Breaking News: No.10 staff deny head-butting Prime Minister | Mandelson election planning

Number 10 staff have been forced to deny that they regularly head-butted Gordon Brown's fist. A new book about Brown claims that staff at Number 10 regularly bullied the Prime Minister, ridiculing his 'clunking fist' and even head-butting it on more than one occasion... More Later....

Also, Lord Mandelson has revealed that the 2010 general election will be the slickest ever held. "Labour's operational planning will be so sophisticated, so efficient that people will wonder for some time to come whether there really ever was an election..."

New Labour, Reloaded

Douglas Alexander, Labour's election campaign co-ordinator today unveiled the party's new operating system. Labour has in recent years received a barrage of complaints about its 'clunky software' that regularly seizes up and crashes, frequently leaving the user unable to work, frustrated and out of pocket. Alexander hopes the release of the operating system will demonstrate that the party deserves a fourth term, on the basis that 'this time we won't screw up the IT'.

"Essentially, we know that we deserve a fourth term. And deep down so do the British people. We have much work still to do - like consolidating power. To quote Gordon, when he was asked for his assessment of the New Labour Project: "It is too early to say. Ask me again at the end of our ninth term. Although it will be too early then as well."

"Historically Labour has used technology as a form of control. And we always will. Forever and ever." he said. He went on to discuss election strategy: "We learnt from studying Obama's campaign how to use technology to empower your supporters. And that is what we want: To empower the people to support Labour."

Asked whether Labour's approach to technology smacked of 'Big Brother', Alexander replied: "The only 'Big Brother' that gets discussed in Labour circles is the reality TV show." He then added, "There is nothing to worry about - assuming you are innocent, that is. And anyway, we'll probably lose all the information in the post."

He concluded: "Don't call us, we'll be watching you."

Breaking News - Bank Exodus

Mayor Boris Johnson's worst fears were realised last night when it was confirmed that an investment banker has moved to Switzerland. Mayor Johnson had been warning for some time that new taxes would spark a frantic exodus from the City of London as bankers headed for "the charms of yodelling, cuckoo clocks and the sparkling dreariness of the Swiss."

The banker, Rudi Euler, who works in 'stock lending' and actually originates from Zurich said, "My bosses say they won't pay me more money because I am always making errors. Then the tax man takes what little that I have. So I am quitting and returning home."

Mayor Boris said, "This is our worst nightmare. Bankers have said for some time now that they would leave these shores if they had to pay new taxes. We must listen to them. These chaps are not crying wolf, you know. Except, of course, for the ones who are."

Public Private Partnership

(Cabinet meeting ends. The Foreign Secretary approaches the PM.)

FS: Prime Minister, wonder if I could have a word with you.

PM: Can't stop now.

FS: It is a matter of some delicacy. Need to get something off my chest.

PM: What is it?

FS: (Cautiously) I'm sorry to say that I've been... I've been sleeping with your wife.

PM: No, no, no. For God's sake! This isn't right.

FS: I know, Prime Minister. And all I can say is how sorry...

PM: No, I mean, this is not how I find out.

FS: I don't follow.

PM: Why has this not been leaked, man?

FS: Leaked? But, I thought....

PM: I don't care what you thought. You know the procedure. The first I should hear of this is via a third party. You don't tell me this kind of thing to my face.

FS: Oh, I see. Are you saying, I leak it? And that is how you find out?

PM: Of course, man. I shouldn't have to tell you that. And while we're at it, what of Anne? How does she intend to tell me?

FS: How?

PM: Yes, how, you idiot? Will I find out through an intimate, sofa based chat with Fearne Britton, or with Piers Morgan, or possibly Kirsty Wark - I hear she's trying to break into this kind of thing nowadays?

FS: (Puzzled) I see. I'm not sure. I had assumed Anne, I mean your wife, would come clean, this evening.

PM: Come clean? Sorry, is this some kind of a joke? Enlighten me. What is 'come clean'?

FS: I suppose, what I am getting at is... She'll tell it as it is, to your face.

PM: Where have you been? (Grabs the Home Secretary who is hovering nearby). Moment of your time, Al.

HS: Yes, Prime Minister?

PM: Right, can you tell me, Al, what you think of my wife? And please give me the so-called 'straight answer'.

HS: (Awkwardly) Prime Minister... I desperately want to sleep with your wife. I am head over heels in love with her and long to dress her in lace and be tied...

PM: (Grimaces) Yes, that will do, Al... Right, now how would I get to hear about your seedy fantasies?

HS: Well, I suppose that... Andrew Marr would interview me next Sunday. After a long discussion on the subject of ID cards, he will slip in a question - he'll ask whether I want to sleep with your wife and perform certain, shall we say, acts with her. I will naturally reply: "The Prime Minister has a lovely wife who is pure of heart. I can without hesitation say that I have no designs on her at the current time, and moreover I have no knowledge of the acts that you describe."

PM: Very good. Thanks, Al. Talk later, if that's ok. (The Home Secretary nods and leaves the room. The PM turns to the FS.) See. He knows how its done.

FS: Well, yes, of course, I do understand... but, you know, I thought that when it came to one's private life, it was a little more... er...

PM: Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You've spent far too long in the Foreign Office, haven't you? You need to move with the times, you really do! Let me remind you: Correct procedure will be followed at ALL times, and I mean ALL times. Is that clear? No allowances to be made for one's 'private life', whatever that is.

FS: So sorry, Prime Minister. I understand. How foolish of me.

PM: OK, now go and do this properly. (Foreign Secretary nods and nervously leaves the room. PM smiles then calls after him). And just one other thing.

FS: (Looking back) Yes, Prime Minister?

PM: Since on this one occasion we have thrown all caution to the winds, I may as well tell you now that I will be recording an interview with Piers Morgan later this week. He will be asking me some very, very searching questions on the subject of my private life... about possible marital difficulties. He'll also ask whether there is any truth whatsoever in the rumour that my Foreign Secretary is about to resign - and leave the Cabinet for good... I will, of course, look sombre, but reply that there is no truth in any of these allegations - and that what we should really be discussing is this party's vision for a fourth term. I will add: It is not the role of politicians to address these kind of issues in the public arena.

Better the devil you know - Section15a Part43c

(After a few drinks one night, Oliver Cromwell and Fairfax discuss "legacy issues")

Fairfax: So, Ollie, what now? Where do we go from here?

Cromwell: Where do we go? We don’t go anywhere. I’m running the show now.  And I’m not into this, “Carry forward the revolution” thing.  Bit of order is what we need right now, I reckon.

Fairfax: Yeah, right. Of course, Ollie. I’m right with you there. But I was thinking, you know, we’ve started something. And I was wondering whether in years, in centuries to come, will all this, this change, still be relevant? What will happen two, three hundred or more years from now? For example, do you think that the peasants will ever get their hands on power?

Cromwell: Peasants? Not if I have anything to do with it, they won‘t. I tell you what, those Levellers… Do they have the any idea what would happen if we let a load of sheep-fondling half-wits decide who’s in charge? Bloody anarchy, that's what. These peasants would vote a dog into Parliament if they were given the right narrative and the animal looked cute enough.

Fairfax: Dog, yeah, right… And what about women, Ol? Do you reckon there'll ever be birds in parliament?

Cromwell: Women? Are you having a laugh? Who the hell would want women in Parliament? They already try to run our lives enough as it is. They’d come in and want to ‘smarten the place up’…  encourage us to ‘be in touch with our ‘feminine sides', but just end up giving us more grief. The thought of it!

Fairfax: I don‘t know… ‘Cromwell’s Cuties’… might brighten this place up.

Cromwell: Don’t even go there.

Fairfax: But you reckon that what we’ve achieved will live on? Parliament will go from strength to strength?

Cromwell: Sincerely hope so... As long as Parliamentarians don’t get above themselves, don’t get greedy. As long as they don’t use their power to line their own pockets, to further their own interests. Then I reckon that things'll be fine.

Fairfax: Yeah, right. Last thing we would want, that: Greedy Parliamentarians.

Cromwell: Just think how crap that would look. We put the kybosh on the ‘divine right of kings‘, only to have, couple of hundred years or so down the line, a bunch of chiselling little crooks claiming the ‘divine right of Parliamentarians‘, and filling their boots and taking bribes and saying, “Oooh, you can‘t touch me. I have Parliamentary immunity. I have special privileges, you know."

Fairfax. Yeah, right. That wouldn’t look good, would it?

Cromwell: It wouldn’t look good at all.

Fairfax: Cos, otherwise… you sort of, might as well just invite the monarchy back, have them back running the show, mightn’t you really… you know, when you think about it?

Cromwell: (Contemptuous, dismissive.) Well that isn’t going to happen, is it?

Fairfax: (Nervously) Bloody right, Ollie. Bloody right …Well, at least, I bloody hope not.

Cromwell: Yes… I bloody hope not either.

Hacker... Humphrey... 20 Years on...?

Hacker:  You know what, Humphrey? When I look back and I think of the frustration I used to feel, when the likes of you and Bernard blocked or stalled what I was trying to do... And when I decided eventually that the only way to make things happen was to clip the wings of civil servants, and the wings, for that matter, of the other institutions that wanted to keep things just as they were... And when I then consider how we positioned our chaps above civil servants and concentrated power in No.10 - because, of course, we were elected politicians - When I think about how we used that power to force through certain policies, to respond swiftly, more dynamically to certain events, to act decisively, to act sometimes ruthlessly... when I think about all of that, and I then weigh up what it actually achieved, what it made better, versus how divisive it might have sometimes been, when I see that politicians did not become better people, they became worse... greedy, grabbing, sleazy... When I consider all of those things, and recall the rows that you and I had back then, in the good old days, about change... You know, I do rather find myself thinking from time to time that... this change we introduced, this sweeping away the old orders, without creating a more moral environment... well, Humphrey... perhaps... it wasn't quite such a good thing after all...

Sir Humphrey:  No... Prime Minister.

Better the devil you know - Section23a Part9

(Buckingham Palace - Elizabeth and Philip sit at the breakfast table. Phil studies the tabloid newspapers, Elizabeth stares into space.)

ER: Philip?

Phil: Yes?

ER: This Parliamentary privilege... It was designed to protect politicians from the likes of us, am I correct?

Phil: Likes of us? Whatever do you mean, woman?

ER: Kings and Queens. It was designed to stop Kings and Queens from victimising Members of Parliament.

Phil: Don't ask me, woman. I'm no King, nor Queen, for that matter. Of all people, you should know that.

ER: I know, Phil. But, it was supposed to stop us, the monarchy, from banging them up, this act. Am I right?

Phil: Suppose so. Not really up to scratch on the whole thing.

ER: Of course. Nor am I really. But, I am pretty certain that that's what it was all about.

Phil: If you say so.

ER: Yes... and am I right in thinking that my MPs are currently thinking of using it, quite unashamedly, to protect themselves from the people? From the electorate? Is that right?

Phil: Wouldn't put it past 'em. Pretty rum lot, current crop. Wouldn't be surprised if they overstepped their mark occasionally. Seem to have rather a high opinion of themselves, in my view.

ER: But that was not what it was really meant to do, was it Phil? Protect them from the people?

Phil: I shouldn't think so. Although it wouldn't stop them trying, I'd have thought.

ER: No, I'm sure it wouldn't. They're not known for their forbearance, are they? But the thing is, if they are now thinking of using it to defend themselves from the people, doesn't that mean that they are out of touch with the laws, those very laws that shifted power from the monarchy, that slowly drained our influence in the first place?

Phil: I suppose so. Why? What are you getting at, woman?

ER: Well I was thinking that maybe 'the people' who are baying for the blood of these MPs might want to, perhaps, get rid of that particular law and, who knows, other similarly self-serving laws, now that MPs are using them in this way... the wrong way, in a self-serving way.

Phil: And your point is, dear?

ER: Well, I was thinking. This expenses scandal... Do you think that if people became so completely disillusioned with these 'elected' representatives, they might, I don't know, do something about it, cut them down to size, strip them of many of their powers and privileges, and we, the monarchy, could end up perhaps taking up the slack and being.... well, like Kings and Queens used to be... Much more important, more powerful, you never know, more feared and respected?

Phil: By God, why would you want that, woman? It would mean having to be responsible, having to make decisions, and having to make some very difficult decisions at that. The kind of decisions that we don't have to make right now. Is that what you want?

ER: I don't know, really. But I do get bored sometimes. I'm not really terribly stretched. And I just sometimes wonder what it would be like to play a more active role, to feel, once more, like a proper King or Queen. Like a Henry... or a William... a Charles? Ok, perhaps not a Charles. But, I don't know, perhaps... like an... Elizabeth?

Phil: Elizabeth? Elizabeth? What? As in, off with your head, Elizabeth? Have you gone mad?

ER: Phil! Really!

Phil: I'm sorry old goose, but, but, well... it just ain't going to happen. Not a hope in hell. You really might as well drop this one now. I mean, can you imagine? Us... you and me, absolute power? An active role? The boys, idiot Charles deciding to declare war on a whim... because... because some country hasn't adopted his carbon trading strategy? Can you see him? 'Un-Enlightenment Charlie'? Having to persuade all those other nations? Making the case for war? Can't see him addressing the UN, can you? Unless the UN had suddenly been commandered by elves and pixies.

ER: Phil, please!

Phil: I'm sorry, Goosey. I really am. But you must be dreaming if you envisage anything like that. It's a fantasy, a whim. There isn't a hope in hell of it happening. Influence? Really! The thought!

ER: Oh, well... I suppose you're right, Phil. I probably am dreaming. But... we all have to have our dreams, don't we? And, you know... it's just that you can't help wondering sometimes. You know. What if? That is all I'm saying. What if?

Equalities Minister, Harriet Harman...

"Having read yesterday's faintly amusing but rather pointless attempt to ridicule my equalities bill, it is probably a good time to outline some of the proposals that we are currently drawing up for that corner of the Internet known as 'the blogosphere'.

This government is duty bound to ensure that the equalities bill applies in equal measure to 'blogs' and to mainstream journalism. And here we would include the comments sections of those blogs. It is indeed here that some of the most ill-informed and bigoted political views are currently aired causing offence to more moderate and reasonable commentators.

This government will be expecting the moderators of the various blog sites to play a major part in ensuring that there is a balance within these comments section. A post relating to gender equality for example would be required to publish a suitable amount of comments with an unbiased perspective in order to ensure that less constructive, anti-social views were drowned out.

It is important that even in this relative backwater of opinion and policy formation negative and reactionary attitudes are not allowed to spread unchecked. Therefore the onus will be on the moderators to offer a balance of opinion, even in cases where none is actually available. We will of course leave it up to these moderators themselves to decide how they go about this, as it is not our intention to interfere. We also hope to see the introduction of ground breaking 'all-women comments sections' - especially in matters such as gender equality for example where the views of women are undoubtedly more pertinent and more poignant than those of other genders.

These are exciting times and we hope to cultivate an environment within the blogosphere where equality and freedom of speech can co-exist. And we look to a future where, if we are diligent, these same entities can, if you like, be 'Harmanised'.

And when it comes to freedom of speech finally let me add this: I am capable of tolerating this old chestnut freedom like the next person. But there's one thing we all know and one thing we should always remember: Freedom of speech might well have a place in modern Britain. However it can never and will never mean that you have the right to shout 'Vote Conservative' in a cinema. Or, anywhere else, for that matter.

By Harriet Hormone, Minister for Harmanisation.
(This post is sponsored by Harmany Hairspray - Giving you firm hold and long lasting control.)

How to achieve equality - in nine thousand easy lessons

Lesson 6b - Try not to be economical with the truth

It is impossible to achieve equality unless you are impeccably honest and view facts objectively. If you allow religious or political inclinations to influence your judgment then you might end up seeing inequality where none exists and overlooking equality where it does exist. How is it possible to guarantee equality, if your application of the truth is unequal?

Consider this scenario: Harriet criticises David's Party because last year David and his colleagues voted against a bill designed to make MPs more honest. However she does not mention that John and Margaret, who belong to her own party also voted against it. What she is trying to do is make David's party look bad, without her own party also looking bad.

This is what some in Whitehall call being 'economical with the truth'. Harriet has given an account of events that is incomplete. And by doing so, she has in effect generated another form of inequality. This is because it is still generally accepted in Britain (at least for the time being) that truth is not something that you can bestow on some and withhold from others - just because it suits your beliefs or prejudices. It must be applied equally. Otherwise what you in effect end up with is something that people like Harriet often like to call 'discrimination'.

Post-Gordon planning

Conservative leader David Cameron has been responding to criticism of his lack of preparation for the aftermath of a general election. Commentators on both left and right have criticised Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne recently for lacking a clear coherent economic strategy in the event of 'regime change'.

Mr Cameron admitted that the Conservatives had been primarily "focused" on how to deal with issues caused by the general election, but that that did not necessarily mean that the aftermath was not properly planned for.

"There has been an immense amount of Conservative post-election planning, but we must accept that the post-election situation might well be different to the one that we are currently expecting."

Standing by his intention to rid Britain of an "arrogant, incompetent leader who has deceived his people and bled his country dry," Cameron hinted that 'regime change' was perhaps in itself sufficient justification for wanting to attack Gordon. He concluded: "But if people ask me about the morality of fighting Gordon, I will state once more: His is an appalling regime. And I will make no apologies for liberating the country from his great clunking fist."

John Terry - Correction

In a 3rd Feb. post on John Terry it was suggested that Mr. Terry's private life was not simply his business. It was also that of tabloid journalists, proprietors and their readers, as well as that of publicists such as Max Clifford, The Premier League and, of course, the football supporters.

There was however a serious omission which we would like to correct. Mr Terry's private life is, of course, also the business of libel lawyers. Without these brave men and women, the private lives of celebrities would be incomplete. In fact the difference that libel - and of course divorce - lawyers make to the rich and famous and their cherished private lives is incalculable. It is safe to say that their greatest contribution to date, the super-injunction, is considered a 'must-have' item for these jet-setters - and that includes those simply coming to London to sample the wonders of our celebrity-orientated legal system

Sadly, it is not possible to amend the post in question to include the specific details of the business that the lawyers undertook in the John Terry case. Our learned friends have stated in no uncertain terms that whilst Mr Terry's business might indeed be their business, their business is most certainly not any of our business. And we might just add, we're bound to agree. Totally bound.

(Shaun, are we actually allowed to say all / any of the above? Please check.)

Best little whore-house in Westminster

Prime Minister Gordon Brown evoked the spirit of Margaret Thatcher today as he tried to repair damage caused by the expenses scandal.

He announced: "It is fair to say that, were Mrs Thatcher around today, she could reasonably expect to be a member of my Cabinet. And it is with her in mind that I state:-
"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we vote Labour."

The Prime Minister wept briefly then added: "This speech is brought to you by MPs-R-Us - Preserving traditions and keeping Parliament 'The Mother of all Whore-Houses'."