoy of Death to the Middle East.

Day 2301: Freedom from Freedom of Information

Friday:


Hooray for the Liberal Democrats, and in particular Mr Norman the Baker MP, who not only bakes the bestest sticky buns in the whole of the House of Commons, he has also scuppered a Conservatory's attempt to get MPs out of having to answer Freedom of Information questions!

Yes, it seems that in Mr Balloon "new" Conservatory Party, the commitment to open and honest government extends about as far as not letting anyone see your expenses claims.

Though it is a BIT ironic that they should try to reduce the reach of free public inquiry in the same week that they tried (and failed) to nobble Mr Frown using information received BY USING the Freedom of Information Act.

They may have HEARD of the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs, but presumably they would like to repeal the Hunting Act in order to go and SHOOT IT!

It had been a bit of a worry that the government might allow this to slip through, what with their not being so very fond of Freedom of Information themselves.

(I am, incidentally, always ASTONISHED when the Labour get caught doing something bad and say "ah, but we brought in the Freedom of Information Act that you used to catch us with!" as though this is an excuse for all NAUGHTY BEHAVIOUR.

Isn't this is a bit like a BURGLAR saying "ah, but I left my fingerprints all over the scene of the crime so that you could catch me!")


As Liberal Democrat MP Mr Steve "World Wide" Webb commented earlier:

"Given that Parliament passed the legislation in the first place, it seems a bit rich for MPs to seek to avoid being covered by it."

He was worried that this would give MPs a BAD NAME, and RIGHTLY SO!

In a proper democracy, people need to be free to ask their government and legislators what they are doing and why they have done it! It seems that neither the Conservatories not the Labour really understand this. They think that asking questions is either IMPERTINENT and EMBARRASSING or an EXPENSIVE waste of TIME and MONEY.

In fact, MPs should have to answers our questions so that we know when THEY are wasting of time and money… because it is OUR time and money that they would be wasting! It ought to be impertinent and embarrassing NOT to answer your constituents' questions.

I am SURE that no one LIKES having to justify their expenses claims, but if we didn't then we could ALL just dip a fluffy foot into the petty cash jar and help ourselves. Where would we be then? In PRISON, that's where – at least if Nice Mr Dr Reid found out!

Fortunately thanks to Mr Norman the Baker, MPs were able to flibbleboost… fibulestibule… fibblybubble.. talk and talk until time ran out so that the Bill had to go to the back of the queue again and now will almost certainly disappear.

It is a GOOD THING that that Pink Dog wasn't in there REDUCING their speeches, isn't it!


Read more about the EXCELLENCE of Mr Norman the Baker from Mr Councillor Stephen Tall.


Meanwhile, in UNRELATED NEWS, the police have handed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service over the Cash for Coronets affair.

Where we go from here depends on whether the Crown Prosecution Service decides to Prosecute the Crown. Maybe we can use the Freedom of Information Act to find out!

Day 2256: Guilty of Perverting the Course of Justice

Tuesday:


Nick, who's a mate of Dave, wanted to say to us that Mr X had said to him that he'd seen a note from Ruth to Jonathan that said that Jonathan should say to Tony that what Michael had said to John wasn't the same as what Ruth had said to John but before Nick could say that to us, John spoke to Peter who spoke to Caroline who told Nick that he couldn't say anything at all, so Nick (and Fiona and Kirsty and Jeremy and Huw) said nothing but Alan went and blabbed it all anyway.


Having cleared that up, here is unrelated news.

Innocent Until Proved Guilty

Proved Guilty

[our fluffy legal advisors would like to point out that I have NOT swapped the captions for comic effect!]



The evidence has proved that a senior aide to one of the leaders of the invasion of Iraq was lying to the investigation into wrongdoing by the government.

In America, this gets you set to gaol.

Day 1924: David Lloyd George

Monday:


Last night on the TELLY, my Daddies came across a thing on BBC4 about Mr LLOYD GEORGE who was PRIME MINISTER during World War Part One and for a bit afterwards. He is not to be confused with Mr HAROLD LLOYD even though he too appears in black and white films and has a funny walk. Also, it was the other one who had the moustache.

This programme was a personal essay for television by the newsreader Mr Huw Edwards, a self-confessed fan of Mr Lloyd George. This meant that it concentrated a lot on the GOOD bits and tended to forget about the BAD bits, or at least to skip over them and then afterwards refer back and say, like, "well, obviously some people think he STABBED Squiffy Asquith IN THE BACK but Asquith had had it anyway. It was a MERCY KILLING!"

(Fortunately, Daddy Alex was too busy with his new DALEK to have a total conniption.)

Nevertheless, it was quite a GOOD thing. It is not very often that you hear a newsperson being NICE about a politician. (Even one who has been dead for sixty years!) Normally Mr HUMPY or Mr PAXO (the ROOSTER BOOSTER) only want to make politicians look rotten. It is quite encouraging to have Mr Huw say that they he thought someone was GOOD!

He thought that it was a SHAME that most people have forgotten Mr Lloyd George's contribution to the nation – particularly when compared to the LAUDED memory of Sir WINNIE the CHURCHILL (Greatest Britain of All Time TM).

Mr Huw spoke of how Mr Lloyd George transformed the nation's approach to old age, infirmity and unemployment. He overturned the VICTORIAN attitude of self-reliance and introduced the idea that the STATE could, indeed should intervene with it greater powers to support people when they were laid low. With his PEOPLE’S BUDGET of 1909 and later with the NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT of 1911 Mr Lloyd George very much laid the foundations of the WELFARE STATE.

Because of this Mr Lloyd George was INCREDIBLY popular with the people, in much the same way that Mr Blair ISN'T. So much so that when he took over as Prime Minister in the bad bit of World War Part One everyone was actually cheered up and this may have helped to turn the tide of the war. Or at least helped plucky Britain hang on until Kaiser Wilhelm sank enough of their ships that America noticed there was a major war going on in Europe.

Mr Lloyd George's other achievements include Mr Blair's VERY FAVOURITEST piece of legislation (not written by himself and/or his master Darth Cheney) namely THE PARLIAMENT ACT of 1911 which means that my chums in the House of Lords club cannot block legislation passed by the House of Commons only revise it and delay it for up to a year (LESS if Mr Balloon CAVES IN as usual!).

And also the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT of 1918 which let POOR people vote and even LADIES (although not if they were under thirty or without property!). This was a BIG step towards Britain becoming a proper democracy. One day, you will get there if you PERSEVERE!

Mr Huw also told us that Mr Lloyd George was slightly strange in that he had TWO wives (at the same time): one to take away with him and one to keep at home for BEST. However, I have TWO DADDIES and frankly how people maximise their WORK/LIFE balance is no business of mine so long as no one gets hurt!


Looking to the bad side for a bit, Mr Huw then said that one of Mr Lloyd George's biggest mistakes was going to see ADOLF HITLER in 1936. Well, to BE FAIR, it was 1936 and not everybody had realised Mr Hitler was an EVIL NUTTER by that point. The Daily Mail took another FIVE years to work it out – and we were at WAR for two of those!

People say that Mr Lloyd George's other biggest mistake was to flog off loads of peerages to people who gave him a big pile of dosh, a bit like Mr Balloon's new peers, apparently. However, you have to REMEMBER that in the first place he had total contempt for the House of Lords and thought of this as people paying him to let them sit in a big red leather prison for VANITY and in the second place by that point he HAD been sitting with a bunch of CONSERVATORIES for quite a long time and so was probably getting very CONFUSED.

It all came to an end in 1922 when the Conservatories decided that they had had enough of Mr Lloyd George and BETRAYED him. This is why the Conservatories were run by the 1922 committee and it was the beginning of the MODERN CONSERVATORY PARTY – which ironically also ENDED in BETRAYAL in 1990.

[Incidentally, since the Conservatory Party is now really OVER, this is why Mr Balloon has been looking for a NEW NAME for his gang. The current "hot picks" are either "BLUE LABOUR" or "OPUS DAVE".]

In the end, Mr Huw hoped everyone would remember the good things as these were really more important than a few bad things that didn't have much effect.

The last word should go to MR FROWN who hopes very much to EMULATE Mr Lloyd George by being a MUCH RESPECTED Chancellor who KNIFES his doddering Prime Minister in the back in order to succeed him resulting in his party TEARING itself to pieces and LOSING POWER for a hundred years.

Um, I THINK.

Day 1902: Loans

Saturday:


WELL, no one has offered to loan me ONE MILLION POUNDS so that I can buy myself the title of LORD FLUFFYPHANT yet.

Boo!

There is a great deal of fuss in the newspapers about this. I do not know why. My Daddy Richard is ALWAYS getting rubbish junk-mail in the post saying "have a squillion pound loan and your dreams could come true". Daddy always puts these in the recycling, but probably Mr Blair is just much more GULLIBLE!

(Like the way he always falls for everything he is told by the American President Mr DARTH CHENEY and his pet monkey.)

I have noticed that the Conservatories keep trying to remind everyone about Liberal Prime Minister Mr LLOYD GEORGE selling Peerages like Mr Blair does. If the most recent Liberal dodgy doings that they can come up with is 1922 then REALLY this is a good thing.


A friend of Mr Balloon's called Mr Boy George was on the telly in the morning saying that Mr Balloon would have something interesting to say (so this was BIG news, although it does not appear to have turned out true.) Boy George said that Mr Balloon would be announcing that from now on the Conservatories will stop keeping secret where they get all their money from.

Daddy Richard thinks that this means that someone has just paid off Mr Balloon's overdraft for him.

And now they will stop taking bungs donations of over a million pounds.

"What are the chance that the Tories know 200 people who can give them £100,000 compared to Labour only knowing 20 people who can give them a £million?"

My Daddy is VERY cynical in the mornings!

"We haven't just come up with these policies overnight," said Boy George. "We've spent the last three months getting them ready for when this scandal broke."

Which is a PRETTY AMAZING COINCIDENCE, if you think about it.

Mr Balloon has apparently had another idea: he will reduce MPs by 10%. Some people have suggested that this is because Mr Balloon and his friend Boy George are really HOBBITS: if all the other MPs get 10% smaller then perhaps they will stop ignoring Mr Balloon.


PS
I forgot to say "thank you" to Mr Will for reminding me of the Star Wars game yesterday.

Day 1898: Mystery

Tuesday:


Daddy has been watching the Newsnight show again.

It appears that BILLIONS and BILLIONS of Dollars supposedly sent to rebuild Iraq have mysteriously disappeared. Where can they have gone?

In business news: HALLIBURTON announces record profits…




It seems that Mr Balloon (who seems to be better after his BIRD FLU) is not as popular in the polls as he used to be. Horrible contagious NOSE PLAGUE can probably do that to you.

In order to feel better, he has tried to get EVEN MORE like Mr Blair by voting for Mr Blair’s education policy. And then got a bit confused by voting AGAINST him.

Nick MATE-OF-DAVE Robinson says that this is supposed to be embarrassing for Mr Blair.

I SHOULD SAY SO! Honestly. I’d be embarrassed if someone who forgot which way to vote kept HANGING AROUND trying to be like me!

According to Mr Mate-of-Dave, this was NOT a shoddy, opportunistic tactic by Mr Balloon. OH NO! It’s just that Mr Balloon wants to be able to say to the country that he supports Mr Blair and to say to the Conservatory Party that he is opposed to Mr Blair. And this is NOT TWO FACED. Mr Mate-of-Dave said so!



Meanwhile, it appears that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Pounds supposedly sent as secret loans have mysteriously appeared in Mr Blair’s bank account. Where can they have come from?

Day 1897: It's an Honour

Monday:


Do you remember how the HOUSE OF LORDS put Mr Blair’s nose out of joint over the I.D.IOT CARDS?

Well, I have discovered that the House of Lords is actually a sort of club that you can join. It has a membership fee of ONE MILLION DOLLARS POUNDS that you have to pay to Mr Blair.

I wonder why he makes such a fuss when he is the one selling the tickets?

I should like to join this club.

Although I am very happy being called Millennium Dome, I could ALSO be called LORD FLUFFYPHANT. There are too many DINOSAURS but not nearly enough ELEPHANTS in your legislature and anyway, I think that I would look very good on the red leather sofas.

(So long as nobody SAT ON ME!!!! I am NOT that sort of WOOLSACK!!!)

On the other fluffy foot, it is a very WEIRD system where Mr Blair gets to pick who are LORDS. AND he also gets to choose who are KNIGHTS and BISHOPS. Is it like a game of CHESS?

I suppose Mr Blair's friends ask: "would you like a CHEQUE, MATE?"

Daddy says that this is a VERY AWFUL joke.

People seem to be awfully upset about Mr Blair selling honours like this and say that it brings the whole honours system into disrepute. But frankly if you are going to give away prizes for being friends with Mr Blair, you should ask what sort of repute you start with!

That baldy man from the television has been making a bit of a fuss about this too! The baldy man is called NICK MATE-OF-DAVE ROBINSON and just like me, he has a DIARY!

Perhaps someone can explain to me why it is NAUGHTY when one person fixes it for their CHUMS to be in the HOUSE OF LORDS and NOT NAUGHTY when another person fixes it for their CHUM to be leader of the CONSERVATORY PARTY?


Meanwhile, in the paper today, Daddy Richard learned that the police have been using the OYSTER CARDS on the Underground to track people’s movements.

Fortunately, I do not NEED an Oyster Card because I am a SOFT TOY. This is probably why Mr Blair’s stormtroopers have not tracked me down over GLORIFYING JAMES BOND yet!