Politics

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

Tuesday

13 Apr 2010

Voting blues

One of the key questions in any election is turnout: whose voters will turn up and whose won’t. People are clearly disappointed in the political class – on a scale from 0 to 10, trust in politicians and parties is hovering around 3 points – but does it mean that they will stay at home, spoil their ballots or opt for fringe parties and single-issue candidates? What about the talk of a hung parliament ? Will it make voters believe that their vote counts – and so bring them to the polling stations — or make them stay at home, giving up on the idea that any change is possible?

Alex Massie

Party Just Like We’re In the Year 2000

It was Peter Mandelson who reminded me. Oh, I don’t think the Dark Lord had any intention of jogging my memory but there it was anyway: this election rmeinds me a little of the American Presidential election in 2000. Now David Cameron’s no George W Bush even though I think some Labour types do misunderstimate the young, inexperienced Tory leader but there are times when one wonders whether Gordon Brown is another Al Gore. They share some things anyway, not least the unfortunate habit of being mocked for things they didn’t quite say but everyone thinks they did (“I invented the internet!” “Well, I saved the world!”). But neither is

Daniel Korski

The Big Idea Competition

Whatever your political leanings, it is hard to deny that the Tories won the Big Idea Competition. The Labour Party offered a series of unconnected (if occasionally innovative) initiatives. But they lacked coherence. Their manifesto had what Peter Mandelson called “Blair Plus”, but also what could be referred to as “Prescott Squared”. “What’s The Big Idea?” asked Sky’s Niall Paterson. The Tories on the other hand have a Big Idea – decentralisation. Giving power to citizens in a number of different ways. It is a concept that gives shape to the Tory manifesto, providing a ready stock of sound-bites. But why do we need Big Ideas, as opposed to

Alex Massie

Labour’s Defence Weakness

Meanwhile, I’m puzzled by quite a bit of Labour’s manifesto. Some of it seems rather sullen, defensive and most put-out. Take the passage on defence for instance: there’s much protesting that, actually, defence budgets so have risen and it’s rotten that anyone should ever think anything to the contrary. And yet Labour seem to concede – implicitly anyway – that their critics have a point. Otherwise why would they feel the need to promise – as part of “the next stage of national renewal” no less – to “conduct a Strategic Defence Review to equip our Armed Forces for 21st Century challenges”? Doesn’t this rather suggest that the Armed Forces

The Spectator

Around the Web: Conservative manifesto

You can read Fraser’s verdict here, but this is what the rest of the Web had to say: Janet Daley described it as ‘the perfect pitch’: ‘The Conservatives have just given a launch performance for their manifesto which was as close to perfect as any I have seen. It was clear, coherent and genuinely compelling: the message was simple: people power rather than state power.’ Ben Brogan welcomes less, not more: ‘Today was also about David Cameron. He made a long speech, too long, and so reminded us that when he is scripted he is less effective. It was later when he let rip with a bit of Angry Dave

Fraser Nelson

The Tories’ great manifesto launch

Battersea Power Station is chosen as an allegory for Britain – “a building in need of rejuvenation in a country in need of rejuvenation” says David Cameron. As for Cameron’s speech – great stuff. He delivered the ‘empowerment’ message and gave hard examples, and wrapped it up into a greatest hits of his best soundbites (none the worse for that). It was so up our street that, at times, I thought he was working his way through the leader in the current edition of The Spectator. I’ll save my full verdict on Cameron’s speech and positioning for the magazine this week. But here’s the rest of the launch. The Tories

Alex Massie

A Big Election?

What a curious election this is. As Tim Montgomerie points out over at Spectator Live (visit!) the Conservative manifesto appears to have been written as though the great Fiscal Crash had never happened. This is either bold or brave or, worse, perhaps both. Then again it’s not as if Labour are offering anything more convincing. A chart will help explain this: So there you have it: squabbling over £12bn; total silence over the £155bn rest that might need to be cut. Marvel at how narrow our politics can be. Granted these numbers are taken from the Institute for Economic Affairs but even if you quibble with their calculations the broad

Peter Hoskin

Tory manifesto launch – live blog

Stay tuned for live coverage from 1100. 1238: And that’s it. Phew – quite a marathon. A strong central message, I think, but it could have been said in fewer words. Thanks for tuning in. 1235: The Guardian’s Nick Watt asks why the Tories aren’t talking more about the extent, and the consequences, of spending cuts. Cameron’s response is that he has “always been frank” with the public. 1233: Key question on whether withdrawing the state will mean worse public services for folk. Cameron says that he not looking to pull the rug from under people, but just to introduce choice and competition to counter the “dead, dull hand of

Daniel Korski

Don’t mention ze Europe

The Conservative Party’s departure from the European People’s Party came down to a choice of expediency over principle. If you are inclined to accept that Britain will stay in the EU and that membership helps this country – even if it requires some compromises – you will likely find the move unfortunate. If you are more concerned about the principles at stake – and feel that Britain’s loss of sovereignty has gone too far – and do not care about the loss of influence on the legislative process, you are likely to be in favor of the Tory move. David Cameron is keen to keep the issue of Europe

Peter Hoskin

Where’s the surprise?

Am I the only one who’d care for a bit more uncertainty and surprise when it comes to the election campaign? I mean, yesterday, Labour released a manifesto which had been heavily trailed for weeks, even months, in advance. And, today, it looks as though the Conservatives are going to do likewise – with the political barometer saying that their Invitation to Join the Government of Britain won’t contain anything substantially new. Its cover was even published last night. And, if you want an sense of what Cameron will say today, then just read his article in this morning’s Times. Of course, it’s the job of a well-oiled campaign machine

Monday

12 Apr 2010

Peter Hoskin

The Tories invite you to join government

Battersea Power Station was the site of one of the Tories’ most effective publicity stunts of recent months – and it will be the venue for their manifesto launch tomorrow. Details are already emerging about the document (ConHome has a good summary here), which sounds as though it won’t contain much, if anything, that we haven’t heard before. As with Labour earlier, this approach risks an indifferent response from the media and the public. But at least the Tories have clearer flagship policies to broadcast – the national insurance cut among them. While the manifesto may not contain any new policy, it sounds as though the Tories have gone to

Peter Hoskin

Unison enters the political poster fray

In which case, two questions for CoffeeHousers to mull over: i) To what extent will union attacks harm the Tories, with the threat of strikes rumbling on in the background? ii) Have Unison read the IFS’s research into Labour cuts? The comments section is yours.

Daniel Korski

Labour’s nuclear no-show

Today, President Barack Obama hosts leaders from 46 countries for a two-day nuclear security summit that will focus on how to better safeguard weapons materials, both old and new, and to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Labour’s manifesto was also launched today. What do the two things have in common? Not a lot, really. But they could have had a lot in common – if the Labour government had been willing to be bold. Here’s how. As preparation for the summit, the US signed a new treaty with Russia last week to reduce the nuclear stockpiles of both nations, and the Obama administration issued a revised nuclear arms

Fraser Nelson

What Brown really offers Britain…

Labour’s manifesto cover has been the cause of much merriment online – creating what the Americans call “subvertisments”. ConservativeHome has already lined up some spoofs. We asked Carla Millar, who has done quite a bit of work for The Spectator, to do a version with a mushroom cloud of debt in the middle and the family shielding their eyes. This is the result. Carla is a studiously apolitical Canadian, but I’m sure CoffeeHousers will agree that she has captured the essence of it all:

Peter Hoskin

Adam Boulton’s damning verdict

We’ve already collected some of the general blogosphere response to Labour’s manifesto launch, but this addendum is worth making separately. In a post describing the hostility of the Labour crowd towards the gathered media, Adam Boulton writes (with my highlights): “The crowd, including some cabinet ministers, booed and shouted at questions they didn’t like. Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, had his question interrupted by jeering and Graham Wilson of the Sun was booed just for identifying his newspaper. Labour did not behave like that in the last three elections when the Sun backed them. Gordon Brown was happy to join in this confrontational mood. It was the most substantive

The Spectator

Around the Web: Labour’s manifesto

We have some video footage of Brown’s speech at Spectator Live, and you can read Pete’s analysis here. Elsewhere on the Web: Hopi Sen likes the promise on early diagnosis on Cancer care, and the fact that no incredible spending pledges have been included. The Guardian’s Julian Glover attacks a ‘meaningless manifesto‘: ‘Ed Miliband, who we are told wrote Labour’s manifesto, is fond of saying that the Tories are on the wrong side of the battle of ideas. It’s a neat phrase, but an empty one unless you have ideas of your own. On the basis of today’s manifesto performance, Labour doesn’t.’ Con Home argues that ‘Gordon Brown’s new-found aversion

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s thin air manifesto

“You got that, Britain? We. Are. The. Future. Future, future, future. The Tories are the past. We are the Future. The future that is fair for all. We are that future. For all.” And so, more or less, went Gordon Brown’s pitch to the nation at Labour’s manifesto launch. Except it lasted a good hour and a quarter. And it involved a eye-wateringly fuzzy screen behind Brown’s head. And a needless introduction from Harriet Harman. So if you managed to tune into it all, then well done: your enthusiasm for politics knows no bounds. But Labour’s problems today weren’t so much presentational as political. After thirteen years in power, Brown

Peter Hoskin

Labour manifesto launch: live blog

1240: And Brown rounds proceedings off by saying “future” a few times. Did you manage to stay awake? Never mind – I did, so that you wouldn’t have to. My immediate thoughts below, of course. But I’ve given the actual manifesto a quick read-through as I’ve been typing – and will report back shortly. That’s it for this live blog. Thanks for tuning in, and all that. 1237: Brown says that “we are the party of everyone on middle or modest incomes in this country”. Hm – try telling that to everyone who lost out from the 10p tax debacle. 1235: This is dragging on. The Tories should be taking

David Blackburn

Come out, come out wherever you are

Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary and former attack dog, seems to have been cast into outer darkness. As with Oliver Letwin’s disappearing act in the 2001, Labour is toasting this unofficial scalp. Denis MacShane has been adding poison to the potion this morning. The Tories are paying a heavy price for Grayling’s B&B gaffe, but it’s self-inflicted. Grayling’s comments were cackhanded and I think he is wrong, but they were nowhere near as controversial as was claimed – he was seeking a clarification of the law, not calling for Sandi Toksvig to be lynched. I doubt Grayling will be Home Secretary but such a senior Shadow minister can’t hide

Rod Liddle

Moral compass anyone?

Does anybody understand the Labour cancer leaflets story? I’ve listened to be about five BBC News reports and am no better off as a consequence. Labour apparently sent 250,000 cards out to women voters warning them that the Tories would renege upon Labour government promises for cancer tests. The question comes down to how those women were selected and why. If the Labour Party sent them out to women who its data insisted might be at risk from certain types of cancer, or were already sufferers, then it should not merely apologise, but the Prime Minister, if he knew about it, should resign. I hate to overstate the case, as