Hopefully, however, Labour will have the sense to remain silent – some of their biggest donors are hardly clear of scandal. Three of their biggest cash cows are non doms, including Lakshmi Mittal, of ‘garbagegate’ fame, and Lord Paul – who, the last time I checked, remained under investigation by the police for alleged expenses abuses. As The Times reported in February, there seems to be little doubt about Lord Paul’s position with respect to the house he designated as his first home, allegedly claiming £38,000 in the process:

Paul, a multi-millionaire friend of Gordon Brown, admits he never even slept in the property he called his main home. It was, in fact, a one-bedroom flat at the back of one of his hotels. The hotel’s former manager has confirmed that he — and not Paul — lived in the flat.

What next for Labour’s non dom donors? Will they all follow Lord Ashcroft’s lead and clarify their positions for now and the future?

The Member States agree to associate with the Union the non-European countries and territories … [including the Falkland Islands, as listed in Annex II]

… [this] association shall serve primarily to further the interests and prosperity of the inhabitants of these countries and territories in order to lead them to the economic, social and cultural development to which they aspire

How pleasing to know that the EU is bound by Lisbon to support the Falklands’ nascent oil industry, and the Falklanders’ ’social and cultural development’ (whatever that means), regardless of Argentinian hair-pulling and gnashing of teeth.

Better still, Article 42(7) assures us of support from our European friends if things get hot:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power …

Excellent – I’m sure Nicolas Sarkozy is ready, if necessary (God forbid), to fight against Argentina’s eye-popping fury over an overseas territory whose only long-term population has ever been British. Angela Merkel must already be deploying diplomats to tell Argentina’s fragrant President Kircher and Venezuela’s batshit insane clown-president, Hugo Chavez, where to get off.

But wait! How odd – I can’t find a word of support from any European leader for Britain’s position. That’s a great shame, because for once we really could do with a bit of support from the EU and, however egregious its inent, Lisbon might be the vehicle we need to secure that support.

I would usually condemn the Lisbon Treaty out of hand, but right now it does look like our best option when it comes to securing international backing for the peace and freedom of the Falkland Islanders – especially in the alarming absence of American support for their democratic right to self-determination. Sadly, President Obama has decided that Britain’s decades of sacrifice alongside America isn’t worth so much as a nod of encouragement when it comes to defending innocent British civilians against blockade and aggression. Against my better judgement, and contrary to years of support for trans-atlanticism, I have to wonder if it’s time to consider where our best friends really sit.

I hope Sarkozy and Merkel don’t remain silent for much longer. Gordon Brown’s cowardice in the face of EU pressure over Lisbon will seem all the more futile, humiliating and outrageous if Europe says nothing about the Falklands.

Bring your own bottle. It’s the only way to deal with Austin’s inane burblings.

Helpfully, Mr Mitchell is completely transparent about how his site is funded, stating at the bottom of every page “this website is funded by the Communications Allowance” (CA). The Green Book (PDF), Parliament’s guide to MPs’ allowances, contains a section about the CA (pp42-49), including very clear rules about how it can – and cannot – be used:

No party political material is permitted in any part of a publication or website funded wholly or in part from the allowance.

So, what would the Fees Office make of a partisan blog funded by the CA? Well, a very helpful chap at the Commons Information Office explained to me this morning that:

“If an MP breaches the rules it would be up to the Standards & Privileges Committee to decide on any punishment depending on the circumstances, which could range from apologising to the House to repaying the allowance”.

Fancy that. I wonder which option is the more appealing for an MP whose apparently CA-funded blog consists largely of diatribes about the Conservative Party?

Noted clown and novelty singer, Austin Mitchell

Still, it has Tim Loughton rapping. That almost justifies the entire experience. Another justification has been the watching Austin Mitchell, the avuncular Old Labour MP for Great Grimsby, blunder around the estate, blithely offending residents and viewers alike. I must admit to having a bit of a soft spot for him, though: he really does appear to be heroically unaware of his impact. In every scene, it seems, he manages to do or say something marginally more offensive than the last time he was on camera – whether it’s refusing to stay with his hosts (which looked aloof, if not really offensive), calling grocery shopping ‘women’s work’ (for which any Tory would be castigated) or… well… singing operatically at everyone he bumps into. That really is offensive – maybe he should try rap. Innit.

Anyway, I’m absolutely sure he’s not embarrassing himself (and his party) deliberately. Channel 4 has clearly seen an opportunity to lampoon him and his wife as faux-socialist and out-of-touch. Mitchell is, by all accounts, a fantastic constituency MP, so I can see why, on his blog, he takes exception to what he sees as mendacity on the part of the producers (or “the bastards”, to give them his chosen nickname).

All fair enough. One small point, though: Iain Duncan Smith wasn’t “sensible enough” to get out of the programme on day one. Had Austin paid attention, Duncan Smith’s wife, Betsy, was diagnosed with cancer during filming – hence his decision to pull out.

Austin Mitchell? Offensive? Surely not.

A small niggle about those two: the sentiments about the economy and society are quite right, but there’s little in the focal point of the posters to say that we do have plans to improve them. Still, I am really nitpicking. They are well-designed and look like they could be used for other policy areas. A definite improvement.

The third poster, I think, is the best:

Positive, upbeat, personal – and with a big blue text box for the inevitable parodies. What more could we ask for? [Incidentally, I don't think parodies have nearly the same impact as campaign posters; I don't think many of the people being targeted by poster campaigns will be interested in delving into political blogs to see the inevitable, oh-so-witty Labour responses. I see parodies as a bit of morale-boosting political ping-pong, not something that could derail an entire marketing campaign.]

I think it’s time to start scoring the campaign posters. So far:

Pore-free Cameron – 6/10. Nice, clean design, pushing one of the most important messages we have (that we will look after the NHS). Ripe for parody, though, and it pushed that increasingly boring, 1950s-style slogan, “we can’t go on like this”. Also important to avoid making DC the entire focus of the campaign. A good start, despite airbrushgate.

Tory tombstone – 4/10. Message wasn’t strong enough, and could appear as a scaremongering tactic given the lack of clarity around the central claim. If we’re to attack Labour, let’s do it by looking at facts, rather than already denied proposals. Campaign posters shouldn’t make Andrew Lansley’s job harder, after all.

Never voted Tory – 7/10. Positive, people-focussed and has the potential to be used for a wider range of policy areas. I hope we’ll see an NHS version before long.

Join my live chat from 8.45pm tonight to discuss the blunders, gaffes, tears and aching embarrassment. Can’t be worse than Gordon’s love-in with Piers, now, can it?

Can you all take time to read this and add your names please. I didn’t know this but MPs get a medal for visiting a war zone.They don’t have to do time in country like our service personnel and they don’t have to wait bloody months afterwards to get presented with the thing. Medals are all the recognition we as soldiers get for spending long months in shitholes getting shot at.The most action and flak an MP sees is over their bloody expennses.As we saw with the Wootton Basset petition thousands of signatures in a short space of time did make the government act. They cannot ignore the voters .Especially now with elections looming. Please take the time to sign this petition. Where it asks for your name also add on the same line former military if you were ..You will see what others have done. I think this adds just a little more bite to the petition.Once again get your granny and neighbours to sign it. Lets do our service personal another service for all the hard work they put in for this country.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/notompmedals/

Well, as you might expect I was pretty indignant at first; I had to wait four months to receive my HERRICK campaign medal (itself, I admit, the result of a relatively short deployment to Afghanistan – no less challenging for its brevity, though). Medals are, as the email says, a powerful recognition of an individual’s sacrifice on behalf of his or her country. However, the reality behind the hype is a little less inflammatory: MPs do not receive medals for ‘turning up’ in Afghanistan or Iraq. Indeed, they do not receive campaign medals of any sort (unless, of course, they are actually serving in the Reserve forces).

The medal referred to in the petition is actually an unofficial long service medal for those MPs who take part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, a programme that aims to give MPs a taste of life in the Armed Forces. Participants must spend 22 days per calendar year in uniform with the Forces – this could include spending time with a unit in Afghanistan, or heading out to sea with the Navy for a week, or taking time to visit RAF stations. I don’t think many readers will consider that to be a bad thing – after all, if MPs relied upon the Government to give an accurate picture of life in the Armed Forces, they’d have no idea about the problems with housing, the UK-Afghanistan airbridge, pay or the breakdown in harmony guidelines (and the effects that has on families).

MPs who have participated in the AFPS – and have met the minimum 22 days training requirement every year – for ten years receive an unofficial, tokenistic long service medal from the AFPS. It is not an official medal and cannot be worn alongside ‘real’ medals. Compare this with, say, Cadet Forces Medals, awarded to people who help run cadet units and have met the same minimum service criterion; they, too, have not ’served’ their country, but their contribution to society is deemed worthy of an official medal. MPs who participate in AFPS contribute to a better understanding within Parliament of the uniquely difficult life led by our people in uniform. I think that’s worth recognising.

If people attack that medal and, implicitly, the strict requirement for its holders to have spent over seven months of their parliamentary careers with the Armed Forces, then they are attacking the very notion of the AFPS itself. Worse, with a BNP set on abusing the name and image of the Armed Forces, every person who signs that petition gives legitimacy to BNP candidates who claim to speak for the Armed Forces and try to whip up indignation against mainstream politicians. Hyperbole? I think not.

Please, please don’t sign the petition.

Geoff 'Buff' Hoon - won't be missed by anyone.

Geoff Hoon is standing down. What a shame.

Those who remember his outrageous decision to put British lives at risk in the name of Labour party politics won’t miss him. Those who saw his pathetic, dissembling performance before the Chilcot Inquiry won’t miss him. And his colleagues, still outraged by his laughable mini-plot against Gordon Brown, won’t miss him either.

A shame indeed – I can’t think of anyone leaving Parliament with quite such a shoddy and shameful record of service to offer to potential employers.

It is perfectly clear that the Euro has been a great success in anchoring eurozone members through this financial crisis. Imagine where all of us would have been if it hadn’t. I hope people will recognise that this represents a major vindication for the single currency.

Does it remain an important objective for Britain to find itself in the same currency as that single market in which it interacts? Obviously yes.

- Daily Telegraph, 11 Jun 09.

Goldman Sachs on the Greek economic crisis (not to mention those in Spain and Portugal):

The … crisis in the euro-zone – arguably the most threatening one since the euro came into existence – has once again exposed the problems of coordinating fiscal policy within a currency union. The plethora of issues raised likely justifies a permanently higher risk premium on investments in the euro-zone and on the euro itself.

- Business Week, 11 Feb 09.

Note that Gordon Brown has all but refused to say that Britain won’t bail out Greece – as if we didn’t have enough to worry about.

I wonder if Voldemort still feels so certain…