Each day that passes my blood boils even more.  It is very clear that the economy is on a knife edge.  Yes certain tiny green shoots can be pointed to generate some positive news, be it a slight rise in house prices or mortgage applications or even retail sales.  But the economy is on the edge of the precipice and is tittering precariously into falling into a double dip recession. 

This whole debate on public spending is farcical.  Brown is deceiving the people, no other words for it.  Treating us for fools.  Yes Gordon…I will say it…you are a LIAR!!!!  The huge public deficit is a massive issue.  All credible economic commentators, be it the World Bank, the IMF, the IFS, IOD, CBI, all are calling for a slow down and cuts in public spending.  The crippling interest rates on government debt and the still spiralling debt for generations to come does not make the UK an attractive investment zone in the coming years.  We have to either drastically cut spending and / or alter tax levels.

Socialists and Lib Dems are calling for rises in tax, especially on middle income & Middle England.  But what really gets to me heart is that middle income / England is the engine of the national economy.  I earn a respectable salary but if the government continue to chip away at my real income, where is my incentive to be an entrepreneur?  We are all geographically mobile and happy to relocate aboard.  Again, the facts are there in the Treasury Red Book, when taxes are cut, tax receipts rise.  Entrepreneurs have more money to take risks and invest and of course invest in their business.  This creates employment and this creates more people spending in the real economy.  Simple concepts but rarely understood.

Do we seriously believe that focusing attention on the unemployed will pull the UK out of recession?  Sitting on an unemployment benefit does not create jobs for others, it does not create the wealth trickle down for others.  Let’s focus on the real debate on incentivising entrepreneurs to start the powerhouse economy working again, that way we can take the unemployed and put them back into work…exactly as they want as well.

Spending has been the debate post MP’s expenses.  We all know Brown’s catch phrases.  ‘Spending will continue to rise under Labour as we invest’.  ‘Labour investment, Tory Cuts’.  ‘We are the Party of the many, the Tories of the few’.  And now, ‘Tories are the party of unemployment’.  Brown and his fraggles have been pumping these lines out for weeks.  All complete lies as the Government Red Books show spending decreasing.

If these were not lies…why the events of this past weekend?……..

But this weekend….finally what do we see.  The Chancellor suddenly finds the road to Damascus and states that the public sector faces a pay freeze.  Darling stated…’Public sector pay has got to reflect prevailing conditions and in particular inflation has come way down’.    Freezing public sector pay will save £5bn.

Official figures last month showed that in the three months to April, even as the economy shrank at the fastest pace since 1958, public sector workers enjoyed average pay increases of 3.6%.  Private Sector awards averaged 0.3%   No commentary needed….who says that Neverland is vacant….all the staff of the Public sector are living there, enjoying these fantastical pay rises!

And in contrast to Gordon Brown, who will not speak of spending cuts….at least Alastair Darling lives in the real world and all but admitted spending cuts by stating: ‘We do need to set out our priorities, we have got to make choices’. 

As we head to the next G8, Gordon is set to warn that oil prices have soared by 75%, world trade has sunk 25% and unemployment is rising.  All a recipe for disaster and a double dip recession.  Getting ready for your next excuses Gordon?

This country is crying out for leadership.  It is crying out for the truth.  Spending cuts are not nasty words Gordon…they are the words we want to hear.

Gordon will continue lying but even more sad that his weak leadership means that we are heading for a new winter of discontent with trade unions flexing their muscles against this ailing Prime Minister.  If Darling does pull off what is needed ie public sector freeze, beware the Unions and strikes….does Brown have the strength of a Thatcher to face them down….I wonder what odds ladbrookes would offer…..just called them, won’t give odds!!!

As we head towads a public sector pay freeze, the inevitability of strike action is increasing daily and a new ‘winter of discontent’ becomes a reality.

So what should the Government do……..

There is a finite sum of money for any public sector industry.  This should clearly be stated to Union heads.  The Union General Secretary should then consult with members:

-   Should the Union accept a pay freeze.  This will protect jobs and prevent people losing their jobs but it means a decline in living standards for all.

or

-   Should the Union state that members require a pay rise…but this will come with job losses to balance the budget.  Hence there will be job cuts.

Just as the private sector has to balance the budget and face market forces & economic reality, so should the public sector and the dinosaur Trade Unions. 

We know which way the Unions will lean towards, but there is a limited treasure chest at the end of the rainbow and tax payers cant provide more than they are already being asked to to repay this Government’s cancerous level of debt!!!

David Cameron will be left with one almighty mess to clear up….frightening!  Shades of Thatcher coming to power in 1979 with an economy on its knees and Unions rising in militancy.

Wow.  PMQ’s was interesting today.  In any definition of ‘a shocker’ Brown was poor in PMQ’s today.  The sheer pain etched on some of the Cabinet’s faces was painful to see.  Harriet Harman actually looked close to screaming in despair….bet she wishes she exercised ‘her moment in time’, a few weeks back.  Brown is feeling the strain as he seeks to hold together this busted Government.

Time was that Gordon Brown bestrode the Commons on economic issues.  The Former Iron Chancellor…the master of the economic brief.  Getting into the detail of economic theory was more fun than sex for Gordon and minute detail was Brown’s orgasm.  Economics was not Cameron’s strength and in the past he relied on his typed manuscript and whispers from George Osborne.  No more.  Cameron made absolute mincemeat of Brown in the Commons today.  Cameron was more assured that Brown on the economy, needed no notes or prompting and put in his strongest performance for a few weeks.

Brown on the other hand looked a pained and beaten man.  Yes he trotted out the usual lines, (‘we are the party of the many, the Tories the party of the few’….how boring is that old cliche), but Cameron truly painted him into a corner which Brown could not squeeze out of.  Brown would not committ to a spending review before the election because the recession made it all the more difficult.  Cameron hammered home that the reason that Brown did not want a review was because the Government did not want to admit to cuts.  Brown again looking shifty and dishonest.  Cameron accused Brown of a “deceit” in claiming the Opposition proposed 10% cuts.

What followed was Cameron in full stride, dominating the debate and commanding the authority of the Commons.  DC labelled Brown “Mr 13.5%” because he said, based on the Government’s own figures, they would have to cut spending by 13.5% if they wanted to ring-fence spending on health and education.

What followed was hilarious, Brown rattled by Camerons accusation that the the Government would cut total spending, Brown came out with the line of the day…. spending would increase until a “0% rise” in 2013-14.

No wonder that education is in the mess it is….if our Prime Minister thinks that 0% is a rise….what hope for our school kids.  Hilarious bullshit spin at it’s worst. 

Gordon did create one more soundbite….the Conservatives ‘are the party of unemployment’.  Watch him trump that one out in the next few week.s  It came to him in a flash at PMQ’s and he looked chuffed he created a new insult.  What Gordon needs to remember is that this electorate can see unemployment spiralling under him and his hapless crew.

What happened to Nick Clegg again today.  He was again weak and ineffective.  He really is unpredictable in his performance.  Clegg was ineffective today.   As a side note lovely to see Jacqui Smith on the backbenches at PMQ’s.    Hope she enjoys her remaining months in the House of Commons before she faces the judgement of her local electroate…..!!!!

Just watch this video posted by Liarpoliticians on YouTube and observe the faces around Mr Brown….this guy is not performing and soon the chatter will start again over Brown’s dismal leadership……

For those reading the newsletter, you can follow the text from Hansard here:

Mr. David Cameron(Witney) (Con): I welcome what the Prime Minister said, and I agree with him about the Queen’s new recognition for our armed forces—we should all be incredibly proud of what they do on our behalf.

Last week, it was demonstrated for everyone to see that capital spending under Labour will be cut. Now I want to turn to total spending. Does the Prime Minister accept that his own figures show that once the Treasury’s forecast for inflation is taken into account, total spending will be cut after 2011?

The Prime Minister: No, total spending will continue to rise, and it will be a zero per cent. rise in 2013–14. In 2011–12 and 2012–13, it will continue to rise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister’s answer must be heard.

Mr. Cameron: I think that that answer gets zero per cent. The Prime Minister said very clearly no, it will rise, so can he explain a copy of a Treasury presentation that was given to us? On page 7, there are headings for current spending and capital spending, and the headline says very clearly: “Reduction in medium-term spending”. May I ask the Prime Minister, if even the Treasury is giving presentations around the country saying that public spending as a total is being cut, why cannot he admit to the truth?

The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman previously that current spending is going to rise, and that capital spending, as I explained last week, will fall after 2011. These are the public spending projections for the future, but I have to tell him that the debate about public spending is about how we return to growth and jobs in the economy. The reason we have advanced spending to 2009–10 is so that we can spend to get out of recession. We put forward proposals for homes and jobs, and for more money in 2009–10. The Opposition have rejected this expenditure. We have put forward proposals for expenditure in 2010–11—increasing expenditure, and the Opposition have rejected that.

The capital spending that we have advanced to 2009–10 and 2010–11 is therefore not available after 2011. This is precisely the way in which a Government will act to take the country out of recession, and I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman why—[Interruption.] Oh yes. His shadow Chancellor should explain why he was going into television studios yesterday saying that he was going to cut schools now, cut Sure Start now, cut the September guarantee for school leavers now, and do nothing about unemployment. That is surely the issue: we cannot get out of recession unless we spend now on the services that we need.

Mr. Cameron: Today we see a Prime Minister in full retreat. In the first answer, he says that we are going to get a zero per cent. increase in public spending—that is a new one. In the second answer, he finally admits that he is going to cut, and cut deeply, capital spending. He talks about the debate about public spending: the debate is about whether the Prime Minister can be straight with the British public. Let me ask him again. He stood at the Dispatch Box, and talked about total spending year after year—that is the figure that people are interested in. As the Treasury itself says, when it comes to total spending, there is a reduction, not a freeze, in medium-term spending—I am glad that the Prime Minister is talking to the Chancellor for the first time in weeks—and given that it is talking about a cut, will the Prime Minister stand there, give a straight answer and say that once we allow for inflation, total spending is being cut?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that current expenditure will rise, and continue to rise. Capital spending will rise until 2011, then it will fall. I have already made it clear that for health, education and for all these public services, current spending will continue to rise. The issue is surely this: in 2009–10, we are raising spending substantially. We are doing so in 2010–11, and we are doing it to take us out of recession. There is only one serious party in the world that is trying to tell us that we should cut spending now—the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman must therefore admit that under his proposals, schools would lose money now, teachers would be made unemployed, Sure Start services would go, child care services would be at risk, and no teenager would get a guarantee for jobs. That is the future if the Conservatives were ever to implement it.

Mr. Cameron: Complete nonsense. Nobody—[Interruption.] It is interesting that not even the Prime Minister’s own Cabinet now backs the ludicrous line that he is taking about public spending. He keeps talking about this 10 per cent. I do not know whether he realises how much damage it is doing to him. It is not doing any damage to us. Let us explain where the deceit about the 10 per cent. comes from. Let me explain to the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard.

Mr. Cameron: If we take the Government’s own spending plans, take off debt interest and take off the increase for unemployment, which, sadly, will go up, we are left with a 7 per cent. cut in every Department—the Government’s own figures. If we exempt the NHS, we get a 10 per cent. cut—the Government’s own figures. If we take out—[Interruption.] Thank you, Schools Secretary. If we listen to the Schools Secretary and take out health and schools, we get a 13½ per cent. cut. That is the Prime Minister: Mr. 13½ per cent.—his own figures. Let us see if he can answer the simplest of questions. Is he going to have a full departmental spending review before the election—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The first thing that the right hon. Gentleman said was that unemployment is going to continue to go up. That is the Conservative policy. It is a prediction. That is when they say that unemployment is a price worth paying. Is he basing his assumptions on unemployment rising to 2014? No wonder he wants to cut public services. He is basing his assumptions on unemployment continuing to rise, because he will do absolutely nothing about it. We have taken action that is preserving 500,000 jobs. A quarter of a million people are leaving the unemployment register every month. We put in extra money on Monday so that there is more for young people who are unemployed and for summer school leavers. We will not forecast our spending plans on unemployment being higher in 2014 and rising every year, but if that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do, he cannot afford public services. Therefore the truth is that he will be cutting public services by 10 per cent.

Mr. Cameron:I have to say that this is one of the most feeble performances that I have ever seen from the Prime Minister. If Peter Mandelson had not been so busy wandering round the television studios this morning, he could have given him a bit of tuition. There is only one person who we want to add to the unemployment register, and that is this Prime Minister. I asked a simple and straightforward question. Perhaps he could now answer it. Peter Mandelson has said that there will not be a spending review before the election. Can the Prime Minister tell us—will there be one or not?

The Prime Minister: It would be wrong to have a spending review now, at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: “Why?”] Because we are in the midst of a recession and it is not possible to say what unemployment, growth and all the characteristics that the right hon. Gentleman has been referring to are likely to be in 2012, 2013 and 2014. We have got to the heart of the Conservative position today. They are the party of unemployment. They are premising all their spending plans on unemployment continuing to rise. He said himself that unemployment will keep on rising. If that is the basis of their spending plans, people can look forward, under a Conservative Government, not just to 10 per cent. cuts, but to rising unemployment. Why do they want these public spending cuts? To pay for inheritance tax cuts for the very rich. We see once again that they are the party of the few, and we are the party of the many.

Mr. Cameron:I know the walls of the bunker are thick, but the Prime Minister seems completely unaware that unemployment is rising across the country because of the policies of his Government. We have seen hundreds of people lose their jobs at Diageo in Scotland—another tragic case—yet the Prime Minister seems blissfully unaware of what is going on in the country that he is meant to be governing. Everyone will conclude that the Government will not have a spending review because they do not want to own up to the cuts that they are planning in Department after Department. The truth is that this Government are planning to cut capital spending: fact. They are planning to cut total spending: fact. The most important fact of all is that they are incapable of being straight with the British people.

The Prime Minister: This Opposition would cut public spending this year and deprive people of help with unemployment and housing. This Opposition party would cut public spending next year, and cut it savagely in schools, in education and even in the Sure Start programme. We now know the truth about the Conservatives’ assumptions about the future: they assume that unemployment will continue to rise, as the right hon. Gentleman said, until 2014. That is not the policy of this Government; we want to get people back into work.

David Cameron is no doubt thinking of tomorrow’s PMQ’s.  What questions should he ask?  How can he make the Prime Minister feel awkward and start to rebuild the Conservative lead in the Polls back to high 30′s / early 40′s?

I would suggest that Cameron knows that Brown is preparing to trot out the same old lines.  We are all well rehearsed in them.  ‘Labour Investment and Tory cuts’.  ‘Labour is the Party of the Many, the Tories the Party of the Few’.  ‘Tories 10% spending cuts across the board’.  ‘Tories will cut nurses/teachers/police by 10%’.  etc etc 

It is clear Brown is happy to lie to the House…….the spending figures debate in last weeks PMQ’s showed that.  But debating figures in real terms and capital expenditure etc really flies above the general public’s understanding of this issue.  I sat in a Conservative Club and watched PMQ’s with circa 40 Tories, (many more mature in their age), and many in that bar did not understand what was being said.  It flew right over their heads.

I don’t want to hear this false politics in PMQ’s this week from Brown.  he needs to be wrong footed.  It is insulting.  What Cameron needs to do is bring the economy back to the personal cost.  Many people are hurting.  They are losing their jobs.  They are struggling to pay mortgages.  They are eating less to pay for energy bills.  They cannot afford to buy houses.  Small businesses are failing because they cannot get access to credit.  The recession is causing a really personal, devastating, exacting cost in society.  Many of our people are really on their knees hurting.  The last thing they want to hear is the arrogance of this Prime Minister ranting on about the Tories.  We have not been in power for the past 12 years.  Labour has….and it is clear they are running from all their policies be it health, education.  Labour cannot point the finger of blame at the Tories…it is they that have had the chance to Govern.  If education league tables are the right way forward why did the Government effectively scrap them today.  If the health service is so good why introduce a policy that if someone doesn’t get seen by the NHS quickly, they can go private, paid by the tax payer.  If education results are improving, with great year on year GCSE and A’Level results, why do we need 1.2.1 tutors in the classroom?

Let’s face it, Cameron needs to ‘humanise this recession’.  We know that Brown cant handle emotion and express sorry.  He needs to be placed in that zone where he is portrayed as uncaring and cannot apologise…or care for his actions.  There are plenty of examples of people ravaged by the failures of this economic policy.

Cameron has made the point well on personalities.  We know that Alastair Darling is not Brown’s choice for Chancellor, we know that Mandelson is running the show and we know that Ed Balls is being used as Gordon Brown’s attack dog.  But the people really don’t care about that.  They want to know about real issues affecting them and what will be done by the Government to help them.  As we move more and more into this recession, many of the Government’s policies for dealing with the recession still haven’t seen the light of day.  The three keys things Brown has done….spending to create jobs in the public sector, spending to prop the banks up and printing money via quantitative easing.

Brown needs to be pressured to show emotion on this issue—or be seen as an uncaring bastard.  We know that there is more and more bad news……..

So what news today?   More economic statistics are coming through.  The British recession is proving more severe than first thought in the first three months of the year, with the economy suffering its sharpest quarterly contraction in more than 50 years.  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy actually shrank by 2.4pc in the first quarter compared with the final three months of 2008, much more sharply than its first estimate of 1.9pc.  ONS records show that the last time the British economy contracted by more than 2.4pc was in the second quarter of 1958 when gross domestic product fell by 2.6pc and Harold Macmillan was in Downing Street.  These are shocking statistics.

We also learn today….

-     Lloyd’s are planning to shed a further 2,100 jobs, taking the total to 7,000

-     Sky News is reporting that British Airways wants to cut 5,000 jobs and introduce a two year pay freeze for ground staff, cabin crew and baggage handlers

These have personal, real life faces, tragically affected by Government policies.

Let’s ‘humanise’ this recession David…and show it’s true costs.  Statistics are great but it’s real humans that lie behind the statistics.  humanising brings with it emotion, emotion brings with it passion and cause, passion brings loyalty and with that loyalty comes support…….over to you DC.

Another day passes, another influential body criticises Government economic policy.  The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) shouted loudly today for ”more explicit” spending cuts to tackle the UK’s soaring debt.  Their report on the UK economy called for spending cuts and tax rises to address a deficit expected to hit 14% of GDP by 2010.  That is a horrific level.  The OECD think tank thinks there will be a 90% rise in debt (as a proportion of national output) in 2010. It forecasts that the unemployment rate will near 10% next year…..scared…you should be….this is economic mismanagement on a scale unheard of before.

The OECD report warned: “The schedule for re-balancing the budget after the current economic downturn abates should be more ambitious.”   Don’t forget that the UK is on course to borrow a record £175bn this year as tax receipts are hammered by the recession.  The OECD state in their report:  ”There should be more explicit targeting of programmes for expenditure cuts and temporary revenue raising measures should be considered to help expedite the rebalancing of the budget,” .  The OECD concludes:  ”Experience in other countries suggests that a focus on expenditure cuts, rather than revenue raising, is associated with more successful consolidations,”.

So….in the words of David Cameron, again we see a ‘thread of dishonesty’ running throughout this Government….as Brown wants to continue spending, like a gambling addicted man hell bent on hoping his number comes up on the economic roulette wheel.

Look at today’s lead story in the Daily Telegraph.  http://tinyurl.com/kp4afc  Here we get the message from Gordon Brown’s closest ally, Ed Balls, that the Government will ignore warnings about the level of public deficit and seek to spend his way out of recession.  SPEND…yes…SPEND!!!!.  With what?  As the Governor of the Bank of England has stated last week, we have no more money for spending.  We will soon be cap in hand to the IMF for a bail out—how embarrassing will that be?  This disclosure that the Government will continue pumping money into services including health, education and the police, without making cuts in other areas, is purely gambling our nation’s future.

Ed Balls continued by stating to the Telegraph that the decision over whether to spend or cut Britain out of the recession would be the major point of difference between the two main parties at the next election. He went on: “That is the fundamental choice in politics. We’re within a year of an election, we must set out the difference between the parties in values, in judgements and in priorities. “We have very different priorities between Conservative and Labour on spending and tax and we should set that out. We’ve been very clear that government must act to get us through the downturn and do it fairly. “David Cameron and George Osborne [the shadow chancellor] say we shouldn’t be acting, and they want to do tax cuts, which to be honest I think are hugely unfair and will be paid for in police and hospitals and schools being cut if you had a Conservative government.” 

Yes, of course this is panic mongering politics.  Spending cuts do not mean that a hospital will be closed, or teachers cut.  But that is the desperate politics we now see in play by Labour.   Expect the Party Political broadcasts from Labour with life support machines being switched off shortly—same old scare tactics!  A disgrace.

Ed Balls, I suggest that you review an article by TBB posted back on 17th May.  http://tinyurl.com/l8z6u3  This may help you in your simple understanding of economics.  The economy benefits from GREATER tax receipts when taxes are cut.  The incentive to work harder, invest more, starts a trickle down effect which creates employment and helps raise living standards for all.  When you raise tax, exactly as you have seen Ed by your teams 50% tax level on incomes above £150,000, only sees tax receipts shrink, with the entrepreneurs either diverting their income to offshore tax havens, disincentivising them to invest in the UK and invest in other locations, especially in the growing power economies like India, China and South Korea.  At best, the entrepreneurs just hire clever accountants to find loopholes to ensure they do not pay more tax.  So Ed, take a look at the facts.  There are true stats provided in this article from the Treasury on tax receipts post tax cuts.  So this debate has to be lanced as pathetic and scare mongering.

I have to say that this kamikaze economic policy of ‘Spend, Spend, Spend’, smacks of desperation.  I do wonder whether Brown knows in his own mind that there is no chance for Labour to be re-elected and hence is deliberatelybequeathing the Tories with an unholy economic mess that will mean the Conservatives face even harder decisions and any decision will be hard given cuts will be necessary.  Surely, Brown is not that vindictive.  maybe he thinks that the best way to return Labour to power is lose the next election, the Tories will be left with a mess, that the public will then get frustrated by the tough decisions taken by the Tories and hence vote Labour at the next election.  Gordon….the public aren’t that gullible……shame you are!

This picture, taken from the Daily Telegraph, captures Ed Balls perfectly…a sly old fox, not to be trusted and out for himself.

I have to admit a certain amount of respect for the current incumbent of the Bank of England Mervyn King.  For the first time in a long time, A Governor is in place who speaks, clear, plain, English about the mess we are in.  He leaves no room for misinterpretation of what he is saying.   Previous Governors have wrapped up their language in windy and inaccessible rhetoric that the public understood as much as a riddle from….the riddler!

As mentioned on a recent blog, Mervyn had the courage, pre G20, to publicly rip up Gordon Brown’s spending cheque book and hence scupper Brown’s spending plans at G20….and rest assured he wanted to be seen pumping billions more into this economy in front of Obama et al.

Today Mervyn faced the Treasury Select Committee and was as honest as he always is.  He called Labour’s spending plans as ‘unsustainable’ and that he was ‘more uncertain than ever’ about when the recovery was coming.  King stated that:  “The scale of the public deficit is extraordinary at 12.5% of GDP which is a reflection of the scale of the global downturn but also that when we came into the recession, we were on a fiscal policy path that wasn’t sustainable.”  That last phrase is a killer statement.  We were crashing before we hit recession due to our fiscal policy path!

King demanded to understand how Darling planned to repay the rising debt and put in place a repayment schedule.   Last time he shredded Brown’s credit card.  Today he wanted to know how he was getting his money back. 

This also comes on the day that the OECD, (Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development),  paints a bleak picture for UK’seconomic outlook.  In fact the UK economy is in “sharp recession” and will shrink by 4.3% this year, its fastest pace of decline since the Second World War, and stagnate in 2010, according to the OECD. The fiscal deficit is expected to rise to 14% of economic output in 2010, compared with an average of 8.75% across the group’s 30 members.  The OECD said the UK economy was likely to recover “only mildly” in 2010, with any return to health dependent on an upturn in the housing market and credit availability. It predicted that unemployment, which stands at a 12-year high of more than 2.2 million, will “rise substantially” to 10% and “labour market conditions will remain unfavourable for a long period”.

So the OECD state that economic recovery is dependent on credit being made available…….now refer back to Mervyn King today at the Treasury Select Committee.  He warned that banks were still restricting credit to companies, hampering a recovery. King proclaimed:  “There are genuine concerns about how quickly the recovery will pick up – looking at the clear evidence, (firms) are finding it hard to access credit from the banking system. “A combination of that and real uncertainty over the global economy makes it very difficult to be confident of a rapid recovery.”

So all this rubbish from Gordon Brown at PMQ’s becomes more and more farcical each day we head closer to the election.  Today Gordon put in a poor performance.  Cameron struck home hard this week.  Now Cameron has chosen a subject, complex by nature and capital expenditure will fly over most people’s heads BUT the general public get the drift that Gordon is a liar.

I must say that Alastair Darling looks more and more uncomfortable by the week at PMQ’s.  He looks like a man bored with his lot.  Tired of the puppet master pulling his strings.

For those that missed PMQ’s look at the below text from Hansard and see how many times Cameron seeks to get Brown to admit up to his lies.  Maybe Speaker Bercow can step in and force and answer!……….

Mr. David Cameron(Witney) (Con): The Prime Minister had a bit more than the gist of the question: he had a prepared answer to it as well.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Major Sean Birchall from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan, and I very much agree with the Prime Minister about expressing our heartfelt sympathy to the families of Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell at their loss. The Prime Minister knows that he has our full support in all the efforts being made to free the remaining hostages in Iraq.

Last week, the Prime Minister told the House:

“Capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics.”

The Government’s own figures show that that is just not the case. Will he take this opportunity to correct what he told the House last week?

The Prime Minister: Well obviously yes, in the building of the Olympics capital investment will rise very substantially. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that capital investment is rising from £29 billion to £37.7 billion, and then to £44 billion in 2009–10, and that is to help complete the building of the Olympics. Thereafter it will fall as a result of decisions that we have made, but the comparison is between £44 billion of investment now and—even in real terms—the figure for 1999–2002, when he was in charge of advising at the Treasury. We are investing £44 billion: he was investing only £16 billion.

Mr. Cameron: I am afraid that that is just not good enough. Last week the Prime Minister made a very clear statement to the House of Commons. He said:

“Capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 295.]

Here are the figures: capital expenditure this year, 2009, is £44 billion; next year, 2010, it is £36 billion; in 2011 it is £29 billion; and in the year of the Olympics, 2012, it is £26 billion. That is a cut of almost half from £44 billion to £26 billion. Will the Prime Minister now apologise, correct his statement and admit that he is cutting capital expenditure?

The Prime Minister: I was just explaining how we had brought forward capital investment to last year and this year. The figure for capital investment in 2006–07 was £36 billion. That has risen to £38 billion in 2008–09 and to £44 billion in 2009–10. That is so that we can advance capital expenditure to deal with the downturn. The problem for the right hon. Gentleman is that he wants to cut capital investment now. He wants to cut it whereas we are increasing it. We are increasing it to complete the building of the Olympics and other projects, whereas his party would be cutting capital investment now. He has got to face up to the fact that he is going to spend less than us in every year.

Mr. Cameron: The Prime Minister has been caught absolutely red-handed. He made a statement to the House about capital expenditure growing every year and the fact is that it is being cut. If he believed in transparency, honesty and truth in public life, he would get up at that Dispatch Box and say, “I’m sorry, I got it wrong. I gave the wrong figures; here are the right ones.” Now do it.

The Prime Minister: I have explained to the House that money has been brought forward to 2008–09 and 2009–10. Instead of having expenditure of just £30 billion in 2008–09, it is £38 billion. Instead of expenditure of less in 2009–10, it will be £44 billion. We took the decision to advance public expenditure to deal with the recession. Let him come clean: he would cut public expenditure this year, next year and every year after. He is trying to evade his responsibility for wanting 10 per cent. cuts.

Mr. Cameron: In the answer before last, the Prime Minister talked about the year 2007–08. In the last answer, he talked about the year 2008–09. Those years have already happened. He said at the Dispatch Box last week that capital expenditure would grow between now and the Olympics. The figures are in the Red Book, on page 226. Capital expenditure will be £44 billion in 2009, falling to £36 billion, then to £29 billion and then, in the year of the Olympics, to £26 billion. There is no other way to cut it. There is nowhere else he can hide. He must stand up, explain that he got it wrong and say that what he told the House last week was wrong. Why not do it for once?

The Prime Minister: We brought forward spending to deal with the recession. I know that he is against our bringing forward the spending, but we brought forward current and capital spending to deal with the recession. Let me tell him that spending is £44 billion in the year 2009–10. That is the highest capital expenditure ever in our country. It compares with the recession years under the Tories, when capital spending was only £12 billion or £16 billion. We are taking the action to invest in our public services—they would cut our public services now. Why does he not admit that there would be 10 per cent. cuts in public services under the Conservatives?

Mr. Cameron:Let us first of all be clear about the Prime Minister’s claims about Conservative policy. Even his own colleagues do not believe him. This is the report that we had from last week’s Cabinet:

“Darling pointed out that Brown’s Tory cut figures did not represent the”—

Conservative—

“party’s policy but were merely extrapolations”—

[HON. MEMBERS: “Ah!”] It gets more interesting:

“Cooper, previously the Treasury minister responsible for public spending, echoed his concerns”,

and:

“According to one source who was present, Brown was visibly irritated at the way he had been undermined, and brought the meeting to an early close”.

He says that he wants to be a teacher, but it sounds like he has lost control of the classroom. Last week, at that Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did not talk about bringing forward capital expenditure. He said, very clearly:

“Capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics.”— [Official Report, 17 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 295.]

Let me give him one more chance to show that the talk of transparency, truth and honesty means something. He should find that moral compass, stand up there and tell us that he got it wrong.

The Prime Minister: I read out the figures to the House. We are spending £38 billion in that year 2008–09—more than the Tories would ever do. We are spending £44 billion in the coming year—more than the Tories would ever do. We are spending more money on capital investment than at any time in our history—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister, but there is simply far too much noise. The public do not like it, and neither do I.

The Prime Minister: We have to face up to the fact that a sensible debate in this country means that the Conservatives are going to cut spending on housing, education, policing and all the vital public services. The right hon. Gentleman cannot evade the fact that his figures are lower than any of ours in any year. That is the truth about public spending in our country.

Mr. Cameron: The entire country will have heard one very important thing—that this Prime Minister cannot give a straight answer, and that he is not a big enough man to say that he got it wrong.

The Prime Minister: His is the party of 10 per cent. cuts in public expenditure, and the party that would cut the vital public services at a time of recession. We have brought forward public expenditure to help people stay in their homes and get into jobs and to help build schools and hospitals. Those are exactly the public services that the Conservatives would cut savagely, by 10 per cent. That is not going to be allowed to happen. [Interruption.]

I hope readers appreciate the PR spin that is happening today.  Any bad or controversial news, get it out today, with MP’s expenses online.  Journalists will be pouring through thousands of documents seeking to find mis-claims and corrupt MP’s seeking that high publicity resignation.  What better day for releasing PR that you don’t want on the front page.

Next up, the BBC have just announced that the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar as a Government adviser does not breach impartiality rules in the BBC code of conduct and therefore he will be allowed to stay on as the host of the Apprentice.  Again, note this was a decision made by the BBC.  A decision made by the BBC! 

Impartiality.  Hhhmmmmm.  So lets leap on the search engines and see what we can find out about the impartial Sir Alan Sugar.

I had to smile reading a letter he wrote to the Financial Times in March 1992, : ‘I have noted with disgust the comments of a certain Gordon Brown who has accused me of doing well out of the recession. I do not know who Mr Gordon Brown is. Whoever he is, he has not done his homework properly. The man doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Labour offers no sort of route out of recession.’  How times have changed!

Allegedly Sir Alan has donated over £1million to Labour over the years.  That is hardly pocket money!  It is important to make note on Sir Alan’s portfolio of 35 different and interconnected companies. His wife and sons are also directors of many of them.  Companies House documentation reveal that one of his firms, Amshold Limited, is based in the offshore tax haven of Jersey, nice to see his firms all pay UK taxes.  Last month Sir Alan’s computer manufacturing firmViglen won a Government contract worth up to £30million to supply public sector organisations with 70,000 PCs. Nice win for Sir Alan’s business venture.

Interestingly his latest Apprentice winner Yasmina Siadatan will be employed in Sugar’s new enterprise Amscreen, a business installing digital screens and advertising in surgeries and NHS waiting rooms.

But this is not an assassination on Sir Alan.  It is important to note that he does do work in aid of Great Ormond Street Hospital and even donates his Apprentice fee to the hospital.  But media and politicians always point their finger of concern as to Sugar’s companies supplying Government contracts whilst at the same time Sugar is employed directly or indirectly by the Government, and this is coupled with concerns being raised as to donations Sugar has made to the Labour Party.  Hence the argument over impartiality is a valid one for discussion in a free speech democracy.

Whilst nobody is suggesting he bought his title, (Lordship), or the Labour donations led to Government contracts, there will always be rumours and suspicion given his close ties to Brown.

Sir Alan, who has made his millions in computers and property, is also rumoured to be considering being a front running Candidate for London Mayor in 2012. See here:  http://tinyurl.com/mwu22z  He has been a member of the Prime Minister’s business council since it launched.   Surely that is enough for his involvement in Government?  Maybe Brown wanted him to have a higher profile…I can’t see why…a popular media personality, constantly in the news….not for his business dealings…more so for his media work.

What makes this appointment sensitive is that the next series of The Apprentice is due to air early next year, in the countdown to a General Election expected in May. Sir Alan will get a stack of media attention.  He may not speak politics but the general public will see him in this role as head of The Apprentice……and then here him on the news supporting government policies.  I beg to ask if that is impartial?

So what’s your definition of impartiality?  Interesting if it matches a Labour donating businessman, who has written articles in the media supporting Labour, who may stand for London Mayor and whose businesses have benefited from lucrative Government contracts….allegedly!

FYI Websters Dictionary definition is:  not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally.

Collins dictionary uses these descriptive words for impartiality: equality, equity, even-handedness, fairness, lack of bias, neutrality, nonpartisanship, objectivity, open-mindedness