It would be easy to lose sight of the fundamental dodginess of this week’s events, in terms of giving the electorate a fair deal:
1. The constituencies are still ridiculously imbalanced, in favour of Labour. The opposition won the numerical vote in England and Wales last time, but not the constituencies, by some distance.
2. Scorched earth economic policies are an abuse of power
3. Most irritatingly, these tossers (and future tossers, under the current arrangement) can fiddle everything to suit them in terms of the date of the election. Would they tolerate this in America? They don’t, because their excellent constitution fixes the terms.
This last point is what this week has been about, hang on, get a bit of luck in the polls, indulge in nauseating manipulative behaviour (Morgan), then claim the momentum, and announce the date.
There are amusing things in all this, happily: scorched earth policies can bite you back; Labour might get to keep Gordon (not a nice thought for them); and that dealing with the disastrous finances without the luxury of blaming your predecessor may be a bit too tall an order, even for a deluded maniac like GB.
In any event, The Knife remains confident of a Dave win – not perfect, but a huge improvement – and is visiting the bookie’s. Latest odds are interesting:
|Conservative Overall Majority||4/7|
|Labour Overall Majority||10/1|
|Liberal Democrat Overall Majority||200/1|
|No Overall Majority||7/4|
Also enjoyable is Minette Marin, today:
“Whatever the truth of Andrew Rawnsley’s portrait of Brown, the prime minister is without a doubt the strangest, most emotionally dysfunctional person I have met. We were together at a dinner once and I felt that his inability to behave remotely normally was almost pitiful.
At times he fixed a broad, exaggerated smile to his face, almost randomly it seemed, and directed it at someone, but he kept getting it wrong — the wrong moment to smile, the wrong person to smile at and occasionally the wrong place to smile at. When challenged by one guest on some difficult economic point, he kept baring his teeth in the opposite direction, at the lovely bosom of a guest on his other side who was not part of the conversation. He made me think of an android with faulty programming.
Brown had not endeared himself to other guests at drinks before dinner with his arrogance. Lecturing several of us on the merits of Latin and the humanity of Adam Smith, he made it plain he assumed we were all less well educated and less intelligent. He had misjudged his company but had neither the quickness nor the social skills to pick that up or put it right, and this at a moment when he was clearly trying hard to make friends and influence people. When challenged, as an honest man who prized honesty, to put right, if only in private, a certain dishonest statement in parliament that day, he weaselled out of it.”
The kind of person that you’d cross the street to avoid, is not usually the person you’d vote for as PM. Or is it?