Johnson in for Cameron?

The party and its loyal right-wing media have succeeded in their efforts to pass off Johnson as a maverick and even a character.

But, in reality, the mayor of London is a deeply reactionary politician who, despite countless denials, will be happy to answer the call from his party once a replacement for David Cameron is needed.

The Prime Minister is already regarded as a liability by many within his party as a result of almost plucking defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2010 general election.

The Tories had expected total victory in response to millions of traditional Labour voters turning their backs on new Labour and the Murdoch media switching its support once more to the Tories.

In the event, pro-Labour mobilisation by trade unionists and voter suspicions about the sincerity of Cameron's claim to have put an end to the "nasty party" in favour of a modern, compassionate conservatism denied the Tories an overall majority.

And how well based those suspicions were. Cameron and his so far loyal stooge Nick Clegg have declared war on working-class living standards, the NHS, state education and all the public services that underpin social cohesion.

They claim to be answering the national interest by prioritising national debt reduction.

For them the national interest is whatever the banking sector demands.

Cameron and George Osborne and their Liberal Democratic echoes have insisted that it is possible to slash government deficits while laying the basis for economic growth to meet need and provide jobs.

The government's failure to avoid a double-dip recession, against which it was warned by the labour movement, and the Bank of England's amended forecast of economic growth for this year from 0.8 per cent to zero indicates that Cameron and Osborne are no less prats than their fellow Bullingdon Club old boy Johnson.

Not that any of them or their families will have to tighten their belts in response to the ongoing recession.

While workers lose their jobs, homes and pensions, the cosseted elite continues to increase its share of accumulated wealth and income.

It is self-evident that the government's current economic approach works for the bankers, who precipitated the current crisis, and against the interests of more useful sectors of society.

Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King, who remained tight-lipped when both sides of the House of Commons indulged their enthusiasm for minimal financial regulation, stoking up the banking implosion, seems now to be going for Olympic gold in the wall-to-wall platitudes competition.

From navigating rough waters to storm clouds rolling in and on to headwinds being faced and the economy not yet reaching full fitness, unlike our thrilling Olympians, the governor drools on as though in a recession-fuelled stupor.

Neither he nor government ministers can dodge the reality that failure to invest for growth lies at the heart of Britain's economic woes and that the bank's quantitative easing benefits only the City of London.

If it is apparent to British Chambers of Commerce director general John Longworth that the government should be borrowing at the lowest interest rates ever to finance long-term infrastructure projects, thereby boosting jobs, tax revenues and economic growth, it should be clear to everyone else.