Nick clegg

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Can the Tories turn things from personality to policy?

If the Lib Dem surge shows anything, then it’s the growing power of personality politics in this country.  A few days ago, they’re languishing in third place with around 20 percent of the vote.  One dose of TV razzmatazz later, and they’re topping the polls on over 30 percent.  Yes, even though I admire much of what Nick Clegg has done with his party, there’s little doubt that all this has been catalysed by simply putting him in front of the cameras.  Like someone with an okay singing voice reaching the X-Factor final, the Lib Dem leader triumphed in what was essentially a clash of personalities. Further evidence for this

Sunday

James Forsyth

How Cameron can stem the Lib Dem tide

If the Tories are to beat back this Lib Dem surge, there are three things they need to do. First, they need to establish Cameron as the insurgent, anti-establishment candidate. It might seem odd to urge the leader of the Conservative party to be the anti-establishment cadidate, but the establishment in this country is now essentially soft-left. Just look at how senior police chiefs are threatenting to resign over Cameron’s plans for elected police commissioners who would be accountable to the public and set the priorities of the local force (another transformative Tory policy that Cameron didn’t mention during the debate) Cameron needs to run against these people. He should

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron has a policy agenda to change Britain – he should tell us about it

Cameron has not, alas, broken free of the never-ending opinion poll bungee jump which is the story of his leadership of the Conservative Party. Cleggmania is a bubble – but the thing about bubbles is that one can never quite tell when they will burst. The Tories, who have lost the most votes due to this bubble, will have their needles out. But in my News of the World column today I suggest they focus on policy because they do have hard ideas that could radically change Britain. Cameron missed a trick by failing to mention his single best policy, Gove’s school reform, last week.  On immigration, his plan for reducing it

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Brown’s mindset on full display

Labour high command will be very satisfied with Brown’s performance on Marr this morning. There was far less of the tetchiness that we usually see from Brown in interviews and by being invited to talk about the ash cloud and the government’s response to it at the beginning, Brown was able to assume some of the aura of his office as Prime Minister. The interview saw the debut of Brown’s latest rewriting of history. Apparently he has always been for bringing in the liberals (exact quote to follow when the BBC release the transcript) and a ‘progressive consensus’. This will come as a shock to anyone who has read Paddy

Peter Hoskin

Mandelson contra Cameron

So far as the Tories are concerned, Peter Mandelson is the political equivalent of an itch that you can’t scratch: irritating, elusive and impossible to ignore.  And he’s at it again today, with an article in the Independent on Sunday chiding the Tories’ over their Big Society agenda.   It’s not the “agenda of abandoment” attack that Mandelson made a few days ago.  But, rather, a return to the “cross-dressing” territory of last year.  As Mandelson puts it, “[Cameron’s] tightly knit group of associates has simply pinched a few ideas from our campaign manual, rather than fundamentally reforming the party to make it fit for office.”  And he even tries

Saturday

Martin Bright

Time for a National Government?

Gordon Brown should have done it at the beginning of the recession. He and David Cameron should be thinking very seriously about it now. Perhaps national government is an idea whose time has come. Again. With the prospect of a very close election, in which people are clearly sick of the conventional two-party system, there is every reason to imagine a genuine government of all the talents after the election, with ministerial posts given to senior figures from all three parties. Is there any reason that Nick Clegg shouldn’t be prime minister in a national government? It would seem he is the people’s choice.  The obvious objection is that a

David Blackburn

The impediment to a Lib-Lab coalition

Certainly, the Lib Dems’ current joy will prove transient; but for the first time since 1983 this is a three party race. As Pete notes, Labour see Nick Clegg as the surest means to keep the Tories out of office. Even before the debate, the normally cerebral Andrew Adonis was penning passionate articles appealing to Lib Dem support. Since the debate, the love-bombing campaign has become indiscriminate .   Love isn’t all you need. Labour will need nous to make the most of the opportunity Clegg has presented. Over at Spectator Live, Will Straw argues that Labour should ‘play the long game’ by being obsequious whilst airing the few differences

Daniel Korski

Nick Clegg: the Hans-Dietrich Genscher of Britain

Nick Clegg has always said that if no party can command a majority in parliament, he will support the party voters have been seen to support. It was assumed that if the Tories were the biggest party – but a few members short of an outright majority – he would back them. But if the YouGov poll comes true, on a uniform swing Labour will be the largest party and the Liberal Democrats still the third largest party in parliament but with 90-odd seats. With Labour out front, Clegg’s logic would suggest he would back a Labour-led government. But Clegg’s poor relationship with Gordon Brown is well known and with

Peter Hoskin

Responding to the Lib Dem surge

We’ve had the insta-polls and that eyectaching YouGov poll, and now we get the political reaction to Thursday’s TV debate.  Interviewed in the Times, Alan Johnson plays up what Labour and the Lib Dems have “in common,” and opens the door on a potential coalition.  While, in the Telegraph, David Cameron sets about Lib Dems policies – attacking, for instance, the “flimsy backing” to their plan for making the first £10,000 of income tax-free These different responses to the Lib Dem surge are stiking, if predictable.  Labour see Clegg as an opportunity: an opportunity to whitewash Brown’s mechanical performance in the TV debate, and to keep the Tories out of

Friday

Martin Bright

Where Did Labour’s Funniest Line Originate?

I must say I had a chuckle at Alastair Campbell’s tweet during the leaders’ debate: “Clegg done well on style, Cameron clear winner on shallowness, GB winner on substance”.  I had another chuckle when Alan Johnson used the line in the post-debate analysis and now I see David Miliband congratulating Alan Johnson for using it and  Miliband’s comments being recirculated by eager Labourites. So who stole it from whom? For we socialists all property is theft and everything should be owned in common so I guess it doesn’t really matter. But it is amusing to see how pleased everyone is with this one-liner.

Peter Hoskin

The case for Nick Clegg

Ok, this won’t be one of my more popular opinions, but here goes … Nick Clegg is a Good Politician.  And I don’t mean that in some Machiavellian sense – although, for all I know, that might be true.  But, rather, that he’s got some decent ideas and ideals, and he presents them convincingly.  This is why he deserved his victory in yesterday’s TV debate.  It wasn’t the novelty factor, as Fraser claimed last night.  It wasn’t even really his plague-on-both-your-houses positioning.  No, last night was the culmination of two years in which – politically speaking – Clegg has kneaded and pulled his party into one which can stand, unashamed, on a

David Blackburn

What the polls say about the leaders’ debate

More concrete information will emerge over the next few days, and it may be sensible to reserve judgement until then. But the polling data we have so far is unanimous: Nick Clegg walked it. Here are some of the polls: YouGov: Who performed best in the TV debates? Clegg: 51 percent Cameron: 29 percent Brown: 19 percent Com Res: Who won the debate? Clegg: 46 percent Cameron: 26 percent Brown 20: percent Populus: Who won the leaders’ debate? Clegg 61: percent Cameron: 22 percent Brown 17: percent Angus Reid: Who came out on top? Clegg: 48 percent Cameron: 20 percent Brown: 18 percent PS: As ever, Anthony Wells’s analysis is

Peter Hoskin

So what’s changed?

The question is: how much has really changed after last night?  And the answer is hard to pin down.  There are the plastic, surface changes, of course.  Nick Clegg may now be recognised by more that one-third of the nation.  His party will probably come under greater scrutiny from the media and his opponents.  And the leaders’ debate is here to stay; a defining feature of this election which will become a standard feature of future contests. But what about deeper change?  Well, I can understand the argument – made punchily by Gideon Rachman here – that this will increase the likelihood of a hung Parliament.  That’s probably true.  But

Thursday

Martin Bright

The Leaders’ Debate: Well Done Chaps

Shall we stop being cynical for a moment and congratulate Brown, Cameron and Clegg for being the first political leaders in Britain to take part in a televised election debate? Indeed, we should particularly congratulate Gordon Brown for agreeing to this. He had by far the most to lose. There is absolutely no doubt that Nick Clegg won this. He faltered from time to time, but was the only one confident enough to take thoughtful (if sometimes stagey) pauses.  I thought Gordon Brown also did surprisingly well. He kept his cool and showed that he is an accomplished debater. His jokes were over-prepared and characteristically dreadful, but he warmed up

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

The novelty of Clegg wins it for him

“I agree with Nick”, said Brown – and, as it turned out, so did most of the people YouGov polled. Brown lived right down to expectations, Cameron lived up to them (but didn’t exceed them). Few would have had any expectations from Clegg: what we political pundits know to be his clichés will be heard for the first time in many living rooms tonight. Each used tactics we’re familiar with. Brown opened his verbal machine gun, and sought to mow down the audience (they surrendered early on). David Cameron was fluent, articulate – as anyone who has followed politics had come to expect. But dazzling? No. He was subdued, seemed

Peter Hoskin

Nick Clegg triumphs – and Cameron gains – in the first TV debate

So, who won?  Well, hold your horses, dear CoffeeHouser.  First, it’s worth noting that that was a good shade more compelling than I thought it would be.  There were moments of heat, drama and political tension, of course.  But there was also a sprinkling of light as well.  I suspect anyone watching that would have picked up a working sense of the differences and similarities between the parties and their leaders. So, who won?  Well, it depends what you mean by “won”.  Nick Clegg certainly gained most from the evening.  He was confident, coherent and had a strong line on almost every policy area, whether you agreed with those lines

Peter Hoskin

Leaders’ debate – live blog

2207, PH: Well, we’ve just been through all that – and guess what’s leading the News at Ten.  Yep, the ash cloud… 2205, PH: And that’s it.  I’ll be writing a verdict post shortly. 2203, PH: And Cameron has pre-empted Brown’s statement well.  He says that the other two have tried to frighten the audience about the Tories – but “put hope before fear”.  His key message after that is about national insurance.  A solid closer from the Tory leader. 2201, PH: Classic Brown. He points the finger at the Tories, saying that they can’t match Labour’s guarantees and that they’d risk the recovery. I’m not sure this negative approach

Peter Hoskin

Take your seats

Right – the pizza has been ordered, my glass is overflowing with raspberry Ribena (New! And delicious!), and I’ve fired up the old cathode ray tubes. But, somehow, I’m still feeling quite ambivalent about tonight’s TV debate. Maybe it’s because I still suspect it will be a cautious affair – with neither side wanting to risk the kind of mistake which could define their evening. Maybe it’s because of the wall-to-wall coverage of the past few days. Or maybe it’s because the New York Times has a (deliciously arch) point when it writes that UK politics is finally “moving into the television age”. In the end, the most interesting thing

Wednesday

Daniel Korski

The future might be yellow

The Liberal Democrats are doing well. Very well. More voters seem actively to want a hung parliament – they neither hate Labour or love the Tories enough to act decisevely either way – and a vote for Nick Clegg seems a safe, fair choice. A few years ago Paddy Ashdown was over the moon to have won far fewer MPs than the party is hoping for at this election. Then came the “Iraq Bounce” with Charles Kennedy’s anti-war stance doing the party well. Many assumed that without a clear-cut issue, and having chosen a leader who looked like David Cameron’s younger brother, the Lib Dems might struggle. Instead, the party

Peter Hoskin

The Lib Dems have found their issue

Well, that was quick.  After the Tories’ one-hour-and-forty-minutes-long manifesto launch yesterday, and Labour’s comparable event the day before, it was quite a relief that the Lib Dems got through theirs in a nerve-soothing 45 minutes.  And that included introductions from Sarah Teather, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable, and a speech from Nick Clegg – all of them short, sharp and snappy.  The only thing which seemed to drag was the Q&A session at the end. But timings aside, it was clear that the Lib Dems have hit on an issue which – they think – separates them from the other parties.  In 2005, it was Iraq.  This time around, deserved