Politics

As Iain Dale reports, Wendy Alexander may have let slip with with the date of the next election.  Here’s what she told the Glasgow Herald: “We’re now in a continuous campaigning environment where we look forward to European elections next year, the General Election the year after that, the Scottish Parliament election the year after that and the council elections the year after, and really transforming our organisation for that environment.” So that makes it 2010.  No huge surprise, but now we can mentally prepare for (at least) two more years of Brownies.

What’s the verdict, then, on Nick Clegg’s first 100 days as Lib Dem leader? Not good, I’d say. Sure, he got off to a solid start – making positive noises on public service reform and the economy. But things went rapidly awry with his appalling actions over the Lisbon Treaty. The bizarre way in which he forced his MPs to back down from a manifesto commitment has quite rightly attracted a lot of negative press. And there will be few more embarrassing incidents than that orchestrated walk-out in this – or in any other – Parliament.   What’s more, the subsequent recovery attempt hasn’t been all that impressive. Clegg’s started to peddle the anti-Westminster approach (Exhibit

Do read Steve Richards in The Independent today. He makes an interesting case that Tony Blair’s decision to support the war in Iraq was a result of political pragmatism not moralism. He also suggests that Blair might have thought that backing Iraq would position him perfectly to take Britain into the euro: “At some stage, Mr Blair wanted to fight a referendum on the euro. If he stayed close to the US on Iraq, he could never be accused of being anti-American and indiscriminately pro-European.” What Richards has also reminded us of, is just how crucial the position of the opposition will be if the Iran crisis reaches a point

My, what a lot of Brownies. I can only assume today’s PMQs was one of those weird things, where no two people can agree. Many of my colleagues in the press gallery thought it was dull. I was riveted. Cameron was taking Brown on home turf and having him resort to his litany of fake facts. Cameron was full of unscripted remarks, showing fluency and confidence. Sure, his gags weren’t roof-raisers, but it’s like Dr Johnson’s dog with improvised lines at PMQs. It’s not that improvisation is done well, it that it’s done at all. You could almost feel the two men’s contempt for each other. Brown dismissing Cameron as

As Tim Montgomerie points out, it is a sad indictment of the Conservative party that the only time it seems to be able to get excited about Iraq is when it is calling for an inquiry into the war. Reading William Hague’s speech yesterday, one couldn’t help but notice the difference from his pre-war contributions, when his statements about WMD went far beyond what even the government was claiming and he was happy to throw around the term “appeasement”. Take the intervention that Hague made on 24 September, 2002: “Does the Prime Minister recollect that, in the half-century history of various states acquiring nuclear capabilities, in almost every case—from the

Today will be the last day for you to quiz Nick Clegg – so rush over to this post and register your questions in the comments section.  Tomorrow we’ll pick out the best ones and pose them to the Lib Dem leader. 

For the Kremlinologists among us, Rachel Sylvester’s column on the ideological divisions between the old Brownites and the new recruits in today’s Telegraph is essential reading:  “The ‘old Brownites’ – including Ed Balls, Damian McBride and Ian Austin – are Labour tribalists who think the way to victory is through class war. Personally, they are laddish, football-loving street fighters. Politically, they are ruthless in the way they operate, demanding absolute loyalty (to Mr Brown, rather than to Labour) in return for favours. Having honed their skills creating dividing lines with Tony Blair, now they want to fight a highly personal campaign against David Cameron, portraying him as an Old Etonian

The Tory inflation report has splashed today’s Mail, got (another) p1 in the Telegraph, p2 lead in The Sun – the list goes on. A direct hit. Proof of Coulson’s nous, but also of Labour’s strikingly ineffective rebuttal mechanism. Most goods on the Tory list are cheaper, in real terms, than ten years ago. Other items, like instant coffee and bananas, are lower even in nominal prices. And where was the Labour person making this point? I may be reading too much into this. But with Balls running DCFS it seems Labour’s financial force field is down. Time, then, for the Tories to strike.