Gordon Mubarak

I've just been listening to the speech by Suleiman to the crowds protesting in Cairo. It was astonishingly badly-judged. Even at this distance, it irritated the hell out of me and sounded both complacent and insincere - and I'm not even Egyptian.

Then I remembered why. "We understand your concerns. We will do better. We have set out structures that will meet your democratic demands. We are of the people. Changes are being implemented. You must be patient. We care about the country. The President is anxious to preserve all the great things that he has achieved. We only need a little more time to get it right ..."

Yup, it's Gordon Bastard Fucking Brown all over again.

No wonder they are rioting.

Seven Up

They have just pulled the seventh miner out of the ground.

What a stunning achievement. Virtually everything is being done for the first time, with equipment designed for the occasion. Everything is going as it should. And it's not just the ground-breaking (heh) engineering. The men are in remarkably good condition, and are a testament to the care that they have received while underground.

What has perhaps been the most surprising aspect has been the involvement of the politicians. The President, Sebastian Pinera, and the Mining Minister, Laurence Golborne, have been a constant presence, and have been actively involved in the operation. No doubt it will be doing their approval ratings a bit of good, but their involvement seems genuine. Contrast Gordon Brown's photo-opportunities in Iraq - staged backgrounds, managed situations and visible disenchantment by the soldiers involved.

Caught out in a cliché

Oops. When I made a remark in a recent post about Gordon Brown's farewell speech, which reminded me of the death of the Thane of Cawdor in Macbeth, I didn't realise that half the bloody Labour Party had got there first. Ross has the details:

What the pundits say about Brown's exit:

Kevin Maguire-"Nothing became him as the manner of his leaving"

Donald Macintyre- "Appropriately perhaps it's a line from the Scottish play that may act as his epitaph – political rather than actual, of course – that "nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it". "

Daniel Hannan- "For once, the word “tragedy” is exactly apposite. I have laboured the Brown/Macbeth parallel so often as to try the patience of every reader of this blog, but it is appropriate to close by quoting that play one more time: “Nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it”. "

Jackie Ashley- "Nothing became him so much as the manner of his going."

It might be worth getting the lines right, for a start:

Nothing in his life
Became him like the leaving it;

Macintyre and Hannan: 8/10 (where did the 'of' come from?)

Maguire and Ashley: 4/10 (OK in an exam, from memory, but poor otherwise).

What do they do for O-level these days? Critical analysis of The Very Hungry Caterpillar? Notions of Kingship in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas?

The similarities between Gordon Brown and Macbeth are superficially attractive - powerful but doomed leader faces destruction through superior force - but ultimately don't work. Macbeth achieved his position through an act of brutal murder at the behest of his ambitious wife. I can't really see Sarah goading him into getting rid of Tuscan Tony through appeals to his manliness, can you?

When you durst do it, then you were a man
And, to be more than what you were, you would
Be so much more the man ...

Act I Scene 7 is dripping with sex: Lady Macbeth's goading and taunting of Macbeth is all based on his insecure masculinity and her obvious sexual power over him. All she has to do is suggest he is a wimp, and he will do anything to prove her wrong - including murdering his own King, who has treated him like a son. I've often thought that he would have been much better off to have flung her back over the bed, ripped off her kirtle and given her a large one, just to make his point. It would have been much less trouble, in the long run. But Twittering Sarah and Gloomy Gordon? No, I don't think so.

The comparison also falls down at the end of the play. Macbeth has brutalised his way to ultimate power (yes), all his yes-men have deserted him (Comical Ali and Ed Bollocks were still there when I last looked) and he is facing certain defeat by a superior English force advancing under the cover of stolen foliage (well, possibly). And yet, in that famous scene where he fights with his nemesis, Macduff, he achieves a kind of glory.

They have tied me to a stake; I cannot fly,
But bear-like I must fight the course ...

Lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be him that first cries "Hold, enough!".

I know he is a rotter and we are not supposed to like him, but I always feel a certain admiration for Macbeth at this moment. He's trapped in his castle, and all his people have deserted him. The English forces surround him. Having just found out that his supposed invincibility was only a trick played upon him by the Witches, and facing certain defeat at the hands of a more powerful adversary, he doesn't cave in or whimper for mercy, but grows in stature and fights purely for his own honour, for himself, rather than power or position or wealth or to prove how big his willy is. For all his murderous sins, he dies a heroic death. Parallels with Gordon Brown? Some, but I'm not convinced.

I would see Brown as Coriolanus. Brilliant general, but fundamentally flawed; too proud to listen; and killed in the end by those he trusted for his betrayal of their plans.

Co-starring Peter Mandelson as Tullus Aufidius.

The Thane of Cawdor

... Nothing in his life
Became him like the leaving it; he died
As one that had been studied in his death
To throw away the dearest thing he owed,
As 'twere a careless trifle.

Brown didn't quite express his "deep repentance" or "frankly confess his treasons" as the Thane of Cawdor did, but he made a decent job of the farewell speech. Probably the most honest, most straightforward and least manipulative speech he has ever made. Well done.

And now, with the kind permission of Obsidian, I will go and make another dent in that bottle of Balvenie Signature. Yes, there is some left; and no, there won't be any for anyone else.

Happy days.

Not Dead Yet

A lot of blogs seem to be crowing that "Gordon Brown has resigned". One even popped a virtual champagne cork.

No he hasn't. I listened to the speech live, and this is what he said:

If it becomes clear that the national interest, which is stable and principled government, can be best served by forming a coalition between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, then I believe I should discharge that duty to form that government ...

But I have no desire to stay in my position longer than is needed to ensure the path to economic growth is assured and the process of political reform we have agreed moves forward quickly.

In other words, I will resign when

a) a stable government between Labour and Liberal Democrats has been formed (how long before we can be sure it is 'stable'?)

b) the path to economic growth is assured (how will this be measured?)

c) the process of political reform is moving forward quickly (agreement on PR? referendum fixed for PR? referendum won on PR? PR established as new voting system and fully bedded in?)

Achieving all of those could take months, or even years, depending on how you define your terms. And Gordon is very good on hidden meanings that suggest one thing but mean something entirely different. Read any Budget speech for examples.

He's not gone yet, not by a long way. As with the Vampire, celebrations should only start when the stake is firmly in the chest and the body no longer moves. Anything else is foolish and premature.

Brown - just not getting it AGAIN

So your party has just emerged from an election, at which you have lost a large number of seats and share of the vote, and another party leader is talking to you with a view to an alliance that will keep you in power.

Are you nice to them? Treat them with respect? Take their approach seriously?

Not if you are Gordon Brown.

According to Jon Sopel, quoting a "very senior Liberal Democrat source" who is "close to the negotiations", Clegg phoned up Brown for a discussion, and Brown was rude to him. Some choice quotes:

Apparently, Nick Clegg is reported to have told Gordon Brown to resign, and that is where the conversation started going badly downhill, apparently.

The "senior Liberal Democrat source" said that it was a diatribe, it was a rant, and that Gordon Brown was threatening in his approach to Nick Clegg, and that Nick Clegg came off the phone at the end of it, feeling ... that the person in the shape of Gordon Brown would be someone it would be impossible to enter into a partnership with because of his general attitude to working with other people.

This has been "strenuously denied" by Downing Street, from "sources very close to the Prime Minister".

You pays your money and you takes your choice, but the source I spoke to ... I would say was reliable.

Just like with the original bullying allegations, this story has been denied by Downing Street, but to an average observer, it just fits with what we know.

There is plenty of evidence around now that says that Gordon Brown is an aggressive and controlling bully who does not tolerate dissent. If Clegg comes to any agreement with Labour that does not involve Gordon Brown stepping down, then he is toast - both electorally and personally. Brown would eat him for breakfast, daily. With Marmite on, and a cup of tea.

Further confirmation that the man is totally unsuited to his high office. How the hell is he still there?

Source

Brown on trial

If only.

Him and that smarmy millionaire exile warmonger Blair. If only.

This fiction will have to do.



H/t The Last Ditch

Dealing with Hecklers

There was a time when the ability to deal with a heckler was an essential skill in the kitbag of every politician. Election meetings were usually public affairs, and the response of the audience was far from predictable. The politician had to be prepared for almost anything, and have an ability to think on his (or her) feet. Someone would shout "What about the workers?", and the speaker would reply "This gentleman asks about the workers. Well let me tell him something about our policies ..." Handled well, it showed good humour, an ability to answer tough questions, and a working ability to remember policy detail and relate it instantly to real situations. Handled badly, it showed everyone you were not on top of your game.

Now that everything is done through the medium of television, that streetfighter skill is not in as much demand as before. But seeing how a politician deals with the unexpected still tells you a lot about them.

Today, all three party leaders faced unscripted interruptions to their careful plans. Cameron and Clegg were heckled in the street (no links yet, sorry), got slightly flustered, answered their questioners, and got back on with campaigning. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown was giving a speech to the party faithful (again) when a heckler interrupted. What happened next tells you all you need to know about Brown's lack of humour, flexibility and spontaneity and New Labour's knee-jerk control-freakery:



Note how he carries on reading from the autocue and maintains the weird grin. He says that "there'll be plenty of chances to answer his questions later" - not 'answer your questions', as if Brown will deliver his speech and leave, with questions picked up by junior assistants later on. The heavies bundle the guy out (why? he didn't look angry or threatening to me) and the event carries on. It showed that, to Gordon Brown, the script is everything, and nothing can be allowed that deviates from the plan.

I bet someone got it in the neck afterwards, though. "Who arranged that? Who allowed that to happen? Sue, I think. Ridiculous."

Just imagine how Cameron or Clegg would have dealt with it.

Edit: I've just noticed the carefully arranged doughnutting at the end. Five people, all young and well presented, and all clapping wildly, surrounding the smiling head of the Great Leader. The Kim Jong-Il school of crowd management.

Feeling Sorry For Brown

I was itching to post something yesterday, after the 'bigot' gaffe, but everyone else in Blogland seemed to have said everything necessary. So here are my thoughts after a short reflection.

On one level I feel sorry for Gordon Brown. As Nick Clegg said, "If we all had recordings of what we mutter under our breath we'd all be crimson with embarrassment." I have come away from meetings or social occasions and said things to my companion in private that were highly uncomplimentary in all sorts of ways. If I had to answer for some of the things I have said in those circumstances, I doubt if I would be invited anywhere much these days. But we keep our innermost thoughts to ourselves and those we trust, and our social and professional lives can carry on under the convenient pretence that we all like each other, hold much the same views, and admire each others' taste in curtains.

So when poor old GB was heard saying what he did in the car following the encounter with Mrs Duffy, it was a 'there but for the grace of God' moment.

But of course all that sympathy is totally outweighed by the sheer awfulness of what the comments revealed. And let's put to bed the idea that (as claimed by a lot of Labour-supporting commenters on CiF, and even John Prescott) this was somehow an underhand sting by the evil Murdoch-owned Sky to trap an innocent man. The microphone was, as I understand it, supplied by Channel 4, and was a 'pool' mike, with the output available to all news organisations. Brown knew it was there, and it was only carelessness that let him forget it was still live. I don't see much of a right-wing plot there.

Should anyone have reported what they heard, when Brown clearly thought he was in private? If the remark had been a personal one ("Can we find a bog sometime soon? I am desperate," or "I must get to the doctor to ask about this discharge"), then of course it should have been kept private. But the remarks he made were directly relevant to the issues he had just been discussing with a voter, and revealed a disrepancy in attitude that is surely of great interest to the nation who are shortly to be asked to vote in a general election. So, in my view, publishing his remarks was completely justified.

A couple of observations about the actual incident:

• It wasn't a difficult encounter, as some have claimed. Mrs Duffy put some questions to him, and he gave the standard answers. He was friendly to her, and she seemed happy with the meeting afterwards. If it had ended there, Brown would have emerged with some credit for meeting a 'real' voter for once and coming across as more-or-less human. There was no reason that I could see for his weary frustration at how it turned out, still less the blaming of an aide for the 'ridiculous' choice of interlocutor.
• The fact that he could characterise someone who raised the immigration issue (politely and without any derogatory language) as a 'bigot' tells us volumes about the way that the left regard the way 'ordinary people' think. If Mrs Duffy had gone on about "all these 'ere Pakis coming over and taking our jobs", I would have called her a bigot myself - but her question was anything but bigoted.
• The killer aspect for me was the way that Brown sought immediately to blame someone else - anyone - for the encounter. "You should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?" Of course, this now looks all of a piece with other things Brown has said - the economic crisis that 'started in America', the shortage of equipment in Iraq that was the fault of the generals, and so on. There's definitely a psychological flaw here: an inability to take repsonsibility for things, a desire to blame others for anything that goes wrong.
• The grovelling apologies (six at the last count, according to commentators) only added to the negativity. He claims he 'misunderstood' what she had said, and wanted to correct it. Or, from another angle (choose from the pick'n'mix excuses), that he hadn't had time to explain himself to her because of all the press, and wanted to tell her personally. I would have had more respect for him if he had said that he regretted the use of the word 'bigot', but that her attitude seemed to him to be prejudiced, and he was merely letting off steam in private. Not ideal, but no real harm done, and no attention from the world's press for the best part of 24 hours.
• The incident serves to confirm those reports of Brown's bad temper and willingness to lash out when things get difficult, so roundly denied by his cheerleaders.
• It shows Brown as utterly two-faced. His cheerful bonhomie to Mrs Duffy at the end of the meeting ("Good to meet you! Good family!") changes to sotto voce cursing the minute the car door shuts. We are entitled to ask ourselves if much of what we see of Brown in public is similarly artificed.
  

There were any number of ways to play this one, all of which would have left Brown looking a little disdainful, but undamaged. As it was, he managed to snatch a wholly negative outcome from a minor incident that any other politician would have turned, if not to their advantage, to a neutral and forgettable occasion.

Is this a game-changer for the last week of the election campaign? Too early to say, but Brown's performance tonight in the last of the debates is now more crucial than ever.

QOTD

After yesterday's Labour stunt with the Elvis impersonator, Charlotte Gore has the comment to cap them all:

Labour, it seems, is going to die sat on a toilet with its pants round its ankles, blowing a blood vessel trying to poo out a stubborn, rock like turd that’s been lodged up their colon for the last few years: Gordon Brown.

Culpability Brown ...

... the most punchable face in Britain?

View from the Bunker

Iain Martin from the WSJ blog has a brilliant take on the likely events inside No. 10 this morning. Here's the flavour, but the whole thing is worth a read.

Sarah Brown (brightly): “Are you ready to go to the Palace to see the Queen, Gordon? Did you put on my favourite mauve tie of yours? You did. Let me look at you… you look sooooo smart. I am so proud of you Gordon.”

GB (beaming): “Thank you. Come and join us, Sarah. We were just talking about the election and I was saying that if I just had a few more days I could really, really get the Tories and that man Cameron, and then we’d be ahead in the polls and then we could continue the work of change and… and… get on with delivering a fairer future… for… for… Britain?”

Sarah: “Well that’s very interesting Gordon, dear. But I think Ed is right. Gordon, it is time.”

GB (nervously): “You don’t think if we just waited for a few more minutes?”

Sarah (quietly): “No. No more delays. (Quickly brightening again). But what did we discuss last night? What did I tell you Gordon?”

GB (looking pleased as punch): “That I’m going to win the election.”

Sarah (nodding patiently, taking his hand and leading him out of the room and down the corridor toward the front door of Number 10): “Of course you are. And why are you going to win Gordon?”

GB: “Because I saved the banks and then I saved the economy. I’m a serious man for serious times, not like him (glowering now)… that Lord… Lord… Lord Snooty Cameron and his pal Osborne… "

Marvellous. And, of course, psychologically true, even if literally not.

Gordon Brown's Legacy

Froma commenter called Mazza1230 on the Grauniad's politics blog, a rather nice take on the magnificent legacy that Comrade Brown will leave us.

At last Gordon Brown decided to throw the towel in and resign. His cabinet colleagues decided it would be a worthy gesture to name a railway locomotive after him. So a senior 'Sir Humphrey' went from Whitehall to the National Railway Museum at York, to investigate the possibilities.

"They have a number of locomotives at the NRM without names," a specially-sought consultant told the top civil servant. "Mostly freight locomotives though."

"Oh dear, that?s not very fitting for a prime minister," said Sir Humphrey. "How about that big green one, over there?" he said, pointing to 4472 Flying Scotsman.

"That's already got a name" said the consultant. "It's called 'Flying Scotsman'."

"Oh. Couldn?t it be renamed?" asked Sir Humphrey. "This is a national museum after all, funded by the taxpayer."

"I suppose it might be considered," said the consultant. "After all the LNER renamed a number of their locomotives after directors of the company, and even renamed one of them Dwight D Eisenhower."

"That?s excellent," said Sir Humphrey, "So that's settled then? Let's look at renaming 4472. But how much will it cost ? We can?t spend too much, given the expenses scandal !"

"Well", said the consultant, "Why don't we just paint out the 'F'?"

I Know Naarthing!

I posted something recently about Gordon Brown's retreat into 'it wasnae me' mode whenever things got awkward:

• Mr Brown said that he had been unaware of key questions surrounding the legality of the invasion, the intelligence used to justify the war publicly and Mr Blair’s secret “pledge” to join the United States in military action.
• ... the Prime Minister admitted he had been unaware of a number of controversial issues.
• Mr Brown acknowledged that he had not been present at a number of key meetings held by Mr Blair in the build-up to the invasion in March 2003.
• He said he did not see a Cabinet Office “options paper” in March 2002 which included the possibility of invading Iraq. The paper was prepared ahead of Mr Blair’s meeting at President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.
• Mr Brown said he was also unaware of a series of highly confidential letters from Mr Blair to President Bush in which the Prime Minister is said to have “pledged” that Britain would join in the military action.
• Mr Brown also did not know that of Lord Goldsmith’s late change of view on the legality of the war. The Attorney-General had said in early 2003 that the invasion would be unlawful but told the Cabinet just days before the war that it would be legal.
• He was also unaware of doubts about evidence obtained by MI6 that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), including concerns from his Cabinet colleague Robin Cook, who was the only minister to resign over the war.
  
• “I do not recall a conversation with Robin about the intelligence. He may have mentioned that at the Cabinet, I cannot recall.”

Now, in a complete U-turn, he explains about his reactions as first Hoon, Hewitt and Byers, and then Caborn and Ingram get caught offering to trade their extensive contacts book for hard cash. Thank goodness our Prime Minister has got a grip on his Party and is showing a firm and authoritative lead for once:

The Prime Minister told the BBC: “I was appalled by what I saw - I was appalled by some of things I saw happening that I knew nothing about.”

Again.

QOTD

General Lord Guthrie, on Gordon Brown's admission that his evidence to Chilcot was "inaccurate":

“What I said was absolutely right and what he said was wrong. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has made this statement and admitted what I said was right and those who attacked me were wrong, intemperate and cheap. It does highlight the great difficulties defence had when other departments of state were being showered with money. Undoubtedly the underfunding caused huge problems in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Translation: "huge problems" = "avoidable deaths".

Mr Brown wrote to Sir John yesterday, saying that he wished to provide the inquiry with “further detail” about defence spending. The letter did not include any apology or regret for the evidence he gave this month.

Of course.

(Source)

A Brownie exposed

Finally, Gordon Brown has admitted he made an error. Caught bang to rights by Channel 4 and the estimable Cathy Newman, he grudgingly accepted that evidence he gave to the Chilcot Inquiry was incorrect.

Defence spending has not risen every year in real terms under Labour. He said it had, in public, to Chilcot. The truth was that in three or four years, it actually fell in real terms (and remember, in these years we were involved in two major conflicts). Various Army chiefs criticised his testimony. Gen Sir Richard Dannatt said he was "narrowly and precisely correct", and ex-Chief of Defence Staff Lord Boyce said he was "dissembling" and "disingenuous". Lord Guthrie flatly contradicted Brown's claim that all operational requests had been met, saying that helicopters were requested but were turned down. Brown's response:

"I think they are wrong. To be honest, I don't think it is appropriate for people to criticise us for not providing what we did provide."

Challenged on this in PMQs, Labour MPs shouted that it was all because the Army chiefs were "Tories". The Opposition were, rightly, outraged by this.

And then Channel 4's FactCheck did a bit of FactChecking and, surprise surprise, Gordon was wrong.

Does he take back all those comments about Dannatt and Guthrie and Boyce? Does he apologise to the House for misleading it? Does he offer an explanation of why, when our armed forces are at full stretch in two massive conflicts, with soldiers dying because of poor equipment, he actually reduced the resources available, especially in 2003-4, at the height of the Iraq War?

He does not. Asked by Tony Baldry if he would now set the record straight, his reply was characteristically brusque:

Yes, Mr Speaker, and I am already writing to Lord Sir John Chilcot about this issue ...

However ...

Defence spending rose from £21bn to this year around £40bn from 1997 to this day ...

No, it doesn't make sense to me either. But it's typical of Brown to cover any issue he doesn't want to pursue with a barrage of indigestible tractor stats. I'm not saying Brown was lying; I don't think he'd be stupid enough to lie directly to a public inquiry. I suspect he was given the headline points by a researcher and didn't check that they were correct in the way he wanted to use them. But the manner in which this has come out - first, attack your critics, then smear them and their motives, and finally admit you were wrong with as little grace as possible - tells you volumes about the man behind the curious chin twitch.

Graceless, curmudgeonly, tribal - all the faculties you need in a national leader.

The thing is, if he had come to the Commons and said:

OK, everyone, here's an announcement. I made some statements to Chilcot regarding defence, and it has now been pointed out to me that they were wrong. It wasn't deliberate, but I do admit that my research was a bit sloppy, and I apologise to the people I wronged when I denied it, to the House for giving incorrect testimony to a major public inquiry, and to the British people for inadvertently misleading them. Sorry, everyone, and I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

I think that would be worth about 5 percentage points in the polls. But he is constitutionally incapable of that kind of humanity.

I'm going to be giving FactCheck a bit of a closer look in future, too.

Quote of the PMQs

Gordon Brown at PMQs today:

"There are more small businesses in the country now than there were a year ago."

The trouble is, they all used to be large businesses.

Boom-tish.

Brownie

The Right Honorable Member for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, PhD, MP, today:

The Prime Minister went on to defend himself against charges that the government failed to provide an alternative to the lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover, which is now being phased out. Mr Brown said that it was only belatedly clear that Snatch Land Rovers would be unsuitable as insurgents turned to the use of roadside bombs.

However, from Hansard:

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches, too, extend our condolences to the family of the soldier killed in Afghanistan yesterday. Our thoughts at this time are also with the two soldiers who were seriously injured yesterday, and we wish them a speedy recovery. I thank the Minister for his reply and understand completely that any answer that he gives must not prejudice troop protection, but the Snatch Land Rover is not remotely adequate for patrolling areas where insurgents use landmines. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will provide our soldiers with equipment that is fit for this role? What assessment have the Government made of the RG-31 which, with its V-shaped undercarriage, has a greater resilience to IEDs and which the Americans have bought in large numbers just for this role?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I do not accept that Snatch Land Rovers are not appropriate for the role.
(June 2006)

Mr. Ruffley: Nearly a quarter of the British soldiers lost in hostile action in Iraq were in Snatch Land Rovers at the time. Those vehicles are widely recognised to be inadequately armoured to withstand roadside bombs, and are consequently seen as a soft target for insurgents. In the interests of preventing unnecessary deaths, will the Secretary of State tell us which specific vehicles he is considering deploying as replacements for Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq?
(June 2006)

Dr. Fox: Clearly, there is an increased risk. Lord Drayson told the other place recently that in Iraq, the Snatch Land Rover “provides the mobility and level of protection that we need.”— [ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2006; Vol. 12, c. 2.] Fusilier Gordon Gentle was killed by a road-side bomb way back in June 2004, and since then other soldiers have been killed who would have survived if they had been in properly armed vehicles. Snatch Land Rovers do not offer the level of protection that our troops need in Iraq, yet we continue to use them. Why are our troops not given the level of protection that they need, and which American troops already enjoy? Commanders cannot deploy vehicles that they do not have.
(June 2006)

I'm sorry if I seem to have it in for the 'Honorable' gentleman, but he is clearly a lying ratbag.

(H/t Iain Dale for the quotes)

Statistics

The great thing about statistics is that they consist of numbers, and most people think numbers are hard (in both senses: numbers are difficult to work with; and numbers are factual and not open to interpretation). So when most people hear statistics from a politician, they assume that what they are hearing is, at least factually, correct - after all, if the politician is giving them numbers, and numbers are factual and easily checked, then the politician is unlikely to be lying, right? If a politician says that X has risen, and provides numbers to support that, then most people will assume that he or she is stating a fact. Of course, most people don't have the skill, time or inclination to check the numbers for themselves, but they assume that someone else will. Well, now someone has.

Gordon Brown played a blinder in PMQs the other day, asserting that defence spending had gone up every year under Labour. He even had the audacity to add that spending had gone down under the Tories (of course it would - we didn't have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan to worry about then; thanks, Labour). Although I was surprised to hear that, I assumed that - in strictly literal terms - it would be true, as it could so easily be proved false.

Wrong, as Channel 4 have found out:



The man is an inveterate liar. He bludgeons us with statistics, assuming we won't, or can't, check how true they are. Thank you, C4.

War News Blackout

Four young soldiers, including the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan, are "unlawfully killed", according to the Coroner.

Brown says that he supplied the Army with everything they asked for.

Top people in the Armed Forces publically disagree and say he is being "disingenuous".

Gordon Brown uses troops as a photo-opportunity the day after his evidence to Chilcot.

And now, there is to be a 'news blackout' of anything concerning the war for the period leading up to the election.

This means that:

• British journalists and TV crews will be banned from front line reporting
• Senior officers prohibited from making speeches or talking to reporters
• MoD websites "cleansed" of any non-factual material, including the views of troops.

This didn't happen in 1945, but then again Gordon Brown's entitlement to be Prime Minister wasn't at stake then. In fact, it is unprecedented.

Along with many other bloggers (Subrosa, Fausty, Leg Iron and others), I will publish any material from the military, family or friends during the election campaign. Email address at the top of this blog.