Society

Thursday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

A night to remember?

I’ve just arrived in the press room in Manchester where the media will be watching the debate; the hotel lobby is full of hacks and spin doctors. The question being asked is whether this is the moment that the electorate begins to engage with the election. Although I know that some in CCHQ worry that tonight’s debate could be so he said, she said that it deepens the public’s cynicism about politics. Today’s extreme weather has added an intriguing angle to tonight’s proceedings. Douglas Alexander, who along with Peter Mandelson will be working the spin room after the debate, has already claimed that Brown is concentrating more on the lines

Wednesday

Alex Massie Alex Massie

A Choice Revolution

Reihan Salam has a characteristically excellent post on school choice that has some bearing on the Conservatives’ proposed reforms in England. Reihan’s talking about the US and the suggestion that Milwaukee’s voucher programme hasn’t delivered as much as one might like, but his general argument applies to this side of the atlantic too. Bottom line: choice is not enough. Or, to put it another way, choice is a beginning, not an end*. As he puts it: [C]hoice-based reform at its best creates an opportunity for educational innovators to create new models, deploy new technologies, etc. The ultimate goal is to create a flourishing educational marketplace that goes beyond the binary

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The eve of the debate

Tomorrow’s debate between Brown, Cameron and Clegg is going to be the most important event of the campaign so far. All the parties are playing the expectations game at the moment—I wouldn’t be surprised if a party claimed that their opponent is the best debater since Cicero—but I suspect that the expectations game will be less important than we expect. There is an instant poll following the debate and that is going to mean that the result of the poll, not the verdicts of the pundits, is going to determine the tone of the coverage over the next few days. Given the state of the polls and that this is

The Spectator

Around the Web: Liberal Democrat manifesto

Analysis from Pete and Daniel is available and here’s what the rest of the Web makes of the Lib Dem’s manifesto: Nick Robinson notes that the Lib Dems have made fiscal responsibility and fiscal fairness their standalone issues: ‘But you don’t need to reach for a calculator or even call our friends at the Institute of Fiscal Studies to ask this question – if you were in government and could really find £17bn, would you actually be prepared to give it all away? Nick Clegg’s answer to that question is an interesting one. He argues that the public will only back what he once called savage cuts in public spending

Tuesday

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Children of Maggie

I was going to say that Labour have gone negative but, actually, their campaign has, for any number of understandable reasons, been negative all along. Still, that reached a new low (or height) this evening with this advert, broadcast in Scotland only: It’s impressively dishonest on many levels, not least because any decisions taken on Scottish NHS or education funding will be made in Edinburgh, not by any Conservative government in London. True, the block grant could be squeezed but this is true regardless of who is in power in London or who’s running Holyrood. Indeed, one could make an argument that for any number of political and symbolic and

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Trouble With Referendums

I’m not opposed to local referenda and ballot initiatives. But they need to be carefully handled. As commenters have pointed out and as California’s experience demonstrates these can easily fall prey to powerful interest groups. This is especially so if the threshold for putting an issue on the ballot is too low. And 5% of available voters is, I’d hazard, too low. Apart from anything else experience suggests that youcan get 10% of voters to believe in just about anything. Consider this example from tonight’s YouGov tracking poll: 11% of voters say they’d like to see a “Grand Coalition” in which the Tories, Labour and the Liberals share power. That’s

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Populus has the Tory lead at three, YouGov at eight

There are polls out tonight from the two firms polling for the Tories, Populus and YouGov, and they have pretty different results. Populus has the Tories on 36, down three from last week, Labour on 33 and the Lib Dems on 21. In the YouGov tracker, the Tories are on 39, Labour are down two to 31 and the Lib Dems are on 20.

Peter Hoskin

The return of Chris Grayling

Adam Boutlon’s interview with Chris Grayling this afternoon felt like a pressure valve being released.  Grayling’s recent low profile had already become a rolling story, and his absence from the speaking line-up at his party’s manifesto launch was bound to fuel more murmuring and speculation – so the Tories clearly decided to wheel him out in front of the cameras to calm things down a bit.  As it happened, Boulton was on combative form – arguing that elected police commissioners would just add “another layer of bureaucracy” to society – but Grayling sounded quite reasonable in response. Here’s the video, so you can judge for yourselves:

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Libertarian Paternalism in Action

This, folks, is how the Nudgers and so-called “libertarian paternalists” work. From the Tory Manifesto’s (rather brief) passage on civil liberties: The indefinite retention of innocent people’s DNA is unacceptable, yet DNA data provides a useful tool for solving crimes. We will legislate to make sure that our DNA database is used primarily to store information about those who are guilty of committing crimes rather than those who are innocent. We will collect the DNA of all existing prisoners, those under state supervision who have been convicted of an offence, and anyone convicted of a serious recordable offence. We pushed the Government to end the permanent retention of innocent people’s

Rod Liddle Rod Liddle

Nail A Cretin and Win Some Bubbly Update

Keep those excellent observations flowing in, please. Here’s one I found in the introduction to the Labour Manifesto, published yesterday. Gordon Brown wrote it, apparently: ‘This is a Manifesto about the greater progressive change we need because of the tougher times we are living through. There are no big new spending commitments, but there is a determination for every penny to be used wisely, and, as present plans make clear, to give the maximum protection to frontline public services.’ The first sentence, the one about greater progressive change, is utterly meaningless, especially the word “progressive”. In the second sentence the word “but” should be “and” and the sentence as a

Monday

The Spectator

CoffeeHousers’ Wall, 12 April – 18 April

Welcome to the latest CoffeeHousers’ Wall. For those who haven’t come across the Wall before, it’s a post we put up each Monday, on which – providing your writing isn’t libellous, crammed with swearing, or offensive to common decency – you’ll be able to say whatever you like in the comments section. There is no topic, so there’s no need to stay ‘on topic’ – which means you’ll be able to debate with each other more freely and extensively. There’s also no constraint on the length of what you write – so, in effect, you can become Coffee House bloggers. Anything’s fair game – from political stories in your local

The Spectator

Just in case you missed them… | 12 April 2010

Spectator Live – the Spectator’s new election microsite – has had a busy weekend.  Click here to access the homepage.  Read new contributions from our panellists Gaby Hinsliff, Tim Montgomerie and Rory Sutherland.  Or check out our latest poll results. Here’s what happened across the rest of Spectator.co.uk: Fraser Nelson takes The Times to task over its coverage of the marriage tax break, and makes the case for voting Conservative. James Forsyth previews the candidates’ debate, and wonders if Blair’s respect for the office of Prime Minister will extend Cameron. Peter Hoskin analyses the Liberals’ and Labour’s response to the marriage tax, and finds Labour up to no good. David

Sunday

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The candidates’ debate

This week of the election campaign is going to be dominated by the first leaders’ debate. The debate format means that these might well turn out to be stilted encounters that don’t sway many voters either way. But given how many people will tune in—the broadcasters are confidently predicting an audience of ten million plus—the party leaders are taking no chances. As I mention in the Mail on Sunday, Brown has had a light campaign schedule since the election was called because he’s keen to maximise the amount of time he has to prepare while Cameron has spent every spare moment on the road immersed in his briefing books for

Peter Hoskin

Dirtier tactics

I think we all expected this election campaign to be fought a few inches below the belt.  But, as Iain Dale and Dizzy say, Labour’s tactic of mailing scaremongering leaflets to cancer sufferers is some new kind of low.  I mean, just imagine how it would feel to receive, as a cancer patient or an immediate family member, a leaflet which politicises the problem to the point of suggesting that your care would be jeapordised by voting for another party.  And then imagine how it would feel if you have been specifically targeted because of your connections with the illness, as seems to have been the case here.  Well, it

Saturday

Melissa Kite

Taking control

As so often, the commuters of Cobham were treated to the sight of me disappearing down Old Lane on the back of a reversing horse. There is always a rational explanation for this behaviour, and on this occasion the horse was impressing on me that she didn’t much fancy going to Effingham Common today, thanks very much. She clinched her argument by threatening to throw us both into a waterlogged ditch. As we teetered an inch from the edge, we reached one of our usual compromises, which is to say I gave in totally and allowed her to turn herself around and head for home at breakneck speed. By this

Jeremy Clarke

Down memory lane

Joe always went ‘potty’ when there was snow on the ground, said Marjory. He would clamour at the back door to be let out to play in it, and once outside he’d rush around in frenzied circles, barking at it. Not that it snowed much during his lifetime, she added. Twice, she thinks. But each time, Joe’s excitement had made it a memorable event. When it snowed this year, he went spare as usual, she said. When she let him outside to play in it, he became so excited he had another epileptic fit, then a heart attack and he died, lying on his side in the snow, on Christmas

Taki

Name dropping | 10 April 2010

New York In the 45 years I spent going to Annabel’s I never once heard anyone say, ‘Let’s go to Birley’s.’ It was Annabel’s or Harry’s, or Mark’s, but never Birley’s. Now I read that Richard Caring, the man who bought Mark Birley’s joints, is trying to stop Robin Birley, Mark’s only son, from using his own name for the new club he’s planning in Mayfair. Admittedly, I’m a friend of Robin, and have never met Caring, but surely one has the rights to one’s own name. Caring says that he’s bound to honour his agreement with Mark Birley and uphold the standards Mark set in his clubs. Well, this

Mary Killen

Dear Mary | 10 April 2010

Q. Before going into hospital for an eye operation, a good friend asked me if she could do anything to help when I came out. I thought this was a very kind gesture but I am now back at home and have not heard a word from her. Should I ignore this as pure forgetfulness or mention how surprised I am by her failure to enquire about my ordeal? A.L., London A. Do neither. Instead make the generous assumption that your friend is following the etiquette of not discussing illness. Guilt-mongering usually backfires so simply ask her for the help you need without ‘giving an organ recital’. This was the

The Spectator

Letters | 10 April 2010

Read vs Parris Sir: I found it difficult to contain my derisive laughter at the ludicrous vapourings of Piers Paul Read in your Easter issue debate. The idea of the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings as the bulwark against the forces of evil set to overwhelm us is too risible to be borne. Given its history of murder, cruelty, hypo-crisy, dishonesty, sexual depravity and corruption, to name but a few (and that’s only the morally infallible popes for God’s sake), and the utter nonsense of its doctrines on transubstantiation, Mary’s assumption into heaven, the sinfulness of ‘artificial’ contraception (if you intend contraception, what does it matter if you use