A small point on the issue of democracy

I've not yet heard anyone make the following simple point, least of all those who are seeking to create the 'progressive coalition' in Britain.

Sure, the Tories got the most seats. That's their argument.
And sure, the Liberals and Labour collectively got many more votes. That's the only argument they've offered in terms of legitimacy so far.

But my argument would be this: surely a coalition made up of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SDLP, Lady Sylvia (former UUP), NI Alliance Party, the Greens (and possibly Scots and Welsh nationalists too) represents a much broader and wider sweep of the UK than a simple coalition of Tories and Liberals, propped up perhaps by the DUP.

The Tory spin that such a coalition would be fragile is undone by this argument. Because the very thing that makes it fragile is the very thing that makes it democratic - plurality of representation.

The Dark Lord is still spinning

Lord Mandelson appears to have pulled off at least the half-chance of continuing the nu-Labour regime that little bit longer.

Perhaps this is not the wisest move for Labour. Whoever comes in must make cuts, deep and severe cuts.

And they'd have to do so propped up by at least one other party in the Lib Dems, who could walk at any time. And in Labour's case, a few assorted other fellow travellers too.

Such an arrangement would give the Liberals the PR they want (like our presidential electoral system) but would be exceedingly fragile. This appears to be the main reason why the Liberals have permitted Westminster posh boy Clegg his flirtation with the Tories.

While Brown remained in charge of Labour, he remained a block on such a Lib-Lab pact. Mandelson now appears to have unblocked that in dramatic fashion tonight. Or was it perhaps a last throw of the dice by Brown himself, putting party and country first?

Either way, it's now a live option. The Liberals need only swallow hard, suck up the approprium of the Tory press, and cut the deal.

The alternative is now to prop up a minority Tory government, as coalition was never likely there, on the basis of a slender promise to examine electoral reform.

Not an easy choice, and getting harder for Clegg by the minute. Walking away from the Tories would please his party but not the press or many of the people.

This election has made life very difficult for all three parties. And all the available options provide concern for each of those parties.

But from an Irish point of view, there's little doubt that a coalition of Labour and the Liberals which included nationalists from the Celtic fringes is a wet dream for most Irish people.

And the alternative, Tories propped up by the DUP, doesn't bear thinking about.

This will likely result in bitter recriminations one way or the other. But if those recriminations are heard loudest from the Tory press and the Cameroons, then likely Gordon Brown and his dark Lord will consider today's stunning events to be a political masterstroke.

Political leaders and mental illness

What is it about political leaders and secret mental illnesses?

I don't mean, why do they keep them secret. That's fairly obvious from a self-preservation point of view. But how come so many political leaders have them, and why aren't we the people informed?

People have made a big deal about John McCain's health in the US Presidential race. His ticker may not be the best, or some such.

Frankly, I'd be much more interested to know if he's secretly nuts or not. I think his state of mental health is way more important.

Let's look at the latest politico to out themselves as a loon: John Prescott, formerly number two in the UK, has now owned up to being a bulimic.

That's got to be one of the strangest admissions yet. He has my sympathy for his condition, but equally, I'm a bit annoyed as to why he didn't mention this BEFORE seeking to run the country for a decade.

He's not the first nutter to conceal their mentalism until after they'd left office either. It's now patently obvious that both parties to the famous Eighties 'special relationship' between Britain and the US were actually suffering from dementia.

Both Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were subsequently diagnosed with degenerative dementia symptoms - Alzheimers in Ronnie's case, general demented mentalism in Maggie's.

These symptoms are progressively degenerative - that's medicalese for saying they don't happen overnight. They develop over a long time. In other words, both Maggie and Ronnie were nuts while in power. Explain a lot in retrospect, doesn't it?

I'm beginning to get concerned over who will be the next to reveal a psychiatric condition.

Will Bertie Ahern admit to compulsive kleptomania?
Will Ian Paisley own up to listening to scary voices in his head?
Will Mary Harney explain her constant hallucination that she is part of a national political party?

It's not good enough, and the public deserve better than a hand-wringing revelation long after the politico has left power.

I think all people elected to public office should have to undergo a full medical, including a psychological assessment, reviewed annually.

They're running the country, for goodness' sake. We have a right to know if they're secret loonies or not.

Will he make a thousand days?

Sorry for the delays in updates. I've been busy.

So, obviously, is Tony Blair.

It's over 940 days now since our Tone promised to resign. That's nearly three years of lies, war and deceit from 'New Labour.'

Rumour has it he's going to go before the likely-to-be-disastrous Scottish election results.

And about time too.

Try not to cry on your way out the door, there's a good chap.

Fleece the rich

Whatever happened to good old Robin Hood and taking from the rich to give to the poor?

I ask this in the context of the Irish Labour party proposing tax cuts which will disproportionately benefit the better off. Now we'd expect this from the 1% party, the Progressive Democrats. And sure enough, they didn't disappoint during their conference at the weekend.

Fuhrer McDowell, who had vowed not to engage in what he called 'auction' politics before the election, waved a nice cut in the top rate of income tax to entice his well-heeled, but increasingly vanishing electorate.

Today's Sunday Telegraph, a paper usually considered to be the mouthpiece of the old guard Tories in Britain, has a fascinating little poll in relation to the rich in the UK.

Nearly three-quarters of voters believe that the wallet-busting, multi-million pound bonuses awarded to top earners in the 'City of London' are "excessive" and need to be curbed. The other quarter polled were, I'm guessing from the Torygraph's usual readership, recent recipients of such bonuses.

The poll by ICM also revealed that nearly 70% of people think the gap between the highest paid and average earners is too large, and 43% believe Britain has become more selfish under Tony Blair.

The Loadsamoney stereotype of the city trader, as portrayed above by Harry Enfield, typified the excesses of the Thatcher era. But it has arisen again, only nowadays the stereotype of bling-bling excess materialism is considered a legitimate aspiration rather that worthy of contempt.

When even the Torygraph is complaining about excessive greed, you know that it is appalling in the extreme, especially when social inequity has never been so acute.

In commentary accompanying the stats, one New Labour MP Ian Gibson claimed that senior party colleagues are "very sympathetic to the rich. They have their holidays with them, they are envious of them."

So here's my question. Given that the gap between rich and poor has never been wider, and since Labour in Ireland are proposing tax cuts and Labour in Britain are holidaying with the superrich, who in the hell can I vote for who will promise to tax the have-too-muches and close the gap with the have-nots?

In other words, when even the allegedly left wing parties are playing the tax cuts game, who is the Robin Hood party?