Day 4146: Upgraded Underpants

Tuesday:


Whenever I hear "exploding underpants"* it's hard not to think of Bojo the Clown, whose re-election as Lord Mayor of London Town has inspired some of the more FRUITY Conservatories to come out fighting for more "traditional" Conservatory policies.

Which is ODD 'cos Bojo's nine-point-plan puts LOTS of emphasis on investment for jobs and growth (points 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. And probably 7 too. And maybe 9.) and distinctly NONE on cutting immigration "to help the working class (i.e. BNP-voting) poor", 'cos Bojo may be BONKERS but he's not STUPID. He just tries hard to LOOK stupid!

London's economy, the most powerful and only GROWING part of Great Britain, RELIES on immigration and on diversity, on the energy and innovation and culture that comes with everything from Brick Lane to gay-daddies getting married. And Bojo KNOWS that.


The idea that the Coalition Parties each just lost loads of Councillors because the Coalition is not Conservatory ENOUGH is just LAUGHABLE.

Quite apart from anything else, we KNEW when we signed up for this Coalition that it was going to be HORRIBLE, that we'd been handed a CHALICE that was not just POISONED but bought on HIRE PURCHASE with the BAILIFFS on the way round! Of COURSE we were going to get roughed up because it's the Government's JOB to take the BLAME. I've said before that we chose the long and painful but ultimately safer path out of the depression, rather than the wild borrow and gamble approach. But that's not going to make things any easier along the way.

But if you really WANT simplistic analysis, then CLEARLY it's because the Coalition policies are TOO MUCH CONSERVATORY, not too little.

Look, the Liberal Democrats are widely seen as losing votes because we've become TOO CONSERVATORY.

And you can trace the moment that the fluffy bottom fell out of the Conservatories' polling figures to... Master Gideon's top-rate-of-tax-cutting Budget, when suddenly the Conservatories looked TOO CONSERVATORY too!

The unravelling of the Budget was all about the spin that it was a tax cut for the rich paid for by hitting pasties, grannies and charities. And, ironically, conservatories.

For some Conservatories it is time to play the "Personal Incredulity Fallacy". THEY have a personal bug about "gay marriage", or Equal Marriage as we call it in the real world, and House of Lords Club reform so they ASSUME that the voters have a bug about Equal Marriage and House of Lords Club reform.

Rather than, say, Mr Landslide's "ever so popular" NHS reforms or Mr Gove's "widely lauded as uncontroversial" Free Schools or Mr Drunken-Swerve's "not in any way likely to have caused a fuss" slashing of Welfare Payments (the cuts hitting hundreds of thousands of families in the month before polling).

Sadly, imposing your personal fantasies on the electorate will not get you elected.


But never mind that. And let's put to one side the fact that most Conservatory Home readers would almost literally die of horror at the thought of an Alternative Queen. And let's look at those Conservatory Home Alternative Queen's Speech Bills in full:

1. British Bill of Rights Bill

Funny how Conservatory's say "no one is interested in Civil Rights" when it's Equal Marriage and say "nothing could be more vital" when it's their own Little Englander hobby-horse.

It is unbelievably difficult not to smell the XENOPHOBIA all over this one. "We want to send bad people to bad places and we don't care if bad things happen to them even if they turn out not to have been bad people after all, and now nasty foreigners are saying we ought to stick to the list of HUMAN RIGHTS even if it was US that wrote it, wahh!".

Which part of FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS do these people not understand? It can't be FUNDAMENT. And it can't be MENTAL. Cos they've demonstrated plenty of BOTH.

2. Promotion of Competition Bill

a) Water companies to compete on what appears to be a Railtrack basis with the pipes owned by a separate company. Not a recipe for disaster at all, then.

b) More banking competition, including breaking up RBS. Don't swoon; this bit is actually good.

3. Rail Improvements Bill

Scrap HS2 and tackle bottlenecks and reduce overcrowding instead. Tricky one this, as we should really look at the evidence and decide which is the better investment of limited resources. If they could back up their case with some facts, this might be convincing.

(For some reason, also includes high speed broadband roll out – why not in the competition bill?)

4. Make Prison Work Bill

(Are we saying prison DOESN'T work? Are we admitting Mr "Something of the Night" Howard was wrong?)

Solution, basically, export the problem. Repatriate non-British citizens and make 'em serve sentence abroad (assuming we CAN, and that's not a recipe for "foreign murderer/rapist/paedo released early in foreign jail outrage" type headlines) + send mentally ill to social services (who we're sure will cope and that's not a recipe for "loony murderer/rapist/paedo strikes again in not in prison outrage").

5. Fairness to British Taxpayers Bill

(i.e. Hand the Foreigners the Bill Bill)

a) Charge an "entry fee" for foreign road users to cover "wear and tear" of British roads

You can see how this appeals to the "it's not fair" mentality of the little-Englander. And fortunately, as a nation of traders there's no way that a hike in the cost of transporting goods INTO Britain could possibly be passed on to consumers here. Er.

b) Charge an "entry fee" for foreign tourists for entrance to British attractions e.g. museums

Fortunately, Britain has no massive tourist industry that generates important foreign currency income, so adding an extra disincentive to visit Britain will do no harm to the economy there either. Er.

c) Charge foreign people who get sick for use of NHS

Actually this happens already but "enforce" it by putting an statutory obligation on trust Trusts to collect – because they don't "trust" then to collect! Nice. And there's nothing like refusing to treat people with communicable diseases for keeping those epidemics out there in the population.

6. Affordable Energy Bill

Translation: "cut subsidies for generation by more expensive means" means "cut subsidy for green renewables" therefore placing more reliance on imported energy (i.e. LESS affordable energy bills).

Or fracking. Hilariously, injecting water into shale rock to force gas (and earthquakes) out was SO wildly economically UNVIABLE that no one even considered doing it until the price of oil and gas went through the roof.

7. Anti-congestion bill

Make councils let cars drive faster.

8. Double EU referendum bill

OK, now we're getting to the real fun.

Part One: hold a referendum to pre-determine (bind the hands of) the Government's negotiating position in renegotiation of a treaty with the other 26 EU members that is NOT up for grabs.

Part Two: then hold a second referendum to agree to the outcome.

How many ways can this POSSIBLY go wrong?

How do you even HOLD a referendum on a negotiating position? What's the question going to be? "Do you agree that the Prime Monster should go to Europe to demand the Abolishing of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Repeal of the Social Chapter, the Sinking of the Spanish fishing fleet, the Bulldozing of Strasburg, the Introduction of Driving on the Left Continent-wide and the Compulsory Imposition of Dairy Milk as the European Chocolate Standard, but we're willing to cave on all of that so long as you let us measure beer and milk in pints, tick one box Yes or No"?

Are the "Yes" campaign supposed to become the "No" campaign if the negotiations go fluffy-bottom up?

Will ANYONE on the other side of the Channel even take this seriously? Ms Angular Meercat is already telling Greece off for "getting their election wrong".

Note also that the wording pre-supposes that we WILL be repatriating powers, the referendum will just determine what and how much. This is called "begging the question".

9. Education (Choice and Opportunity) Bill

Private companies to provide schools on a fee-paying basis. No chance THAT could be portrayed as "privatising our schools" is there. Oh, because it IS.

And it certainly couldn't be portrayed as turning the clock back FIFTY YEARS. Which to be fair would only make Mr "Boro" Gove's British Empire history lessons TWO decades out of date instead of SEVEN.

Admission by academic achievement (which in no way favours those able to afford tutoring, er).

A "percentage" of profits to be reinvested. So that'll be a percentage lower that 100%, I guess.

No mention of removing Eton and Harrow's status as "charities" though.

10. University Standards Bill

aka The Waahh, Vince Cable got his way over the head of OFFA so we want to abolish it Bill.

11. Double Devolution Bill

Tax-raising powers (and hence blame) to be sent to Scotland. Fair enough. English votes for English laws. Riiiiight.

Funny how Conservatories say "No one is interested in Constitutional Reform" when it's the House of Lords Club and not when it's their own Little Englander hobby-horse.

12. Finance Act (don't we get one of those anyway?)

Putting the "you're 'aving a laff" into the Laffer Curve.

The next budget should "increase" the amount that rich people pay by, er, cutting the top rate of tax from 45% to 40% and cutting the rate of capital gains tax to from 28% to 20%.

Didn't that just work out SO WELL in the Budget. See above. And also your current poll rating (-10% in a month).

Admittedly, it might be that YOU see the need to differentiate from US as much as WE Liberal Democrats want to disassociate ourselves from the nastier ideas that YOU have. In which case, we will keep our tax cuts for the least well off and you are welcome to be the Party of tax cuts for the super-rich. Good luck with that!

13. Trade Union Members' Bill

Further neuter Britain's remaining Trades Unions by requiring 50% turnouts in strike ballots. You know, just about one and a half times the turnout that turned out so 'enthusiastically' to give a 'massive' popular mandate (not a gay-marriage euphemism) to that 'popular new old-style Tory hope' Bojo the Clown.

Oh, and slice off Labour's funding by giving the Unions the "option" of donating the political levy to good causes instead. Why not just have them buy Lottery Tickets?

Next step, what, house arrests for Mark Serwatka and Bob Crow? I know they're ANNOYING but... didn't we used to live in a DEMOCRACY?

14. Electoral Integrity (Yes, We Have None) Bill

Requiring everyone to turn up at the polling station in person – with I.D! – if they want their vote. Like THAT'S not going to deter anybody from voting. Like THAT'S not going to disenfranchise anybody. And what would be the chances that it's easier for the well-heeled to get to the polling station and they're more likely to have passport/driving licence/credit card I.D. to hand. Our democracy is pretty robust and widely trusted as it is.

And it's I.D.iot Cards again. AGAIN! Not content with learning ALL the wrong lessons from the most disgusting Replutocrat malpractices of the US of Americaland, you want to adopt the NEW fluffing LABOUR playbook too!

Examples of voting fraud are shocking BECAUSE they are so few and far between. They need to be tackled, but the way to tackle them is by having council officers CHECK people who want a postal vote by going to MEET them. Whereas this is a rather naked attempt to put people off voting altogether.

And finally...

15. House of Lords Reform (Now We're Really Taking the Piss) Bill

Having based their entire article on the unsupported assertion that we should not at a time of economic woe be considering legislating for reform the House of Lords, they conclude by proposing... legislating to BLOCK reform of the House of Lords, and to waste everyone's time and even more money by prancing naked round the issues yet again, this time with a Royal Commission, like the business of reforming the Lords hasn't been Commissioned to DEATH in the ONE HUNDRED YEARS since we started.

Anyone signing up for this LIED in their 2010 manifesto and should be required to RESIGN their seat IMMEDIATELY.


In conclusion, Popular Conservatoryism is an OXYMORON. By which I mean a member of the Bullingdon Club.

But as the Conservatory Homeboys themselves put it:

"Popular Conservatoryism is pro-poor and broad-based"

By which they mean FAT-ARSED and in favour of MORE poor people.



It's important to remember that the Coalition was supposed to be about finding solutions through GOVERNING.

We CAN'T just pass laws to make problems go away. We don't believe that works! We're not Hard Labour! Their insane machismo of pushing more and more LEGISLATION through the House of Commons like lard through a mangle solved NOTHING (except for a temporary assuaging of Lord Blairimort's addictive craving for a new Press Release every five minutes).

What Mr Dr Vince is doing DAY to DAY in the Department for Business is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than any number of "Willies, look at the size of my waving of, Bill" bills in Mrs the Queen's Speech.


Mr Milipede has some cheek when he says that people want "answers not excuses" from the Coalition.

"Excuses" from Hard Labour for the economic shambles precipitated on their watch so far: the bankers, Europe, the bankers, America, the Tories (don't help them), the bankers, world economic conditions, the bankers, the Crimson Pirate Life Assurance Company, and the bankers.

"Answers" from Hard Labour: ...

But never mind that because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than Mr Opportunist and his Bandwagon of Merry Persons.

Why HAVE we failed to deliver so far? Isn't it because the Conservatories have had us sticking TOO RIGIDLY to the Plan A for Austerity when we SHOULD have been TESTING the outcomes and ADJUSTING as we went? That's EVIDENCE-BASED policy making.

We should look at Cap'n Clegg's schemes to bring forward infrastructure investment and the youth programme, and at Mr Dr Vince's plans for more apprenticeships and support for British winners as the RIGHT way to respond to the deepening crisis.

In short: LESS Conservatory DOGMA; MORE Liberal Democrat FLEXIBLE RESPONSE.



*I know, I know it's a "terrorist atrocity" in the making but, seriously, how can ANYONE think that HUMILIATING THEMSELVES by trying and failing to blow off their rude bits in the cause of murdering a lot of people is going to get them anything but the POINT and LAUGH treatment in any imaginary afterlife they might, well, imagine?

I genuinely think that massive amounts of DERISORY LAUGHTER is a better way to counter these numpties than the sort of massive security overkill that makes them think they're important.
.

Day 2678: Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

Friday (just):


Very Well Done Mr Brian!


The results of the London Mayoral Election of 2008 have just been read out:

First Preferences:

Suicide Boris (Conservatory): 1,043,761 (43.2%)
Mr Ken (Labour-Newzilla Alliance): 893,877 (37.0%)
Mr Brian (IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIM!!!!!!): 236,685 (9.8%)
Ms Sian Very-Berry (Taxi Party): 77,374 (3.2%)

Second Preferences:

Suicide Boris: 1,168,738 (53.2%)
Mr Ken: 1,028,966 (46.8%)

So Bozza is Mayor. Eek!


So Bozza is Mayor. Eek!

We are off to bed now. Maybe when we wake up it will all be a dream. Or, in Mr Vague's memorable phrase, a Night Mayor!

Day 2654: Brian Begins

Monday:


Mr Brian has launched his campaign to be London's next Mayor, pledging a Contract with Londoners and springing into action with CSI Liberal Democrat.



He then clashed with the other candidates, the Labour's Mr Mayor Ken and Mr Balloon's bumbling bounder, Suicide Boris, on Newsnight.

Boris (Tessa Jowell isn't going to ban ME from calling him that!) had earlier been broadcasting in black and white to disguise his florid appearance emphasise his gravitas and seriousness. He was very serious. Very serious INDEED.

UNFORTUNATELY, Newsnight then proved that he DIDN'T KNOW the costings of his own centrepiece Bendy Bus policy.



(Hat tip: Dr Pax)

It is a shame that too few people watched this IMPLOSION for it to make a significant difference. Boris seems somehow able to ride out GAFFES like this, or like bragging that his house was worth SHEDLOADS to the SHELTER/CRISIS Hustings, or admitting to snorting cocaine to Janet Street-Pothead.

HOW are London's police supposed to reduce the drug crime (and associated knife and gun crime) that make people fear their own streets when the Conservatory candidate for Mayor thinks that Class A drugs are just something he "got away with"?

The fact that this CRIMINAL vacuum in rumpled suit and hair might end up being elected Mayor of London fills me with TERROR!

Equally, his inability to answer the question clearly filled Mr Paxo with fury, as Ms Featherweight reports.

Mr Ken was, understandably, trying to play up his SUCCESSES of the last eight years: like the way he has successfully slipped out of his promise only to stand twice, or succeeded in raising the Congestion Charge after promising not to. Er. He made another promise, to resign if he raised the C-Charge on smaller cars… you can decide for yourself what that's worth given his (stuck) record.

Of course, he was also keen to stress that anything that has gone wrong will be somebody else's problem. Problems on the tube… not him guv, don't you know he opposed PPP? Crime on the streets… can't blame Mr Ken, don't you know the Labour have solved all known crimes (so they've had to invent a load of new ones!)?

He's very good at his: "I'm a perfectly reasonable guy, honest as the day is long, no you can't ask me about the stolen money, that sort of thing happens all the time you can't expect ME to know how every penny is spent, can you?" shtick. He never answers the question, but he doesn't have to because Suicide Boris reliably goes into one of his "I yi yi yi yi've never been so, oh oh oh, goodness corks!" blusters and Mr Ken can just keep protesting innocence and no one hears that neither of them are saying ANYTHING.

A case in point was when Mr Brian as trying to press Mr Ken on the deadly bendy buses. One of Ken's minions had, apparently, threatened to cut off police funding if they investigated a death by bendy bus; Mr Ken whined on that the victim was three times over the legal limit. Yes, but he's still DEAD Mr Ken, and the police OUGHT to be able to investigate without your HEAVIES threatening them! Boris, though, just starts Oompah-pah-oompah-pah-ing about the buses and Mr Paxo let's Mr Ken get away with another non-answer.

If Mr Brian has a PROBLEM in this debate, in fact in this entire campaign, it is trying to get a word in edgeways. When he can get a chance to speak, it is clear that he KNOWS HIS STUFF, and is on top of his brief – on transport, for example, he had a clear message about trams as opposed to Boris's daydream of a new Routemaster, and a plan that would cost no more (over ten years) than the Labour's Mr Ken wants to spend on buses. Or on crime, where he's got the experience and the ideas and knows that what we need is to reconnect the local police with the people that they serve, to rebuild the trust so that we can cut crime TOGETHER.


Obviously he is TOO POLITE to use his police training to render Ken and Boris unconscious, but…

Day 2643: Terminated

Thursday:


Heathrow, and CHAOS descends on the opening day of shiny new Terminal Five, with "technical glitches" leaving passengers unable to get to planes and baggage unable to get anywhere!

It's a RELIEF that they'd been told NOT to use the BIG-BROTHER fingerprint taking system or things might have gone from UNMANAGEABLE to completely ANARCHIC!

If this is what happens when they open a new terminal, I dread to think what they could achieve if they opened a new runway!

Of course, all the candidates for London Mayor have united against the third runway…

…giving me a DAYTIME TV link to the Mayoral campaign!

The Labour (and by extension their allies in this campaign, the Greens) actually SUPPORT a third runway. Mr Balloon and the Conservatories are against it one day and for it the next depending on whether it's a sunshine and quality of life day or an economic competence and big business day.

This leaves Mr Brian and the Liberal Democrats as the one Party not sending out MIXED MESSAGES.

The INTERESTING thing about the London Mayor election is that you get to vote TWICE, once for the candidate you like and once as a back-up.

I am indebted to Mr Julian of Orange By Name for going to the trouble of asking the other three parties to send him articles explaining why THEY deserve our second preferences. I think that not only is this the LIBERAL thing to do, it is also a GOOD IDEA for us not to become so PARTISAN that we become ISOLATED and disappear up our own thinking.

But it is also interesting to compare the three different STYLES that they use for their appeal.

First up were the Greens who, having already shot their own credibility dead by saying that their own supporters should vote for Mr Mayor Ken, were trying the INTERESTING tactic of begging OUR supporters to vote for them.

Telling the Liberal Party that the VERY Liberal Mr Brian isn't a Liberal is a bit of a DUMB STUNT anyway, even if your arguments don't all get totally shot to pieces by Citizen Alix!

In contrast, the Labour actually seem to have understood what the second preference vote MEANS, and make a pitch based on "why Mr Ken is like you". Although their clear aim is to build a London-wide coalition on the grounds of "Keep Bonkers Boris Out", they also try to make a positive case.

On the other fluffy foot, bringing up Iraq and the Environment just emphasises what a HYPOCRITE Mr Ken was to put returning to the Labour above his so-called principles. And suggesting that the Mayor who has treated the London Assembly with such contempt is an advocate for London Democracy… is probably just bunged in at the end as a joke.

Still, marks for trying.

The Conservatories though, really DON'T get this idea of reaching out to other people AT ALL, with an article steeped in typical Conservatory arrogance:

"We're going to win, so you'd better join us in giving the Labour a real kicking 'cos then you might stand a chance at the General Election of winning some seats off them to make up for the seats we're going to take off you. So ner!"

Quite apart from alienating people their supposed to be appealing to, casually dismissing the huge policy gulf between Bonkers Boris and reality (never mind the Liberal Democrats) and making no attempt to make a positive case for their own candidate seems to accept that Bozza is basically un-sellable.


Mr Brian himself, on Any Questionables, was pitched the "who would you vote for second" question and did VERY well explaining that people who tell him they WANT to vote Liberal Democrat but feel it will be a wasted vote CAN vote for the candidate that they want first because they have a second vote to fall back on for their arty loyalty. Top marks for an answer that could have been scripted by My Daddy Alex… in fact, it WAS!

Ah, countered the junior Mr Dimbledonkey thinking he sensed an ELEPHANT TRAP, but why won't YOU be using YOUR second vote?

Mr Brian recovered brilliantly: because for me, my conscience and my party loyalty coincide, he said smartly, and I'm not allowed to vote for myself twice.

Huge applause covered the sound of Dimbledonkey slinking away tail between legs.

I should also add that Mr Brian had a very good answer to the last question (bringing me back to where I started): if you were trapped at Terminal Five, how would you drown your sorrows?

Mr B said he couldn't drown his sorrows because he is in TRAINING for the London Marathon, though jogging around the Terminal might be good exercise. And he got in QUALITY name-checks for the three charities causes that he is supporting in his run: Downs Syndrome, Strokes and Mr Elton John's AIDS foundation.

Londoners, clearly if you want to fly, you want to fly Liberal Democrat!

Day 2632: Bendy Buses Banned – Barracked By Bonkers Boris Braying Boisterous Boastful Bombast

Sunday:


Oh fluffy dear: this looks like a bit of a surrender from Mr Mayor Ken, sneaking out the news that he's ending his fleet of spontaneously-combusting mobile road-blocks on the day before the Mayoral election officially gets under weigh.

This comes on top of a YouGov/Evening Standard opinion poll that gives Bonkers Boris a SIZEABLE lead in first preferences of 49% over Mr Mayor Ken's 37%. (Mr Brian, the only SERIOUS choice, starts the race on 12%.)

This means that the actual result is either going to be very embarrassing for YouGov or really FANTASTICALLY embarrassing for London!

Mayor Ken seems to think that he can get away with criticising Boris's transport policies and then stealing the centrepiece of his plan!

But that does not so much rob Boris of his platform as make Mayor Ken look desperate and out of ideas AND make Boris look CREDIBLE. Yes, that IS hard to believe, isn't it!

"I…yi….yi…yi… I should say something REALLY crazy and…and…and see if he does that too," said Boris, speaking at the launch of his new proposal to abolish Tuesdays.

Why are people STILL being fed a false choice between this berk who barks at bendy-buses and that creep who covers-up for crooks?

Day 2450: Suicide Boris Blunders In

Thursday:


We woke this morning to the sound of Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson spluttering his way though an interview on the The Today Programme and denying that it was inevitable that he would be the Conservatory candidate for London Mayor.

Inevitably, he is.

I am not sure what was more alarming – the fact that he appeared to have done NO PREPARATION for the interview whatsoever, or the possiblity that this is what he is like when he HAS!

"Um um um um um," he said in reply to a question about terrorism. Terrifying indeed!

But I am getting ahead of myself. He had opened with the INTERESTING promise that he was both going to interfere less AND to put a stop to building "rabbit hutch dwellings" (or FLATS as most Londoners who have to live in them call them). Wasn't this a contradiction, he was asked by Today's Mr Naughty. Mr Boris explained – he wasn't in favour of affordable housing in new developments, but he did want new buyers to be able to afford houses.

"By day I like to worship the little baby Jesus, and at midnight I sacrifice a goat to Beelzebub and I see no contradiction in that," …is actually something Mr Jeremy Hardy once said while pretending to be Lord Blairimort, but the quotation seems apposite for some reason.

Clearly used to the dark art of "sexing up" a CV, Mr Boris then tried to make it look like he had the EXPERIENCE for the job by claiming to have run an eleven-million pound business. Now there're a number of things here – firstly, there IS a difference between a business with a TURNOVER of eleven million (like Boris's magazine) and controlling a BUDGET of eleven million. Someone with real experience would know that; if you don't, then confusing one with the other leads to making a LOSS.

But secondly, there is the question of what "running" the business actually means. Mr Boris's Beano, The Spectator, has an OWNER (at the moment it is the notorious Barclay Brothers) and a PUBLISHER (you will no doubt remember Ms Petrolpropeller Wyatt and her, er, friendship with suddenly-former Home Secretary, the very-generous-with-his-expenses Mr Bluntgit) – Mr Boris's title was "editor", wasn't it?

Isn't the editor USUALLY responsible for picking the writers, trimming their articles and supplying the leader column?

The person who actually RUNS the business has to get the sales, oversee production and publicity, pay the employees… you know, all the trivial but vital details of actual management.

So was Mr Boris actually doing any of that, or was his full time job just wining and dining the guest writers and then doing the tiniest touch of EXAGGERATION?

Actually, it would be interesting to know what Mr Boris thinks a FULL TIME job really IS.

At the moment he is doing quite a lot of MOONLIGHTING from his supposed occupation as representative for the people of Henley, earning AT A MINIMUM a-hundred-and-fifty-five thousand pounds from speaking and appearances (it could be up to two hundred and seventy-five thousand – there are twenty-four engagements earning him five to ten grand or ten to fifteen grand and so on), and that's WITHOUT the nearly quarter of a million that the Torygraph are paying him to work for them as a columnist.

It DOES all seem to cut into his time. He has only been able to speak in 16 debates this year, and only managed to turn up to vote 52% of the time, both well below average among MPs. It must be jolly inconvenient for him that all those after-dinner speeches and TV studio recordings clash with those boring old debates in the House of Commons that he is supposedly being paid to attend.

He didn't even seem sure whether he would give up his Westminster stipend if he actually (imaginary god help us) became Mayor of London, blustering about Mr Ken staying on as an MP before finishing with a grudging "oh well I suppose I would."

But then, of course, there was the terrorism question: was he SERIOUS enough, Mr Naughty wanted to know, to speak for London in the aftermath of an outrage like the July 7th bombings?

"Um um um um um," said Mr Boris.

Had it not even OCCURRED to him that this was a VERY OBVIOUS question to be asked? Did he just BUMBLE into Broadcasting House, fluffy head empty of any plan or thought, and just walk onto the punches as they came? Is this NUMBSKULL really, REALLY the best the Conservatories could put forward to run London? Had the "Have I Got News for You?" TUB OF LARD turned them down?

After his horrible rabbit in headlights moment, Mr Boris tried to recover by blethering on about uniting London people. Like people will be united by an elitist Old Etonian whose career reads like a catalogue of "It's WHO you know, not WHAT you know" (I mean WHO just goes from the Wolverhampton Express & Star, excellent organ though it doubtless is, to being Daily Torygraph leader writer?). It is important to distinguish the concepts of "popular TV personality" from "butt of a popular joke on TV".

Am I worried by Mr Boris? Yes, very worried – worried because people might think that it is FUNNY to vote for this gonk on the SPURIOUS basis that he is a "larger than life" personality. Well, so is Godzilla and just LOOK what a mess he made of Tokyo when he was Mayor there!

Mr Ken – no stranger to personality politics – has let down a lot of Londoners with his unaccountable antics and ignoring of the suburbs and we need a proper challenge to him, a challenge to him on POLICIES for London, not who has the silliest hair and voice.

Liberal Democrats have the policies and have the serious candidates. We've always said that we stand a BETTER chance than the Conservatories of beating Mr Ken in the run-off if only we can get into second place. If Suicide Boris continues to follow the Ealing Southall "Dave Balloon's Conservatories" trajectory – big name, big publicity, big launch, big splash, sinks without trace, big mistake – then this may turn out to be our best chance yet!