In response to Andrew Marr's comment that the Commons blocked publication of MPs expenses, the Prime Minister said "I don't know about that..." and claimed that all this was coming out because of "Labour's Freedom of Information Act." Marr let him get away with it, despite the fact that Gordon Brown did nothing to prevent the attempted cover up, which his party backed! Are we to believe the party acted against the will of its leader? Brown was diplomatically absent from the votes on the disgraceful Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, designed to cover up the whole scandal.

While Ian Duncan-Smith acknowledged on the same programme that all MPs (including those who did not abuse the system) knew there was something wrong and felt guilty they had not acted, Gordon Brown claimed to have been surprised by the stories that The Telegraph has published. He told us he was just as angry as us. He even had the brass neck to tell us that his "Presbyterian conscience" (in his view, clearly a superior version to the feeble consciences of the rest of us) was offended. He added, pompously, that;

So were most of the rest of us, you insulting, arrogant man. You have traded on your dead father's alleged integrity for so long, that at your age it is close to an admission that you have no belief in your own. If so, welcome to the club.

The consensus seems to be that Gordon Brown performed well in his rare excursion today from the hermit's cave into which he has turned 10 Downing Street. Perhaps I am biased (and I freely confess I despise the man) but I can't agree. To me, he seemed pompous, self-satisfied and insulting. If I were David Cameron, I would be grateful for his every such performance.

Yes, he steam-rollered the hapless Marr, ignoring all questions and saying precisely what he had rehearsed with his minders. Yes he repeated his points over and again, giving the false impression that he had been tackling these issues for years in the teeth of resistance by the unethical/non-Presbyterian rabble around him. But this wasn't a triumph by him. It was the result of Marr's suspiciously bad performance. He didn't press any question home. He simply didn't do the job he is highly paid from public funds to do.

Or perhaps, he did. After all, Marr is a leading member of the Scottish Raj and the current flag-bearer for the ruling Left-Liberal consensus. His performance was truly pathetic, only if you were expecting to see a disgraceful failure of a politician skewered. But if you were expecting to see him shielded, perhaps you are more than satisfied?

More unexpectedly, Marr was also so disgracefully rude in talking over Diana Krall, that she was forced sarcastically to apologise for interrupting him in order to get a word in. Maybe he was nervous about the imminent challenge of convincingly "throwing" his "fight" with the PM?