Motherwell Rules. Obviously, like… He’s a nice chap really… Also from The Thick of It: Peter Mannion: This is the trouble with the public, they’re fucking horrible! Emma Messinger: Peter, you can’t say the public are fucking horrible. Peter Mannion: Yes I can, I’ve met them. All true, all too true.
Well the only good thing, from Labour’s perspective, is that this has happened the day before the final debate and not several days before it. So there’s just a chance it will be a 36 hour story, not a 72 hours one. Clearly it’s not a great idea for the Prime Minister to be heard
The other day, writing in the New York Times, Tyler Cowen suggested: The received wisdom in the United States is that deep spending cuts are politically impossible. But a number of economically advanced countries, including Sweden, Finland, Canada and, most recently, Ireland, have cut their government budgets when needed. Most relevant, perhaps, is Canada, which
The other day a wise friend, lamenting the “madness” of the people carried away with Cleggmania, fretted that it all amounts to the beginning of the end. For the Union, I mean. These days, you see, it’s Unionists who are forever whistling an old song and always wondering if it’s for the last time. I
Egging? Check. Fisticuffs? Check. Smoke-bombs? Check. This is what Ukraine’s hung parliament looks like… The dispute is over whether or not Russia’s lease on the naval base at Sebastapol should be extended. The opposition, as you can see, are not happy. Whether this adds weight to Tory warnings about the dire consequences of a hung
Not a great showing by Jeremy Paxman last night as he wrestled with a Welshman* (who seemed to be named after an Icelandic volcano) and lost. And it wasn’t even close. Immensely entertaining, therefore. The real fun starts just after the two minute mark: *Plaid Cymru’s** economics advisor Eurfyl ap Gwilym. **Typo fixed, Jeremy.
So it seems you have to vote Conservative to accept the party’s invitation to join the government of Great Britain? Who knew? Tory warnings of the dire consequences of a hung parliament are understandable but, I suspect, unfortunate. There is little evidence that the electorate believes that a hung parliament will be a disaster, far
The ideas buried in the Tory manifesto – buried I say because they’ve not spent nearly enough time explaining them – are good and classically conservative. Family, Community, Country. Those are the pillars. But they’ve not been able to build upon this good work and instead the “Big Society” has left voters cold and confused.
It makes sense for the Conservatives to argue that a hung parliament doesn’t do the country many favours. It’s in their interest to make this case and, certainly, there’s something to be said for the Conservatives winning a clear and comfortable majority. That would be preferable to a narrow Tory victory, not least since the
Fed up with how all the political parties emphasise the need for spending restraint while promising increased investment in popular services? Fed up too with all the talk of “savage” or “Thatcher-level” spending cuts without any clear indication where these savings may be made? Well now, thanks to the Financial Times, you can play Fantasy
A good spot by Ewan Hoyle: The Telegraph has gone after Nick Clegg’s support for a more sensible approach to the “War on Drugs”. It seems that when he was an MEP the Liberal Democrat leader supported decriminalisation. This, we are supposed to believe, is a Bad Thing. Which makes it amusing or interesting that
I am not surprised that Paddy Ashdown says the Liberal Democrats cannot work with the Conservatives. He would say that wouldn’t he? After all, Ashdown came close to selling his party to New Labour, lock, stock and barrel. Nevertheless, the idea that the Tories and Liberals cannot work together (though doggedly contested by this blog
Ian Leslie says much of what needs to be said about the Tories new and gimmicky tweak to the constitution – that anyone who becomes Prime Minister between elections must call an election within six months – a proposal that, as Leslie puts it, is “at once carelessly radical and hopelessly irrelevant.” It’s also yet
No-one should be surprised that the SNP are going to court to try and change the terms and conditions of this week’s final “Leaders’ Debate”. What may be more surprising is that the Nationalists have a point. A limited point perhaps but a palpable one nonetheless. The BBC would indeed seem to be abandoning its
Jonathan Freedland is surely right: Labour’s best hope, now that the electorate appears to have decided that “change” matters* and dismissed Labour’s pretensions to offer that change, is to maximise its core vote in the hope of avoiding an electoral meltdown that would, say, leave them with fewer than 200 seats in the new parliament.
Well, again, over to you chaps: what do you think of this one? Watching this and I’m afraid the unworthy thought occurs: David Cameron isn’t actually very good at delivering a speech. Perhaps that’s a little unfair. Better, maybe, to say that he’s not a natural orator. There is, in this campaign anyway, something missing.
May this Scotsman wish all his English friends and readers a joyous St George’s Day? Why yes he may. And does. Here, for your delectation, are Flanders & Swann performing their splendid Song of Patriotic Prejudice. Great stuff.
First things first: SKY lost. A debate that was supposed to be about foreign policy scarcely touched on many of the bigger, more interesting issues in the world. Nothing about China, Russia, Iran, Islam, Israel-Palestine, Africa, terrorism, etc etc. The ability of a British government to influence some of the issues arising in these parts
Well, yes, it probably will have some effect. But as Jonathan Freedland argues Clegg may survive the press’s assault with his dignity and credibility more or less intact. Indeed, the entire episode might have the effect of firming up some support for Clegg. There willl be some voters who see it as proof that the
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