How do you spot an iconoclast? Perhaps they wear unusual trousers; perhaps the absence of trousers is a more reliable sign. Probably not. What is more likely is that their acts and writings are so consistently distinct from their age that they cannot merely be designated an 'aberration', or the person in question dismissed as just plain insane. Thus end my preliminary remarks; thank you for suffering them - assuming that anyone reading this sentence has done so, or perhaps has, wisely, skipped the crap - and patiently waiting for me to declare the question that this essay will at least attempt to discuss: does the Marquis de Sade (Donatien Alphonse Francois, Comte de Sade to his fans) deserve his reputation as a radical?

With an absolute absence of any references to Lacanian psychoanalysis (because it's wilfully opaque/unrelated and I'm just name-dropping), mirroring and reflection are how I perceive Sade's intellectual 'achievements'. For the sake of clarity, the image produced by a mirror is not what is 'genuinely' - let's not trouble ourselves with the concerns of appearance and reality; it's simply not worth it - there: the image is the object's inverse. This ostensibly irrelevant digression on mirrors does serve some purpose because it suitably illustrates the 'accomplishments' of Sade. His thought isn't an intellectual rupture; it consists in the erection (ah, the joys of puerile punning!) of a credal mirror: 'whatever you believe I believe the opposite. You disapprove of sodomy' - not homosexuality since this word and concept was a late-nineteenth century invention - 'I don't. You believe incest, bestiality, torture, murder, and an interminable number of conceivable depravities are immoral; to me they're perfectly acceptable. To morality', to quote the Beatles, ''you say yes, I say no''. Thus ends my inept paraphrase of Sade's 'principles' (if such usage is not paradoxical when referring to peremptory permissiveness).

I hope the previous paragraph suitably evinces the simplistic nature of the Marquis de Sade's 'thought'. However, simplicity does not necessarily imply the absence of radicalism. What does is the nature of the simplicity - the basic (or just base) inversion of morality and beliefs. This affirmation of the opposite of what society believes has, by the superficiality of the reversal, the effect contrary to that intended. In stressing the other Sade conversely reaffirmed the norm. This might initially seem odd, but, as in the case of a mirror, to produce an image (Sade's 'iconoclasm') an object (late-Enlightenment ethical standards) to reflect was required, thus causing him to have been absolutely and necessarily acting and thinking within the bounds of his society, to the extent that he was utterly dependent upon the object he wished to invert. His position was therefore one of unbounded subservience and passivity - conformity in dependence.

In his analysis of Sade and the anonymous author of My Secret Life in his Hisory of Sexuality: Volume 1, Michel Foucault emphasises another aspect of Sade's conformity. The philosopher comments that 'rather than seeing in this singular man a courageous fugitive from 'Victorianism' that would have compelled him to silence, I am inclined to think that, in an epoch dominated by (highly prolix) directives enjoining discretion and modesty, he was the most naive representative of a plurisecular injunction to talk about sex'. I see conformity in Sade because he is reliant on that which he rejects; Foucault goes further: the act of rejecting is itself concomitantly an act of conforming. For these reasons, le Marquis de Sade est un exemple peu compliqué d'un conformiste.

[No pretence - merely the ineluctable pursuit of variety. Next time it'll probably end with something like 'Shantih shantih shantih' - maybe there'll be an epigraph, too: 'Only Connect!' or some such Forsterian rubbish]

So the big Labour love fest that was party conference ended with speeches from the two Labour attack dogs, Prescott and Reid. Prescott was his usual bullish self, bar one brief apology, but Reid seemed to try and add to his tough man image by showing a more human side to himself. His speech was one of a prospective leadership, focusing not just on the Home Office, but on leadership, on the Conservatives, on the NHS and even on foreign policy.

He opened with a friendly nod to those critical of him, joking about negative comments made in the press and showing a letter from trade unionists who are opposed to him becoming leader. It is this warmth and humour that Reid may bring to the fore more often not least because they are traits Gordon Brown lacks. If this is the case Reid may well need some better speechwriters, the old crack about David Cameron "I thought I was indecisive but i'm not so sure now" shows Reid still doesn't come close to Blair for sharpness of comments.

It is clear from Reid's speech he is focusing more on two of the three electoral colleges, he said nothing that would appease the trade unions, yet he did say things that will strike a chord with the public and Labour Pary members in genereal. Most notably distancing himself from the US by stating we should 'tell George Bush when he's wrong'. It is with Labour MPs however where Reid needs to work on, newsnight showed he was a hit with the public, but what may swing the leadership contest towards Reid is the resentment many cabinet members are said to feel towards Brown, most notably voiced by Charles Clarke.

Reid's speech was by no means the highlight of the final conference day, that moment being when John Prescott announced this would be his last conference as deputy leader. Thank God for that.

Britain_, The Parties_, Ben_,

It may be overshadowed in recent days by the Labour conference, the re-ignition of the Blair-Brown row and the failed health vote, but Labour has admitted (in not so many words) a staggering failure of the education system - the coursework modules. For the last 20 years, since the GCSEs were established over the more traditional essay-based O levels, coursework has played an ever increasing role in the British education system. And whilst the broadening of the system to further include those who are stressed witless during the exam season is most excellent in theory, it was hijacked by those most unscrupulous individuals: those who abused the system and cheated (myself included!).

Before we go on, it must be said that I didn't cheat per se, more like my school cheated. But therein lies the fault of the system. Schools are pressurised for results. If 99% of students don't get A*+ in every exam, the school is closed down and stripped for parts, the students sold for slave labour and every other teacher must donate a kidney to pay off the debt (or something like that). So what do schools do? Unable to boost the exam grades any further than making the exams easier (which benefits everyone but the students), they turn to 'helping' students with their independent coursework. Every science class we were in gave model answers for all our coursework needs, our maths teacher left a copy of the markscheme lying about and our English teacher gave such good notes that when strung together with a few conjuctives gave me several A*++ essays. Perhaps telling is the fact that the two essays for which we were left to fend for ourselves, I managed a low B in - something I am still unjustifiably proud of right now.

And ours was a good school. I know of some schools that refused to help in this way, with predictable results and an ever increasing circle of failure as funds were denied; and some that went even further, providing them with study guide books and telling students where certain websites were that 'helped' for a small fee. Because that was the price we paid for coursework. What was passable as an A-grade essay in an exam would be placed in the reject pile in coursework. You either made an essay worthy of Shakespeare, or you fell by the wayside and settled for your 29/30 (which was most probably a D).

And so steps in our current government. Firstly they have banned maths coursework, which involves far too much English to warrant the subject, and have now placed coursework under 'supervision' with time restraints. Surely this is just an extra long boring exam? How does this benefit those who don't thrive in an exam environment? Did they think through the extra time and effort needed by overstretched schools to implement this? I think not. This will, I can safely assume, impact on teaching for the exams (or push them back to the joy of students), which means further reductions in grades. And annotated texts were banned in exams only last year, something which were more than a crutch in my exams.

So, when next year's results are published with predictably high pass rates, don't moan that exams are getting easier. Because without any oppurtunities to cheat in skillful ways like we did, GCSE and A level students are thrown in at the deep end with 100% exams (essentially) without any help or resources. The 20 year experiment is over. Coursework is dead. Long live exams...

Britain_, Misc_, Spen_, etc_, ...

I'm currently reading Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy, which analyses government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. His basic argument is that majoritarian systems of government, as typified by the Westminster model, are ineffectual and perhaps even undemocratic; whereas consensual constitutions, seen in Switzerland and Belgium, are more able to cater for as many people as possible, rather than just a majority, be it absolute or plural.

The most interesting argument is that consensual systems are particularly desirable - nay, necessary - in countries with large social divides. For instance, the Belgium constitution entails a formal requirement that the executive include representatives of the large linguistic groups. Proportional representation is used in Northern Ireland (except for House of Commons elections) due to the plural nature of that society, with its Protestant-Catholic cleavage; this has been the case since the troubles of the 1960s and '70s. One of the most ethnically/socially divided socities in the world at the moment - Iraq - also has a consensual model: all three of the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups are represented in the national government; and, while the success of the model is yet to be proven, it is surely undisputed that if Iraq adopted an adversarial system (akin to Britain's), civil strife would be many times greater.

Given these international assessments, what lessons can be drawn for Britain? Since 9/11 especially, ours has been a polarised society. There was always a danger of this happening: a tacit policy of multiculturalism has allowed for segregated residential communities and thus segregated schools and other public services. International events have brought these inequalities to light. As a direct consequence of the two evils of centralisation and majoritarianism, the British constitution has manifestly failed to engender a sense of national unity among Muslim communities in particular. That is not to say that minority groups should ever dictate policy beyond their number - but it is to allow for the possiblity that minority opinion may become conventional wisdom, as has happened over Iraq. The British constitution is unable to cope with such a sea-change in public opinion, and, coupled with the increasingly diverse nature of society, one must conclude that Westminster politics as we know it is surely doomed. It is in the self-interest of all three of the party leaders - Cameron, (probably) Brown and Ming - to pioneer electoral reform. It is only a matter of time.

By its definition popular culture has 'mass appeal'. Such 'appeal' necessitates the inclusion of generally accepted sensibilities and attitudes - or at least what appear to be so - and the exclusion of that which deviates from these norms. Conventionalisation or simple disapproval of minority attitudes are not the only prominent features of popular culture - absolute disregard, concomitantly an attitude of silence and an affirmation of their non-existence, is frequently evinced. Evidently proscriptive and unconsciously prescriptive, popular culture doesn't merely reflect the concerns of modern society: it defines and regulates them.

Arrant disregard of minority concerns is evidently pernicious since it curtails our ability to empathise with the point of view of another and because it leads to the ossification of cultural boundaries. However, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the concept of popular culture does not preclude the possibility of minority concerns and issues being considered in its works; the manner in which these are treated is the problem. For it to remain popular the treatment must function within severely restricted bounds. As an example, consider the character of Shaun in Coronation Street. He perfectly fits the stereotypically histrionic and camp image of gay men. A few years ago there was another character named Todd, who, eventually, also turned out to be gay. However, his homosexuality was explicitly presented as being the source of all his troubles: the breakdown of his marriage and his social and familial ostracism all directly stemmed from his apparent inability to control his desires; being gay was clearly presented as a malign affliction. These two characters are merely examples of the general attitude of popular culture toward minorities: if their issues are not simply ignored, almost deemed taboo, they are treated in a manner that either condemns them (Todd) or presents their behaviour within accepted bounds (Shaun), thus leading to its conventionalisation.

Providing a particular impetus to popular culture in past few years has been the post-modern anthropological doctrine of cultural relativism. By preaching that no culture or cultural form is superior to any other it has become acceptable for cultural objects to be equated with one another - Eastenders and Casualty are supposedly as valuable as Endymion and Coriolanus. I cannot repudiate this; the argument is apparently unassailable. However, such an approach is, I believe, insidiously myopic. In furthering the almost imperialistic tendencies of popular culture, the liberal notion of cultural equivalence has engendered a situation in which an especially effective and ubiquitous means of repression has obtained a degree of power that appears almost immovable: its dominance ensures that the normal remains so and that the abnormal is normalised.

It is thus quite ironic, then, that the liberal attitude to the arts is a politically conservative one. If this is unacceptable a conservative attitude to the arts is almost equally so in its aesthetic punctiliousness and unquestioning acceptance of the cultural hegemony of 'the classics'. Perhaps the only approach that does not entail either political re-affirmation or intellectual subservience is that of aesthetic radicalism. Fundamental to such a stance is the tenet that every work must be individually and meticulously considered. This ought to lead to the formation of a new cultural canon for each person, which by its inherent variety ought to lead to a greater measure of social and political empowerment. Evidently, however, attending such an endeavour are the constraints of subjectivity and one’s social context: because of repeated endorsement we are predisposed to attest to the greatness of certain authors, composers, painters etc.; Joyce, Stravinsky and Caravaggio will probably still be thought of as some of the finest artists in human history. With aesthetic radicalism their positions in the personal canons of most people would, however, be demonstrably justifiable.

Of course, works, such as those by the artists mentioned in the previous paragraph, presently deemed to be of minority or scholarly interest would, if embraced by the general population, automatically become pieces of popular culture. Hence, it could be claimed that any drive to redirect attention away from soaps and toward Seneca is inherently self-contradictory, since the latter will only replace the former, and watching it would merely evince a different sort of conformity. My wish is not, however, for some form of cultural paternalism conducted by an intellectual elite; what I advocate is cultural selectivity. This is an intrinsic part of aesthetic radicalism. Such an approach specifically entails heterogeneity: German opera, Stanley Kubrick films, Henry James novels, Japanese Noh drama, and analytic cubism are all perfectly various preferences; their diversity positively encourages tolerance, reflection and disinterested empathy.

So, rather than submitting to popular culture and allowing it subtly to become the social, moral and political guide to one's life - in a manner akin to that of religion or nationalism - I feel that we all ought to reject its generalities, banalities and conventionalities in favour of a much more aesthetically radical approach to culture.

Conventional wisdom says that Blair, once Labour's biggest asset, has now become an intolerable liability. But the term "conventional wisdom" was coined by the late economist JK Galbraith originally as a term of abuse. And as happens so often, this rejection of conventiality, pioneered by Galbraith, has been vindicated. An ICM poll conducted this week reveals that, if Brown were leader, support for Labour would drop one point to 31%, while the Conservatives would climb to 37%.

These figures can only get worse for Brown, a politician who has been necessarily tarnished by Labour's (nearly) ten years in office - with the voters naturally neglecting to recall his largely commendable record as chancellor. 70% of voters agree with the statement that it is "time for change", and Brown would find it difficult, if not impossible, to renew himself and his party while in office. That's why this author thinks that Alan Johnson is a far more credible candidate for the leadership. The average voter won't associate him with the Blair era as they would with Brown, and he's sufficiently obscure for most people to be seen as a "fresh face". (Skipper reasons further on the merits of Johnson here and here.)

Diane Abbot on This Week said that anyone who doubted that Brown would be the next PM didn't understand Labour's electoral college. But surely, as this poll and many others have suggested, anyone who thinks that Brown will remain as PM for very long doesn't understand the rigours of psephology.

N.B. Intriguingly, demographic partisan alignment has been reversed by Brown and Cameron. According to the Guardian: "Support for Mr Cameron is stronger among women and some younger voters on this issue, reflecting an apparent trend across the poll for Mr Brown's greater appeal to older men."Brown_, Cameron_, SPL_, The Parties_, ...

It is not surprising, but it was not expected. Thailand is currently undergoing a military coup against the incumbent Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. It all seems far too casual for a coup, no deaths with limited protest and not a single shot fired – but the corruption within the Thai government has not left it with many defenders.

The coup immediately used Thai TV stations to air patriotic songs and images of the current Thai King, who it is believed will have given tacit consent to the coup. Having just returned from Thailand, during the festivities for the King's anniversary it became very clear the importance he holds for Thai people. He is revered not because of the office he holds, but also for his dedication in bringing Thailand toward prosperity and helping the poorest. He is generally seen as the architect of all that is good in modern Thailand. Such is the patriotism toward him that enforced television broadcasts (stopping England’s world cup game being shown) was met with people standing up in adoration of a man they love; and would die for.

The Thailand coup exposes one of the failings of modern democracy – the time lag between being able to remove people from office. Thaksin’s corruption came through his own greed and often at the expense of the public good, yet it took a military coup to remove him. Democracy here has failed, due to its lack of responsiveness to public opinion regarding Thaksin.

This coup ought to be supported, if it promises to deliver the civilian elected government within two weeks as has been promised by army commanders. However, to what extent can we see Thailand’s democracy strengthening if the royal loyalist military, alongside the King can remove governments at a whim?

The removal of Thaksin will benefit Thailand. Now, Thailand must ask: who really is in charge? Until that is the sovereign people through the ballot box, then Thailand’s democracy will never strengthen.

It has somehow slipped through the media without much fuss, but the result from Cameron's Built to Last document (reviewed here) has been announced (see BBC and ePolitix). The headline is that 92.7% of votes were in favour of the document - an impressive figure, no doubt. The subtext is that a puny 27% of members bothered to vote. These people are members of a potlical party; "apathy" is not an excuse, because apathy, by definition, should not apply.

There are two reasons for the appallingly low turnout. One is that the number of Tory members is exaggerated by central office (the exact figures aren't published). The most compelling reason is that Tory members generally do not agree with the sentiments of Built to Last, but, rather than humiliate their party by voting "no", the vast majority of members chose to abstain.

Cameron put Built to Last to the party's membership in order to manufacture a mandate for change (optimism, and hope). One in four (24.75%) party members voted positively for the document. This is not a mandate.

Category1_, Category2_, Author_, etc_, ...

Polly Toynbee writes an interesting column in the Guardian - always idiosyncratic and usually informative. But, as with all idiosyncratic writings, Toynbee should always be fact-checked, as the blog Factchecking Pollyanna highlights. In a recent article entitled "Why Stockholm syndrome should terrify New Labour", Toynbee concentrates, for some bizarre reason, on the so-called "importance" of the psephological myth that is the "female vote". Quite what the "female vote" is, and quite which policies should appeal to women specifically, has never been satisfactorily explained.

There are statistics which suggest the existence of a gender gap at the ballot box. As veteran pollster Robert Worcester says in an article on the MORI website:

It is, of course, the conventional wisdom: that (now fellow blogger) Dave Cameron is a meister spinner, a true master of the political game. The Labour party even tried to spin that into a propaganda piece in May's party election broadcast, which depicted a PR Cameron in a stretch limo sipping an expensive cocktail.

I was reminded of these truisms after reading Cameron's India blog, and watching the cleverly shot videos - they appear to be rough-and-ready (in true blogging spirit), but are in fact, I would venture, shot by a quasi-professional cameraman. This video, shot in Cameron's Westminster office, is particularly charming.

Given Labour's malaise, this all adds up to one thing: a Cameron victory in 2009. One commenter on the Cameron blog accurately assimilates the thoughts of Joe Bloggs:

I have been a Labour supporter, but in recently, reluctantly considering the shambles that the party is putting itself in. I have really been impressed by you, your leadership, your iniative, and willingness. I will definitely keep you and this blog (and hopefully future ones!) in mind during the next General Election. Maybe my vote will turn blue after all.

Amirrorfor takes this further on his blog:

Into this disillusionment walks David Cameron. He's a clever guy, with I suspect a very good understanding of how many people like myself feel. He sees our disappointment and he seduces us in ways Labour long ago forgot. When he speaks about the environment, about the relationship with the US, about poverty, he speaks the language we want to hear.

So could I really betray my younger self and vote Conservative? Cameron has a long way to go yet. Experience has taught me that some of my teenage beliefs were nonsense, but others are right and have to be defended. Here is my list of demands, which must be satisfied before I finally buy the blue rinse and vote Tory. [Read Amirrorfor's "demands" over at his blog.]

Cameron_, The Parties_, SPL_

In response to the much talked about Tory scribble logo, it seems Labour have responded with a similar logo of their own.

According to my sources, unlike the Tories' new logo, Labour didn't pay £40,000 for their new logo. Instead they chose to use the artistic skills of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. A Party Spokesperson explains: "Well we're a party in debt thanks to Tony so we couldn't afford to hire a proper design company, but after seeing the new Tory logo we felt all we needed was a three year old with a crayon. The crayons were easy to get hold of, the problem came when trying to find a three year old. Three year olds just don't want to be associated with this Labour government. Naturally when we couldn't find a willing three year old, the crayon duties were passed on to John Prescott."

It has been said that the new logo in part was an attempt to highlight the social welfare policies of the current Labour party, along with showing a solidarity with the working class and workers' unions. A spokesman for the unions said "we're not buying it. A logo is a logo and can't make up for real policies". David Cameron take note.
Britain_, The Parties_, Misc_, Ben_,

David Cameron has claimed that English "ignorance" of Scotland is putting the future of the United Kingdom at risk, ePolitix reports. As I said in an article I wrote last Sunday entitled "The slow death of the union", debate over the political validity of the UK is a foregone conclusion, since the constitutional anomaly created by devolution is unsustainable. The more politicians like Cameron and Brown stir up unionist and nationalist sentiment, the more the union is in danger of breaking up.

Britain_, SPL_, Cameron_

There has been some political noise about two-parent families today. The BBC reports that DWP secretary John Hutton - whom this blog praised back in May for his work on pensions reform - has said that two-parent families are "best". "Children have a better prospect of making the most of their lives if they are brought up in a household where there are two caring, loving parents", according to Hutton. Quite how sociological surveys could measure levels of "love" and "care", and quite how there is deemed to be more family love as a result of marriage per se, is beyond me.

To be fair to John Hutton, this BBC article does not report (head of the Conservatives' social-justice policy unit) Iain Duncan Smith's more fundamentalist views on marriage and social policy. IDS claims there is "no question" that marriage plays a "fantastically significant role in stabilising two-parent relationships". As apparent proof, he cites a statistic that co-habiting couples are twice as likely to break up before the child is five as married couples.

This is surely a textbook case of the correlation but not causation fallacy. IDS clearly does not recognise that marriage might actually be indicative of stability; not the cause of it. There is thus nothing innately good about marriage - just that people more likely to stay together for longer are more likely to marry. Yet, according to IDS, marriage is the "single, most important factor" in ensuring that children have the best start in life.

Both John Hutton and IDS are reprehensible in this regard, but at least Hutton crouches his statements with the equivocating truism that "we've got to understand the limitations that there are on government in promoting a particular lifestyle choice for individuals". IDS, on the other hand, makes no effort to equivocate, or accept the validity of non-marital relationships. Further evidence, then, of the Tories' increasingly paternalistic stance under David Cameron. (For more, see here, here, and here.)

Giving tax breaks for marriage necessarily disadvantages the non-married. And this is nothing short of moralistic authoritarianism.

SPL_, Britain_, Misc_

This morning Iain Dale posted on the topic of UK economic prosperity. He sided with John Redwood, who came to the conclusion (according to the post) that low taxes were solely responsible for the economic miracle in Ireland, which transformed our neighbour from the EU's poorest to its richest nation (in per capita terms). The main argument of the post was that cuts in taxes such as corporation tax are not enough to bring in the votes needed to take the Tories into power. Before I go any further I should say that on most policies, I would agree with the Conservative party.

Of course I am in favour of low taxation, but across the board cuts are not in the best interests of the nation. Despite what Iain says, Irelands one-time zero rate for reinvested corporate profits (which jumped to 12% after massive complaints from Germany - see my article embedded in the Germany special feature here) may be the single most important factor in its remarkable growth. Iain did say low corporate taxes were welcome, but then dismissed this as a cause that would not take in enough votes. I was confused at the sudden change of direction, after writing about the wonderful Irish economy and then dismissing brilliant ideas for the UK that would not bring in a Tory parliament.

I would imagine taxation is a far more complex issue than we all believe; how else can the Scandinavian countries sit happy with tax rates far higher than in Britain, whilst Ireland enjoys far lower rates? In fact, when the entire picture is looked at, taxation is fairly similar in Ireland and, let's say, Sweden. The difference is the type: indirect taxes (i.e. VAT and duties) are far higher in Ireland, whilst income tax is lower (and vice versa in Sweden etc).

To name but a few, Ireland's economic miracle stemmed from:

Whilst we are talking of Brown, I would like to add my thoughts, which are as follows:

I was wholly unconvinced by his performance as prospective PM on SundayAM. Essential to the Party's success in the next general election is its ability to ideologically re-invent itself. The general public is tired not simply of Blair; many also want an end to his interpretation of New Labour: for once, it is as much about policy as it is about personality. Iraq, failed public service reforms, a looming pensions crisis, stealth tax rises: these, but to name a few, have all served to discredit this current Labour government. In many senses, Blair is acting as scapegoat. For if we are to believe what the political commentators say, Brown has- for years- been steadily increasingly his influence over domestic policy: it is a blessing for him that some unpopular policies have not resulted in criticism being levelled at him, personally.

It is essential for Brown to present himself as someone with different, fresh, innovative ideas. What I saw on ‘SundayAM’ was a man desperately trying to convince the public (and perhaps himself?) of such freshness. Such is Blair’s power- even now- and such is the Chancellor’s desire to avoid being seen as the unpopular backstabber, that what we witnessed was nothing more than a (barely!) diluted concentrate of Blairism. Quite what the Chancellor hoped to achieve with talk of ‘community’ and ‘optimism’ and other such vague ideals I don’t know….but it sounded like he had been taking lessons from Dave.

Only Cameron- a young politician leading a Party supposedly infused with ‘hope, optimism and change’- can get away with this sort of talk. When Mr. Brown speaks these words, that cliché ‘mutton dressed as lamb’ inevitably springs to mind. How can a politician as experienced as him be more optimistic now than he was when he entered government? Poor Mr Brown: in his effort to ingratiate himself with the electorate he risks losing the credibility he has worked so hard to attain as one of the Country’s most successful Chancellors of all time. He did mention that he wanted his government- should he become leader- to be more about policy rather than personality… and yet in true Dave fashion we were treated to hear Brown talking of both his experiences as a father and his sporting preferences (rugby, just in case you were wondering) He would do well to stay clear of trying to imitate Mr. Cameron.

The best thing Brown can hope for is for a Blairite contender or two to enter the leadership race. Rather the Party have a quarrelsome few weeks deciding what they are about, than Brown go unchallenged and become leader without the Party, or the public, knowing in what direction they are headed.

The only Cameron mantra Brown should be chanting is ‘Change to win.’

Michael Portillo surprised me a couple of months ago by saying that the union - ie, the United Kingdom - was not "sacrosanct", and went as far as to say that he predicted the disintegration of the UK in the medium- to long-term. Surprising because, as a Tory, Portillo would reasonably be expected to side with the unionists; and surprising because I probably had seen the UK as a permanently sovereign entity hitherto. The union has survived far more radical attacks on its existence than are levied today, the most notable being the Irish war of independence, 1919-21. So why the slow death of the union?

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - in that order - are in political limbo. For Scotland in particular, this is a favourable political limbo: this country has more representation than anywhere else in the UK, despite the boundary changes in 2005. As a part-consequence, Scots receive about £1,000 per head more in tax benefits than the English.

Since this is a harmonious status quo - and even Northern Ireland could be described as harmonious, though a little bitterness lingers on - the death of the union will be slow. Nevertheless, the political climate is gradually lending more saliency to the issue of independence. A new poll by YouGov for the Sunday Times suggests that 44 per cent of Scots back a separate Scotland compared with 42 per cent who do not. In his Built to Last document (reviewed here), Cameron claims that people should recognise that "the policies of Conservatives in Scotlandand Wales will not always be the same as our policies in England". Gordon Brown's accession to 10 Downing Street will necessarily raise the West Lothian question every time he proposes an issue that will effect the English and (perhaps) Welsh electorates but not his Scottish constituents. Brown will of course try to brush this question off by stressing core British values. But the constitutional anomaly created by devolution is unsustainable; debate over the political validity of the UK a foregone conclusion.

I am also surprised by the number of English people who, when abroad, refer to "England" and not "Britain", even when they are clearly referring to the nation as a whole. Foreigners, particularly Americans, have a tendency to talk about England, too, when really they mean the United Kingdom. Perhaps, given the laudable global tendency towards the break-up of artificial unions combined with greater international co-operation and migration, I should stop being so surprised.