Can the internet really be left to its own devices?

BBC website, 31st July: Video websites must vet content - “YouTube has been criticised by MPs, who say it must do more to vet its content. In a review of net safety, the Culture, Media and Sport select committee said a new industry body should be set up to protect children from harmful content. It also said it should be “standard practice” for sites hosting user-generated content to review material proactively. In its report, the committee said that some websites it had monitored as part of its review had a “lax” approach to removing illegal content. It said it was “shocked” that the industry standard for removing child abuse images was 24 hours.”

Independent, 31st July: YouTube videos should be given ‘18′ certificate, MPs say - “Films posted on video-sharing websites such as YouTube should carry age certificates and those with pornographic or violent content should be subject to a television-style “watershed”, MPs say today.”

Telegraph, 31st July: Berlusconi’s broadcast group declares war on YouTube - “Mediaset, which is controlled by the billionaire media mogul Silvio Berlusconi and his family, said it was seeking damages of “at least” 500 million euros (£398 million) from YouTube and its owner Google, for alleged “illegal distribution and commercial use of audio and video files.  A trawl through the YouTube site on 10 June allegedly revealed 4,643 clips and 325 hours of Mediaset material, according to a statement by the company, which broadcasts three of Italy’s six terrestrial channels.”

So, over to my readers.  The internet contains millions of files uploaded by users which by and large are harmless, but there is unquestionably a darker side to some of the content which mostly goes unchecked.  Is this really acceptable?  My first instinct says no and there should be substantial penalties for any firm failing to remove illegal material immediately.  The defence of websites such as YouTube always seems to be that monitoring the content on their site is very difficult so we shouldn’t expect too much, but how can we let that pass as a reason for allowing certain content to be put online?  Surely if they can’t keep up with the problem that they have created, they should be held liable?

Hasn’t Miliband forgotten something?

“Step aside Milipede, or I’ll trample all over you.  Don’t forget who’s in charge now that Brown has left town for a while.”

Latest odds for next Labour leader - Milipede 2/1, Harman 10/3, Straw 13/2, Johnson 6/1, Cruddas 8/1, Balls 8/1, Purnell 8/1

Miliband moves within striking distance

Dear David Miliband,

In contrast to the criticism that Jack Straw has received over the past few days for being decidely sluggish in his defence of the Prime Minister, your antics have gone largely unnoticed.  Your silence was equally deafening, and now we know why - you’re moving within striking distance of Brown as you can sense support for your leadership bid rising, and your article in the Guardian is the first clear sign of your intentions.

What I find baffling is that you might be under the impression that your words might not be construed as a leadership challenge.  Blatant criticisms of your own party leader cannot be ignored: “the times demand a radical new phase” (which presumably Gordon cannot offer), “to get our message across we must be more humble about our shortcomings” (as opposed to Gordon reeling off his favourite statistics), “New Labour won three elections by offering real change” (and Gordon, of course, offers no change whatsoever), and so on.   These are not covert suggestions to the Prime Minister from a friendly ally; these are messages to the Labour Party supporter base that there is an alternative to Gordon should they desire one.

Naturally, you spent a considerable proportion of your time having a dig at Cameron and saying how wonderful Labour are, but these words will ring hollow in the ears of voters.  You said that the Conservatives “opposed …family-friendly working”, even though Cameron has gone further than Brown in promoting shared parental leave.  You claim that school standards are actually rising, which every single international comparision of pupil performance contradicts (and so do many UK-based research studies).  Apparently Margaret Thatcher was “not a conservative” and David Cameron “doesn’t share a restlessness for change” - both of which demonstrate how incredibly ill-informed you are about the Conservative Party over the past 30 years.  You also claim that Cameron’s project is “not changing the country”, which every single Conservative policy document released thus far contradicts as well.  Do not forget that you are regularly stealing his policies in an attempt to show that Labour has the answers to society’s problems, so he must be doing something right.

All in all, your article was painfully shallow.  You said that Labour should be humble about its achievements, then listed a load of them (even though most, if not all of them, are highly contentious claims).  You said that David Cameron doesn’t want change and that essentially he has nothing to offer, which recent by-elections strongly suggest is not the case.  Not once did you mention Gordon Brown’s name in your whole piece, showing how much you wish to keep him at arm’s length.  I’m not saying that you are planning to overthrow Gordon Brown, but should circumstances arise in which his position is untenable, there is no doubt in my mind that you will be waiting.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

The law of sod strikes Clegg

BBC website, 29th July 2008: Nick Clegg said “We’ve got to be ready for anything.”

BBC website, 29th July 2008: ‘Warrant issued for Lib Dem Donor’ - ”A judge has issued an arrest warrant for a wealthy businessman whose company donated more than £2 million to the Liberal Democrats.  Michael Brown, 42, is due to stand trial in September accused of a number of fraud and money laundering offences.”

(so it’s not just Labour that are financially screwed - Ed.)

My god, an environmental policy that I can support

Dear Joan Ruddock,

I almost didn’t write you this letter today, seeing as I was laughing so hard after finding out that your job title is ‘Climate Change minister’.  Once I had fully recovered, I set about reading through your proposals and it soon dawned on me that the government is putting forward an environmental policy that I actually support.  Apparently, we should expect new legislation that will ensure shops no longer hand out single-use plastic bags for free - and I think this is a really good idea.

As a general rule, I don’t like ‘green taxes’.  Alistair Darling has used these supposedly environmental taxes to raise a few million quid to plug the massive financial black hole that Labour have left us in.  His policies have absolutely nothing to do with being green or environmentally friendly, which makes his stealth taxes even harder to accept.  But, this time, you’re doing something rather unusual: you are putting forward a policy that will not give the Chancellor any freebies and might actually help clean up our streets.  In February 2007, British retailers voluntarily committed themselves to cutting the use of plastic bags, but only Marks and Spencer decided to impose a charge (5p).  Needless to say, supermarkets aren’t going to do anything that will seriously damage their business and handing out free shopping bags is a nice way to keep the customers happy.

My attitude towards plastic bags in shops is very simple.  It’s lazy, very very lazy.  Bring your own bags when you go shopping and stop relying on plastic bags that ultimately end up in landfill sites or blowing around the streets or ruining our beaches.  Every shop in the country should be made to charge at least 50p for every type of bag they give away.  Expecting people to change their ways by asking them nicely or asking supermarkets to be nicer to the environment in the absence of legislation is nearly always destined to fail.  Hit shoppers where it hurts and then we’ll see who wants to keep being lazy and use plastic bags.  The Treasury should receive no funds from this exercise, as all the 50p charges should remain with the retailers.  To my mind, this represents a perfect example of where financial levers can be used to help clean up the environment without any nonsense about climate change, stealth taxes, unfair treatment or any other lame excuse. 

Personally I think your suggestion of a 10p charge is far too low and won’t hit shoppers sufficiently hard.  You should also be looking to mainland Europe for ways of incentivising companies to reduce the amount of packaging used by food and drink manufacturers, because this country has a disgraceful record for packaging that cannot be recycled or reused and inevitably ends up in a landfull site.  The Conservatives may well be looking at these issues as they develop their manifesto and I suggest that you do the same - not because you want to win an election, but because it’s the right thing to do.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Quote of the day

“All this came to me in a flash as I opened the fridge. …It would be easier for me to lose weight than it would for Labour to lose Gordon”

- Boris Johnson in today’s Telegraph

‘Happy hours’ don’t make me happy

Dear Chris Allison,

As the police force’s representative on alcohol concerns, I’m glad to see that you have finally been struck down by common sense when you came to the conclusion that the alcohol trade “repeatedly shows that it cannot be relied upon to consistently act in a responsible way.”  This revelation is hardly front-page news, but the issue of where the alcohol vendors, the police and the government go from here is certainly worth your time as the police will inevitably be involved in whatever solution to binge drinking is put forward.

The concept of self-regulation in the alcohol industry always struck me as pretty laughable.  Alcohol vendors want to make money out of alcohol, that much we know, so to expect them to not sell lots of alcohol and not to put drinks promotions in place never sat easily with me.  I’m sure the police and ambulance services have picked up a considerable tab in terms of policing and healthcare costs from idiots who get hammered on a Friday and Saturday night, which probably goes some way to explaining why you think that “it is now time for the government to take some action against the trade and to legislate to ensure that the licensing trade always acts responsibly.”  The drinks industry are understandably nervous about government clamp-downs on their inevitable practices, although the suggestion by the world’s biggest drinks manufacturer that “there is no hard evidence that pricing affects consumption” clearly shows that they haven’t walked around any city centre late at night in the last twenty years.

So what are the solutions?  Although I’m certainly not an extreme libertarian who would shudder at the thought of government intervention, as a Conservative I still want personal responsibility to be foremost in the minds of policymakers as many drinkers are very sensible people who don’t need their stomachs pumped at 2am on Saturday morning.  However, I also believe that the government is entitled to recoup costs incurred by the taxpayer through people’s idiocy.  This principle would mean that, for example, I think it is perfectly acceptable to ask obese people and smokers to contribute to the costs of their healthcare, and binge drinkers should also be made to pay for the time and money they waste should they need hospital treatment or get arrested for violent behaviour having consumed excessive amounts of alcohol.  People drink a lot because they don’t feel the consequences of their actions (bar a hangover the next day) whereas millions and millions of pounds (including my taxes) are wasted every year because of their appalling conduct.  In addition, I’d immediately remove the license of any establishment caught selling to under 18s instead of this stupid ‘yellow card’ warning system that we currently have, and I would raise the drinking age to 21 or maybe 25 unless you are drinking in a pub to prevent supermarkets selling to young drinkers. 

These measures might not sound Conservative, but the only way to tackle binge drinking is to reduce the supply of alcohol and make people understand the consequences of their drinking.  Personal responsibility is fine for a large number of people, but those who cross the line do not deserve any sympathy from your police colleagues or from the government.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Do you think we can swap?

Quote of the day

“I think it is the hot weather and the Pimms to blame. These things happen. We asked them to put their clothes back on because we do have a dress code”

- a spokesman for Guards Polo Club after three male streakers invaded the pitch during the Cartier International polo event watched by the Prince of Wales

FOX news tries to salvage McCain’s campaign

Utter rubbish, verging on slanderous - and we think the BBC is bad!

Even Polly now thinks Labour are screwed

Dear Polly Toynbee,

To give your article the title of “Cardiac arrest in Glasgow” provides an appropriately gloomy feel to your piece in the Guardian today.  Labour are not extinct as the SNP would have us believe, but there are in a critical condition and need to be resuscitated.  Of course, you can’t resist the odd jibe at the Conservatives but I think it’s fair to say that when commentators with your track record of rampant socialism declare that the game is up, we should all sit up and listen.

I didn’t see Gordon Brown’s speech at the national policy forum yesterday, but I believe you when you say that his decision to ‘do a Dave’ and speak without notes while attempting to come across as a likeable and competent politician was a dismal failure.  It doesn’t surprise me that his “mechanical” performance was just an “autopilot compilation of the dullest parts of every speech he has made, mantra after clunking mantra, pacing up and down to the same old tropes” and that he “bypassed the by-election as if it simply hadn’t happened.”  I thought you and every other Labour supporter would realise by now that this is all he can offer - hollow mantras interwoven with language such as “resilience” and ”aspiration” plus a smattering of statistics about globalisation and the UK economy.  It wouldn’t surprise me if, due to their ”agonising and indecisive [nature], the party may stagger on for 22 months to its inevitable perdition” because no-one has the guts to move against Brown, knowing that the Conservatives will relish in open Cabinet warfare and divisions.  I seriously doubt that a leadership contest would unite Labour as the Blairites and socialists would start to tear into each other.

Even in Labour’s darkest hour, you still weakly sung the praises of what Labour have supposedly achieved in Glasgow East.  Apparently, Labour deserve credit because “unemployed claimants have been halved (so why is the economy so weak in Glasgow?); hundreds more have left incapacity benefit to take jobs (and how many are still in them?); of 11 new schools, five are rated “excellent” (and what about all the existing schools?); apprenticeships have soared (although they are of little use and most people never complete them), and tax credits make a vast difference to people’s lives” (but only because Labour have put up so many taxes that giving people any of their taxes back will always help).  Of course, you missed out the epidemic levels of drug and alcohol abuse in Glasgow and didn’t feel a need to discuss the fact that they have as many teenage gangs as London and almost half of all families now have single parents - but I guess that wouldn’t fit into your warped view of Labour’s crippling and humiliating failures in many areas of the country.

You know the game is up.  I know the game is up.  In fact, we all know the game is up for Labour.  Will Brown make it through party conference season without a leadership challenge?  Will the unions turn on him as they did yesterday with calls for a leadership contest?  How long can Miliband hold out before rallying the Blairite troops?  The next few months in British politics will be rivetting, as if the last few haven’t been absolutely unbelievable.

Yours sincerely.

A.Tory

Every picture tells a story

Like this one, for example:

…and this one, showing the 2005 result in Glasgow East…

…and this one showing the 2008 result…

There are three subsets of the population who will enjoy looking at these pictures:

1. The SNP

2. Anyone who hates Labour

3. The Conservative Party, who managed to maintain their share of the vote while Labour lost almost 20% of theirs and the Lib Dems lost just under 10% of theirs.

Quote of the day

“The court is profoundly concerned about the very poor judgment which this child’s parents have shown in choosing this name”

- a judge in New Zealand, after declaring that the 9-year-old girl in question should be allowed to change her name from Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii (CLICK HERE for the full story and enjoy the other unbelievable names that parents in New Zealand have given their children)

Should MPs have second jobs?

Dear Chris Leslie,

What a clever little cover.  Instead of Gordon Brown attacking MPs for having second jobs, he leaves it to you instead - a former minister who ran his leadership campaign last year.  That amazing coincidence aside, the argument is still a valid one.  I remain undecided as to whether MPs should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of their time and effort on pursuits that are clearly not related to working in their constituency, although the arguments supporting such practices are easy to understand.

Your point is that because ”ordinary people have such low expectations of the behaviour of elected representatives”, MPs should focus solely on their constituents and that ”excessive outside earnings from consultancies and directorships [lead people to] perceive that they are diverted from the public interest – or worse, that they are exploiting their public status.”  This seems a perfectly logical argument, in my opinion.  MPs are elected to represent their constituents and serve their party.  If, however, they put a considerable amount of their time into lines of work that are clearly not related to either of these pursuits, surely we should feel aggrieved.  The heading of ’second jobs’ covers a huge range of activities from writing books, after-dinner speeches, company directorships etc so it’s difficult to generalise.  Nevertheless, I wouldn’t want my MP to spend two or three days a week away from Parliament earning extra cash on the side.  If they have so much free time, shouldn’t their constituents be the first to benefit?  Critics of MPs with second jobs also point out that their voting record is typically very poor.

But it’s not as simple as that.  One can’t help feeling that Gordon Brown taking up your recommendations would be reigniting a bit of class warfare, seeing as the stereotype that all Conservative MPs use extra cash to pay for expensive second homes, while all Labour MPs are less well-off and need to spend the money on food and water seems alive and well.  It probably didn’t escape your attention that 66% of Conservative MPs, 37% of Lib Dems but only 19% of Labour MPs have other jobs - so your plans would obviously hurt the Conservatives more.  Some MPs argue that outside work makes them ‘better politicians’ by giving them experience outside Westminster (although personally I would prefer them to get this experience before becoming an MP).  And, of course, another argument in favour of second jobs is that if MPs want second jobs, let the electorate decide at the ballot box whether they still want them as their MP.

The options for addressing second jobs remain quite fluid.  There could be a total ban, a US-style earnings limit of, say, 15% on top of an MP’s salary, or a partial ban under which more time-consuming second jobs would be outlawed but others such as a newspaper column would be allowed.  In all honesty, I think this is a perfectly valid debate to have in front of the media.  Having said that, I would have been a lot happier if this debate had taken place when Labour weren’t being crushed in the polls and looking for cynical ways to undermine the Conservative Party.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Thought for the day

To all those men out there who think that women’s obsession with shopping is utterly ridiculous, it may be time to reassess your attitudes - especially when you consider that one day, her ridiculous shopping habits might help to keep you out of jail.

How dare local councils abuse their power in this way

Dear Simon Milton,

I think that a reality check is in order.  As Chairman of the Local Government Association, I was hoping that you would be as angered as I am about the news that local authorities abused anti-terror laws to launch almost 10,000 spying campaigns last year and also lodged over half a million requests for personal communication data.  To say that I was ‘disappointed’ by your response has got to be the biggest understatement I have ever produced in a letter.

Far from criticising the councils, you have insisted that the powers were necessary to deal with legitimate concerns from local people, and that ”without these powers, councils would not be able to provide the level of reassurance and protection local people demand and deserve.”  Reassurance? REASSURANCE? Are you out of your mind?  Who on earth is going to be “reassured” that you are spying on our telephone calls and emails to investigate crimes as petty as underage smoking and dog poo?  Well?!  Needless to say, our pathetic Prime Minister has bottled it again and launched a review of the situation (to be completed in the Autumn, when he hopes everyone will have forgotten about this) instead of going in front of the media and immediately repealing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) until such time as the powers given to deal with terrorism and serious crime are restricted to precisely those areas and nothing else.

It is terrifying to think that these “directed surveillance authorisations” can be approved by a junior town hall official instead of a judge.  In effect, unqualified idiotic bureaucrats determine whether your stupid local authorities can spy on people.  It’s not often I find myself agreeing with the Lib Dems, but Chris Huhne got it spot on when he said that this was another example of “the creeping Orwellian state” introduced by Labour, and “measures that were intended to be used to fight terrorism and organised crime have instead been used to snoop on ordinary people’s children, dogs and bins.”  For you to also expect sympathy towards local councils is absolutely unbelievable.  I don’t see you can defend local councils by saying that they are “between a rock and a hard place” when they are so openly abusing powers that were never intended for them in the first place.

Honestly, the dismissive approach of this government towards civil liberties is getting too much to bear.  Bring back David Davis.

Yours contemptfully,

A.Tory

Quote of the day

“There may have been something sticky on his hands but it was only for a few seconds that he touched the prime minister.”

- (I’ll leave this completely genuine quote to your imagination)

Shameless self-plugging: the sequel

Dear readers,

As you may remember, it was only a few days ago that I asked/begged for your support in the Witanagemot Blog Awards.  Today, I find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of asking/begging for your support for the second time within a week.  Iain Dale has just started collecting votes for the Guide to Political Blogs 2008-2009, which requires you to vote for your top ten political blogs from across the political spectrum.  I must therefore engage in yet more shameless self-plugging, as I would be very grateful for your support.  If you think this blog deserves a mention, CLICK HERE.

McCain suffers a double blow

Dear Barack Obama,

The last 24 hours must have given you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, having got the better of John McCain on two occasions.  In my opinion, the military and international relations are two areas where McCain must be desperate to score points over you due to his experience in this area, but it is you who has been backed by the Iraqi government with regard to your plans for the withdrawal of US troops.

The suggestion that all US combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2010 is a bold statement of intent.  Interestingly, there was no official statement from the Iraqi government about the clear similarity in your plans and their plans for troop withdrawals because you still have to wait until November to be able to dictate events rather than pass judgement on them.  McCain was quick to strike back, saying that he would only withdraw troops when the situation allowed - emphasising how precarious your position is when confirming a withdrawal by 2010.  Even so, it looks like you scored a points victory over him in this round.  You have probably noticed that the Labour Party in the UK is desperate to avoid talking about Iraq as their poll ratings are already abysmal, making it even more refreshing to hear such a candid discussion of the topic.

Then, somewhat unexpectedly, the New York Times embarrassed McCain by rejecting an article he penned for the famous newspaper and told him to rewrite it.  It seems as though this story follows many other indications in the media about your ability to push McCain out of the headlines.  In terms of media personality, you clearly have a significant advantage over him as his style is less refined and less amiable.  Even though question marks still remain about many policy issues, there is no doubt who is winning the media battle.

The momentum is certainly with you, and if McCain is unable to build on his enormous military credentials then you could be moving into an even stronger position.  We are still over three months away from election day.  However, your support base and your electoral appeal certainly seems to be doing the business.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

So the McCanns are innocent after all…

They are no longer suspects and the investigation has been shelved, but does anyone else still have that lingering feeling that there was something about the disappearance of Madeleine that just doesn’t feel right?

Purnell is a fraud trying to stop fraud

Dear James Purnell,

It was very instructive to read your plans to make benefit claimants pick up litter and clean graffiti.  In principle, I’m happy to admit that it makes sense for people to engage in meaningful activities should they be unable to find work.  People often forget that the benefits of work go way beyond merely earning money in terms of routine, purpose, psychological needs etc, which means that your plans are a welcome step forward.  Well, I say your plans, but we both know that’s not technically true.

Under your plans, benefit claimants will have to do four weeks’ community work if they have been unemployed for more than a year, and after two years they will have to work full-time.  You described the move as “revolutionary” and said that it will “transform lives”.  Perhaps it will, but that’s probably why the Conservatives put forward these proposals in January of this year.  In case you’ve forgotten this, hop onto the BBC website today and click on the story relating to your proposals (or just click on the thumbnail below).

You will see that on the right hand side of the screen, there is a link to a story relating to Conservative plans for reforming benefits from January 2008, and the opening section is as follows:

“The long term unemployed would be forced to work for their benefits under plans outlined by the Conservatives. People claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance for more than two years would have to do 12 months community work. Tory leader David Cameron said he wanted to help people into work and end the “something for nothing culture”.  PM Gordon Brown said the government was already getting tough with the long-term jobless and the Tory plans were out of date and would not work.”

So, to recap, you have not only stolen Conservative plans for welfare reform - you have stolen Conservative plans for welfare reform that the Prime Minister himself said would not work and were out of date.  Yet again, the Labour government have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they have run out of ideas while happily and shamelessly lifting other party’s policies and claiming them as their own.  Honesty and integrity are a myth within the Labour Party and I am truly ashamed to have such a bunch of deceitful and incompetent morons running this country.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory

Quote of the day

“He has, as so many who have met him readily testify, the sort of charm that curdles milk”

- Simon Heffer on Schools Secretary Ed Balls

Shameless self-plugging

If you enjoy reading this blog (which hopefully someone out there does) then I would be very grateful for your votes in the Witanagemot Blog Awards 2008.  There are lots of categories to vote in but you don’t have to vote in all of them.  CLICK HERE if you think this blog is worth a mention.

Looks like the government need an education on education

Dear Michael Gove,

I know that this furore over SATs is easy pickings for the Conservatives, but I am still dumbstruck by the sheer stupidity of the Labour Party (and that’s saying something).  Even though thousands of SATs results are delayed and teachers are saying that there are huge numbers of mistakes and inconsistencies in the grades given by markers hired by ETS, the government’s response has been clear enough - it’s not our problem.

Like just about everyone else in the UK, I want to see education testing reduced - preferably to almost nothing other than internal assessments and school-leaving exams at the end of secondary school.  I am sick and tired of putting children and parents through these mindnumbing and uninformative exams that distort the curriculum and make children believe that education and intelligence is all about exam scores.  That aside, the way that the government reacted to this appalling state of affairs is appalling in itself, and this is where you have rightly stepped in.  ETS hold a five-year, £154 million contract to mark SAT papers taken by 11- and 13-year-olds, but it seems as though even gross incompetence is not enough to boot out ETS.  Just like PFI contracts, the government evidently thinks it is appropriate to go into business with private companies when the contract guarantees massive levels of compensation should it be terminated.  The private sector has no incentive to perform well and will aim to cut costs at every corner safe in the knowledge that they will either keep their job (and get richer) or get compensation for losing their job (and get even richer).  Gordon Brown and the Labour Party simply do not understand the concept of markets and incentives.  Brown in particular loves private money in the public sector but doesn’t understand that you can’t just hand things over to the private sector without putting the necessary incentives in place - and this is where the Conservatives need to sort themselves out because they cannot afford to go down the same road.

Last night, the QCA (who hired ETS) declined to answer questions on whether ending the contract with ETS could cost taxpayers money, while ETS declined to answer questions about the contract (which is secret, naturally).   In typical Labour fashion, Jim Knight, the schools minister said: “I hold QCA accountable for the contract, for the delivery of the contract and it’s up to them to come back to me with what they’re going to do to re-establish the reputation of the SATs in the future.” So, an incompetent and costly quango has screwed up but we are now going to pretend that neither the quango nor the failure of the private sector to deliver is anything to do with us.  Don’t hold back Michael - this is too good an opportunity to miss.

Yours respectfully,

A.Tory

Gordon Brown, the economic hypnotist

“Look into my eyes, Mr Journalist, and you will soon see that the Treasury cannot start relaxing any fiscal rules because there were never any fiscal rules, it was all a dream, all a dream, all a dream…”