Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Not to harp on about this too much, but can I again note that Labour seem to believe that this election is a British version of the Gore vs Bush Presidential election? Here’s David Miliband arguing that “it’s the policies of George W Bush that he [David Cameron] is promising”. So there you have it: Cameron is the British Dubya and we all know how that went! This is a neat ploy from Labour, not least since 90% of voters have no idea what that really means in policy terms except that it sounds very, very bad indeed. Stylistically or in terms of temperament it’s hard to see what Bush
The British Chiropractic Association has dropped its libel suit against Simon Singh. Singh’s original crime? Heinously, he described the Association’s claims that spinal manipulation would treat children suffering from cholic or feeding disorders as “bogus”. Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of a libel defendant on the grounds of ‘fair comment’, which increased Singh’s chances of victory. As the Spectator’s latest cover piece illustrates, perverse British libel laws are used to gag free speech, discourage investigation and to intimidate. ‘Publish and be damned’ is a thrilling if self-indulgent mantra, but a free press should not need to utter it. Today is a small move towards that goal.
The leaders will be allowed to use their own make-up artists tonight. This might sound like a trivial detail but how the leaders look is, sadly, going to be an important factor in who gets the most benefit from the debate. I expect that the big beneficiary from being allowed to use his own make-up team will be Cameron. As his Newsnight interview during the 2005 leadership contest – when Cameron used his own not Newsnight’s make-up artists and as a result looked far better than David Davis had the week before – showed, the Cameron Team appreciate the importance of these details.
Hat-tip: ConservativeHome
There will be no shortage advice for David Cameron as he prepares for tonight’s TV debate. Wear this tie, smile a lot, be direct but not controversial and so on. The newspapers have been full of tips and lessons from the US debates. The Tory leader is also said to have hired Squier, Knapp, Dunn Communications, a DC-based political consultancy, specifically for help with the TV debates. Allow me to add my piece of (unsolicited but free) advice: don’t be Mr Angry. People want to like you; they want to feel that you can be trusted. They know they don’t like Labour. They know that the country needs change. But
Only 58? Labour’s last letter attacking Tory spending cuts this year had 60 economists’ signatures attached to it. Their latest, released today, has only 58. Number 10’s signature-marshalling skills are clearly on the wane. I sincerely hope that the Tories don’t marshal some economists of their own. The last time that happened, back in February, we witnessed the low point of the fiscal debate – with both sides using a bunch of academics as a substitute for a proper conversation with the public. And, lest we forget, Guido’s handy graph reminds us just what those economists were and are quibbling over anyway. This is a phoney war, so it’s little
As James suggests, few things are more tempting and pointless as “adjudicating” debates according to the Expectations Game. These matters may not be as zero-sum as a horse-race but it’s silly – even if one does it oneself – to view them in terms of Who Did Better than Expected? None of these fellows is a Cicero who might need to carry a penalty weight… Should, however, you want to see how people who judge debates for a living umpire these occasions then I direct you to Election Debates where a panel of grizzled veterans* (who ought to know better but can’t quite leave the game) will offer their verdicts
Why, as Rod asks, has so little attention been paid to the story about Labour sending 250,000 women leaflets suggesting that if they get cancer they’d probably die under a Conservative government? I was in Ireland at the weekend and so didn’t see the Sunday Times story but as far as I can see, what follow-up there’s been on the BBC and elsewhere has been remarkably restrained. To recap: Labour has become embroiled in a row about the use of personal data after sending cancer patients alarmist mailshots saying their lives could be at risk under a Conservative government. Cards addressed to sufferers by name warn that a Labour guarantee
I had my first experience of frontline canvassing in a marginal at the weekend, when I visited my mum in the west country for a few days. She lives in a village in Nick Harvey’s North Devon constituency, a key target seat for the Tories. As a lifelong Labour and former activist she is torn between wasting her vote on the Labour candidate or voting tactically to keep out the Tory, Philip Milton. On Monday we found some Lib Dem canvassers on the doorstep and very cheery in that way Lib Dems have to be. They explained why it made no sense to vote Labour in North Devon and the
The figures from YouGov’s daily tracker have just been released, and they have the Tories on 41 percent (up 2), Labour on 32 (up 1), and the Lib Dems on 18 (down 2) – so a lead of 9 points for Cameron & Co. It’s worth noting, as well, that the Tory manifesto comes out on top in supplementary questions about which has the best policies, which is most honest and which is the best for the country. But, to my eye, the most striking result is that relatively low level of support for the Lib Dems. I imagine that they’d certainly hope for better as they continue peddling their
Sorry is the hardest word and Gordon Brown stil hasn’t said it. But, everyday brings surprises. His ‘admission’ about his errors is the first time I’ve ever agreed with his economic analysis. In short, even Brown knows he’s not what he’s cracked up to be. Making such an admission at this stage of the election cycle is extraordinary. The intention may have been to make Brown look human. In which case, he’s succeeded, but to his detriment. Brown looks Biblically fallible. Labour’s campaign rests on one deduction. Gordon Brown built an era of prosperity; then Gordon Brown saved the country from a recession that originated in America; therefore Gordon Brown
Pete is right: the Liberal Democrats have their issue and it’s a good one. It makes sense for them to be more hawkish on the deficit and debt than either of the larger parties. That way they can present themselves as a sensible restraining influence in the event of a hung parliament that creates room for a coalition. But who should that coalition be with? Understandably Clegg and Cable will do their utmost to avoid answering that question; doubtless they will insist that it all depends on, you know, the result. Nevertheless, having reinvented themselves as Deficit Hawks it would, on the face of it, be absurd to the Lib
Last summer, The Spectator received a letter from Charlie Whelan’s solicitors complaining about this post – where we mention their client’s spot of bother with his colleagues at Unite. Carter-Ruck were instructed on one of the no-win-no-fee deals: it cost Whelan nothing to sue, but could cost us £thousands to defend. So the lawyer’s letter is, by itself, an effective form of intimidation. A magazine with a small budget obviously faces huge pressure to do what he wanted: apologise, pay up and (suspiciously) undertake not to pursue the story any further. Under the circumstances, The Spectator could do only one thing. Our full investigation into Charlie Whelan is the cover story of tomorrow’s magazine
Looking at the papers this morning and watching the news last night, you realise what a benefit in the image stakes the Tory cash advantage gives them. The Tories can afford to hire out better venues than the other two parties. So while Labour launched their manifesto in hospital and the Lib Dems theirs at Bloomberg, the Tories used Battersea Power Station which provided them with much better visuals. We saw the same dynamic on the day the election was called: Labour’s event was in Downing Street, the Lib Dem one in an office and the Tory one on the terrace of County Hall looking over to Parliament The Mirror’s
Three excellent, interesting responses to the Tory manifesto from Iain Martin, Danny Finkelstein and John Rentoul. I recommend them all. And by way of folllowing yesterday’s post… It’s not a libertarian manifesto by any means and it’s not, contra Rentoul, laissez-faire either but it’s certainly more appealing than anything produced by Labour and more relevant than the Liberals’ offering. But it is, as Martin says, a considerable gamble even if, in the end, it is built on the recognisably Tory planks of Family, Community, Country… The Cameron idea of the state is not, despite what some folk seem to think, for a small state. After five years of Cameron central