Want to see how it all ends? Skip to approximately 8 minutes in.

We are in effect approaching the very purpose that this site was set up, during the campaign it is envisaged that LabourLost will include comment and news covering #GE10 and to that ends over the next 24 hours we hope to have all major speeches from the Conservative Spring Forum for your delectation.

We wish to thank you wholeheartedly thus far for your continued support of the #labourlost hashtag on Twitter, look after us and we promise to look after you. If you wish to have an article hosted on LabourLost simply get in touch either via this site or via @Labourlost on Twitter.

Let’s win it for Britain.

Where were you on March 17, 1998? It was St Patrick’s Day, of course, but something far more significant than the annual Guinness-fest occurred on that Tuesday.

I remember it well: I should have been at Cheltenham’s National Hunt festival to watch JP McManus’s Istabraq win the first of his three Champion Hurdles. Instead, I was in the office, watching Labour’s Gordon Brown deliver the first of his 10 full Budgets. Istabraq was electrifying; Mr Brown merely intriguing.

The full article and damning evidence can be found here

FROM: THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY CENTRAL OFFICE

The Prime Minister
10, Downing Street
London, SW1A 2AA

3 February 2010

Dear Mr Brown

At Prime Minister’s Questions today, you told the House of Commons that you knew nothing
about the secret fund, worth a reported £50,000, which was held by the Labour Party for your benefit. When asked why you did not declare this on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests (RMFI), you said specifically: ‘I know nothing about what he [the questioner] is talking about.’

This simply cannot be true.

It is clear from Peter Watt, the Labour Party’s former General Secretary, that you were the beneficiary of a secret fund held by the Labour Party. He has said explicitly:

‘Before becoming Prime Minister, Gordon went to some lengths to insulate himself and the Treasury from our financial troubles, setting up his own personal pot of cash at party HQ. This was money we could not dip into, since it was set aside for the Chancellor’s own pet projects. Murray Elder helped secure donations from the Chancellor’s supporters’ (Inside Out, January 2010, page 105).

He went on to claim that it may have been used to finance your ‘long-term campaign to become party leader’ (Inside Out, Peter Watt, 2010, page 105).

Mr Watt’s assertions were widely reported. Indeed, across several pages in the Mail on Sunday, Mr Watt claimed that you used ‘up to £50,000-a-year of Labour money to pay for private polling’ (Mail on Sunday, 17 January 2010).

The allegations were explicitly confirmed as truthful by a Labour official who said in the same article: ‘It [the fund] was funded through donations to the Party.’

In the light of these allegations, my colleague, Greg Hands MP, wrote to you more than two weeks ago, on 17 January, to query why you had failed to declare the fund properly the

Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This letter was publicised in several newspapers on 18 January.

As you did not respond, Greg Hands submitted a complaint to John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner this week. I attach a copy of this complaint for your reference. Again, this complaint was reported.

Yesterday in a speech titled ‘Transforming Politics’, you said that you would ‘do all that is necessary to restore trust’ in politics and the conduct of MPs. If you wish to restore trust in politics, you should stop treating people like fools by claiming that you were unaware of this fund when all the evidence points to the contrary..

I therefore urge you to admit to this fund’s existence, apologise for misleading the House and co-operate with any inquiries that John Lyon may wish to make.

Yours sincerely,

Eric Pickles
Chairman, The Conservative Party
Member of Parliament for Brentwood and Ongar

About Julian:  Julian Bray is a broadcaster, moderator, speaker, journalist and lectures on leadership, company turnarounds, corporate and recession busting strategies, politics, aviation, travel and The City.

In the run up to the General Election #GE10 it has become apparent that the Business Secretary’s contempt for charitable organisations has reached new lows as he robs charities to claw money back the for reckless spending machine that is the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

Last month Lord Mandelson decided to remove an exemption for charities from music licensing rules which quite simply means that from April 2010 those organisations will have to choose between paying large bills if they hold events with recorded music or do without the music completely.

By law all retail outlets are bound by the Performing Rights Society (PRS) representing composers and songwriters, there is no exemption for charities.

However, a large majority of these organisations must also purchase a licence from Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) representing performers and record companies. Currently there are two small clauses in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Sections 67 and 72) that exempt charities from this requirement.

Lord Mandelson has decided to remove this exemption following a public consultation by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) ensuring this is in place for April this year. Is this another sign that #GE10 will be in March?

Let’s consider a few areas this affects so we can see just how bloody silly this really is. A charity shop with music in the background would be forced to pay. Carnival floats that play music would be forced to pay. A carer’s association or nursery playing music to entertain the children would be forced to pay.

Think it’s wrong? You know where to put your X on polling day at #GE10.

In true panto spirit Alistair Darling today announced something more akin to the truth that faces this country.

Ministry Of Misinformation representative pictured adjacent to Comical Ali(stair)

Seems that even today Gordon Brown has a problem with the ‘C’ word. Call that election Gordon and you’ll know what a job cut really is.

With deepest thanks to AngryOfCroydon for this contribution.

LabourLost can only agree with every word of the above.

The election campaign is already starting to get heated. Yes, those in the frame for Leader of the Labour Party are really stepping up a gear.

We all know it is General Election year #GE10 and the most likely date is 6th May, following a Budget full of empty promises of investment, prosperity and pay later schemes. But there is currently an election looming far sooner and far more meaningful for the Labour Party and potentially the country.

It is clearly understood that any leader of the Labour Party other than Gordon Brown following a coup would be able to narrow the Poll gap between themselves and the Conservative Party as the incumbent would inevitably enjoy the honeymoon period and the ‘bounce’ that goes with a personality change.

For months it was assumed that 26th March would be #GE10 thereby allowing the Government to avoid announcing any form of Budget but that would simply not allow enough time for the new leader to make the role his/her own.

Following a pre-Christmas party hosted by Charles Clarke the former Home Secretary and one of the most vocal anti-Brown campaigners it seems one output was to brief a series of coordinated press releases slamming the leadership of Gordon Brown and stating how better off the party and the country would be without him at the helm.

Briefings: Charles Clarke, Barry Sheerman, Greg Pope, Polly Toynbee

…the list of those present includes Parmjit Dhanda, Malcolm Wicks and Meg Munn

So then, who is the in the driving seat and who is set to star in the shake-up of the Labour party?

Or, are we to face yet another failed coup from a bunch of snipers who haven’t got the courage to do anything other than moan about how bad a Conservative Government would be for Britain?

We already know that Harriet Harman is to head up Gordon Brown and the PLP’s #GE10 campaign which sidelines Lord Mandelson (a very risky strategy indeed), but was this appointment simply to the *Fearless Five striking first?

*Fearless Five are a group of rebels led by Jack Straw, the others are Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman, Chancellor Alistair Darling, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

One also has to wonder how much Sarah Brown will be used throughout #GE10 as already she has persuaded an ex-colleague from the PR field, Helen Scott Lidgett to join her in the depths of the bunker.

Today, Gordon Brown will give a speech that will be full of empty promises and scorn on the Tories but will it be enough to stave the assassins from his door?

It’s quite a claim on the last day of the decade as we push towards a new era with the advent of the demise of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Given the size of the claim does it stack up against the even bigger claim by Gordon Brown to have ended boom and bust and that Britain was better positioned than others to weather the recession? Considering that Britain is still in recession whilst every other G20 country has prospered one has to consider the claim by the Oxford Economics ThinkTank to be factual.

There are a number of economists who believe the country returned to growth within the Q4 2009 though considering the artificial spending patterns in November and December and the last minute rush to gain what can be gained from the reduced VAT rate there are a growing number of economists who believe this growth,if real at all to be unsustainable.

It has already been proved that this year has seen the worst performance for our economy since the 1920’s and year on year both Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown are forced to come to the despatch box and state their figures are to be revised.

Oxford Economics findings state that GDP per person fell to £22,700 on average in 2009, down from £23,000 in 2005 after inflation adjustment – a fall of 1.3%. In Labour’s first two terms GDP per head grew 12.6% and 8.3% respectively.

Supposing there may be some recovery in economic growth in 2010, Oxford Economics expects GDP per head to be £22,775 next year (measured in 2009 prices) – which in reality is a reduction in living standards equivalent to £225 per person when compared with 2005.

Adrian Cooper, the managing director of Oxford Economics went on record with the following statement

The decline in UK GDP per capita over the last four years contrasts markedly with the improvements seen over the Labour government’s first two terms

…he further stated

Coupled with the tax rises to be implemented over the coming years – starting on 1 January 2010 – this research underlines the new age of austerity facing the UK economy

There are oh so many woes for this Government but unfortunately that means there are oh so many woes for this country ahead of the General Election #GE10.

We’ve said it before and we reiterate it people, please use your vote and use it wisely.

During the run up to the GE we shall continue to use the #labourlost hashtag on Twitter and we shall also be using the #GE10 hashtag; there are several other suggestions doing the rounds but we believe #GE10 to be fully representative and utilising only 5 characters we believe it is also the best possible use of space for the purpose of Twitter.

So, come the election how will you vote?

Are you a core supporter of a particular Party? Have you always voted the same way?

What forged your opinions and political ethos?

Will you vote on the day with local requirements in mind, for instance against your normal beliefs because you like what a candidate has promised for your constituency?

Will you decide on the day or have you already made your mind up and nothing on this earth however said or done can change that?

Are you doing anything special to help your local candidate? Do you want to get involved but don’t know how to assist? (Whichever Party: use the comment form and we can try to let you know).

It is very clear at the moment that even the Pollsters don’t know what is happening or what is going to happen on the day and we can see this clearly almost on a daily basis with the Conservatives reported to be 17% clear whilst another poll claims Labour have cut the lead to just 9%.

Slowly we have threads of the new shaping of things to come with claim and counter from all sides, the slow unraveling of the pre-budget report and now the potential of a March election which would let Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown off the hook with regards to announcing the real budget and real state of the nation’s finances.

If we do have a March election it would be nigh on impossible to stage a TV Debate although it was blogged to this effect back in October by Parlez_me_nTory.

Just a few things to set the mind working in the run up to Christmas and that long period of plotting, electioneering and gathering of strategy. I love this period as the nation steadies its troops and all parties are placed on a war footing.

That was then…

This is now!

Rest assured this site and others are but strings to our bow come the run-up to the General Election and they will be heavily utilised and will also require your continued support.

Normal service will resume as soon as possible.

Thank you.

This video is worthy of your attention.

We’re not talking about being unable to remember a date for a course undertaken or slightly changing the result of a task you actually undertook in a previous role to highlight the positive outcome more favourably, no, this was not just any lie.

This was your diamond studded, gold encrusted M&S kind of lie.

Back in 1994 Sally [Illman] applied for a role with City PR firm Consolidated Communications with a supporting CV claiming she had attained a degree from Oxford; the boss of the firm Alastair Gornall claims that was the deciding factor in her recruitment.

After Consolidated Communications did some checking to confirm Ms Illman’s status the firm were told by Oxford University that no such degree had been issued as the student had dropped out after 2 years. Former students recall how she neglected her studies in favour of socialising.

Mr Gornall challenged his new recruit and following an angry exchange in which he accused her of lying, he subsequently fired her.

Yesterday a spokesman for Mrs Bercow insisted she had never knowingly lied about her academic achievements. He blamed ‘confusion’ that may have arisen when her academic details were passed to Consolidated by a head-hunting firm.

Confusion? In this instance what does that mean? The CV has to be clear it either says the candidate has a degree or it doesn’t, there is no half-way house. That is, unless you are deliberately trying to deceive as it would seem Ms Illman was.

The spokesman continued: ‘In the CV she said she was at Oxford from 1988 to 1990. Anyone could work out that is two years and not three. Nor did the CV say she had completed her degree. She never gave the impression, either verbally or in written form, that she had completed her degree at Oxford.’

Mrs Bercow studied theology in her first year, then switched to history. However, towards the end of her second year, university authorities became concerned that she was neglecting her studies.

They told her to take a year out to ‘get her head together’. She left – but never returned.

In addition to changing her mind on her studies from theology to history to drop-out she also switched her political allegiance in an attempt to find her true mind. Shortly before leaving Oxford, Ms Illman (once a Conservative) joined the Liberal Democrats, later returning to the Tories but by 1997 she had defected to Labour.

It would seem that with an early sign of a lack of integrity Mrs Bercow was always destined to represent the PLP though with dedication and loyalty such as that displayed by Mrs Bercow I pity the electorate of Westminster should she gain the seat at the forthcoming General Election.

LabourLost believe you may enjoy further reading related to a woman with a past.

Many tomes will be written today and in the future about the cynical content of the speech and how it is in effect a pre-manifesto manifesto so I don’t for one minute propose to add to that weight of words.

Instead, I propose to discuss something I feel is far more newsworthy today as I believe it ’slipped’ under the radar yesterday in the furore of an investment announcement.

Yesterday, Lord Adonis announced that the 10 worst railway stations in England would each get to share £50m. That much we already know.

Fair enough, in the past I have been ‘quietly impressed’ with Lord Adonis and his apparent concern for doing the right thing by the railways but somehow, this just doesn’t sit comfortably with Parlez~me~’n~Tory.

How does Lord Adonis suddenly (1 day prior to a huge swathe of announcements within the Queen’s Speech) decide which stations are to be in his remit for this investment proposal?

What criteria was used for determining the worst stations in the country? Was this a consultative process? If so, with whom and when?

Personally, I believe that the only consultation (external to rail management) was between members of the Cabinet and only very senior members at that.

It is the belief of Parlez~me~’n~Tory that the criteria used was based purely on the best possible chance of a positive return at the General Election. Shall I put that statement into perspective?

Let’s take a look at the stations that are set to benefit and who controls the community. The 2nd line of each entry indicates: MP (Constituency/Benefitting area, Party) Majority (Year entered Parliament):

Station: Barking

Margaret Hodge (Barking, Lab) 8,883 (1994)

Station: Clapham Junction

Martin Linton (Battersea, Lab) 163 (1997)

Station: Crewe

Edward Timpson (Crewe & Nantwich, Con) 7,860 (2008)

Station: Liverpool Central

Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston, Lab) 7,193 (1997)
Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside, Lab) 10,214 (1997)
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton, Lab) 15,957 (1991)
Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Wavertree, Lab) 5,173 (1992)
Robert Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby, Ind) 15,225 (1983)

Station: Luton

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Lab) 6,487 (1997)
Margaret Moran (Luton South, Lab) 5,650 (1997)

Station: Manchester Victoria

Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central, Lab) 9,776 (1983)
Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley, Lab) 12,027
Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton, Lab) 5,808 (1970)
John Leech (Manchester, Withington, Ldem) 667 votes (2005)

Station: Preston

Mark Hendrick (Preston, Lab) 9,407 (2000)

Station: Stockport

Ann Coffey (Stockport, Lab) 9,163 (1992)

Station: Warrington Bank Quay

Helen Jones (Warrington North, Lab) 12,204 (1997)
Helen Southworth (Warrington South, Lab) 3,515 (1997)

Station: Wigan North Weston

Neil Turner (Wigan, Lab) 11,767 (1999)

Do you notice a pattern developing?

It is rather obvious that apart from a token Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent the rest are Labour; not exactly with the strongest majorities either.

So, we have many Government ministers that were already set to enter the General Election campaign on very shaky ground who can now point to a huge cash investment in their region as evidence of what the Labour Government can and will do for their community. [It would be very interesting to do some analysis on what the breakdown of each local council is for these regions]…anyone wish to do that work?

Expect countless cries of ‘you wouldn’t get this under a Tory Government’ most notably in the voice of John Prescott to ram home hard the ‘working class’ Labour perception.

With the strategic position of the vast majority of these seats, [don't think for one minute they weren't chosen without that in mind] this investment turns out to be not quite what you thought it was yesterday and with the Queen’s speech today this will be all but lost in the noise. This cannot be allowed to happen.

MP’s from all sides, lobbyists and the blogosphere must leap on this and challenge Lord Adonis for the truth behind his rationale.

This post was first published on the Parlez~me~’n~Tory blog.

Lord Mandelson, who once represented Hartlepool as an MP has just been granted a freeman of the town. His new title reads a full 45 words and is:

The Right Honourable Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Lord President of the Council, First Secretary of State, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Honorary Freeman of the borough of Hartlepool.

If that wasn’t ridiculous enough there are grave doubts about the fairness in which he was granted the new title.

In a straight run-off Lord Mandelson would have been up against Isobel Wilson of the town’s Pansies Breast Cancer Support Group, Wendy McLoughlin MBE, 63, who chairs Hartlepool Families First for disabled children and sports presenter (locally-born) Jeff Stelling. But strange occurrences within the council ensured that any vote against Lord Mandelson would mean that one-out, all-out!

Previously, Hartlepool council has voted on each candidate individually for the honorary title of freeman. One councillor stated that the secret meeting headed up by the ruling Labour group which took place on 5th November was blatant emotional blackmail.

Labour group leader Jonathan Brash demanded a vote to couple Lord Mandelson’s name in with four other nominations for freeman and two for alderman, a total of seven.

The resulting vote was tied at 19-all, with 17 of those 19 votes in favour coming from Labour councillors, including Lord Mandelson’s former agent and close ally, Steve Wallace. The casting vote went to Carl Richardson, the chairman (Labour).

Councillors were then instructed to gain a two-thirds majority to grant all 7 nominations the title, if any attempt to block Lord Mandelson was undertaken, they would have to block popular Sky Sports presenter Jeff Stelling.

A total of 32 votes were cast which, under the two-thirds majority rule, meant 22 votes were needed to secure Lord Mandelson’s freeman title. The result was 22 to ten – with six abstentions.

LabourLost says: Lord Mandelson, you disgust me. Riding roughshod over genuine and good people that have actually done something for the community. Yet another example of the abuse of powers that is endemic within the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Whilst the row, rightly or wrongly continues apace with The SUN v the Government regarding the mother of Guardsman Janes there are individual movements within the PLP to shore up their defences so that those individuals are best placed to capitalise from a most catastrophic defeat.

The latest of these machinations on display is that by one David Miliband MP. It is very clear that Mr Miliband has his sights on a powerful role whether it be in Britain or controlling Britain from Europe.

Forced to make a choice yesterday David Miliband has all but refused the job of foreign affairs within the newly created European structure following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty preferring instead to show his allegiance to the PLP.

Senior members of the PLP have briefed David Miliband in private that they believe there is still a chance that Gordon Brown would step down before the General Election and that he would be best placed to step into the void.

They have also briefed him that to walk away now would not sit well with the core support as he would appear as a rat leaving a sinking ship.

As a consequence this single act of forfeiture says more about his personal ambition than his desire to do what is best for his country.

The problem with the UK is since the Thatcher era we have been constantly punching above our weight and when Labour came into power some twelve years ago, it was with the promise of a new revitalised UK.

Northern Ireland (with an untold amount of money thrown at it) no longer was a nagging sore, deals were done and the Irish Taliban, senior IRA personnel, were given shoe-in positions of power, when at least one of them should have been facing a trial for 18 well documented murders and the UK authorities to this very day have all the evidence – firmly under lock and key.

The involvement of an Irish Priest at one point caused at least one of the major fugitives to be released having been captured after a long and bloody search by the military.

I know this as the senior military figure in Belfast at the time (now sadly passed on) recounted the story in detail to me. It was at the end of his distinguished military career when he, Major Napier was looking forward to retirement, but was unexpectedly posted to Belfast with the Kings Own Troop Royal Horse Artillery.

Ironically, I later heard the London Met. Police (at the time, on virtual permanent secondment to Northern Ireland) view on the same series of incidents in Northern Ireland and all the strands matched up.

So given the Northern Ireland experience and the fact that Tony Blair was in the driving seat, you can see why Gordon Brown is keen to make Afghanistan work, even though the current rate of murders (you really can’t call them battlefield casualties) is exceeding the Falklands daily tally.

There but for the grace of God

Ministers keep to the line that if we pull out, the Taliban will join with other terrorist groups, overrun Pakistan and use nuclear weapons against us in the UK.

So the classic Westminster model thinking is (as used back in colonial times) support the functioning Government of the day, put in place basic elements of a rag tag police force and implant basic civic systems, use a combination of bribes dressed up as aid and threats (withdrawal of bribes ie aid) to exert a nominal hold over the incumbent Government.

Trouble is everyone knows that the UK is financially stretched and the populous does not have the jingoistic (politically incorrect) will to support the action in Afghanistan.

Children have grown up during the 12 years of Labour inspired multicultural rule and with information computer technology, know far more about world affairs than many politicians from a previous more sane world.

Take a walk around any major UK conurbation, find the Central Library computer room or in-town internet cafés, the collective high tech teaching of discredited and deported Mullahs are to be found streaming hate and vilification 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.

Essentially it’s Gordon Brown looking at the Autumn of his political aspirations versus the Mullahs? No contest in some ethnic and religious groupings. The days of a stiff upper lip, swagger stick and a loud “Now look here…” no longer works. ‘Johnny Foreigner’ lives in the UK, has a growing family, a taxpayer and is now a second/third generation British Citizen.

Ministers say the threat comes from a variety of ‘dark’ fanatical well financed, trained, equipped forces combining together and then our own mainland is threatened.

For this reason if you follow the logic, we fight hand to hand skirmish actions with conventional weaponry and highly restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan?

Rather than unleashing a concerted arms length missile based attack and blanket carpet bombing of poppy fields,Taliban strongholds and used of a whole range of weapons of mass destruction NATO forces have stashed away. The whole Dr Strangelove scenario if you like, and where are all those NATO troops and associated support?

There is no front line

Publicly when we were ‘winning’ it looked good, and gave MPs something to talk about.

The UK looked good (in Gordons’ good eye anyway) at international symposia such as the G8 or G20 and soon wonderful Copenhagen. Such actions keep the arms industry in operation and many thousands employed in areas traditionally associated with high unemployment.

On the money side conventional warfare is also cheap, the Treasury likes that, having dipped into and virtually emptied the secret off balance sheet military ‘contingency fund’ or ‘war chest’ to pay off (or bail out) the bankers, prop up the massive underfunding of the Olympics, the private sector was supposed to have filled.

The truth is that few really understanding what goes on inside the many privately funded faith schools, parents and young impressionable people also have access to superior worldwide family and wider networking avenues only open and normal to people of Asian origin. All perfectly legal and supported to the hilt, by the Human Rights Act.

It also has to be said, the traditional British family unit crumbled a few generations back. As to the UK’s world financial standing, reading The Daily Telegraph as the Taliban certainly do, “UK is ‘skint’ says M&S’s Sir Stuart Rose”. If the Taliban didn’t know it earlier they certainly do now!

So no strong public backing for the war, no extra money to fight it and a Government on the way out probably by late March. MP’s collectively tarnished as corrupt with Duckhouses and moats to clean, all out of the public purse. Whilst mounting job losses are announced daily and not just in the hundreds but thousands. Nothing like a good recession to have a bottom upwards corporate clear out, it’s not looking good.

A weak, corrupt Afghanistan Government and subsistence level poorly paid Afghan trainee police officers drawn from the general population, with minimal vetting. Extra income and wider families covertly maintained by the opium warlords and in a country where everyone is related. That is what our troops are facing, and Gordon Brown knows it.

The sad reality of war: RIP

So what should be done. Gordon needs to save face. He’s lost his saintly spin doctor, rudderless if you like, nervous about returning highly professional motivated battle hardened but disciplined British troops en-mass to the UK, but that is what has to be done, the real threat is from within and as we are now fully within Europe, the Lisbon treaty having been ratified, take full advantage of it.

Europe can now collectively take over the Police training role and supply on a rota basis, the NATO troops required, our insular role is effectively done and dusted. We should leave Afghanistan, within weeks and if there is any training to be done, it can be carried out at arms length in neutral territory in any one of a number of European countries.

We’ll continue to supply the hardware and remote drone assisted air support but our British troops on the ground in hostile conditions? This is the battle tactic of 64 years ago, the Battle of the Somme without the mud. Just as futile and pointless.

The heartbreaking thing is that all the Ministers know it, but have to keep it going until they can collectively pass the buck or baton to a new administration. “Not our problem old boy. Fancy a pink Gin?”

END

About Julian:  Julian Bray is a broadcaster, moderator, speaker, journalist and lectures on leadership, company turnarounds, corporate and recession busting strategies, politics, aviation, travel and The City.

A few days ago Ian Craig, the chief schools adjudicator, recommended a range of new penalties to be introduced to punish parents who break school admissions rules by giving false addresses, fibbing about their ‘real’ address and moving house just to personally gain from the postcode.

Fair enough, I can understand that. But who is it that’s behind this mandate?

None other than the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families Ed Balls MP who along with his wife Yvette Cooper MP according to the Telegraph’s MP’s expenses research ‘flipped’ their homes a number of times

After being elected to Parliament for the first time in 1997, Miss Cooper, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, designated a modest property in her constituency of Castleford, west Yorkshire, as her second home, and began claiming mortgage interest payments on her parliamentary allowances.

In May 2005, after Mr Balls was elected MP for Normanton, Miss Cooper “flipped” her second home to the family house she shared with her husband and their three children in south London. The couple both began claiming a half share of the £1,466 mortgage interest, a sum of £733 each compared with the £530 she had been paying in Yorkshire.

Two years later, in May 2007, the couple moved again, to a larger, £655,000 property in north London which they designated their second home. Their mortgage interest payments increased to just over £1,031 each.

They also put the bill for the £2,000 cost of removal vans and men on their parliamentary expenses.

…and just in case you thought they were hard up

Yvette Cooper

Job: Chief secretary to the Treasury

Salary: £141,866

Total second home claims

2004-05: £19,428

2005-06: £14,234

2006-07: £15,995

2007-08: £12,219

Ed Balls

Job: Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

Salary: £141,866

Total second home claims

2004-05: Not elected

2005-06: £13,618

2006-07: £15,979

2007-08: £12,219

I put it to you Mr and Mrs Balls, you potentially gave false addresses, fibbed about your ‘real’ address and moved house just to personally gain from the postcode.

You are no better than those you seek to suppress.

Previously published over at Parlez~me~’n~Tory

This explains why the ‘cast iron’ guarantee was not adopted and what we can expect from a Conservative Government with regards to Europe.

[Here is the speech in full]

Yesterday in Prague, the Czech Constitutional Court rejected the one remaining challenge to the Lisbon Treaty, and the President of the Czech Republic signed it.

The Lisbon Treaty has now been ratified by every one of the twenty seven member states of the European Union, and our campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is therefore over.

Why? Because it is no longer a Treaty: it is being incorporated into the law of the European Union.

Next week, the new posts that the Lisbon Treaty creates – a President and a Foreign Minister – will be filled.

We cannot hold a referendum and magically make those posts – or the Lisbon Treaty itself – disappear, any more than we could hold a referendum to stop the sun rising in the morning.

I know, from the many public meetings I’ve held around the country, from the huge number of letters and emails that I receive, how much the people of this country will resent the fact that we cannot now have the referendum we were promised.

The decision to promise, and then deny, a referendum was taken by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The betrayal was backed and matched by the Liberal Democrats.

And I believe it ranks alongside the expenses scandal as one of the reasons that trust in politics has broken down.

Of course I wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

I’ve argued for it, campaigned for it, put it front and centre in our European election campaign.

We have voted for it in Parliament.

I’ve challenged the Prime Minister about his broken promise at every opportunity.

And if the Treaty had not been ratified by every European government when we came to the election, we would have held a referendum on it.

But now it has been ratified.

And I always said that if this happened, I would set out immediately how a Conservative Government would respond.

So today, I want to speak directly to the British people.

I want to explain what a new Conservative government will do to protect Britain’s interests in Europe and salvage something from the mess that Labour will have left us.

And I want to speak to our European partners too, to set out clearly what they can expect from a Conservative government in Britain.

NEVER AGAIN

First, we will make sure that this never happens again.

Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people.

If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum.

And that will cover not just any future treaties like Lisbon, but any future attempt to take Britain into the euro.

We will give the British people a referendum lock to which only they should hold the key – a commitment very similar to that in Ireland.

This is a major constitutional development.

But I believe it is now the only way to reassure the British people that powers cannot be given away without their explicit approval in a referendum.

It is not politicians’ power to give away – it belongs to the people.

So at the General Election, we will challenge the other political parties to accept the referendum lock and pledge never to reverse it.

NO MADE-UP REFERENDUM

I recognise there are some who, now that we cannot have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, want a referendum on something else…anything else.

But I just don’t think it’s right to concoct some new pretext for a referendum simply to have one for the sake of it.

That wouldn’t survive serious scrutiny.

I don’t think a made-up referendum will get Britain anywhere.

For instance, what about a referendum asking for a mandate for our negotiating aims in Europe?

We would have just asked for that mandate in an election and received it.

Would we really want to turn round straight after an election, with the public finances in the state they are in and the economy as fragile as it is and ask the same question all over again?

A made-up referendum might make people feel better for five minutes but my job is to put together a plan that lasts five years, and I don’t think a phoney referendum should play any part in that.

Let me repeat: a Conservative government will guarantee a referendum if there is any attempt to transfer further powers from Britain to the EU.

But if we wasted everyone’s time and taxpayers’ money on a referendum that has no practical effect, I don’t think the British people would thank us for it.

SOVEREIGNTY

In any case, there is more we can do than simply promise a referendum lock on any future handover of power.

Take the sovereignty of our laws.

Because we have no written constitution, unlike many other EU countries, we have no explicit legal guarantee that the last word on our laws stays in Britain.

There is therefore a danger that, over time, our courts might come to regard ultimate authority as resting with the EU.

So as well as making sure that further power cannot be handed to the EU without a referendum, we will also introduce a new law, in the form of a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.

This is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation.

It is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain.

It would simply put Britain on a par with Germany, where the German Constitutional Court has consistently upheld – including most recently on the Lisbon treaty – that ultimate authority lies with the bodies established by the German Constitution.

But people will rightly say that the Lisbon Treaty does not just transfer powers to Brussels today.

It allows further powers to be transferred in the future, because it contains a mechanism to abolish vetoes and transfer power without the need for a new Treaty.

We do not believe that any of these so-called ratchet clauses should be used to hand over more powers from Britain to the EU.

Furthermore, we would change the law so that any use of a ratchet clause by a future government would require full approval by Parliament.

These changes: the referendum lock, the Sovereignty Bill, stopping the use of ratchet clauses, all these changes can be put in place by our own Parliament.

They do not require the approval of our European partners – merely the sanction of the British people at the ballot box, which we will seek at the forthcoming General Election.

They will put in place real protection for our democracy – protections other countries have but which are missing here in Britain.

They would increase accountability, and they would ensure that the breach of trust committed by this Labour Government could never happen again.

Those two words – never again – will be on our leaflets, in our Manifesto: we will make sure that the British people remember who it was that broke their promise – Labour, and who it is that will stop this happening again – the Conservatives.

BRITISH GUARANTEES

But these measures are all about preventing problems in the future.

They don’t deal with the problems we are facing today, which will now be made worse by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

In essence, these problems boil down to the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives.

A Conservative Government will address some of these problems by negotiating three specific guarantees with our European partners guarantees over powers that we believe should reside with Britain, not the EU.

First, social and employment legislation.

Of course, Britain used to have an opt-out from the Social Chapter: but Labour foolishly gave this up.

And today, too much EU legislation in this area is damaging both our economy and our public services.

So we will want to negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services for example the aspects of the Working Time Directive which are causing real problems in the NHS and the Fire Service.

The second British guarantee we will negotiate is over the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We must be absolutely sure that this cannot be used by EU judges to re-interpret EU law affecting the UK.

Tony Blair claimed that his Government obtained an opt-out from the Charter.

But what he got – as the Government have now admitted – was simply a clarification of how it works in Britain.

We will want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The third area where we will negotiate for a return of powers is criminal justice.

We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges.

We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it.

That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.

I recognise, of course, that taking back power in these areas, or negotiating arrangements that suit the UK, is not something we can do unilaterally.

It means changing the rules of an institution of which we are a member – changing rules that Britain has signed up to.

If we want to make changes, we will need to do that through negotiation with our European partners, and we will need the agreement of all twenty seven member states.

I also recognise that these are highly complex areas, where we need to think through the practical details with great care.

William Hague is now leading detailed work to examine precisely what we will need to change, and, if we win the next election, his work will draw on the specialised legal advice which the Government has available to it, as well as the expertise of officials from the Foreign Office and other relevant departments.

But success in these negotiations will establish an extremely important principle: that European integration is not a one way street and that powers can be returned from the EU to its member countries, a principle that was envisaged in the Laeken Declaration nearly a decade ago.

Let me be clear. Our guarantees are essential, realistic and deliverable.

Essential, because we have identified the areas of the Lisbon Treaty that cause the deepest concern, and the ones with greatest potential to interfere with our democracy.

Realistic, because we will propose that these British guarantees are added as protocols to a future accession treaty – like the recently concluded Irish guarantees.

And deliverable, because we have chosen areas where the return of powers from the EU to Britain protects our distinctive national interests without harming the interests of our European partners.

THE NEXT PARLIAMENT

So, yes, I believe we will be able to negotiate the return of the powers I have set out.

But no, we will not rush into some massive Euro-bust-up.

We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament.

I know some people will want me to go further, and faster. To them let me say this:

If we win the election, we will inherit the worst public finances of any incoming government for fifty years.

We will have a generational challenge to get Britain to live within her means, to secure economic recovery and to deliver this country from the appalling mess left by this Labour Government.

That has to come before anything else.

THE LONGER TERM

These steps: a referendum lock to prevent this ever happening again, and the return of a specific set of powers. I believe these things can stop Britain’s relationship with the EU from heading in the wrong direction.

Clearly we will be asked the question: what if you cannot get these guarantees and what if Europe continues to head in the wrong, centralising direction? Let me answer that question in advance.

Well, if that were to happen, then of course we can return to this subject in a manifesto for the parliament after the next one.

Let me be clear: this is not something we want to happen. Nor is it something we expect to happen.

But if those circumstances were to occur, we would not rule out a referendum on a wider package of guarantees to protect our democratic decision-making, while remaining, of course, a member of the European Union.

But that would be a judgement for the future, not for this election or for the next Parliament.

What I have set out today settles our policy for the next parliament.

CONCLUSION

I just want to conclude by saying something clearly to our European partners.

My purpose in committing any government I lead to these measures is not to frustrate or to sabotage the operation of the European Union.

It is to put Britain’s role in the EU on a more positive footing.

As we commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should remember that the European Union has done much to reconcile the painful division of Europe and to spread democracy and the rule of law across our continent.

But it should not rest on those achievements.

Today, European countries need to work together to combat global climate change, to fight global poverty, to boost global economic growth.

If I am elected Prime Minister, the British Government I lead will be an active member of the European Union.

On energy security, on climate change, on growth, on global poverty, we will look forward to working with our European partners to make progress on those issues.

We will press to keep the doors of the European Union open to new member states, especially to entrench stability in the Western Balkans where so much European blood has flowed, and also to Turkey.

We will stand for open markets, and a strong transatlantic relationship; an EU that looks out to the world, and that builds strong and open relations with rising powers like China and India.

We will want to see a tough financial settlement in the forthcoming negotiations on the EU budget, ensuring that Britain does not pay more than its fair share.

We will pay particular attention to the area of financial regulation, where we will be vigilant and tenacious in defending the competitiveness of the City of London.

Like every other Member State, we will fight our corner to advance our national interests.

But our guiding principles will be these: we believe Britain’s interests are best served by membership of a European Union that is an association of its member states, we will never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe and that means we will watch closely how the Lisbon Treaty works out in practice.

We will put in place a referendum lock, so never again can a British government transfer powers to the EU without the people giving their consent in a referendum.

We will enact a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, making clear that ultimate authority rests with our Parliament.

And we will negotiate for a specific set of British guarantees that are realistic, deliverable – and essential.

That is our programme for Government.

That is the mandate we will seek at the next election.

In this area – Britain’s relationship with Europe – what people want from their politicians is some straight talk and plain speaking.

They were told we were joining a Common Market and it turned out to be a European Union.

They were told they would have a say over the European constitution but that promise was broken.

People are fed up with the endless lies and spin, they just want to know what we can achieve and how.

That is what I will deliver.

I said we would leave the federalist group in the European Parliament and we did.

I said we would have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and if it hadn’t been ratified we would have had that referendum.

But I did not promise a referendum come what may because once the Lisbon Treaty is the law, there’s nothing anyone can do about it and I’m not going to treat people like fools and offer a referendum that has no effect.

What I am promising today is doable, credible, deliverable.

That’s what this is all about.

Giving the British people a policy on Europe that they can actually believe in.

The stark statement from the Home Secretary on immigration.

One can tell we are nearing a General Election as the usual arrogance seems to have taken a back seat in readiness to be replaced by attrition as Alan Johnson yesterday admitted the Government had mishandled immigration and that it is placing a ’strain’ on jobs and services.

The Home Secretary admitted his Government’s ineptitude as he said Labour had been ‘maladroit‘ in its approach to the issue. Claiming there will now be no ‘shying away‘ [as it is] ‘one of the public’s top concerns‘.

The ‘moderate majority’ had not had its views heard, Mr Johnson said.

Mr Johnson had previously claimed he did not ‘lie awake‘ worrying about the population reaching 70million. Which in itself was broadly in line with his predecessor’s predecessor Phil Woolas less than 12 months ago.

Mr Johnon seemed to understand reality when he said some parts of Britain were ‘disproportionately affected‘ [by immigration], with new arrivals putting a ‘strain‘ on jobs and services.

Admitting the PLP’s failings he said ministers had ignored for ‘far too long‘ problems in the immigration system that led to huge backlogs of asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners.

The only discernible reason for this offering of humble pie is the proximity to the General Election and Mr Johnson’s Party leadership ambitions.

Whilst I accept that governments of both persuasions, including this one, have been maladroit in their handling of this issue, I do believe that the UK is now far more successful at tackling migration than most of its European and north American neighbours

Why can’t you just say ‘this Government’? You’ve had power for 12 years, you’ve ravaged our country at least have the integrity to admit the failing is one of your own making.

As I’ve said, our record is not perfect. When we came in to government in 1997, there was no magic button we could push immediately to resolve all the historic, political and operation problems associated with immigration

Yet another instance of blaming the inherited situation instead of stepping up to the plate.

The legacy problems with unreturned foreign national prisoners and asylum seekers may have accumulated under previous administrations, but they continued to be ignored for far too long on our watch

Very clever, when referring to previous administrations he actually means under Tony Blair but words it in such a way as it read as though it is pre-’97.

Alan, you can fool all of the PLP at the same time but you will find the British public a far worthier adversary.

House of Commons

Recess dates 2009-10 (Note: All recess dates are provisional)

State Opening: 18 November 2009

Recess
House rises
House returns

Christmas
16 December 2009
5 January 2010

Half Term
10 February 2010
22 February 2010

Easter
to be confirmed
to be confirmed

Whitsun
to be confirmed
to be confirmed

Summer
to be confirmed
to be confirmed

House of Lords

Recess dates 2009-10 (Note: All recess dates are provisional)

State Opening: 18 November 2009

Recess
House rises
House returns

Christmas
16 December 2009
5 January 2010

Half Term
10 February 2010
22 February 2010

Easter
to be confirmed
to be confirmed

Whitsun
to be confirmed
to be confirmed

Summer
to be confirmed
to be confirmed

Professor David Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and is the government’s chief drug adviser has gone on record accusing ministers of ‘distorting‘ evidence with regards to cannabis to advance their cause.

According to Professor Nutt smoking cannabis presents only a “relatively small risk” of psychotic illness, and claimed those who advocated moving ecstasy into Class B from Class A had “won the intellectual argument”.

I am not a person to preach and I never will for the record I have never taken an illegal substance, never wanted to, never felt the need, never considered it but I have in my past lived with a drugs user whose resume skipped between class A, B and C and whilst the claim ‘nobody has ever died from smoking cannabis‘ may be true there are thousands of people who have lost their lives through drugs whereby the first step on the slippery slope was cannabis.

There are also countless lives wrecked by the selfishness of the drug user who may be prone to bouts of depression, schizophrenia or worse, suicidal tendencies.

Whilst it may be hard to argue with scientific evidence I suspect the family of Leah Betts would find it particulary hard to advocate the reclassification of ecstsay.

I believe the Government was right to reclassify cannabis last year back to class B but it should never have had to do it because it was simply wrong to drop the classification in the first place.

Making amends for your past mistakes does not earn you a merit, especially when the Government claimed it was the right thing to do at the time.

Professor Nutt further claimed

It may be that if you move a drug up a class it has a greater cachet..[the government's approach] “starts to distort the value of evidence

What kind of nonsense is that? There is simply no proof and therefore no place for statements like this to back up scientific research.

The former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith came in for some stark criticism when Professor Nutt stated that she had ‘devalued..scientific research‘ when she reclassified the drug.

What the Government needs to do is to either act on what an Advisory Council does or remove the Council altogether.

UPDATE: It would seem that Gordon Brown mistyped his URL this morning and instead of finding himself on LabourList he arrived with us at LabourLost.org – seemingly he acted on the line directly above whereby we suggest he listens or removes the council. Today the Government sacked Professor Nutt 24hrs after he provided the content for this blog post!

“The right to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be given to town hall officials and civilian investigators employed by organisations as diverse as Royal Mail, the Rural Payments Agency and Transport for London.”

Labour are using a statutory instrument to bring this Al Capone law into force so that parliament is denied a chance to debate it. Even the chairman of the Police Federation was shocked to learn of the powers now being given to (amongst others) the Royal Mail, Transport for London and your local council.

Have Labour lost the plot … we think so!

David Miliband poured his sycophantic praise on the former Prime Minister yesterday on the Andrew Marr show and is due to redouble his efforts today when he puts a case for a strong UK presence at the centre of a reinvigorated Europe.

LabourLost understands that Miliband has abandoned the idea of running for the new role of EU Foreign Minister preferring instead to shoehorn his former boss into the more powerful role in an attempt to ensure some form of PLP continuity should the forthcoming General Election prove as disastrous as feared.

It won’t be all plain sailing though as along with Poland the BeNeLux countries are proving somewhat difficult and are presenting at least some credible opposition to the Blair campaign efforts.

There is further hope for anti-Blair campaigners in that there are those [within Europe's top posts] who are worried about his forthcoming appearance at the centre of the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq War.

It is clear from David Miliband’s comments that he is seeking the role for Tony Blair providing Political leaders give the role enough ‘clout’. Yesterday Mr Miliband urged other EU leaders to choose an international figure as president rather than an unknown ‘business manager’.

In one final thought let us not forget that it is the broken manifesto promise of this Labour Government of a referendum on the EU Constitution which became the Lisbon Treaty [simply a name change] that allows the creation of this EU Presidential role; where’s the justice in that?

When you look at it like that you can see why they pushed the treaty through without allowing the democratic process to run its course in our once Great Britain.

Alas, if the Prime Minister gets his way this is not likely to be the case.

Desperate to suppress a back bench rebellion that is mounting in the run up to next month’s report by Sir Christopher Kelly, Gordon Brown is frantically working with his aides to hatch his latest plan.

The Kelly report is expected to make a dramatic overhaul of the expenses system and so the PM is working tirelessly to gain support for a self regulated system to be put in place that would include the following:

Increasing the basic salary of all MP’s by circa £3,000 from £64,766 to £67,766 whilst forcing a reduction (average £20,000) from Government salaries which are earned on top of the basic salary and range between £96,000 / £197,000. Downing St believes that the general public will accept this ‘reform’ in principle as the aim is that the overall cost to the taxpayer will not rise from £12.3m for ministerial wages.

The Kelly report will, among other things prevent MP’s from employing family members in any capacity. It will also make the recommendation that MP’s rent their second home as oppossed to purchasing at taxpayers expense thereby removing the temptation for an MP to ‘flip’ between their homes for financial gain.

It is unlikely that many backbenchers will accept the recommendations whilst Gordon Brown is likely to struggle to suppress his many rebels who are quietly massing on the fringe as though in a scene direct from the Roman Senate after the constitutional reforms of the Emperor Diocletian. Clearly they will not go quietly with his ‘new package’.

The Prime Minister is simply playing catch-up to David Cameron who has pledged a smaller Cabinet within a smaller Government. David Cameron has the makings of a full package of proposals whilst Gordon Brown has a solution more akin to a patchwork quilt.

Imagine if you will both Gordon and David both sifting through the fancy dress box and Cameron emerging with a full Zorro suit whilst Gordon has the remnants of outfits of the Joker, the Riddler and Bozo The Clown.

It is not though the PLP or the House of Commons that Gordon Brown needs to convince it is the most powerful person in the country and that is the voter in the street a large proportion of whom come from the Public Sector who’ve just been forced to take a pay freeze.

Bloggers and the mainstream Media are joining them in their joyful celebrations.

Certainly, on the face of it, today’s announcement that there will be a deciding round of the presidential poll on 7 November, pitting Hamid Karzai against Abdullah Abdullah for one last time is a pretty big thing.

Perhaps something worth celebrating?

Perhaps, some may even see it as justice for the myriad of deaths that were caused (from all sides) during Panther’s claw.

Personally I am not celebrating, I would like to think that the whole situation would better itself and peace and harmony can preside over a nation that has seen more than its fair share of bloodshed.

Alas, we do not live in a Utopian society and last time I looked no other system of Government offered those values either.

The nub of the problem for me is that the August election took many months of planning, many thousands of heavily armed troops on the ground securing areas so that honest people could go and place a tick in a box (that’s why I get passionate about voter apathy in the UK) and as a result many deaths occurred.

Ballot papers were sold cheaply, ballot papers were sold by the handful, by the hundred, thousand. Multiple ballot papers were issued to individuals. Valid papers were withdrawn after the poll closed. The list of corruption is almost endless.

No amount of intervention could secure an honest election let alone an honest result on the day so why are people so willing to believe it will be any different this time around after only 17 days planning? Simple answer: it won’t!

I know that the Media and the bloggers have faith and hopes and that is a good thing to have; even old sceptical me had those once but I have learnt to look closer at the details, read the small print and I certainly don’t sign unless I damn well have to.

Let’s take a look at a remarkably similar situation that took place elsewhere quite recently, Zimbabwe.

Robert Mugabe has held the office of Head of State in a variety of forms since 1980. In the 2008 election the main Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai (it is believed) defeated the incumbent but faced charge upon charge of false accusations as Mugabe clung to power.

In the face of horrific treatment and overwhelming personal tragedy Morgan Tsvangirai stood by and never faltered, his people backed him to win and win he did, but not in the conventional way.

By facing up to the truth and doing the very best he could he accepted the role of Prime Minister in a Unity Government with President Mugabe.

Afghanistan: It is quite clear that something must be done Very soon hence the extremely short time frame. The alternative option is to sit and wait until the spring but President Obama has made it clear his commitment of 40,000 troops is dependent on having a working Government solution in place.

I personally believe by the first week in November there will be draft plans in place with all Party support for a Unity Government which will form the basis of a broad based coalition governing body thereby allowing both Karzai and Abdullah to share power and more importantly to give the Afghan people a better chance than what is on the table at this moment in time without the need for the vote-off.