Newspapers

As so it has come to pass: even the Guardian has abandoned Labour and endorsed the Liberal Democrats. I expect the Independent will do the same and that the Mirror may be the only (London) blatt to support Gordon Brown. Meanwhile and for the first time since 1992 the Times is backing the Tories. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the Guardian’s editorial is not its decision to support Clegg (this was predictable) but its repudiation of Labour’s central charge against the Conservatives: that they have not changed. The paper disagrees: This election is about serious choices between three main parties which all have something to offer. David Cameron has

Ah, the majesty of the British press! The Telegraph splashes on the fact that various Lib Dem donors funded a researcher and that these funds were paid into his own bank account.  A curious, perhaps even sloppy, arangement that may do Clegg some damage but that does not seem to be especially venal not least beacuse the contributions were declared to the fees office and the Electoral Commission. “Stuff and nonsense” declared Paxman on Newsnight and I doubt the story, while not good for Clegg, has anything more than dwarf legs. Then the Mail splashes on Nick Clegg in Nazi slur on Britain as he claims ‘our delusions of grandeur’

Not much news came out of Washington last week which doubtless explains why my old chum Toby Harnden used his Telegraph column to chew over the Petraeus 2012 “speculation” one more time. This won’t be the last we hear of this, I assure you. Alas, as Toby laments, the good General stubbornly refuses to play along: The problem is that Petraeus appears to have no desire to be commander-in-chief. His denials of any political ambition have come close to the famous statement by General William Sherman. The former American Civil War commander, rejecting the possibility of running for president in 1884 by stating: “I will not accept if nominated and

Simon Hoggart remains a treasure. His sketch in today’s Guardian begins thus: It’s going to be an awful campaign, awful. Yesterday we were at Labour HQ (they still have a smart new building in Westminster, but after the election they may move to a scout hut in Streatham) to see a video. It was introduced by the home secretary and by Harriet Harman, glossier than ever. Her eyes were like French-polished lentils. I spoke to colleagues afterwards, and we agreed that she seemed to be staring balefully at each of us. Like a very cross Mona Lisa, her eyes follow you round the room. Alan Johnson has been buried deep

Yup, that’s what the whizz kids and the marketing gurus at Labour HQ have come up with for Labour’s election campaign slogan*. A Future Fair for All. Try that one on for size. Note too the now traditional absence of punctuation that further obscures the meaning. As one wag put it, the Tory response might be A Fête Worse than Death. More than anything else, however, it reminded me of Wolcott Gibbs’s classic profile of Henry Luce. Published** by the New Yorker in 1939 it remains a hoot today and a devastating parody of Luce’s bombast and the special, magnificently empty prose style he favoured at Time. Timespeak, however, seems

Ben Brogan’s column in the Telegraph today is a rum one. His thesis is that David Cameron’s job is not merely to present himself as a plausible Prime Minister in waiting but also to persuade voters that they can and should trust politicians again. So, not a tricky job then. [W]e have lost our ability to suspend disbelief and take at face value what politicians tell us. The MPs’ expenses scandal has had the purgative effect Parliament desperately needed, but the collateral damage has been a growth in cynicism and a loss of trust. And no one is suffering the consequences of that more than Mr Cameron. His strategy has

The worst column I’ve read* today was written by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen who, I think, likes to style himself some kind of liberal. Note: this doesn’t mean he’s my kind of liberal. Anyway, here’s how his execrable piece begins: There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer. Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to