Cassilis

Correction: I've been humbled by an anonymous commenter who points out that the John McCain referred to is in fact the Republican Presidential nominee's father - a little cursory research (which, of course, I should've done before posting) shows this to be the more likely scenario. Were I sufficiently petty and partisan I might point out that this correction just highlights that lack of judgement is hereditary but that would be unkind. Thank you 'anon'...

Given where US public opinion is now, John McCain's enthusiasm for the Iraq war is something his advisers will struggle to handle when the Presidential election gets into full swing in the autumn. His distinguished military history and time spent as a POW in Vietnam can usually be placed in the credit column of any campaign accounting. But as this extract from Robert Dallek's 'Nixon & Kissinger' shows even back when McCain was in uniform his judgement wasn't always sound and the implications for national security not always good:

I missed a round-up last week for obvious reasons but it's still a bit thin this week - I think everyone's been consumed by reaction to Crewe so not a tremendous amount out there in terms of new & interesting thinking. As before though I've cross-posted the round-up over at Liberal Conspiracy so please flag in the comments here or over at LC anything worthy you think I might have missed...

Left \ Liberal Think Tanks

• Little surprise that the team at Compass are particularly prolific at the moment - Neal Lawson & Co. have never been comfortable with the New Labour project so the current difficulties are bound to prompt lots of thinly veiled 'I told you so's'. Will only flag a couple however so first up an unattributed piece on the lessons of Crewe & Nantwich - "Labour needs to call time on scorched-earth politics, realise the failures bred by triangulating to the right, and offer a positive vision not just of its record in government, but the Good Society at which it should aim". The piece also joins the criticism of the 'Tory Toffs' campaign.
• Also at Compass Jonathan Rutherford calls on Labour to 'challenge the New Conservatism, understand its strengths and expose its weaknesses'. According to Jonathan Labour's central error was to ignore society and the dramatic changes in personal circumstances and the way communities operate. He says the Conservatives have understood this and are offering a compelling and attractive argument about how to address it. He says Labour need to start picking this apart and provides some pointers on where they could start.
• The IPPR carries a piece addressing a tension most people have noticed in recent years - that between the Government's transport policy and the environmental agenda.
• On the 'FreeThink' blog associated with CentreForum there's a lengthy discussion on how the current political landscape risks a fatal squeeze for Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats.
• With rather unfortunate timing the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) says the EU should pay attention to who takes the helm of the UN Peacekeeping forces and that engagement with UN global activity is as if not more important than EU interaction with NATO. (This piece appeared in the Observer too).
• The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a piece on 'Designing Citizen-centred Governance' - "The fundamental challenge for the governance of communities is how to create flexible, effective organisations for delivering public services, while at the same time promoting the values of local democracy".

Right \ Libertarian Think Tanks

• The Civitas blog weighs into the row over taxation and public spending with a piece from Nick Cowen arguing that the No.1 priority re: taxation at this point is stability, something not likely to come about given the Government's predilection for fidgeting with the tax system. "it seems that it is not the levying of tax that incenses voters; it is the politician’s knack for fidgeting with the levers of budgets, the sort of fiddling that, often without much scrutiny, dramatically alters what individual are paying for from year to year. It is exactly these sort of disruptive interventions that has got Brown in trouble – not just the sheer amount of taxation but the way it has been levied."
• The Henry Jackson Society has something on Russia's aggressive posture towards Georgia and what it sees as a lack of teeth in Europe's response.
• HJS also carries a piece on the problems besetting Venezuela because of the volatility on world oil prices.
• The Civitas-linked Centre for Social Cohesion blog is in triumphant mood following Channel 4's victory over West Midlands police and the claims against its Dispatches programme 'Undercover Mosque' - "The fact that a section of the British police force honestly thought that the problem was Channel 4 and not the hate-preachers shows the astonishing culture which has emerged in the police force in recent years. It is not the job of the police to become television critics, and it should not be their role to attempt to enforce some ludicrously presumptuous PC (pardon the pun) agenda"
• Climate change sceptics will no doubt lap up the Centre for Policy Studies response to the Royal Society's paper on 'Climate Controversies'. In 'Not So Simple?' Fred Singer PHD concludes "It is a pity that, rather than facilitate that debate, the Royal Society has chosen to misrepresent the honestly-held views of those who are sceptical of what has become climate-change orthodoxy."
• And finally worth flagging a series of interesting articles over at Chatham House on the international food crisis. The articles are part of a overall project called UK Food Supply in the 21st Century: The New Dynamic - worth a look.

Elsewhere

• Quick plug also for a new US 'online journal of politics and foreign affairs' NeoConstant - they would probably balk at the simplistic label but as the name suggest it's very much a 'neocon' slant on world affairs. From their 'About' page: "focused on important world events and domestic policy with an emphasis on defense and conservatism. [D]edicated to American sovereignty, the right of Israel to exist, and the strengthening of ties to our democratic allies–especially Britain and Israel. We believe in human rights, especially in Tibet, Burma, and Darfur, as well as all places across the globe where innocents are oppressed while the free world does nothing. The primary focus, though not the only subject, is the ongoing war on terror and our continued strong national security. Domestically, NeoConstant urges lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and individual determination. Taking a slightly more libertarian or conservatarian approach to civil liberties, NeoConstant urges strong social tolerance and individual liberties for all people regardless of race, sexual orientation, creed, or class". Perhaps they might want to tie up with Compass...?

Labels: Think Tank Roundups

Welcome to this week's Think Tank Round-up - cross-posted these days over at Liberal Conspiracy as well (later this morning). As ever please flag in the comments here or over at LC anything worthy you think I might have missed...

Left \ Liberal Think Tanks

• At Compass Neal Lawson, in a typically robust mood, calls for a 'New Collectivism', a return to the basic politics of left & right and a rejection of the inherent shallowness of the New Labour project. "This capitulation to market forces had its roots in the failure of the left to renew and reinvent itself after its postwar domination of the political landscape. But in confining itself to a project that put the needs of the market before those of society, New Labour sowed the seeds of a limited and deeply frustrating life span [and the] contradictions of a largely neoliberal project performed within the body of a party of labour were always going to cause an implosion. [B]y unleashing more market forces New Labour was undoing its capacity to create a more equally society. Tony Blair was better at concealing the contradictions of this project because of his well-honed acting skills. Every one of Brown's visual and oral tics prove he is incapable of spinning and misleading to paper over the cracks of a political project now in a state of collapse."
• Also at Compass Gerry Hanson on the unravelling of Labour Britain - the implications of SNP control in Holyrood, the evident tensions between Gordon & Wendy and the what it all means for the union.
• In stark contrast to the Compass view the Fabian Society carries the text of a lecture by John Denham, the only Cabinet Minister representing a southern English seat. John argues that the New Labour coalition must be rebuilt and that means connecting with voters in the South of England - where his seat is - did I mention that...?
• Naomi Pollard at the IPPR picks up on research suggesting the great westward migration from Eastern Europe since 2004 may in fact be over and increasing numbers of migrants are now returning home.
• CentreForum has a piece on education policy for those with learning difficulties - it suggests the debate between specialist units or mainstream integration misses the point and "parents, rather than politicians or officials, are best placed to decide where their children should go to school"
• The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) carries a piece by Wolfgang Ischinger on the likely relations between Europe and the US post November's elections. "Regardless of who wins, 2009 promises to be decisive for the transatlantic relationship. On some key issues, serious differences between US and European views remain, such as on climate change, the speed of Nato's next enlargement steps and the strategic relationship with Russia. But it is often overlooked that there will not only be a new US president in January, but also a new and slightly improved EU, with the Lisbon Treaty ushering in the first president of the European Council, who will be a principal interlocutor with the US in 2009"
• The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a study on the attachment people feel to their current neighbourhood and the extent and nature of attachment in deprived areas.
• The Kings Fund has a report on how "social and technological changes are challenging doctors and causing many to rethink their role, the way they practise and the nature of their professionalism"

Right \ Libertarian Think Tanks

• The 'Scoop Jackson' fan club - The Henry Jackson Society - has a piece by Irwin Stelzer on the 'myth that the world's oil is running out'. "[O]il matters, but not for the reasons we sometimes think. It matters because it has contributed to Russia’s new belligerence, and the West’s courting of Arabic despots. It matters because a search for alternative sources of fuel has led to increased ethanol production, and fuelled the current global food crisis"
• The Civitas blog takes issue with the IPPR reported highlighted in last weeks roundup on the pressures impacting teachers. While Civitas welcome the diagnosis they reject the prescription of yet more government oversight.
• And the Civitas-linked Centre for Social Cohesion blog offers up its own prescription for tackling violent crime. It's not 'rocket science' apparently but the Ten Commandments. Provocative stuff there too about Dave & Boris' Bullingdon past and why we react differently to their demeanours based on their background - "If theirs is the behaviour of the very most privileged, that of those far less privileged than they becomes, if not exactly less reprehensible, something over which we should be slightly less hasty simply to vent our fury."
• Reform has a piece by Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Pension Chris Grayling on how Britain is losing the ability to parent effectively. "..the absence of effective parenting is a core reason for a culture of dependency in deprived communities and the role of the government in solving the problem was limited"
• Policy Exchange carries a fairly damning report on government performance against the green targets they've set since 1997. It points out that "of 138 high level targets surveyed, 60% of targets have been missed; are unlikely to be achieved or are worded so vaguely as to make meaningful analysis impossible." Interestingly the most successful areas are in waste & recycling targets (67% met) - your correspondent notes that of all the target areas this is the one most influenced by individual behaviours rather than top-down government schemes. A little bit of politics there....
• On the same theme the New Local Government Network (NLGN) calls for action on the proposed landfill tax and urges the government to favour community-based incentive schemes rather than financial ones.
• And finally for this bit, not an article or paper but worth flagging that the Centre for Policy Studies now has a daily blog which might be worth keeping an eye on.

Elsewhere

My feedreader also has stuff from overseas think tanks (mainly US) so when worthwhile I'll flag any interesting things there as well:

• The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) carries a rundown of the US Presidential candidates positions on climate change. More specifically they have the text of a speech by John McCain in Portland Oregon earlier this week on climate change policy. It's not Al Gore but still a worthy step beyond the ostrich-like posture of the Bush Whitehouse.
• And finally a bit of fun (in a nerdy, political-geek kind of way of course). CFR also have an online quiz on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm not kidding. Scores in the comments section please.... I haven't done it yet.....

Labels: Think Tank Roundups

In today’s Washington Post Robert Novak celebrates the 45th anniversary of his newspaper column – he started in May 1963 and is closing in fast on the record held by William F Buckley Jr. for the longest-running syndicated political column (he started 13 months before Novak and wrote until his death in February).

I mention this only because it jarred nicely with the occasional posts you see on blogs ‘celebrating’ their 100th or 1,000th post or 3rd, 4th or 5th blogging anniversary. Clearly no blog is anywhere Buckley & Novak’s record but one wonders whether any prominent new media figures or outlets will ever experience that sort of longevity? Being in my late thirties lasting another 45 years just breathing will be achievement enough so time spent blogging will just be a bonus.

It goes without saying of course that insightful, relevant and Pulitzer standard political writing as typified by this post deserves such longevity – it’s just a question of whether or not my health will match it.

In the post immediately below I broke a rule I have to avoid 'blogging about blogging' wherever I can. Referencing blog reactions to a story above the story itself is usually the lazy bloggers way of stoking traffic and generating comments and I'm not keen on that. I also came in for some stick over at Liberal Conspiracy for not being explicit about who I was referring to, perhaps having some sort of agenda and even a suggestion (not entirely serious I'll grant you) that maybe Iain Dale put me up to it!

For clarity and to bring this little off-shoot of a far more important debate to a close the post below was just an entirely genuine question, no hidden agenda and I've never discussed Nadine with Iain. On a couple of occasions in the post I flagged I might be wrong and stood ready to be corrected. As Unity points out here and at LC I was simply taken aback at the strength of reaction and asked the question 'was there any more to this?' From the reaction and the reading I've done elsewhere today I accept the reaction is valid and no, there's no evidence that this is anti-Tory prejudice dressed up.

I’ve deliberately kept clear of the current abortion row for a few reasons – the main one being the difficulty of saying anything new & worthwhile about it. That’s not something that usually stays the hand of this blogger (or many of us if we’re honest) but abortion just strikes as something we should treat with a bit more caution and restraint. On the issue itself I’ll add only this – any genuine advances in medical science and foetal sentience have to be a factor in establishing the legal limit for abortion. The whiff of absolutism from some amounts to a de facto defence of partial-birth abortion which I personally have trouble with. I fully support a woman’s right to choose but if the admission of these factors into the discussion raises the difficult (and ‘fantastic’ in the literal sense) possibility of survival immediately post-conception then that’s a moral issue we must grapple with – it’s not an excuse to discount those facts.

The only other observation I had was around the treatment of Nadine Dorries. I haven’t followed every twist & turn, every post & comment thread on this so I stand ready to be corrected but – is it just me or is there an air of persecution about some of the attention her campaign is attracting? Persecution that might be rooted in the fact that her party has been doing well in the polls lately or she’s friends with a particularly high profile blogger?

I don’t know and I’m only asking the question – if accusations about the misuse of public funds or proxy campaigns for outright bans prove themselves then much of the criticism will be deserved. This just strikes me as one of those episodes when blogging might add more heat than light to the public discussion and that would be a shame on such an important topic.

In the summer of 2005, a few months before he secured the Tory leadership, David Cameron gave a speech at Policy Exchange in which he said that his party would stand “for compassion and aspiration in equal measure”. In December of that year, in his acceptance speech, he called for “a modern and compassionate conservatism which is right for our times and our country” and committed his party to improving social justice. The following summer Jesse Norman and Janan Ganesh published a book called "Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, Why we need it" which set out the historical precedents for a Tory party interested in social advance and the conditions of the 'many not the few'.

Despite these fairly clear ‘statements of intent’ (all 2/3 years old) and the countless opinion pieces & speeches on the same topics since then it seems the Labour party fundamentally misjudged how serious Cameron was about this realignment. Time & again it was rejected as false or nothing more than political positioning - ‘compassionate Tories? Give me a break’ was the standard response.

But as Norman’s book made clear anyone with a basic grasp of political history knew Cameron was tapping into a long-standing conservative tradition, one that actually has more precedence in the party’s history than the Thatcherism that had dominated since the late 70’s. But the more vocal on the left lacked that historical knowledge – history for them went no further back than the miners strike, removing school milk and mass unemployment. Consequently once valid criticisms of hard-right conservatism were levelled blindly at a Tory party that no longer espoused that creed – on some things they even joined in the criticisms.

And this is still going on - the left are allowing their prejudices about the political right to blind them to what’s really happening. Witness the shamefully personal and abusive attacks on Boris in the final days of the Mayoral campaign (which even riled Guardian readers to complain) or the idiocy of Labour campaigners donning top hats and tails in an attempt to make class an issue in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election. There’s a very real ‘they just don’t get it’ feel to many of the Labour responses to recent events, not dissimilar in fact to Tory tactics in the mid-90’s. This disconnect is all the stranger because Labour had their own ideological journey – when Blair & Brown were fresh new faces many on the right discounted their conversion to a pro-business, market-friendly outlook as posturing that wouldn’t survive once in office but they were wrong.

The ideological shift in modern conservatism is every bit as real and acknowledging that is a must for Labour. As Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford pointed out in the Guardian at the weekend:

David Cameron's new Conservatives are staking out ground that once belonged to the left, talking about a social recession, taking the ideological initiative, hungry to win. Look at some of the right-wing think tanks and you discover a profound shift in Tory thinking. It seeks a break from Thatcher and Hayek. The project is significant: to build a basic emotional connection with the people. Last week's results suggest it is beginning to work. This new pro-social, compassionate Conservatism is intellectually backed up by a focus on fraternity. The left, they argue, is wrong to think fraternity is another word for equality. And the Thatcherites are wrong to think that liberty will take care of fraternity. Fraternity is about society, wellbeing, and relationships. The Labour government, it argues, has failed because it has abandoned the fraternity of ethical socialism in favour of state management. The government's response has been woefully inadequate

Those who’ve suggested all is not lost for Labour may have a point and there are still some important debates to be had here. One thing that would definitely make team Cameron uncomfortable would be a full on engagement with Labour on the specifics of some of these social issues - the Tories are slowly fleshing out what this shift means in policy terms but they remain vulnerable on that front. But if Labour continue to ignore the reality of this, to push the line that this is all smoke and mirrors or fake positioning then Cameron, and those of us who wish him well, will laugh all the way to No. 10.

"the man was never suited to the highest office. It should not be surprising that he has brought the party to a position where he might reasonably envy the electoral standing of Michael Foot. Labour won't recover from this till Gordon Brown's titular leadership is over."
Labour supporter, journalist & blogger Oliver Kamm (link)

"Have you noticed that, when the British economy is doing well, it is entirely because of the brilliant economic policies of New Labour and the independent Bank of England, but when things go wrong the rest of the world is to blame?"
William Keegan, Observer (link)

Isn't this a bit overblown? I understand the eagerness on the part of some on the left to see Boris mess up but the idea that a ban on alcohol consumption on the tube is 'suppressing personal liberty' is nonsense. Likewise the charge that it runs contrary to the principles Boris held to in his campaign.

A libertarian instinct is just that - an 'instinctive' preference for personal liberty. It's not an absolutist position and sometimes liberty has to be checked for the common good - we do that all the time. Did anyone really misunderstand this in Boris' case? I suspect it just that some peoples opinion of him is so partisan and extreme that the idea he might get through his first few days without messing up was inconceivable - hence the fabricated story.

"Freedom for public drunkenness" isn't a particularly rousing battlecry....

This weeks Think Tank Roundup - I've grouped the output into left/liberal & right/libertarian think tanks to help with some planned syndication elsewhere (more soon) but hopefully it's useful here too. It's not particularly easy to do because few if any think tanks have an overt party affiliation and they nearly all claim to operate 'across the divide' - still, I've done my best based on what I know of their output, staff & board members etc. If I've made any howlers I'm sure you'll let me know in the comments.

As ever please flag anything worthy you think I might have missed...

Left \ Liberal Think Tanks

• The IPPR challenges a union \ left-wing shibboleth in highlighting that at least some of the problems we see in education can be attributed to poor teachers. "[I]n the last ten years teachers’ pay has improved and the number of people choosing teaching as a career has increased. But teaching is still not attracting the very best graduates and poor performing teachers are not being dealt with effectively"
• They also carry an worthwhile report on the complexity of UK migration numbers - half of those who've arrived from new EU members since May '04 have now left but I think the Daily Mail missed that story.
• "New Labour is now dead" - according to Compass who, to be fair, have been trying to administer last rights since about 1998. Last Thursday's results have boosted their confidence somewhat - "The strategy that saw the Party continually triangulate interests and concerns, tacking endlessly to the right, doing what the Tories would do only doing it first, fixating on a mythical middle England and denying that free market policies are having a damaging effect on society is now finished"
• Also on Compass Hilary Wainwright takes a pop at the impact triangulation has on traditional supporters and one of their regular 'thinkpieces' tackles 'Capitalism and Social Recession'.
• The Social Market Foundation have an interesting piece on individual behavioural change and the challenges policymakers face in linking that with broader cultural changes.
• CentreForum have a great (and timely) piece on whether Liberal Democrats and Conservatives can co-operate. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are "two declared liberals [who] share a vision of a new, ‘post-bureaucratic’ politics in which power is devolved, not just from central to local government, but from government at all levels to individuals, families and communities"

Right \ Libertarian Think Tanks

• The Social Market Foundation has an interesting piece on individual behavioural change and the challenges policymakers face in linking that with broader cultural changes.
• Reform carries an impressive report by Nick Bosanquet, Professor of Health Policy at Imperial College London on "the fundamental challenges that the NHS faces over the next decade, in particular changing demography, advances in medical technology and increased expectations on the part of patients."
• As part of their 'Invisible Nation' series Chris Skidmore at The Bow Group has a report on Labour's educational record: "The Failed Generation: The Real Cost of Education under Labour"
• The Adam Smith Institute are getting ready in plenty of time for this years 'Tax Freedom Day' - is it me or does that seem to getting later each year? (sorry, couldn't help that!)
• Also at ASI Nigel Hawkins calls for privatisation to take centre stage in government policy again and suggest a few likely targets - NATS, Channel4, Post Office and BBC Worldwide.
• The New Local Government Network (NLGN) has a very untimely call for the GLA to be abolished and Mayoral scrutiny to become the function of the London Leaders’ Council (LLC), the body made up of the 32 elected council leaders in Greater London. This might just have been a Thatcherite joke to really p**s off Ken (it rings a bell you see) and perhaps they feel differently after last week.
• A couple of weeks old now but Policy Exchange carried an interesting rebuttal to the regular claims of a 'spending arms race' when it comes to political parties and their funding. The report also highlights the already quite substantial state funding that goes on.
• The Civitas-affiliated 'Centre for Social Cohesion' blog reports on the launch event for the British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD).
• At DEMOS Duncan O'Leary has an interesting take on the relationship between science and politics in the wake of the cannabis reclassification row.
• The Henry Jackson Society has a couple of good pieces too - one from Paul Hughes on why US hegemony is likely to continue in light of Europe's lack of 'hard power and demographic decline' and another from Roy Brown on their favourite theme, the inefficacy of the UNHRC

Labels: Think Tank Roundups

Just thought I'd bring this to everyones attention (Politicshome beat me to it) - Madame Tussauds are holding a public vote on whether or not to create a figure for Brown:

"When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair last year, for the first time in a 150 year history, Madame Tussauds took the decision not to immediately create a figure of the current Prime Minister. Instead we chose to wait for a General Election to confirm Gordon Brown’s status. Ten months later there is still no sign that Mr Brown intends to go to the polls – so Madame Tussauds is holding its own election to let YOU decide the question: Gordon Brown – in or out?"

You have until 5pm next Tuesday to vote and you can do so here. Do spread the word....

Gordon Brown & New Labour weren’t the only ones to have a bad week last week – a particular strain of Conservatism also entered its death throes and not before time.

In the current euphoria it’s easy to forget team Cameron haven’t always had it easy from certain elements in the Tory party. Cameron’s brand of modern compassionate conservatism* is, for some, capitulation to leftish assumptions that some old guard Tories have never accepted. The need for serious investment in public services, the validity of same-sex relationships and the importance of relative poverty are all welcome realisations that the old guard rejected - they continued to fetishise tax cuts beyond all reason, dismiss any recognition of homophobia or racism as PC nonsense and rejected outright the idea that inequalities in wealth distribution were any concern of politicians. In particular the call for tax cuts gained some serious momentum and was still getting attention until very recently - Iain Dale and Donal Blaney both having a pop at Francis Maude’s cautious Telegraph interview rejecting the clamour for tax cuts, Heffer casting doubt on Cameron’s leadership and again banging on about tax cuts and ConservativeHome on the same theme. To their credit Cameron, Osbourne et al held their nerve.

The point here isn’t the substance or otherwise of those arguments - it’s the line those dissenters took that Cameron’s refusal to engage with old-style Tory shibboleths would forestall electoral success, that Cameron would continue to have a paltry lead at best and would never break Labour’s political dominance unless he followed their line. After last week that argument is in tatters.

Some will contest that making this point is disloyal or somehow dangerous when the Tories are as well positioned as they are now. It’s not. The point here is that those who foresaw disaster clearly have a faulty political compass – their judgement about what the electorate want or don’t want has been found wanting. Last week’s results don’t mean people on that side of the argument can forever be dismissed but it does mean they’re considerably diminished and not before time.

* these words are easily & frequently mocked but some of us invest tremendous hope in them.

Were it not for this little blog the only other political debate yours truly would ever see would be courtesy of a friend & colleague who sits a little to my left. Although he doesn't blog himself he is a regular reader here and elsewhere and hit apon the great idea of a regular audio roundup of the best of British blogging.

For obvious reasons one topic dominates this week and yours truly, Iain Dale & Bob Piper all get a mention. Polly also touches on the English media's ignorance of Scottish affairs and the media's general misrepresentation of immigration. Do please have a listen below (it's only 10mins) and leave any thoughts / comments / feedback in the comments. Likewise if you have any suggestions for posts & topics for Polly to cover in his next piece...

A few weeks back Labour blogger Hopi Sen posted an anti-Boris video someone had sent him and mentioned how refreshing it is that campaigning on the internet can be a lot more creative - being "freed from the dead hand of the party machine" means people can say & do things the parties never could. I share his excitement about that and occasionally try my own hand at mock campaign posters. As with the blog I try and be as balanced and fair as possible but the Brown problems lately have made that difficult - about a week ago I posted the image below to capture the 'car-crash' feel that was starting to surround him.

In light of what we've seen over the last 24 hours I though I'd be magnanimous and do something (above) that might capture how Labour loyalist feel about the likely Mayoral results. Lest anyone misunderstand my own position I'm absolutely delighted that it looks as though Boris has won - for me the ferocity and sheer wilful misrepresentation of the Labour attack machine over the last week or so makes his victory, if it comes, a just one as well as the right one. Zoe Williams was particularly awful in Wednesday's Guardian with one of the most mendacious and dirty pieces of journalism I’ve encountered in a long time - apparently Boris 'genuinely despises gays and africans'. She must have ran out of space to remind us that he eats babies too...

So premptive congratulations to Boris and commiserations to all my readers on the left - hopefully the image above will make you smile on a day when there's not much for you to smile about

Exchanging emails with a friend and found myself in full flow - the result was a better explanation than I've ever put up here on why I dislike Gordon Brown.

I liked Blair and trusted his judgement - not because I agreed with everything but I trusted his instincts and his capacity to reason things out in the country's best interests. He didn't have a lot of time for partisan stuff or ideology and was primarily interested in what actually happened to people - he distrusted creeds as dangerous and recognised that social advance becomes more likely when people rise above them and work together - it was never about one side 'winning' all the arguments. His father was a Tory and he was resolutely middle-class. I think as late as 1980 he didn't know if he wanted to be in politics and it's that old joke about anyone who wants to be PM being unsuitable for the job. I'm still not entirely sure but Cameron seems to be the same sort of individual - again, don't agree with everything but it's about character and outlook.

Brown on the other hand has wanted this job since he was a teenager. He was knee-deep in student politics, wrote books on Maxton etc. and is basically a socialist who's had to moderate that to get where he is. He fundamentally believes that the Tories aren't interested in social justice and refuses to accept that other political traditions have merit or anything to add. He's combative, closed-minded and deeply, deeply partisan. His primary focus isn't helping people or running the country - it's keeping the Tories from power and then doing those things (and that's because he has such a partisan view of the Tories that he thinks that's the right order).The Blair \ Cameron ordinariness was \ is often derided as a facade or piece of spin but that's not entirely fair - it's just a more common, grounded view of what politics is about and it's the way most punters think about politics. That's completely alien to Brown because he's such a partisan at heart. And because this attitude colours everything he does he makes more mistakes - the election debacle was about his survival not the democratic process, the 10p row couldn't possibly be genuine concern about impact it must be Tories making trouble, almost everyone in the know rejects the need for 42 days but this has to be about Brown's determination.

This aspect of Brown's character is often given a positive spin by supporters - it's 'conviction' or 'passion' they say and our Gord has it in spades unlike his predecessor or Cameron (his successor?) But that's not how I see it - for politicians like Blair and Cameron the dense fog of party politics is actually an obstacle to overcome in getting things done, something you have to navigate your way through but that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. For Brown that partisan fog is the very lifeblood of everything he does - it's why he got into politics, it factors in every decision he makes and defines the man's character and outlook.

It also explains why he so poor at his job.