Three Shades of Grey,- is that Boris at the end of the tunnel?

A fairly recent innovation the lomg suffering British public could do with out is New Year message from our political party leaders,- well, heads. They would all probably increase their ratings by saying absolutely nothing during what is meant to be the festive season.

None of them is in the least bit festive,- ever.

Dave seriously says we are on the right track but it is a long and tedious one with lots of grey along it.

Ed the preacher says something in class war tones about fairness. Nothing about how he, the Ballses and the Brown team brought the country to its economic knees through reckless overspending and artifical creation of non productive artificial jobs in the public sector while throwing out welfare bungs in all directions. They would dearly love to have another go at the same recipe. After all, "the rich" can pay for it.

Nick, the perpertually ashen faced, also goes on about the unobtainable nirvana of total fairness while urging his party to keep the coalition government in the centre and free of evil Tory plans to be beastly. Joining the easy-to-do class war and adding to the impression that he is still in short trousers, the ex-Westminster public schoolboy he says his coalition partners can't be trusted to look after people other than the super-rich.  Overall the LibDems' aim in life appears to be to ensure the government's ability to do anything much is neutralised and neutered.  They don't like new runways, railways, roads, power stations and most other things that make people and the world go round either. Marks for exciting forward thinking ? Zero. Great partners to have.

Little wonder that most of the nation reach for the "Off" or at least "Mute" button every time these three gents appear on the screen. All three totally lack inspiration, vision or have anything exciting to say. Ed occasionaly manages a smirk. Otherwise all three find humour, pleasure, joy and those sorts of things impossible to express. Would most people enjoy going in holiday, having a kitchen supper, a drink in a pub or even a latte in Starbucks with them? Unlikely.

The 2015 election may well end up in another coalition with Labour the largest party and the LibDems snuggled up to them in what most of their MPs and members would consider a much more natural and comfortable alliance. The LibDems would most likely find that Labour treated them with greater courtesy and "respect" but were actually far more ruthless in cutting them to shreds behind the scenes. The Conservatives are pussycats compared to Labour in many of the political dark arts and are much more organised in the execution of them.

Unless they win an outright overall majority the Tory Party will want a change of leader after the election. It is possible , though less likely, that they will go for one before as many now recognise that Cameron's image is now too firmly set as the remote toff surrounded by small clique of similar going back to his school and university days. The fact that he has allowed this positioning to develop indicates that his political and social antennae are poor or that he doesn't understand what he is seeing. Neither gives confidence in his political longevity or ability to emotionally connect with the electorate.

There is also the question of Cameron's philosophy and vision for Britain around which he has to invite the nation to rally. He simply doesn't seem to have one.  He is at best a manager,-and not a very exciting one,- not a leader. There is no sign of energy and commitment to even a dream of a ew and better future for Britain and without one what has he and his party to offer? All that the Party does is presented piecemeal and not as a coherent whole although in fact it has many good and consistent strands running through it. Is Cameron and therefore a Cameron led party electable in 2015?

Conservatives have therefore probably spent the last few very grey days of a pretty grey 2012 looking gloomily into 2013 hoping to see something better through the murk. They will also be trying to dismiss the feeling that the party might arrive at the end of 2015 having done the hard yards in getting some sort of order back into the economy and dealt with a wide range of issues whose ill effects have built over decades and especially since the Brownite abandonment of Prudence in 2000 only for Labour to take over again , say "thanks for doing the nasty and difficult stuff,- we'd have had to do that too " and reap the benefits through a new term of office.  The Tories might even reflect that 2010 was an election which would have been better lost.

In searching for a beacon of light and a clue as to how 2015 might be won, Tory strategists must be looking at the 2012 London Mayoral elections. Here, against a pro-Labour flow a Tory arch-toff Boris Johnson, defeated the long standing London darling of the London left , chattering classes, establishment socialites as well as normal people, Ken Livingstone . That proved that the Conservatives' problem isn't about Etonians, toffness and those staple hates of the left. It's about charisma and the ability to communicate with and relate to absolutely anybody,- even when stuck on a zip wire. The Tory problem would be even worse if either of the other two leaders has an ounce of presence or ability to inspire. Fortunately neither do which is why few bother to listen to them either.

Boris Johnson, by far the cleverest and most erudite of the four, is never going to be an old style classic Prime Minister. Neither is he going to be in the weapy eyed moralising articificial "Tone" Blair sort. Nor will he modify his accent to fit what he thinks to be the audience and he won't dive into Greggs to buy a pasty for the photo opportunity. He will create enough of those of his own.

One drawback is that Boris tends to be waylaid by single issues and get into some difficult cul-de-sacs. However , if supported by a first rate group of people to actually do the business and make things happen he could be exactly what the British nation needs to rally and energise people and the economy. His "Do something" approach is miles apart from Cameron's kicking of the tough balls into the far distance beyond 2015. He radates energy, is able to deliver tough messages in an acceptable though often blunt way. He is not boring and he is a very able politician. He should not therefore be dismissed as any kind of joke or joker. With the right team he could save the Tory party from even more shades of grey and even a disaster in 2015 and beyond. For starters he wasn't booed at the London Olympics.  For seconds he'd radiate energy and fun (while demanding performance from his everyone) anywhere. That's a pretty good launch pad.

Beware Eurocrats talking solidarity.

Actually, beware of anyone uttering the word "solidarity". Anyone, anywhere, any time taking it at cosy face value as a friendly arm around the shoulders displays only solidarity between the ears. The word is entrenched deeply in socialist and controlling/dictatorial lexicons. It is code not for a warm embrace but a crushing bear hug, around the throat if necessary, and means  conform or else". It is a word of the controller, dictator and/or bully. Treat it therefore with extreme caution.

It is therefore no surprise that it cropped up in the wake of the treacly self congratulation indulged in by those EU leaders who so ridiculously accepted the absurd Nobel Peace prize for not having marched into or over each other since 1945. The Times' picture of the heads of Mrs Merkels, President Hollande whose countries fought each other in World War 2 and Mario Monti of Italy whose nation cleverly fought on both sides all close together , each with their own variations of what is probably meant to be a triumphant smile is priceless and  worthy of a major caption competition. Maybe the uniting factor was that David Cameron wasn't there to spoil the rather good party (no cheap wine again this week, that's for sure), There is no sign in the photos of Dave's emissary, the lad Nick, but he was there somewhere glowing at being at least in the same room as the big boys and the Head Girl.

The "s" word then cropped up again in this week's Eurozone success when the same players agreed to bind themsleves more deeply and more expensively into driving on with the artifical one-size-fits all fiscal impracticality, the Euro, yet again denying the awful cliff edge somewhere ahead just beyond,- and maybe not very far beyond,- their headlights. Intoxicated by the resultant cameraderie up popped the unelected head of the unelected European Commission the sharp suited Barroso saying that the agreement heightened the need to drive on to further political unity,-or solidarity. To him and many other very well fed (thankyou European taxpayers) Brusselscrats the answer to any Eurozone or EU problem is a call to push further into unity and centralisation rather than to pull back, reflect and back away from visions of an even more stifling regime of undemocratic centralist control . The option of veering away to the much lower cost, more democratic and more sensible,practical and desirable notion of a free trade rather than fully controlled and micro managed Europe.

The purveyors of solidarity have therefore had a good few days and are glowing suitably as well as growling or glaring at or simply ignoring the perfidious British who mainly don't like what they see coming, and Lib Dems apart , never really have done.

 To celebrate all this and administer a further dose of solidarity, the usual suspects have, regardless of Britain's early protests, voted to increase the EUs budget and thereby the Commissions abilty to meddle in anything they care to. All this increases the cost of the whole Brussells apparatus at a time when none of those who pay the bills have any spare cash and are cutting back on their governmental spending extravagances back home (Well, some are. Others are asking for more time and meanwhile remaining on the beach  afraid of going cold turkey after decades of dependence on state funds). The rest of the world, especially the parts which are working 24/7 to secure better standards of living for themselves and the next generation, look on with amazement as the already fat, happy and self indulgent Europe adds further costs/overheads to its activities and doing business while continuing to indulge in all kinds of limitations on its own productivity and prosperity and to generally tie its own hands and feet together. This world beyond shakes its heads in disbelief, shrugs and gets on with designing and building the future. Unthinking "Solidarity" is the way to ensure that Europe doesn't have one.

Taking out the suspense. Do we really want that?

Not long ago episodes of the weekly cliff hanging thriller would end with the killer's knife-bearing hand raised ready for the fatal blow. Then would follow a brief burst of tension inducing music and  the credits would mercilessly roll leaving the viewer in a paroxysm of terror. A whole week before the truth is revealed . Did he/she do it or did something intervene in the nick of time?  Recently the format has changed. Just as you thought it was all over there are flashes forward to next week's edition. In some of these the intended victim looks fit and well. From that it can reasonably be concluded that they, usually a near psycho lady detective, ducked at the crucial moment so all was well. Phew, that's good then. No suspense, no tension. Put the kettle on. We can sleep well tonight and the next edition can be viewed from on the sofa, not behind it.

The same thing has happened in that other, if declining, theatre, the House of Commons. Budget statements and other policy statements were closely guarded secrets. Heads would roll (at one time literally) if there were any leaks. In the Budget the first hint the nation got of whether the next 90 minutes were going to cause elation or depair could come in the Chancellors drink, his antidote to a dry throat, something that can occur especially if one is lying. A glass of tap water would signify austerity, but milk, honey and maybe a dash of something a little stronger indicated a happy afternoon and good times to come. If he was clearly smashed before he even started talking that was probably a bad sign. Now almost all parliamentary announcements or trailed ,-that means officially leaked,- days in advance .As result they are thoroughly analysed by the 24 hour media not just once but three times. Before, during and after. The during really need not happen at all. The middle man, the House of Commons bit, could be eliminated entirely and the whole process of announcing and discussing anything be left to the various media and twitters and tweets. In view of the quality of and attendance at many Commons debates there may be some merit in that but on the other hand when you think about what some of the press, not to the mention the own-agenda BBC, can get up to that may not be worth the downside risk if we want to keep some vestiges of democracy.

In both cases better theatre and more excitement and interest would be generated by not knowing what was going to happen in the real thing on the day. Do we really want decaffinated versions of everything? No adrenaline rushes, clenched knuckles or looking away? Just perpetual blandness?

Can we rewind and go back to anticipation and suspense? We know that excitement must carry a health warning "Could raise blood pressure, cause heart failure, death, etc" but we think it's worth it. It might just feel a bit more real. For the politicans it might just raise interest in what apart from fiddling expenses and polishing desks with assistants or colleagues goes on in Parliament. Some gain there to be sure. Now back to Sarah Lund.