Politics

Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.

A gentle fightback

The consensus is that David Cameron made a mess of last night’s TV debate. And whilst he wasn’t bad, he certainly wasn’t good, especially to watch. In a post over at Cappuccino Culture, I make the point that Cameron was the most static and soulless feature of a static and soulless piece of television. Undoubtedly the Tories’ greatest presentational asset, his subdued performance is inexplicable. Whilst there is no cause for panic the Tories are rightly trying to regain the initiative. Gary Barlow’s appearance with Cameron at a school this morning didn’t relight Dave’s, or anyone else’s, fire. But Paul Waugh reports that the Tories are beginning to point out

The week that was | 16 April 2010

Keep up to date with the election on Spectator Live, where Gaby Hinsliff urges the need for police reform. Here are some of the posts made at Spectator.co.uk over the past week: The Leaders’ Debate: Fraser Nelson believes that the novelty of Nick Clegg won it for him. James Forsyth celebrates a good night for democracy. Peter Hoskin thinks that though Clegg won outright, it wasn’t all bad for Cameron.         Martin Bright congratulates all those involved and argues that Gordon Brown did well. Alex Massie’s list reads Clegg wins, Brown survives and Cameron misses. And Cappuccino Culture thought it was dreadful television. The Manifesto Launches: Fraser Nelson praises a great

Where Did Labour’s Funniest Line Originate?

I must say I had a chuckle at Alastair Campbell’s tweet during the leaders’ debate: “Clegg done well on style, Cameron clear winner on shallowness, GB winner on substance”.  I had another chuckle when Alan Johnson used the line in the post-debate analysis and now I see David Miliband congratulating Alan Johnson for using it and  Miliband’s comments being recirculated by eager Labourites. So who stole it from whom? For we socialists all property is theft and everything should be owned in common so I guess it doesn’t really matter. But it is amusing to see how pleased everyone is with this one-liner.

What the polls say about the leaders’ debate

More concrete information will emerge over the next few days, and it may be sensible to reserve judgement until then. But the polling data we have so far is unanimous: Nick Clegg walked it. Here are some of the polls: YouGov: Who performed best in the TV debates? Clegg: 51 percent Cameron: 29 percent Brown: 19 percent Com Res: Who won the debate? Clegg: 46 percent Cameron: 26 percent Brown 20: percent Populus: Who won the leaders’ debate? Clegg 61: percent Cameron: 22 percent Brown 17: percent Angus Reid: Who came out on top? Clegg: 48 percent Cameron: 20 percent Brown: 18 percent PS: As ever, Anthony Wells’s analysis is

So what’s changed?

The question is: how much has really changed after last night?  And the answer is hard to pin down.  There are the plastic, surface changes, of course.  Nick Clegg may now be recognised by more that one-third of the nation.  His party will probably come under greater scrutiny from the media and his opponents.  And the leaders’ debate is here to stay; a defining feature of this election which will become a standard feature of future contests. But what about deeper change?  Well, I can understand the argument – made punchily by Gideon Rachman here – that this will increase the likelihood of a hung Parliament.  That’s probably true.  But

Alex Massie

Clegg Wins, Brown Survives and Cameron Misses

So who won? For the first half-hour at least that wasn’t in doubt: the Daily Mail vanquished all opponents. On immigration and crime all three men tried to out-populist one another. Who knew that foreign students were such a threat to this green and pleasant land? Who knew that foreign chefs could possibly be such a danger? When Nick Clegg recounted an anecdote about how a poor chap had been burgled while at his father’s funeral one half-expected him to add that, “And by the way, the father was murdered by a cleaver-wielding Vietnamese chef…” True, David Cameron was right to stress the importance of rehabilitation and, later, of welfare

The Leaders’ Debate: Well Done Chaps

Shall we stop being cynical for a moment and congratulate Brown, Cameron and Clegg for being the first political leaders in Britain to take part in a televised election debate? Indeed, we should particularly congratulate Gordon Brown for agreeing to this. He had by far the most to lose. There is absolutely no doubt that Nick Clegg won this. He faltered from time to time, but was the only one confident enough to take thoughtful (if sometimes stagey) pauses.  I thought Gordon Brown also did surprisingly well. He kept his cool and showed that he is an accomplished debater. His jokes were over-prepared and characteristically dreadful, but he warmed up

Fraser Nelson

The novelty of Clegg wins it for him

“I agree with Nick”, said Brown – and, as it turned out, so did most of the people YouGov polled. Brown lived right down to expectations, Cameron lived up to them (but didn’t exceed them). Few would have had any expectations from Clegg: what we political pundits know to be his clichés will be heard for the first time in many living rooms tonight. Each used tactics we’re familiar with. Brown opened his verbal machine gun, and sought to mow down the audience (they surrendered early on). David Cameron was fluent, articulate – as anyone who has followed politics had come to expect. But dazzling? No. He was subdued, seemed

Nick Clegg triumphs – and Cameron gains – in the first TV debate

So, who won?  Well, hold your horses, dear CoffeeHouser.  First, it’s worth noting that that was a good shade more compelling than I thought it would be.  There were moments of heat, drama and political tension, of course.  But there was also a sprinkling of light as well.  I suspect anyone watching that would have picked up a working sense of the differences and similarities between the parties and their leaders. So, who won?  Well, it depends what you mean by “won”.  Nick Clegg certainly gained most from the evening.  He was confident, coherent and had a strong line on almost every policy area, whether you agreed with those lines

Leaders’ debate – live blog

2207, PH: Well, we’ve just been through all that – and guess what’s leading the News at Ten.  Yep, the ash cloud… 2205, PH: And that’s it.  I’ll be writing a verdict post shortly. 2203, PH: And Cameron has pre-empted Brown’s statement well.  He says that the other two have tried to frighten the audience about the Tories – but “put hope before fear”.  His key message after that is about national insurance.  A solid closer from the Tory leader. 2201, PH: Classic Brown. He points the finger at the Tories, saying that they can’t match Labour’s guarantees and that they’d risk the recovery. I’m not sure this negative approach

Eddie Izzard – Brilliant Britain

I’d watch anything over a party political broadcast, anything except Piers Morgan. But Eddie Izzard’s Labour broadcast (below) promised to be different. What a letdown it proved to be, just like any other bland effort. The jokes are marginally funnier than an aneurism, and the message is negative, despite the ‘brilliant Britain’ theme. The ad is a manifestation of Labour’s problem. Izzard offers nothing beyond morbid fear of Tories, Thatcher and money. (Incidentally, I recall a chummy Brown cosying up to the Handbag on the steps of No 10 not so long ago. Did she bite him?) Because Labour cannot represent change, it must guard its record. Izzard defends Labour

Alex Massie

Voice of The Nation

As a wise man nearly said, A three-year old could understand this election. Quick, somebody find me a three-year old… With excitement building as Debate Hour creeps ever closer, I conducted an in-depth Focus Group with a Three-Year Old* this afternoon: Pollster: So who do you want to win the election? TYO: No-one. Pollster: But if you had to choose between the Blue Man, the Red Man or the Yellow Man whom would you pick? TYO: None of them. Pollster: Do you want anyone to be Prime Minister? TYO: No. And there you have it. Who needs ComRes or Yougov anyway? *My niece and evidently, on the evidence collated thus

Covering the TV debate

We’ll be live-blogging tonight’s TV debate on Coffee House from 2030.  Do, please, join us then. And, in the meantime, over on our special election site Spectator Live, Spectator panellist Gaby Hinsliff has written about why she doesn’t think tonight’s debate will be a make or break moment.  And Reform’s Thomas Cawston has prepared a set of questions for the party leaders to answer.

James Forsyth

Show him the door please

In a move designed to take advantage of everyone’s need to fill air time before the debates, the Tories have launched a new ad spoofing that picture of Brown walking through a set of double doors while two aides squat on the ground holding it open. The ad is just up here in Manchester but the Tories will be hoping to get it onto the news broadcast and in to tomorrow’s paper. This is another example of how the Tory cash advantage is helping them.  

James Forsyth

Advantage Cameron | 15 April 2010

I’ve just been watching the feed coming out of the studio where the debate is taking place and what struck me was how much of an advantage his central position will give David Cameron. In all the shots of the studio, the middle lectern is where your eye is drawn first. The leaders, I’m told, have all had half an hour in there to familiarise themselves with the surroundings. They now appear to be white-washing parts of the studio.      

Goldsmith’s declaration of independence

Make what you will of his political agenda, but I think this is quite a refreshing admission from Zac Goldsmith today: “There are various things I have said in this campaign with absolute certainty. I said there will be no Heathrow expansion under our Government, there will be no charges for parking in Richmond Park and Kingston Hospital will be safe. If any of those promises are broken I will trigger a by-election and allow people to penalise my party.” It’s bound to rile some of his Tory colleagues, of course – particularly this close to the election.  But one of the upshots of Parliament’s recent spate of scandals is

What Do We Really Want from a Labour Government?

After reading Seumas Milne and Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian and then looking at the advert for the New Left Review on the back of the London Review of Books (“Good Riddance to New Labour”), I do wonder what these people want from a centre-left government. God knows I have been critical of New Labour — I’ve had a pop at its record on civil liberties, education, radical Islam, prisons. I could go on. This government has lacked imagination and it has failed to be bold enough. But between 1997 and 2008 Britain became more tolerant and more confident. Hell, it has almost became a modern European nation. It