Day 2479: The New Leader Speaks! aka So, Farewell then, Sir Mr the Merciless

Monday:

I do not know what has left me more SHOCKED: the suddenness of Sir Mr the Merciless' departure, or the speed with which I have found myself being talked up as a potential PARTY LEADER alongside Mr Clogg and Mr Hewn.

(Within minutes of the announcement, Mr Kiss-me Guru-Murphy was trying to get me "live" on the Channel Four News, and know-nothing numbskull Mr Nick "Mate of Dave" Robinson wanted me on Parson's Green for the "Ten".)

But I have to ask: if 66 is too OLD to lead a political party, is 7 [R: 6] too YOUNG?

Personally, I almost fell off my sofa: I thought Sir Ming was In-Vince-ible… until Mr VINCE did him IN!

On the other fluffy foot, at least our very own TERRACOTTA WARRIOR Mr Hugs has agreed to be INTERRED with the Emperor Ming.


So, what WOULD I do if I really DID become Leader of the Liberal Democrats?

Well, it seems to me that there are several urgent tasks to get on with.

First things first, we MUST massively increase our public profile. Everyone seems to agree that Sir Mr the Merciless suffered DEATH BY MEDIA – his leadership ended up SUFFOCATED by lack of coverage. It is not IMMODEST to admit that I am very CUTE – and I am VERY good at sitting on my sofa, a large part of today's daytime media duties for the busy party leader – but there is only so far that a fluffy face will carry you in the world today.

We need a press team that can create a BUZZ, and that can BLITZ THE PRESS into attending OUR events, and covering them the way that they cover Mr Balloon's stunts. Not that we should DO stunts, as such, but we should plan to be more STARTLING: launch our Nuclear Policy from the Greenham Common Peace Camp or our prison plans from a young offenders institution; see lovely Sarah Teather and me climb to the top of a HUGE Wind Turbine in Scotland or watch me and Captain Ashdown parachute into Afghanistan with emergency medical supplies…

It would mean a larger team, and that means more volunteers, maybe some sort of INTERN scheme. With today's technology, a large team DON'T all have to be in Cowley Street: e-mail, instant messaging and telephone conferencing can all play their part in keeping people briefed.

But we need them to be chasing down the news – especially the BBC – when they don't give us coverage and when they get things wrong. And we want to be GOOD when they give us balanced coverage, reward them with the good interview, the interesting story. We want for them to be HAPPIEST when they just need to phone up the Liberal Democrats and we have the informed comment that they want.

What happens at the moment? Mr Frown fails to call an election, the Conservatories' polls go up and our polls go down. From THIS (39:33:19) to THIS (36:43:14).

Quite simply: THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Good journalists shouldn't be satisfied with just reporting that, but we need to help them make the story.

The pat explanation that "it's a third party squeeze" is NOT an explanation at all: it is just DESCRIBING THE SYMPTOMS in a different way.

The Conservatories have announced ONE policy – a cut in Inheritance Tax. We announced LOTS of policies, but MOST IMPORTANTLY we announced a FOUR PENCE CUT IN INCOME TAX.

If people are switching their votes because of a TAX CUT then OURS is a LOT BETTER than theirs.

(Which would YOU rather have? More money maybe when Granny dies, if she's RICH, or 20% less Income Tax RIGHT NOW?)

Therefore the media's explanation for the poll shift is WRONG and we need to be challenging that.

What are the issues that are ACTUALLY of concern to people? Families that think they are being PENALISED by the benefits system just because they are MARRIED – do they KNOW that Liberal Democrat policy is to make sure everyone is treated fairly? No, of course not. We need people to know that we are the "fair deal" party. People who are too FRIGHTENED to go out on the streets – do they KNOW that Liberal Democrat Councils have a fantastic record of success in tackling anti-social behaviour. Do they know that we want to recruit thousands of extra police AND let them get on with their job, not fill in forms. No, of course not. We need people to know that we are the "freedom from fear" party.

We have a TERRIFIC policy platform, and when people ACTUALLY HEAR our policies lots of them realise that actually they are Liberals too. More than that, we have terrific strength right here in the Lib Dem blogosphere for forensic analysis, pithy comment and rapid response. Let's really USE that resource.

The important thing for us is to BE HEARD – get us a FAIR SHARE of coverage and we are halfway to victory.


But we mustn't forget the Party's most IMPORTANT asset: its members.

Sir Mr the Merciless has revitalised the party in Parliament, but I would want to get out there and re-energise the activists, meet with as many local parties as possible. After a second leadership challenge, I bet the party's loyal workers will be feeling a bit shell-shocked and a bit nervous about the future and a bit uncertain about this new fluffy elephant who has come from nowhere. So I will want to make sure that they know that THEY are the important ones, and that they are being LISTENED TOO, and that their new leader is NOT AFRAID of getting his big fluffy nose stuck in a few LETTERBOXES on the front lines with them.

Even with more than two years to the election, that's only a-hundred-and-some weeks, giving a good meeting to one local party a week is still only going to cover our top targets. We need to move from local campaigning to SMART campaigning – we need better lines of COMMUNICATION between the local parties and regions and the leaders office, so that we will make the best use of MY time and YOUR time.

I would want to use the tools of technology to give members a greater input into the party's national activities – the campaigns that we choose to press, the issues we support, even the questions at Prime Monster's Questionable Time.

Ah, yes, Prime Monster's Questionable Time – I am going to need some sort of GREEN LEATHER HIGH-CHAIR.

What we COULD do is set up greater feedback between the membership and the leader – they can raise the issues that they really want put to the Prime Monster; I can explain why I chose to go with one question rather than another, and what I thought of the Prime Monster's reply – if he actually gave one!

But Questionable Time is a bit of a JOKE really, a pantomime battle that usually only makes you look stupid. Sadly.

Many people think that the world made up its mind about Sir Mr the Merciless at that every first QT when he stumbled over a heckler. And while it is true that Questionable Time is not as important to real people as those watching would like to believe, it is ALSO true that first impressions last, especially among opinion formers like the sketch-writers. One important thing to remember is always to begin with offering CONDOLENCES to the families of soldiers lost in the wars. It is important that Parliament remember each week that people are dying because they voted for it.


I think that we should adopt Mr Jonny's idea: the Prime Monster should continue to have to answer questions from BACK-BENCHERS… but once a week, ON TELEVISION, he would sit down with Mr Balloon and me and we would ask him questions. (To be fair, Mr Frown should also be able to challenge us to say what we would do differently.) We ALL know the tricks that politicians can use to avoid answering tricky questions in an interview… which would mean that we can any of us point them out when they are used.

It might, just MIGHT, mean there was less posturing and shouting and more discussion of things that actually matter. When are our soldiers coming home? What are we doing about Foot and Mouth, and when will farmers be able to sell their sheeps and cows? What evidence is there – if any – that taking away our civil liberties has made ANY difference to the terror threat? How much have I.D.iot cards cost THIS WEEK?

If we can ask some questions about the issues, it could genuinely lead to a national debate, rather than a silly slanging match once a week and media interviews about personality rather than policy.

Because we need to reach out, way out, beyond our own comfort zones to the huge numbers of voters, often young voters, who don't vote.

If Mr Wedgy Benn, at the age of a-thousand-and-three, can fill a theatre for a talk about politics then so can I. I've got to! It's not that people out there aren't interested; it's just that they think we're not listening.

It's like Europe, and the new European Treaty. People WANT to join the debate – and fair enough it MAY just be to vote against Europe by proxy, but (and I've said this before) if we trust the people then sometimes we've just got to take it on the chin. We should SUPPORT calls for a referendum on the new treaty. And we should go out there and try to WIN the argument, not duck the fight.

You think that is an EASY WIN for Mr Balloon? Not a bit of it – we are united on Europe in a way that the Conservatories can NEVER be. The more we talk about Europe, the more opportunities they have to TEAR THEMSELVES TO PIECES. (You KNOW they're just gagging to do so!)

I think that Sir Mr the Merciless OUTSMARTED the Media in the end. Once those QUESTIONS of leadership have been raised, they tend to stick around like bad smells. Mr Balloon would do well to remember that – Mr Oboe may have covered them up with a WHOLE CAN of Ozone unfriendly AIR-FRESHENER (Inheritance Tax Lily Fragrance, naturally) but they will soon come back once his big poll lead dips again.

Sir M cut the Gordian Knot – or more appropriately the "Gordon" Knot – by going in his own time. Not a ditherer he. Like many other Liberal Democrats, I say we can be proud of his honour and dignity. Instead of letting them get ugly, he has left many of the papers IMPRESSED with his integrity. He has turned ADVERSITY into OPPORTUNITY!

Now we need to rally to a new leader, one who can reach out and grasp that opportunity with a FLUFFY FOOT!

With your support I will lead us into the next FIFTEEN general elections!

Vote early, vote often, vote elephant!

Day 2453: Young Turkish Delight

Thursday:


Thursday was the BIG FINISH to our Conference, but before the main act, we had a warm up from Mr Clogg in the debate on the Surveillance Society.

This was another opportunity for him to show off his Civil Liberties credentials and charming smile at the same time.

Oddly, the media seem to have spent MOST of the week OBSESSING about whether Mr Clogg (or possibly Mr Hewn) was about to mount a leadership bid or whether Sir Mr the Merciless was going to banish him (or them) to the ICE MOON of FRIDGIA.

This may NOT be entirely BAD for the party.

I am not such a DUMB elephant as to think that ANY news is GOOD news – just ask poor Mr Charles (and the LEAST said about Mr Flaky Oaten Wheat the BETTER!) However, this story does have a number of, as the media themselves might put it, UP SIDES.

Firstly we get to keep three top Liberal Democrat faces in the news, instead of the usual just one. Secondly, Mr Clogg gets to look OPEN and HONEST by answering a question frankly but WITHOUT having to stab Sir Mr the Merciless in the back; at the same time, Mr Hewn gets to look LOYAL and STEADFAST by sticking to the "no vacancy" position when asked to comment on Mr Clogg. Thirdly, and this is the best bit, while the media might get HOOKED by the "human interest story" of "leadership rivals", they also get to carry along reports of Mr Clogg's liberal law and order stance, and Mr Hewn's "environment, action now" message.

As Mr Brilliant Brian had said at the Mayoral Hustings: if people actually get to HEAR our policies, then they realise how GOOD they are!

Sir Mr the Merciless helped it along too, talking UP the Young Turks – and Turkessess! – and saying he was a Young Turk once too. And even hinting that the next Dr Who might be a woman. Er…

It's a bit of a RISKY strategy, I would say, especially if Sir Mr the Merciless' BIG SPEECH had turned out to be PISH.

Fortunately, it wasn't – instead he blew our socks off. Not that I WEAR socks, but other people's footwear was EVERYWHERE!

Daddy Richard and I got to hear it LIVE in the Conference Hall, though Daddy Alex got himself TRAPPED in the upper gallery and he could not find Captain Paddy to help him ABSEIL down to us!

You have my attention, Sir Mr the Merciless

A bit long, perhaps – or was he just proving that he COULD stand up there for an hour-and-a-half? – but with lots of good bits.

Excellent use of the Party's "Free, Green and Fair" slogan and the "one against two" – we need to push those MORE if they are to become our narrative.

It was good to hear him CONFRONTING the CONSENSUS between NuToryLabour on everything I have been telling you about for months: Iraq, Civil Liberties, the Environment, Nuclear Power, Council Tax, and student fees.

Personally, I was VERY PLEASED to see him open up a proper attack on Mr Frown for his record and his failure to take responsibility. And the joke about Suicide Boris was very funny!

Echoing the five giants of Mr William Beveridge, Sir Mr the Merciless listed his FIVE GREAT FREEDOMS for all: Opportunity, Security, Prosperity, Kate Aidee… no, that's not right… Health and the Environment.

When we all talked to him at the start of the week, Sir M had described himself as an OPTIMIST. Not for him the negative defeatism of Mr Balloon's "Anarchy in the UK", oh no. He saw the future as a place for us to do BETTER.

I think by the end of his speech, the rest of us thought that too!



Conference week over, Daddy Richard collapsed in a puddle and took the weekend off. I am a NICE elephant and so I have given him a short holiday. But now he must get back to work!

Type, Daddy, type!

PS

Oooh, I got a namecheck in the Grauniad. Helloo Grauniad! Thank you for reading. I am glad that you were interested in what I had to say. Small note: Daddy Alex is not my OWNER! He is my DADDY! I do not HAVE an owner – I'm MINE!

Day 2448: Millennium Meets Sir Ming: the Interview

Saturday[*]:


Off to conference, and as a SPECIAL PRIZE for being on the short-list for Liberal Democrat Diary of the Year (again!) my fellow diarists and I were invited to meet His Divine Imperial Supremacy, Ruler of the Universe (and environs), Grand Mugwump of the Muggles and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Mr the Merciless himself in person.

So there I was, fluffy baby elephant and there he was, party leader.

Gazing into those wise yet beady eyes, it is hard not to be INTIMIDATED… and yet, I thought Sir Mr the Merciless bore up very well.

(Particularly since I stayed hiding in a bag behind the sofa and made Daddy Richard ask the questions!)

In fact, because I am VERY BUSY there was only time for one question each before we had to send Sir M on his way (I have appointed him to deputise for me at certain ceremonies).

But he was very generous with his answers, making it clear that he wants to be open and transparent and that he thinks that the Wibbly Wobbly Web is one of the ways to reconnect with the up to 40% of people who seem to have given up on voting in elections. That is probably why he is appointing Mr Steve Wibbly Wobbly Webb to take over chairing the Federal Policy Committee for him in the run up to the General Election. Ahh, yes, it seems that Sir Mr the Merciless is taking the rumours of a snap Autumn election VERY SERIOUSLY.

Sir M was also honest when Mr Paul asked him about what he thought had been his MISTAKES in the first year of his leadership (one of the questions Daddy Alex had been thinking about asking). He said that he had underestimated just how much of his time would be taken up by party administration – that almost everything that is causing a problem for the Liberal Democrats finds its way across his desk sooner or later. (Hold that image when you next think of Mr Balloon and the problems HE causes!)

Being open and honest, Sir Mr the Merciless was keen to stress that the interview was all on the record, that there were no secrets. On the one fluffy foot, this was very commendable, but on the other it also made for his answers – and to an extent our questions – being tempered and “political”. It would have been nice to discuss what he felt about the squeeze that the two other parties are putting upon us. Since the last general election, the annunciation of Mr Balloon and then the ascension of Mr Frown have coincided with a decline in our opinion poll ratings from around 22% to around 16%. Now anyone has got to think that that is SOME kind of problem (although I am NOT one of those who immediately blame that on the leader – there are too many other factors).

Sir Mr the Merciless WAS able to HINT that he recognises the problem himself when he talked about the fact that we are coming under fire from both the Conservatories AND the Labour. In previous elections the Labour and the Liberal Democrats have seen a common enemy in the Conservatories. Now that has changed: with the possibility of a HUNG PARLIAMENT both of the other parties have decided that they cannot get enough votes from their own supporters and have set their sights on OURS. It is no longer two-against-one but now one-against-two.

But then they have always BOTH been the traditional enemy: they are both authoritarian, centralising, sectional interest parties and increasingly regional ones too, with the Labour falling back to the north and the Conservatories making no progress outside of the south. Only the Liberal Democrats remain a truly ONE NATION party!

We DO still need to find the “magic words” that will fix our message in people’s minds, focus their attention on the real choice between a Liberal future or the NuToryLAbour No Future.

Mr James had asked about this idea of a “narrative” – first brought up in the “Meeting the Challenge” debate that led to last year’s “Trust Making Britain Fairly Green for People”; and then Mr Clogg raising the idea again earlier this year. What IS the narrative then, Mr James wanted to know.

Although Sir Mr the Merciless talked about “Free Green and Fair”, not just a slogan but a manifesto, I felt that we were STILL SEARCHING for those words, that we haven’t found how to make the breakthrough.

It would be all too easy to let Liberalism become a conversation between academics and politicians. He wants FREEDOM to mean something to all the real people, too. This is TRUE and GOOD… but we’re not getting that message across and we need to work out why.

Daddy Alex developed this point further, linking the Party’s message and appeal to the Leader’s personal CHARISMA when he asked about people’s perception of Sir Mr the Merciless himself. For all the good things that he has done, getting the party over it’s “local difficulties”, sorting out the organisation and restoring the morale of the MPs, the point remains that out campaigning, people used to say “ooh, I like that Captain Paddy,” or “ooh, I like that Cheeky Charlie.” No one has yet to say “ooh, I like that Sir Mr the Merciless” – what is he going to do about that?

“Of course I WANT people to like me,” said Sir Mr the Merciless, blasting Daddy Alex with force lightning from his fingertips. “But you need to compare like with like: at this point when they were leader, no one like Paddy or Charles either. I know I didn’t!”

Sir M told Daddy that he is going to “take on” the “age issue” this week, and try to turn it around – like Mr Ronald Raygun, the senile doddery old actor who became President of America – he promises not to take advantage of the inexperience of the younger men. He will play up the benefits of maturity and experience, though. “If there’d been a few more people my age around Lord Blairimort’s Cabinet table,” he added, “we might not have had such a rush into war.”

He wants to shift his own time into CAMPAIGNING, to getting out and meeting people. He was keen to stress how people, especially young people, have not lost interest in POLITICS, only in POLITICIANS. He gave the example of the political panels at the Edinburgh book festival, with Mr Andy Marr or Mr Jeremy Paxo or Mr Captain Paddy: they all sold out in minutes. Sir Mr the Merciless could only get into see Captain Paddy by agreeing to CHAIR the panel!

(We tempted him to comment on media cynicism. He said that that was always dangerous for politicians – just look at how over the top Lord Blairimort’s “Feral Beast” speech had been… but that didn’t mean that there wasn’t a kernel of truth in what the former Prime Monster had had to say too.)

And it’s important to remember, he reminded us, that unlike Mr Charles or Captain Paddy, Sir Mr the Merciless doesn’t have to be a “one man band”. He is right about that, and about the importance of him putting the “bright young people” – Ms Jo, Ms Lynne, Mr Danny, Mr David, Ms Julia and many others – in the “shop window”.

He will be also taking Mr Vince “Power” Cable off the leash – Mr Vince is VERY CROSS about Mr Balloon trying to claim he is the first politician ever to talk about the credit crisis, something Mr Vince has been talking about since before Mr Balloon was out of his Etonian short trousers. Voice quivering with RAGE, Mr Vince declaimed: “Ooh, the little blighter!”

“Speaking of being a one-man band,” interjected Daddy Alex bravely (and still smouldering a little bit) “this European referendum: what did you think you were DOING?”

Sir Mr the Merciless explained that he was asked the question and, in his game, you don’t get to say “wait for the consultation session”, at least not if you don’t want to end up with Mr Balloon’s reputation for vacillation. Again referring to his openness, he said that he was the leader and, as he had in the nuclear weapons debate in Spring, he made his opinion clear and that he would never want the party not to know his position. That’s fair enough, but perhaps we could do with him EXPRESSING that a position is his opinion, because that is a SUBTLE difference that would be lost on most of the party and ALL of the media.

Mr Jonathan followed up with the final question, wanting to know what a European In/Out referendum would achieve. Sir M explained that he was an unabashed, wholly committed pro-European and that he wants the chance to MAKE that case, a case that has been let drift for ten years. Lord Blairimort never saw it as more than another photo opportunity while Mr Frown cannot get out of Brussels fast enough. He wants to lead the campaign and have the thought of Europe, the benefits and opportunities – all that stuff I explained the other day, in fact – bring that to the forefront of people’s minds so that they know what Europe is worth to them.

And then it was apologies but time to go, expressed with the hope that rather than a one-off, this might be the beginning of an ongoing conversation. I think that that would be rather a good idea (even hiding in a bag, I would say that). Assuming that an INCONVENIENT General Election does not get in the way, it would be nice for our brave panel of interviewers (in a bag, remember) to call back in a month or two and see if and how things have changed.

We will see if anything comes of it.



[*] Sunday morning, actually. Saturday was my Cousin Jamie’s birthday party. HAPPY BIRTHDAY JAMIE! We got him Star Wars Lego and Doctor Who DVDs. Who mentioned the Jesuits??!?!

Day 2445: Sir Mr the Merciless pops the Question!

Wednesday:


So there I was, boning up for Conference by reading my homework, with my big fluffy nose stuck inside Consultation Paper 87 – pithily entitled "Europe" – considering issues to consider (unlucky) No. 13: "In either case, would a referendum as part of the ratification process be (a) appropriate or (b) unnecessary", when who should stalk in but Sir Mr the Merciless declaring that he has worked it all out for us!

"We do not need a referendum on this!" he said.

Well, goodness, THAT was very cross-making! Aren't we supposed to "Trust in People" (to make Greenland Fairly British for Free)? What about the Maastricht Treaty? We said that THAT needed a referendum, even if that wasn't a Constitution either. And this is just a big a change!

I was not the only one to get hot under my fluffy collar! Lots of Liberal Bloggers all marched out to plant their soap boxes on Sir Mr the Merciless's lawn (and some of them to defend his window boxes).

Had our beloved Sir Mr the Merciless gone round the twist? Had he fallen under the EVIL INFLUENCE of Mr Frown? No, it turns out we had all MISUNDERSTOOD!

Do not look at me funny, Daddy!

"Ah," said Sir Mr the Merciless, "what I MEANT to say was: we do not need a referendum on this… we need a referendum on the WHOLE Europe Question! Should we stay or should we go?"

Which as lot better, isn't it? Well, isn't it? Or is it?

Well, I suppose so. It DOES let Sir M row back off of a slightly sticky wicket, taking the question of being too close to Mr Frown and knocking it for six, and leaving Mr Balloon sunk in the referendum race.

[R: could this metaphor GET any more mixed?]

But it is – obviously – the NUCLEAR OPTION as far as Europe goes. Many, probably most people, realise that it would be TOTAL MADNESS for Great Britain to pull out of the European project. Even apart from the fact that they are our closest neighbours and that we've lost the Empire and that the Americans were never going to consider us as anything other than insignificant even if we hadn't just pis quite annoyed them by pulling out of Basra and embarrassing them, then even apart from all that the thing about Europe is that is WORKS!

What has Europe done for us? Well, apart from the peace and the prosperity and the aqueducts and the cheap holidays and the investment and the environmental protection and the economic stability and the… I think you get the picture. No one wants us to give up on the GOOD LIFE and go back to well, the Tom and Barbara Good Life!

So – again obviously – from a PRO-EUROPEAN point of view, a referendum on "Do we stay in the Space Age or go back to the Stone Age" looks a JOLLY SIGHT more winnable than "Shall we accept this treaty that you've probably either not read, not understood or already made your mind up to dislike anyway and by the way would you like to kick the government?"

But isn't it also very slightly CHEATING?

Giving people a "Europe: take it or leave it" option is hardly geared to INCLUSIVITY, is it? It is not going to make people WARM to Europe: quite the reverse it is going to reinforce the stereotype of Europe as cold, isolated, far away place with which we have little in common… er… but which has so much power over our lives.

What we want is not STERILE exchanges on whether to stay in Europe or not, but a real debate on what we want Europe to be and how we are going to get there, how we are going to get there TOGETHER.

Day 2441: Sir Mr the Merciless and the Mean Green Mother

Saturday:


Before anyone gets CONFUSED that is actually TWO stories!

Listening to the "Talking Boll Politics", the summertime replacement for "The Weak(est link) in Westminster", we heard the Thinking Man's Crumpet™ Ms Joan Bakewell (NOT a TART!) praising Sir Mr the Merciless:

"He is the most vigorous, most astute, most opinionated politician around."

And she bridled at all the insults heaped on Sir Ming just because of how old he is!


Later, though, we went out to see an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT man-eating lady: Audrey II, the star of the "Little Shop of Horrors".


This was a TREAT laid on for us by Uncle Alan, but it is TOO LATE for you to share, as unfortunately it has come to the end of its run.

Here is what you MISSED!

This was the musical of the film of the musical of the film… you have probably already seen the famous version with Mr Rick Moranis as the anti-heroic horticulturalist Seymour. If you haven't, then you can always get the DVD – although the version which includes the footage of the original (proper) ending is harder to find than gold dust at a Cybermen reunion.

That version was based on the off-Broadway musical hit that was inspired by the original Mr Roger Corman movie (with guest cameo from future star Mr Jack Nicholson, believe it or not). Apparently, the original was made in just two days using time left over on the sets of another movie – it was so cheap that they couldn't afford to re-shoot when props fell over!

The setting is the Skid Row florist of Mr Mushnik, cleverly realised on the London stage with a set that opens on the alley but then has the front wall of the shop and indeed the entire interior swing out to reveal what's going on inside.

Initially, the shop is very down at heel, and for a florist has only a few forlorn flowers. But then Seymour brings in his new discovery – the rare and unusual plant that he calls Audrey II. Immediately business perks up. But Audrey II has a SINISTER SECRET – the plant has the power to make dreams come true but at a price… a price paid in HUMAN BLOOD!

Initially, Seymour feeds the Faustian Flora from his own fingers – sporting ever more alarming numbers of sticking plasters. But as the ever more demanding plant grows to titanic proportions, taking over the florist set, it achieves the power of speech… and indeed SONG! And proposes a much more DIABOLICAL deal to poor Seymour. Fame and fortune in exchange for food… it's just a question of finding the right human to, er, donate the blood! Do Seymour's morals hold him back? Well, no, as he soon finds himself able to justify that "that guy sure looks like plant food to me!"

Not that Seymour ever ACTUALLY kills anyone… he just lets nature take its red-in-tooth-and-claw course. With maybe a little encouragement.

As Yoda would no doubt have warned, though, once you start down the GARDEN PATH, forever will it dominate your destiny, and so it is for Seymour as Audrey II goes on the rampage, devouring its way though the florist fauna (i.e the staff) and then, thanks to a greedy garden centre agent persuading Seymour to let him take cuttings, the rest of America and probably the World as well, restoring the ending of the original musical (which goes a bit further than the original flick, but is completely different from the musical movie – it appears that the American test audience did not favour the black humour of the ending necessitating a hasty re-shoot and a happy electrocution conclusion).

I think that the NASTY ending, with the poor old cast singing "Don't Feed the Plants" from inside of Audrey II, is MUCH MORE SATISFYING.

In fact, overall, I would say that this was a theatrical treat which was better than the film.

The only thing missing – we realised as we left the theatre we had ALL been expecting it – was the song "Mean Green Mother (From Outer Space)" which was nonimated for an OSCAR (the first song containing a PROFANITY to be so). But of course, we should have realised that to BE nonimated it had to have been an ORIGINAL song in the movie.


Many of the musical numbers – including the iconic opening song – hang on the talents of Ronette (Jenny Fitzpatrick) Chiffon (Katie Kerr) and Crystal (Melitsa Nicola), a Greek Chorus of city girls who fill the stage with fun, particularly as they mime the full on "Horrors" in that title song. They were really good!

But even more praise is due to Ms Sheridan Smith playing Audrey, unfortunate inspiration for Seymour's botanical Beelzebub. She had great stage chemistry (as well as biology!) with Mr Paul Keating who was engaging and energetic as Seymour. My daddies were quite miffed that the programme did not mention her season on BBC7 as companion to Dr Who, but you probably know her from wall to wall repeats on BBC3 (squeezed in between wall to wall repeats of "Doctor Who") of "Two Pint of Crisps and a Packet of Lager" and "Grown Ups". Well, do not be misled, as she is also great in comedy, as we discovered this evening. Charming, ditzy and in excellent voice, we thought she was marvellous.

Also making a "big impression" [R: groan] was TV's Alistair McGowan, credited as mental dental doctor Orin Scrivello (DDS!) "and everyone else". The theatre certainly got better value for money out of him than that film did out of Mr Steve Martin – though as Daddy Alex pointed out, you can get away with the same actor appearing in multiple roles more when you are in the theatre. And there is something fairly apposite about Seymour being kind of HAUNTED by his first victim.

Here, after a frankly DISTURBING amount of fluffy-tummy flashing as oversexed Orin overdosing on his Nitrous Oxide, Mr McG returns repeatedly in the second half. Thanks to an impressive series of quick-changes, he manages to be three characters in the space of a single song!

But it has to be said that the undisputed STAR of the show is the evil Audrey II, realised by the huge voice of the hugely talented Mr Mike McShane (as seen, in days of YORE, on "Whose Line is it Anyway?") and by a series of marvellous arboreal animatronics, ranging from the six-inch handheld to the ten-foot-tall full body puppet (and more kudos to Mr Andy Heath whose is the full body in question). It sings, it dances, it eats the rest of the cast!

We will NEVER look at one of those dancing sunflowers is QUITE the same way again!

Day 2436: They Think It's All Overwatch… It is now!

Monday:


Acting under the aegis of OPERATION: "SNAP GENERAL ELECTION", British Troops are falling back from Basra palace to the relative safety of the airport.

This withdrawal comes just a week after Mr Frown rejected Sir Mr the Merciless' call to draw up plans for a withdrawal.

Perhaps Mr Frown thinks it is better to retreat WITHOUT drawing up a plan first. Maybe his reputation for doing well in a crisis is GOING TO HIS HEAD!

The Prime Monster does insist that this is NOT A DEFEAT. Perhaps he could remind us what the conditions for VICTORY were, in that case.

Still, I think we can all say that this is A GOOD THING. We would all like to see our troops come home – ideally leaving a SAFE and DEMOCRATIC Middle East behind them… but since that's NEVER going to happen, we should be grateful for as many of them being in one piece as we can manage.

Sadly, we cannot say that this is the end of our overseas commitments, and any troops being withdrawn from Iraq may face the prospect of immediately being shipped out to Helmund Province in Afghanistan. But at least in Afghanistan there is (a) a sort of coherent government that (b) actually wants us there and (c) in accordance with a properly orchestrated United Nations mandate.

(Unlike the Iraqi sticking plaster that the US and UK managed to get the Security Council to stick over the mess they had made by illegally invading in the first place. The occupying armies were "authorised" to take charge of Iraq under Security Council Resolution 1511(paragraph 13) on the grounds that if there was to BE an Iraqi state then the occupying forces would jolly well have to put it back together.)

The "in-no-way-a-retreat" from central Basra can only have been helped by the recent and highly astonishing SURPRISE announcement from leading firebrand Mr Moqtada al-Sadr that his militia forces will be taking a temporary break from terrorising all and sundry.

In fact, this announcement was SUCH a VERY astonishing surprise that a VERY CYNICAL person might wonder if this wasn't some sort of QUID before the British PRO QUO.

Coincidentally, those horrid Taliban in Afghanistan released their South Korean hostages when South Korea promised that they would be withdrawing their forces.



Meanwhile, recriminations over the total Horlicks of the Iraq campaign continue to be hurled back and forth across the Atlantic.

After retired generals from the United States had a go at bad-mouthing the UK, and Pentagon envoy retired General Keane spoke of the US "frustration" with the British, now Britain has deployed her own retired generals in a counter-offensive – or at least an attempt to be offensive in return – with retired General Mike "who's bad!" Jackson calling the US post-invasion policy "intellectually bankrupt" while Major General Tim "quite" Cross called US policy "fatally flawed".


I do not think that this SNIPING at each other is going to HELP very much.

It was WRONG to invade in the first place – we had not got the evidence, we would not wait for the UN Inspectors, we did not gain the support of the international community and most of all, for all Mr Saddam’s BLUSTER, Iraq was not a threat to us.

It is NO GOOD to say that it was all America’s fault – we went along with them. Would we go jump in a lake if they said they were going to do it too?

Accepting our fault – not trying to PASS the BUCK to Uncle Sam – is the only way to start HEALING our battered reputation.

Day 2417: The Elephant's Voice

Tuesday:


While we were away on our hols, I was given a VERY SPECIAL MISSION by Mr Lord Deputy Stephen and the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT VOICE.

But since it is supposed to be EXCLUSIVE, you will have to read my SPECIAL DIARY for Liberal Democrat Voice over there!

It comes HIGHLY recommended!

Day 2411: Foreign Debt

Wednesday:


Sir Mr the Merciless has written to me to ask me to get behind his campaign to make the Government do the DECENT THING and rescue the Iraqis who have been helping our brave soldiers by translating all of the things that the people of Basra have been shouting at them.

Without their help, who would have known what the Iraqi was for: "Please depart like swift angels, you kind and gentle foreign barbarians for we are filled to overflowing with gratitude for your despoiling of this hellhole that was once our prosperous and peaceful land"?

Or indeed how to give our traditional cheery reply of: "We come in peace; shoot to kill!"


Try to understand the Government's position for a moment, though. After they have spent four years spreading PEACE and DEMOCRACY in Iraq, they do seem to think that it is a little UNGRATEFUL of the people who have been helping us to say that WE HAVE MADE IT TOO DANGEROUS for them to live there any more!

Day 2362: Why I turned down a seat in the Cabinet!

Wednesday:


Yes, it was ME!

Mr Frown phoned me up and said: "Uhh, Millennium, uhhh, all my uhhh colleagues in the uhhh Labour are useless uhhh beggers. You wouldn't uhhh consider being uhhh Home Secretary uhhh, would you?"

And I said "No, Mr Frown! I will not!"

Then he tried to bribe me with that seat in the House of Lords Club that I have always wanted, but no, not even to be called Lord Fluffyphant will I join the Labour!

Imagine how SHOCKED and DISAPPOINTED I was to discover that he has been CHATTING UP Sir Mr the Merciless, AND Captain Ashplant too!

What a SAUCY Secret Stalin he is!


But how did this story LEAK OUT?

People have pointed the fluffy foot of suspicion at Mr Frown himself, but would he REALLY go to the trouble? After all the Liberal Democrats are apparently THIRD on his big list of people he DESPISES.

(We are third behind Lord Blairimort, obviously, and everyone in the Labour who has ever crossed him. I am sorry, the words "who have ever crossed him" are redundant in that last sentence!)

But too many people already KNOW he is a SECRET STALIN. Everyone automatically suspects him when stories about his CONFIDENTIAL MEETINGS appear in the newspapers. And nobody trusts him when he says that he wants to be INCLUSIVE. Most people would rather be clutched to the BOSOM of a BOA CONSTRICTOR. If Boa Constrictors HAD bosoms, of course.


No, I detect the fluffy foot of a different party behind this… [pause for Poirot-esque dramatic moment]… the GRAUNIAD! It was YOU, Monsieur!

Remember, the Grauniad have their own agenda, which is basically similar to the Labour's agenda EXCEPT that where the Labour think that all wisdom flows from the party, the Grauniad thinks that all wisdom flows from the Grauniad.

As far as they are concerned, the Liberal Democrats are just being NAUGHTY by not uniting with the Labour in some nightmarish mish-mash of a "party of the Left". That is "Left" with a CAPITAL Grauniad. It does not seem to have occurred to them that the Liberal Democrats are NOT a party of the "Left", any more than we are a party of the "Right"!

This is why, even when they agree with ALL of our policies – and DISagree with all of Mr Frown's authoritarian warmongering and Magna-Carta-burning – they still say "oh, but we say you must vote for the Labour"!

Typically, they would rather see the Conservatories benefit than try to cope with the idea of a party that believes in Freedom rather than its place on some Marxist Dialectic wallchart.

This story helps the Conservatories to UNDERMINE us in the South: they get made up propaganda of the "Vote Liberal; Get Labour" flavour – even though Mr Balloon was trying to get us to join up with HIM for the London Mayor only a couple of months ago, sort of "Vote Merciless; Get Useless".

This story helps the Labour shore up their support in the North: they get to pretend that they are all INCLUSIVE again and Mr Frown DOESN'T alienate everyone who meets him, oooh no.

The only people this doesn't help is US!

So there is an important lesson here for Liberal Democrats too.

The important lesson to learn is that the Grauniad are NOT OUR FRIENDS!




Now, obviously it is a GREAT PITY that Mr Frown cannot find enough people left in the Labour to fill his cabinet with – after all, who REALLY wants to be picked as SECOND BEST Home Secretary after a cuddly toy? – but what we ought to say to Mr Frown is that we are VERY SORRY but we cannot consider a COALITION under the present circumstances.

There are THREE things that we need before we could even CONSIDER teaming up with the Labour:

First Mr Frown, you must stop being EVIL!

I know it seems like a big thing, but if you could just bring yourself to give up I.D.iot cards… and detention without trial… and the DNA database, and ASBOs and Hoodies… and secret rendition flights, and 3000 new crimes, and exemptions to Freedom of Information, and 81,000 people in prisons and… okay, it IS quite a big thing, but please STOP!


Second, Mr Frown, you are just going to have to stand up to the Monkey-in-Chief and tell him you are going to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

The Liberal Democrats thought that Lord Blairimort's Middle Eastern Adventure was WRONG from the get go, while you appear to have quietly GONE ALONG WITH it, signing the cheques from behind the scenes. Well, if we are going to get along, you are going to have to draw a line and put that behind you.

The invasion of Iraq was not and is not the CAUSE of terrorism, but it certainly makes it a whole lot easier for terrorists to go about their DASTARDLY business if you leave lots of people (who might otherwise not turn a blind eye) with the distinct belief that WE are the BADDIES.

British foreign policy should be decided in BRITAIN. Working WITH our European Partners, yes; acting within International Law, Yes; playing our part in the United Nations, YES! But NOT just taking orders from Washington.

That does not mean turning our backs on America, but there are MORE Americans than just their current and quite probably not for very much longer President. The Monkey-in-Chief has recently achieved a WORLD RECORD LOW in approval ratings – do you REALLY want us to be the LAST people on Earth supporting his administration, when even the American RIGHT has dropped him?


And finally, you must give us a proper FAIR ELECTORAL SYSTEM. This is so that people's votes really actually count, and then you should hold a general election so that their votes are really actually counted!

We could not support the Labour remaining in power under the CURRENT system if they loose their majority, because obviously they would have been rejected by the British public and it would be DAFT of us to put them back in again, even if the alternative is to let Mr Balloon drive the country round and round in circles for a bit while he tries to sort out the contradictions in his own party.

But a new electoral system might change that, particularly one like STV where voters can choose which FLAVOUR of a party they prefer – NuLabour or Palaeolithic on the one fluffy foot, "Hello Trees Hello Flowers" Balloonists or Tombstone Conservatories on the other.

But even then Mr Frown, you have to accept that we might choose to join up with Mr Balloon. Or with a different party. Or with no one. Whoever we can get the best shared programme with. Because we are standing because we want to bring people LIBERAL DEMOCRAT polices, NOT just to make it look like you have FRIENDS.

Day 2307: Sir Mr the Merciless Fights for Freedom!

Thursday:


Hurrah! for Sir Mr the Merciless who has been prompted into swift action to defend the Freedom of Information Act.

He stood up in the House of Commons yesterday and challenged Lord Blairimort over the bill introduced by a Conservatory backbencher that would make Parliament EXEMPT from answering DIFFICULT questions like "what did you spend your expenses on?"

Sir Menzies asked: "Do you support this shoddy bill. Yes or no?"

This is just the sort of thing that I was calling for yesterday! May I modestly suggest that I am an ELEPHANT OF INFLUENCE once again!

Lord Blairimort REFUSED to give a straight answer – no wonder we need a Freedom of Information Act!

"I am not going to express a view on this," he said.

Are you not A MEMBER of the House of Commons, Lord Blairimort?

Do you not have an INTEREST in whether you have to answer questions put to you or not?

Do you not have a VOTE on the issue in question? Aren't we ENTITLED to know how you intend to cast it?

Do you actually BELIEVE in the Act that your own government passed, or are you trying to get the Conservatories to water it down EVEN MORE for you by the BACK DOOR?

Here is Sir Mr the Merciless' OWN verdict on the Prime Monster's FAILURE TO ANSWER!

Only effective Freedom of Information will restore trust in our government after all the years of the Labour and their SPIN.

But in fact, instead of answering questions in the open, the questions the people WANT answered, the Labour government CONTINUES to employ underhand off-the-record methods to try and push its agenda.

Earlier in the week, policeperson Mr Peter Clarke warned that LEAKS and BRIEFINGS about ongoing TERRORISM cases damaged the police's investigations and might even put people's LIVES at risk!

Now, Liberal Democrat Mr Nick Clogg has produced a dossier of examples of leaks like this coming out of the GOVERNMENT! Stories that were given to the press but later turned out to be PREMATURE or INACCURATE!

Lord Blairimort rejected calls for an inquiry.

He just does NOT like answering questions, does he?


The Newsnight Show caught Lord Blairimort on camera the other day. "Told any more lies?" came a heckled question. "No, I'll leave that to someone else," was Lord Blairimort's laconic response.

Over to you, Mr Frown…

Day 2254: Total Eclipse of the Ming

Sunday:



Well, at LEAST it wasn't the Trident Atomic Missiles that EXPLODED in our faces!


It has been a bit of an up and down few days for Sir Mr the Merciless, hasn't it? First, he did jolly well on Questionable Time, then he walked into a drubbing from the Newsnight Show, but then he turned the Trident debate around leading from the front, only to have his leader's speech overshadowed by confusion over doing a deal with Mr Frown.

(In this context "confusion over policy" can be translated as "we journalists aren't going to admit to taking a wrong steer".)

I have to admit, my first reaction to hearing the "five tests for a coalition with Labour" spin version was a Homer Simpson/Darth Vader-esque:

"Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

Once Daddy Alex had found a stepladder and pried me down off of the ceiling, however, I thought again and decided that I was COMPLETELY RIGHT the first time!

This Labour government is probably about as ILLIBERAL as you can go without ordering black uniforms and shiny boots. The thought of doing a deal with them – not just with them but with one of the principal architects of the NuLabour "Project" – is TOTALLY HORRID!

How can we even THINK of having a coalition with them?


In fact, we have to face TWO important questions:

Is it REALLY conceivable that we could go into government with Mr Frown's Labour?

And

Is it REALLY INconceivable that we could go into government with Mr Balloon's Conservatories?

The DANGER of Sir Mr the Merciless speech is that it looks like answering YES to both questions.


The core of that speech is his quickly INFAMOUS five tests for Mr Frown.

(1. Are you frowning? 2. Do you bite your nails? 3. Is your mouth hanging open? 4. Are you sulking? 5. Do you have the natural charisma of a dead undertaker? If yes to all five, you are Mr Frown!)

We all know that this was a VERY FUNNY joke about Mr Frown's own "five tests": five impossible things to do before breakfast if you want to join the Euro – and in that sense, it is saying "here are five things that Mr Frown will NEVER EVER do which is why were are NEVER EVER entering a coalition with him!"

But HONESTLY, we have had ten years of the Labour in government and they have come up SERIOUSLY WANTING. Do we really need more TESTS?

And dismissing the Conservatories with a single "Are the Conservatories up to this same challenge? Of course not" appears UNBALANCED – and that opens the door a CRACK to letting people think that you favour Mr Frown a wee bit but Mr Balloon not one jot.

The true tests for the Conservatories surely should be the SAME, but with ONE MORE: have some policies so that we can TELL whether you have changed or not!

And maybe we should even just consider calling Mr Balloon's bluff on this one – ask him if HE wouldn't be willing to join US in a coalition. After all, we know already that he thinks that several Liberal Democrat MPs are BETTER than any of his Conservatory candidates.

(Personally, I do not think that the Conservatories could BEAR the idea of being in a coalition with us, so often do they pour scorn upon us, but maybe some of them are a bit more grown up than their more outspoken colleagues. Hmmm, interesting choice for Mr Balloon: irritate a whole load of loud-mouthed Conservatory reactionaries – and simultaneously surrender in every Liberal/Conservatory marginal – or repudiate his whole Liberal Conservatory persona.)

On the other fluffy foot, although we would certainly get some publicity from the SHOCK VALUE of suggesting we might consider a coalition with the Conservatories, we would be giving entirely too much CREDIBILITY to Mr Balloon in advance of him having a policy on anything at all.

(One of Sir Mr the Merciless' BEST moments was on Questionable Time when, as Auntie Maude shrivelled under cross-examination on the Conservatories' latest marriage-related-tax-break whimsy, he said "no wonder they don't have any policies – as soon as they announce something it unravels within 48 hours". In fact, it was less than 24 hours later that Mr Boy George Osborne was already rowing back, saying they HADN'T DECIDED what the policy actually was yet.)

Because that is the problem of talking up coalitions: it stops us talking about OUR agenda and just makes us a support act for one or both of the other two.

We get little enough coverage as it is. Journalists are usually pretty bright sorts of people, but they do seem to have a habit of treating their readers and viewers as though they are FIVE.

Some of us are SEVEN you know! [R: six, but the point still stands.]

You do not need to talk to us like there are only two nice easy choices. We can cope with a third idea! And if a third idea comes along, well it's not got to lean to one side or the other; it can stand on its own.

But we're not doing ourselves any favours if we make picking sides look like something we're interested in. Because it will let them carry on pretending it is all we are about.

The Sainted Oscar may have said: "There's only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about" but he hadn't thought of the possibility of only being talked about to talk about someone ELSE!

Five ways to answer THAT question:

Mr Charles always managed to deflect the "hung parliament question" with aplomb, but then in fairness after 1997 it never looked like the Labour were likely to lose their majority, mainly thanks to the inadequacies of the Conservatories. Right now, though, the outcome of the next election looks like it could be a toss up between Mr Frown squeaking home with a tiny majority – or minority! – or Mr Balloon managing to come in with most seats. And that makes the "hung parliament question" much more of a HOT TOPIC.

So what SHOULD you say?

1. Push your own agenda instead

"Well, Kirsty/Jeremy/Ant&Dec, I want to deliver Liberal Democrat policies for the people of Britain. Just this week I'm talking about how We Can Cut Crime/make the Green Tax Switch/…"

2. Dismiss the premise

"You already know my answer to this. I'm not interested in making deals after the next election. I'm interested in getting as many votes and as many seat for the Liberal Democrats as I can. And people should know that they can trust us to deliver Liberal Democrat polices in return."

3. Differentiate ourselves from the NuToryLabour parties

"At the moment, Mr Balloon looks like he's already in a coalition with Lord Blairimort, supporting the government on education, taxation, benefits, Iraq… Only the Liberal Democrats are a distinctive voice for change, a change that people are crying out for."

4. Attack the question

"If this IS a legitimate question, why do you never ask Lord Blairimort or Mr Balloon whether they would try do a deal with us or each other in the event of a hung parliament? Surely it is more urgent to know what THEY would do to get over the winning line."

"The outcome of a general election is in the hands of the people, and we should trust them to make their decision when the time comes. To ask about horse-trading in a hypothetical hung parliament after an election that hasn't even been called yet is to take the electorate for granted and I'm never going to do that. People want to hear about our policies. Why aren't you asking me about the environment, or crime, or taxation. These are the questions that matter to people. And on the subject of the environment/crime/taxation just this week I've announced new policies to tackle…"

5. Be Honest

"We would have to wait and see. At the moment we couldn't work with either of them, but things can change. In 1997 I was in favour of a coalition with Labour if it would get rid of the Conservatories and that is no longer the case. There are parts of the Labour Party's agenda that are wholly unacceptable to us – I.D.iot cards, centralisation, all this testing. But the Conservatory policy remains a total mystery to everyone; we hope that Mr Balloon actually spells out his position on the issues, but until then there is just no telling what they stand for. So in the end we might not find ourselves able to work with either of them. In which case we would just continue to do what we've always done – vote on the issues based on our Liberal principles to protect the freedom of the individual and to curb arbitrary power."

Day 2228: You're Past it Sir Mr the Merciless, says DEATH

Tuesday:


Death (3.5 billion), former leader of the not-ongoing SDP (Sudden Death Party), has said that Sir Mr the Merciless (65) is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Well, since he's the man with the hourglasses, is there something he would like to share with the rest of us!

Death suggests that we swap Sir Mr the Merciless and recommends Mr Hewn (52) because he is 42. Er. Maybe some sort of Time Travel is involved. Perhaps we could get Mr Clogg (40) to stand aged 76. Or Ms Lynne Featherweight (21) to be leader at the age of 55! I could stand and I am 7!

[R: He is 6 but this is getting confusing enough already!]

Death also thinks Mr Hewn is a Young Turk. At least I HOPE he said Turk.

Mr Death HAD issued a longer statement – but by the time it was published, it had already split.

Day 1970: Sir Mr the Merciless Gets Tuff

Friday:


Good news and bad news today.

The good news is that it is another Friday with Liberal Democrat policy making the headlines.

The bad news is that the headlines are saying that Sir Mr the Merciless has decided to lock people up forever.

Here is my response to the headlines: we are never, ever EVER going to win by trying to be tougher than the Labour and the Conservatories on law and order.

That is because they have gone INSANE.

Sir Mr the Merciless may be, well, merciless but he is never going to scoop out his big brain with a ladle and join Lord Blairimort and replacement safety elephant John Reid in their desire to electrocute fair dodgers and to reintroduce transportation to Australia for breathing without a licence.

The other parties will ALWAYS call us "soft on crime"; in fact they do it in that VERY article:

"But junior Home Office Minister Joan Ryan said: "…His party is still soft on crime and soft on thugs."

Colour me not so very stunned in fact.

We are well known as being the party that says "now, just hang on a minute!" and not being the rush to judge, convict, hang and flog 'em party. The short term advance of getting onto the Today Programme again for a few minutes is a BIT outweighed by the long term disadvantage of making all the civil liberties people VERY VERY CROSS.

We Liberal Democrats have a STRONG and UNIQUE position of being the party of HUMAN RIGHTS and STANDING UP FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE. That means saying that punishments should be APPROPRIATE not VENGEFUL; that means being for REHABILITATION and not RETALIATION. It means thinking about the solutions, not just shouting about the problems.

The airwaves are already full of reactionaries crying "fifty years in prison is too lenient; make it one hundred!"

Joining that croaking chorus makes us sound very much like "me too". (And also sounds very much like Sir Mr the Merciless desperately trying to change the record from "leader in crisis". Sir Ming, you AREN'T in a crisis so stop flapping your arms and squawking!)

BUT

But, but, but…

Having had a fluffy fit about all that, I then went away and read what Sir Mr the Merciless ACTUALLY SAID. And felt a lot less cross afterwards.

(Funnily enough, this is the EXACT opposite of what happened when I went away and read what Mr Balloon ACTUALLY SAID about happiness and supermarkets being a great place for the over fifties to work since they were now useless. VERY happy making, I think not.)

Reading Sir Mr the Merciless's words, I discover that there is ACTUALLY a different story behind the headline grabbing announcements like "no votes for Hannibal the Cannibal!"

Missed by the news people was the WHOLE POINT of the speech: Sir Ming wants to tackle the UNDERLYING causes of crime, particularly the low-level crimes (petty theft and burglary) that disproportionately affect the worst off in society:

"Crime is a liberal issue too because the victims of crime are often the poorest, the most vulnerable and the least influential in our society. Those who are least able to protect themselves and their property are the most at risk.

"A party which is serious about social justice, cannot fail to be serious about preventing crime and enforcing the rules."

"The better Liberal Democrat approach is to use ‘ASBO plus’. This means ASBOs come with a package of measures to persuade the offender to mend his or her ways, and to supervise progress. "

Merciless on Crime; Merciless on the Causes of Crime, you might say.


And there are several point where Sir Mr the Merciless EMPHASISES the need to make our prisons and parole service work more to REHABILITATE:

"…for the illiterate and inadequate it should be an opportunity for education and rehabilitation with early release conditional on progress and achievement."

"…offering offenders a way to pay back for the harm they have done to the community. "

"Money spent on rehabilitation is money saved on keeping people locked up. We would reallocate resources to boost provision, and offer prisoners a choice: prove your worth or lose your chance of parole. "

Plus the usual Liberal Democrat suggestions of PRACTICAL solutions to the problem of the Home Office and LOCAL answers for safer communities that are really working.


We need to make it clear that, yes we will deal firmly with the REALLY nasty people, but we also want to tackle the problems that cause the sort of crime that is REALLY to blame for most of the misery but is too trivial and too un-sexy to be covered by the news headline writers.

As usual, we aren't very good at SPIN, so Sir Mr the Merciless's speech got caught up in the SPIN CYCLE of the media. For them, the sizzling, soaraway story is "Lib Dems to change minds".

The REAL story should be "Lib Dems to change HEARTS AND MINDS".

Because filling the prisons to bursting and leaving people there forever has been tried and it doesn't work.

And we have a better answer.

Day 1959: Dead Ringers

Monday

It is a new series of impressionist comedy from the DEAD RINGERS and this means that they have got to try out their new PARTY LEADERS.

It sometimes seems that the public pay more attention to comedians than they do to politicians: how many politicians catch phrases catch on? How many of those catch phrases are ACTUALLY comedians DOING the politicians? (Who remembers Mr Major saying "I'm still here!")

Mr Ian Hislop often says that Lady Thatcher was HELPED by the way comedians and cartoonists characterised her as STRONG or HARD or MANLY. It was only when they started to suggest that she was POTTY that they did her any damage.

Comedians often have to keep a closer eye on public mood than politicians because if they are out of touch they will not be FUNNY! And they will only be funny if there is an element elephant of TRUTH in what they say.

Mr Culshaw does a very good Lord Blairimort (this week sharing the bunker with Adolf Hitler and Lady Thatcher). "People of Britain… who hate me…" hurt expression; haunted eyes; Gordon's-stabbed-me-in-the-back shoulders…

Unfortunately their new leaders were, um, not so very good.

Sir Mr the Merciless was done as an old man sat in the corner waiting for the nurse to vacuum around him. I do not think we would have guessed it was him if he had not introduced himself. In fact, in many ways, it was their same portrayal as Mr CK1 Kennedy. Only in a CARDIGAN.

I think that this must be because Sir Mr the Merciless has not made a big enough impact with the public yet.

WE all know that he is rather less this and rather more this.

But he has clearly not done anything OUTRAGEOUS enough to stick in the public mind yet. Maybe he should use his RED LIGHTSABRE to decapitate ALISTAIR DARLING at question time. Or would nobody notice?

Mr Balloon was portrayed as a breathless PR man writing down on is flip board any policy that he was sent by people who phoned in just to have something to support. We could tell it was him because he was joined by Mr Culshaw as Mr William Vague.

This is probably rather MORE disappointing for Mr Balloon who has had a lot longer as leader than Sir Mr the Merciless, plus all the free publicity that shiny-headed Nick Mate-of-Dave Robinson could get him and STILL he doesn't seem to have made enough of an impact to have a proper caricature yet.

Because the Liberal Democrats depend quite a lot on the leader to get ANY media coverage at all, it does not HELP our cause very much for Sir Mr the Merciless to be just an old man sat in the corner. BUT because we are ALSO very much into local campaigning this does not HURT us so very much either.

On the other fluffy foot, the Conservatories are generally seen as EVIL and rely RATHER A LOT on Mr Balloon's media image to make them seem even remotely palatable, so it is probably much the worse for them if he's being seen as a bit of a PHONEY.


Professor Robert Winston's Life on Mars was funny, though.

Day 1955: Sir Mr the Merciless Strikes Back!

Thursday

Ordinary QUESTIONABLE TIME was supposed to come from Belfast this week but that was cancelled in favour of a SPECIAL EDITION from London.

At first we thought that this was because Mr DIMBLEDUM had refused to get on the EASY JET to Belfast, but no, it turned out that it was because of the LOCAL ELECTIONS last week and the events at the court of Lord Blairimort that were too exiting to let go past without a good GOSSIP!

(What a shame that the LOCAL ELECTIONS came as such a surprise to us all, or Mr Dimbledum could have planned for this in advance!)

It was jolly good too because it starred Liberal Democrat leader Sir Mr the Merciless along with one-time Conservatory big beast Lord Tarzan of Hessleswine. In keeping with the theory that Lord Blairimort only promotes people who will cover his bottom on television, newly elevated chief-chicken Mrs Hazel Blears was there to do her "I'm so disappointed with you all" look whenever someone was critical of the Labour. Also Piers Fletcher-Dervish who I THINK used to be an idiot on the telly.

We thought that it went VERY WELL for Sir Mr the Merciless. Mainly because he was being Merciless.

We already know that people see Sir Mr the Merciless as TRUSTWORTHY, but it is good to see him being a good PROSECUTOR as well. It is important that he has the right QUESTIONS with which to focus the debate onto the crucial area: WHAT is the government doing? IS IT what people want them to do? ARE they doing it right? SHOULD they even be doing it at all?

Even better is when he can say: why are they not doing THIS instead?

I have written down the questions and tried to remember some of his answers:


Question One: Blair has made his cabinet ministers pay for mistakes they have made. What makes him so invincible or unwilling to pay for his mistakes?

Asked by Mr Dimbledum how long Lord Blairimort can last: He'll go in 12 months on the day of his 10th anniversary in Downing Street – or the day after since that would be the day of the local elections.


Question Two: Is it right that a man past retirement age with a title but no job should continue to enjoy two free houses, £133,000 salary and a couple of Jags?

If John Prescot were to be sacked there would have to be an election for the post of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and if there is an election for Deputy Leader how much greater the chance of there having to be an election for the post of Leader of the Labour Party. John Prescott remains there as protection for the Prime Minister, but paid for out of public money – that's your taxes and mine. And I object to that.


Question Three: Does the lack of any clear Tory identity or policies mean that a Labour government will be in power beyond the next general election?

Here's what I say to Mr Cameron: "Where's the beef?" (Eek! That's what I said!) The environment is too important to wait for eighteen months for Mr Cameron's ideas; here are the Liberal Democrat policies…

Question Four: The wrong intelligence led to the Iraq war and intelligence services sadly failed on 7/7. What is the answer?

There should be a public inquiry – just as in America they had a full, open inquiry in Congress and the Senate – so that people can have confidence that the government is fulfilling its first duty: to protect the people

Question Five: Is the hijacking of planes a legitimate means of gaining permanent status in the UK?

A very good answer: of course we should give human rights to these hijackers, even if that makes me unpopular with some members of this audience.

We should be able to rely upon the judicial system to get it right, and not make mistakes that get cases thrown out, and then punish people in the proper way for the hijacking, but after that process is over and quite separately we should then consider whether it would violate their human rights if we were to return them to Afghanistan.

What we need to remember is that human rights are there to protect all of us, and you never know when you or your family or friends might need them.


The other panellists were MUCH less impressive.

In fact, during the first question, Lord Hessleswine became very CONFUSED and forgot who was who in the Cabinet. (Daddy Alex said that if they treated him the same as they treated Mr Charles CK1 then the media would use the clip over and over to try and imply Lord Hessleswine was DRUNK! I bet that they don't!)

And we were a BIT worried that Mrs Blears has started to talk a bit like the MINISTER FOR MAGICAL ACCIDENTS.

I wonder if this, this and this might be the explanation!

Mrs Blears made one man in the audience VERY CROSS (and my Daddy Richard too) when she was saying that the horrible TERRORISM in London last July had been nothing to do with INVADING IRAQ. "You sit there and say that you listen to the people," shouted the audience man, "but a million people marched to say no to the war and you didn't listen then!" Mrs Blears gave him her I-pity-you-for-being-a-pleb look and said the issue was too complicated for him to understand. This made Daddy Richard shout a LOT of things at the television but I do not think I can write any of them down. Except maybe "…PATRONISING…!!!!".



Yesterday, Mr Mike Smithson of POLITICAL STIRRING DOT COM hazarded a salvo against Sir Mr the Merciless followed (uncannily) by this editorial in the INDEPENDENT.

I think people are saying this because Sir Mr the Merciless has been a bit bad at Prime Minister's Questions a few times. He needs to spend summer practicing it a bit and get some better helpers for his preparation. But it really does not matter. King Paddy of Bosnia was not much good at it either and that did not matter then. Mr William Vague was very good at it and he still crashed and burned in the real world.

The ONLY person for whom it MATTERED was Mr Iain Drunken-Swerve because he was rubbish OUTSIDE the House of Commons AS WELL AS in it. If he had kept his Conservatory troops happy at PMQs they MIGHT not have all stabbed him in the back when they did. But they probably would have anyway!

The important thing, then, is that Sir Mr the Merciless is making sure that the party in parliament are all well organised and happy and feel that they can talk to their supreme leader and that he is listening to them. Since they are Liberals getting them all singing from the same hymn sheet is harder that HERDING CATS. And besides, we have heard them sing at GLEE CLUB!

It seems to ME that too many people are listening to the Conservatories when they keep BRAYING ON about how Sir Mr the Merciless is OLD. Oddly enough, the Conservatories have an AGENDA when they say this, and it may shock you to learn that it is NOT that they have the BEST INTERESTS of the Liberal Democrats in mind.

Far be it for me to suggest that they FIB, but really!

Sir Mr the Merciless has SENIORITY and WISDOM and GRAVITAS and RESPECT in BUCKETS compared to the new leader that the Conservatories have chosen. Mr Balloon has not demonstrated that he is good for ANYTHING yet apart from SOFT FOCUS PHOTOGRAPHY and picking up HUSKY-DOG DOO-DOO. "Newness" is all that he has so OF COURSE the Conservatories keep going on about how everyone else is OLD.

If Mr Balloon's "newness" is so jolly good – why did the Conservatories not put HIM or one of his "new" CHUMS on this SPECIAL-EDITION LORD-BLAIRIMORT-IN-CRISIS Questionable Time?


Here is my advice for today: Liberal Democrats should not try to SPIN. We are not any good at it and it does not do us any good anyway.

Stick to saying what we think to people's faces.

Day 1934: Blimey! It's the Upstairs Neighbour!

Thursday:


Daddy Alex had already conked out, and Daddy Richard was on his way to bed last night and I was watching NEWSNIGHT, like I do sometimes, but paint me stripy and call me a zebra if I didn't see the lady who lives upstairs, on the TELLY!

Unfortunately, she was in the audience for another turn by second-rate STAGE MAGICIAN Frank Luntz, who was doing his "AMAZING" mind reader act again.

So I have been upstairs to ask her what it was like!

The first thing I learned was that everyone there arrived with pretty strong opinions, angry about being let down by the government, whether it was over crime or education or the health service. Mr Blair and Mr Frown were going to be on a hiding to nothing with this audience right from the start.

In spite of what you might have seen on the telly, the audience was not REALLY that positive for Mr Balloon. They were open minded, and willing to listen to what he might have to say, but so far they don’t know what to make of him as he hasn’t got any policies. What they wanted to say was that they were being shown Mr Balloon at the start of his career – and they all remembered how they had felt much the same about Mr Blair back at the start of his career. AND they remembered how BETRAYED by Mr Blair they feel now. So they were wary of him as well as open to him. Though on the whole they were pretty certain that he WAS a TRUE BLUE Conservatory. Just like Mr Blair.

The NEWSNIGHT piece kept SUSPICIOUSLY QUIET about Mr the Merciless. But there in the room, apparently he got a very strong response: he was very much the man that the people in the studio TRUSTED, and he was the man they thought would be BEST for LOCAL GOVERNMENT (not, I have to say, for NATIONAL government, where they felt – interestingly – that they wanted more of a “PARTY” politician). They also felt that the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS were the party most trusted to get things sorted out locally.

I hope I have represented their views properly.

I think that this is all very interesting because it shows that NEWSNIGHT put QUITE a different SPIN on what they really said.

Oh, I forgot to ask her: would it make a difference if she knew that Mr Luntz was at University with Mr Balloon and his little gang of friends?


For those of you who don't know, Mr Luntz CLAIMS to be an expert in polling opinions and then "AMAZINGLY" convinces the audience that they THINK that his old university CHUM Mr Balloon is best. Last year he pulled off this trick at the Conservatory Party Leader contest and along with Mr Nick Mate-of-Dave Robinson helped to get Mr Balloon his job.

Mr Luntz is a bit of a DODGY GEEZER as these people have noticed.

His TECHNIQUE involves playing clips from the TELLY to the audience and giving them a KNOB to twist.

At the risk of upsetting the MAGIC CIRCLE, I will now tell you about the FIVE rather obvious ways that he can TRICK them.

Number One:
He gets to choose the audience.

The people in the studio are described as "SWING voters", but that COULD mean that they are voters who swing between Conservatory and one of the other parties.

Something like between SIXTY and SEVENTY percent of people WON'T consider voting for OPUS DAVE – they prefer to choose between the Labour and the Liberal Democrats or one of the other parties like the Nationalists or the Greens (NOT Mr Balloon's Blue-Greens). And they are all KEPT OUT by Mr Luntz's TECHNIQUE.

So, he could actually pick an audience with a subtle Conservatory bias and still describe it in a way that sounds (to coin a phrase) FAIR and BALANCED.

Number Two:
He gets to choose which clips to play.

Oddly enough if you play the audience ten minutes of MR FROWN droning on about exponential growth in targets for widget straightening, then the audience is going to start thinking that MR FROWN is a bit BORING. If you follow that with Mr Balloon getting lots of applause for making one of his snappy speeches about how he likes NICE things then the audience will quickly feel more positive about him.

Number Three:
He gets to choose which bits are seen by up people watching the telly.

If he shows the audience in the studio a ten MINUTE selection of clips, but then only picks out ten SECONDS to broadcast on NEWSNIGHT then it is EASY to pick and choose the bits that make it LOOK like Mr Balloon is getting the popular response and Mr Blair is going down the plughole or Mr the Merciless is flat in the middle.

(You can see this from the fact that the clip we saw of Mr Balloon was of him getting APPLAUSE and at that point the lines were going up. Well DUR! Speeches are written so that the audience response goes UP at the points were you're meant to clap!)


Number Four:
He controls the lines that appear on the screen.

The lines on the screen are SUPPOSED to represent the responses that he is getting from the studio audience TWISTING their KNOBS. But how do we KNOW that their KNOBS are connected up to anything at all? And even if they ARE, it is not difficult to FAKE the line going UP and this ENCOURAGES the audience to dial UP or to FAKE the line going DOWN and this ENCOURAGES the audience to dial DOWN. People LIKE going with the flow: if the MOOD seems to be "this is BAD" then people start to AGREE that it is bad and will start to say so. Even if the line is FAKE to begin with, people can remember that they AGREED with it afterwards.

(Pollsters see this after ELECTIONS: more people will SAY that they voted for the WINNER than actually DID vote for the winner because people like to be IN with the CROWD, especially the WINNING crowd.)

Number Five:
He gets to ask the questions afterwards.

At the end of Mr Frown's go, he can say "Oooh, you all seem to find Mr Frown very BORING – why do you find Mr Frown BORING?" This means that people are ALREADY thinking in terms of how they JUSTIFY saying that Mr Frown is BORING. People who DON'T think he was boring are more likely to keep quiet because the MOOD of the room is against them and they don't want to stick their neck out. So it LOOKS like the whole room is AGAINST Mr Frown. (And if anyone says anything positive, then Mr Luntz can edit it out before it goes to telly.)

Then he can ask: "Now, the response to Mr Balloon was REALLY AMAZINGLY POSITIVE – why are you so positive about Mr Balloon?" And the people who can think of positive things will answer with those positive things. It is like being back at school and KNOWING THE ANSWERS: it gives you a GOOD FEELING to tell teacher what he wants to hear.


He also uses some more SUBTLE psychological tricks.

In his Tory-leader bit last year, he had photos of the five candidates up on a board at the front, but a bit to the right of the middle where the telly was. I think it was Malcom Rifkind on his own at the top, then on the first line were Mr Balloon on the left and Mr Davis David on the right and then Fatty Clarke and Fantastic Doctor Fox on the bottom. This may sound like a really SILLY thing, but it is actually a basic PR TRICK: the first one you look at is Mr Balloon and you associate him with left, nearer the centre, and first. Mr Davis David then looks like the man who is right, extreme, and second. Mr Rifkind is isolated and also looking down on you, the others are losers because they are second rank. It is a GIMMICK that PR people use to PRIME their audience: it doesn't work on it's own but it is there to make them EASIER to LEAD.

For last night's piece, the walls of his studio were decorated with portraits of the party leaders in a variety of different colours: I saw Mr the Merciless in Red and Blue, for instance. The aim here is to BREAK UP the usual party/colour associations so that it EMPHASISES the "they're all the same" feeling in people's heads. AND probably to undermine the Labour's new "Dave the Chameleon" campaign by making ALL of the leaders be chameleons too.



His last question was "I'm just a dumb American: you all seem pretty angry about a lot of issues but you re-elected this government last year. Why did you do that?"

You can tell he is being DOUBLE CLEVER here because he claims he is being DUMB!

This is CLEVER (in the sense of INSIDIOUS!) as it puts the studio people on the back foot: it makes them look for SOMEONE ELSE to BLAME for the things that they are cross about (because otherwise it's THEIR OWN fault!)

So you could pretty much guarantee (which is JUST the way that a STAGE MAGICIAN does MIND READING) what they will say: "We hadn't got a proper choice" and "All the parties are the same."

This is all to ADD to the TRICK of making people think that Mr Balloon is NEW and therefore DIFFERENT, even if it is the ONLY difference, while everyone else is OLD and part of the SAME old failures.

Add to that the TWIST that you are SAFE to vote Conservatory because the other parties are not so different. This is just the same as Mr Balloon's current "Vote Blue Feel Green" (translation: "be selfish; I'll cover for you") campaign to make people THINK voting Balloon is OK.

Of course this is a GREAT BIG FIB.

In the first place, we did NOT re-elect this government last year: they ONLY got 35% of your votes. But the SYSTEM is RIGGED so that Mr Blair STILL got a majority that he DOES NOT DESERVE.

(It is in the interest of Mr Blair AND Mr Balloon to keep the RIGGED SYSTEM because otherwise they might have to listen to what PEOPLE actually WANT, rather than using FOCUS GROUPS like Mr Luntz's little trick gathering!)

And in the second place, the parties REALLY ARE NOT that similar.

(Although, to be FAIR, Mr Balloon has NO POLICIES at the moment, so he MIGHT be identical to Mr Blair or he MIGHT be identical to GENGHIS KHAN, he just wont tell us. Which is NOT VERY HONEST, really, if you THINK about it.)

If you want a party that will try to control everything, to fix everything, govern from the centre, do everything for you, nanny you from cradle to grave so long as you fill in all the right forms and feed all of your life into an INSANE COMPUTER in exchange for a bit of plastic card and don't mind paying huge taxes to be spent on checking targets (and they might also bomb a Middle Eastern country or two, but don't mind that as they won't ever ask you for a mandate to do it) then you have Mr Blair's gang.

If you want a party that will try to give you the best start in life with free education to university level and the most dignity in old age with a proper pension and free care when you need it but then expects you to take some responsibility for the environment and for your local services because they will hand power down to the local level and want to change the system so that it isn't rigged in anyone's favour (even their own) then you can vote for Mr the Merciless and the Liberal Democrats.

Or if you want a party that, er, employs a STAGE MAGICIAN, well I suppose you've got Mr Balloon

Day 1887: Emperor of the Universe

Friday:


Last night Daddy Alex found a photograph of me from years ago. "Look how clean he was back then," he says, prompting Daddy Richard to start mopping my fluffy features with a damp cloth. Personally, I think bits of sticky bun add a certain distinction to an elephant's face, but Daddy was having none of that.


Also, the Liberal Democrats have chosen a new leader. This was called an ELECTION, which is a bit like The Apprentice but without ALIEN LIZARDS. (Probably.)

The Liberal Democrats do elections with Single Transferable Vote. That means they only have one vote but they pass it around so that they all have a turn to use it, which sounds FAIR to me.

Apparently, Mr Blair prefers One Member One Vote so long as he is the One Member with the Vote. Mr Balloon's Conservatories prefer a system called First Past the Port. They say that Single Transferable Vote is TOO COMPLICATED. That is NOT RIGHT! I am only a fluffy elephant but I can pick first second and third – even without being a count like Daddy – so it cannot be THAT difficult!

Anyway, the winner was Menzies the Merciless, who beat Mr Who and Mr Hugs. Menzies is a funny name, because although it is spelt Menzies it is pronounced Throat-Warbler Mangrove.

Mr the Merciless, or to give him his full title: Sir Mr the Merciless, was apparently an Olympic Runner. The Olympic Games were held in a country called Greece THOUSANDS of years ago, so Sir Mr the Merciless is doing very well to still keep going! It is probably VITAMINS.

But since then, Sir Mr the Merciless has been an EMINENT lawyer. That is very nearly an ELEPHANT lawyer, so I hope he will be able to help me when Mr Blair LOCKS ME UP for glorifying James Bond.

The best thing about Mr the Merciless is that he has lots of nice young friends including Sarah Teather who is my favouritest MP because she is the same size as ME!




In a way, I think that it is a shame that Mr Who did not win, because then he could have teamed up with Dr Who and that would have been very funny.

Also, I think that it is a shame that Mr Hugs did not win, because I think that HUGS are good – I AM a CUDDLY toy, after all.

Fortunately, because this is not The Apprentice, Sir Mr the Merciless did not say "You're Fired" to Mr Who or Mr Hugs, so I hope that they can all work with him.


Now I think that the first thing Sir Mr the Merciless should do is replace his old battle bus with WAR ROCKET AJAX!