A new kind of leader has arisen from the right. He looks warm and friendly. He describes poverty "as a disgrace". He says "if a single poor child believes he is trapped and hopeless, we are all diminished." He denounces those who attack immigrants, and promises to "welcome people to our country." He promises to make poor children "my priority".

Meanwhile, the number 2 in the governing party, has been waiting for his moment to be the number 1. He chickened out of running in earlier internal party elections, around 12 years ago, and before that as well. The apparently warm opponent conveys him to be some kind of autistic nerd freak.

This man is Al Gore, and his right-wing opponent is George W. Bush.

But these names are interchangeable with Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

George W. Bush started by promising help to children of immigrants, and ended up denying health insurance to poor kids.

Boris Johnson was elected on this so called 'compassionate conservative' mantra, and is already in the process of ending up like Bush. Bush turned from Richard Nixon, into Mr. Burns.

Already, he has shown how little he knows about London. He has stopped half-price bus fares for the 100,000 poorest Londoners. Why is that not the biggest story in the media, instead of fuel prices rising, in a time of economic woe? How the hell are those cleaners, carers, waiters, and others in low paid jobs supposed to travel? You might be thinking that Boris supposes they can travel by 4x4, because he is that ignorant and believes the economic conditions of Henley and London are akin. Infact, his act seems to be even more masochistic than I first believed:

"Tee hee, I said to myself ... out of my way, small car driven by ordinary person on modest income. Make way for the Nissan Murano."

Or maybe it just proves his ignorance, but maybe it does prove a Bullingdon obsession to persecute the poor.

Or his latest act. He has reversed Ken's decision to give £25 charges to 4x4's to drive into central London, and is stopping free charges for low-emission cars. Does this quote sound familiar when Bush (we've heard of him: loves the immigrants) didn't sign the Kyoto treaty:

"When Bush says no, he is doing what is right for the world."

Oh I see. The Tories criticise the government for not having VED's based on emmission standards, but then they repeal any laws that promise just that.

Boris and the right know they can't win on issues. They are losing the argument from everything to a progressive taxation system, to Iraq, to economic regulation. So Boris made the election about bendy buses, which make up around 5% of London's buses. 

Then it was about Lee Jasper. Had everyone known the actual details: he e-mailed a guy named Kumar Murshid (who?) about how to spend 0.00000000001% of the budget, would anyone have cared? But all we had to know from the Standard was 'Ken', 'Lee Jasper (again, who?)' and 'scandal', and it made Ken's corruption on par with that of Chicago's politicians during the Prohibition era.

When IHT payers are "ordinary tax payers"-George W. Cameron, it will be no suprise that those earning over £60,000, the top 20% in my city, are the 'struggling middle class'. Boris proposed £130mn to help first-time buyers, but only the top 20%.

These attacks on the poor should be as big a scandal as the 10p tax debacle. Make no mistake, this is not indirect taxation. This is redistribution from the poor to the rich in times of economic worry. But, you may say, surely it is fair that all Londoners pay the same bus fare. Maybe. But again, you wouldn't have much knowledge of London: the poorest need to use the buses more. They will end up paying more. And they don't have another alternative.

By contrast, Ken had promised £4bn for affordable housing, and half of that stock is legally required to be afforable to those on average wage.

I had always supported devolving more powers to the office of Mayor of London. Not now. And yes, it is purely for political reasons. Ken could have done more. But he did so much with little power. His congestion charge would either make him or break him. He was re-elected with a landslide, as it led to a bussing revolution, with 2 million more on buses. To top that up, he spent £500mn on bus lanes.

Sooner or later, Boris will repeal the living wage for tens of thousands of workers. If he hasn't done that already, and all strands of the media have continued their crappy record of not reporting any of these scandals.

Now, back to Cameron. Here's one striking paralel, both him and Bush have got through in life by riding on their family's success. He claims he wants to enhance social mobility and the chances of poor kids getting on - but he benefitted from precisely the nepotistic networks that prevent this happening. He got his first job as an intern by calling his godfather, a Tory MP. He got his first job in business because Daddy was the CEO's stockbroker. He got his first paid job because an uncle - the Queen's equerry - called up and demanded to know why he'd been turned down.

The Tories today, splutter and stammer at the "bureaucracy and expense" of tax credits for the poor, but somehow tolerate the bureaucracy and expense of subsidies for arms dealers, multi-millionaire landowners, and the Windsor family.

So, with Cameron, we already know about his position on IHT (while I think the structure, not the IHT level, should be reformed, as it should tax the beneficary).

But he denounces Labour's finest policy in the last 10 years-SureStart, as a "state failure". Easy, I suppose, when you can afford two full time nannies.

He wouldn't abolish the minimum wage, but he would make it worthless: don't raise it at all, so it becomes an arbitrary figure.

He compares tax credits to an "old nationalised industry". This could easily be code for abolishing them.

He wants to introduce Wisconsin welfare reform. This has shown to increase poverty. Sure, it works during economic progress. But unlike a social-democratic ALMP, it cannot weather a recession. So they will quite likely abolish the New Deal.

He wants to end heroin prescription. This seems to be an odd constituency to speak up for. But why do you think there were more homeless people during the Tory era? Even the Betty Ford clinics, and the Priorys only have a 20% success rate of keeping heroin addicts clean. Once your addicted, it is as if you are chemically changed. Plenty of people have had normal lives with prescription. Wilberforce went on to abolish slavery. Transform have said:
"If the Tories acted on their current rhetoric, what would actually happen is clear. You would see a huge increase in street heroin use, and everything that goes with that – burglary, shoplifting, prostitution, homelessness. You would see a huge rise in HIV and Hepatitis C as the level of injecting went up. It would be a public health and crime disaster, in place of harm reduction."

They want to abolish the EMA's. Whether they are a bribe or not, they keep so many in school.

They want to withdraw from the Social Chapet which places such peverse requirements of employers, to give shock! horror! sick pay, parental leave, and the right not to be arbitrarily sacked to millions of part-time workers. Cameron says he wants to inflict misery on many of these (mostly women) workers, as it is one of his "highest priorities" to withdraw.

Also, they want to act like 'Leave it to Beaver', and pretend that if you give money to married couples, all the problems of the UK will disappear. Don't doubt it, this will come at the expense of punishing poorer single women.

What about his past inclinations about Section 28 and wind farms? It doesn't matter say the Cameroons. If he puts 'liberal' policies into practise, what does it matter if he is against them in private? Well, we know it matters. The hard-right have this pathetic little charlatan right in their pocket. After his u-turn on grammer schools, they can get anything they want.

And indeed they do.
Cameron says hug a hoodie, but denys youth club funding to help them.
Hug a huskie, but start a massive road building programme to choke them.
Look, he has a disabled son, never mind the fact that he denies flexitime for parents of disabled children.
He has denied he is rich because he doesn't "own a private jet." No wonder he promises "flatter taxes".
He may criticise the Equality bill, but he benefits from the very lack of a meritocracy that the bill is helping to create.
And the cherry on top? When Redwood promised mass deregulation last year, he promised to further deregulate our mortgage markets, already the most deregulated in the developed world, to allow sub-prime mortgages to be sold on our high streets. They also call for further "mass deregulation" of the banks and of our city when these unregulated markets have caused a global economic crisis.

Instead, they blame the world crisis on the fact that Brown has increased government spending. That's just how mental they are.