Gordon brown

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

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Show him the door please

In a move designed to take advantage of everyone’s need to fill air time before the debates, the Tories have launched a new ad spoofing that picture of Brown walking through a set of double doors while two aides squat on the ground holding it open. The ad is just up here in Manchester but the Tories will be hoping to get it onto the news broadcast and in to tomorrow’s paper. This is another example of how the Tory cash advantage is helping them.  

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

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s signature parade

Only 58? Labour’s last letter attacking Tory spending cuts this year had 60 economists’ signatures attached to it. Their latest, released today, has only 58. Number 10’s signature-marshalling skills are clearly on the wane. I sincerely hope that the Tories don’t marshal some economists of their own. The last time that happened, back in February, we witnessed the low point of the fiscal debate – with both sides using a bunch of academics as a substitute for a proper conversation with the public. And, lest we forget, Guido’s handy graph reminds us just what those economists were and are quibbling over anyway. This is a phoney war, so it’s little

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Brown demolishes himself with untimely ‘admission’

Sorry is the hardest word and Gordon Brown stil hasn’t said it. But, everyday brings surprises. His ‘admission’ about his errors is the first time I’ve ever agreed with his economic analysis. In short, even Brown knows he’s not what he’s cracked up to be. Making such an admission at this stage of the election cycle is extraordinary. The intention may have been to make Brown look human. In which case, he’s succeeded, but to his detriment. Brown looks Biblically fallible. Labour’s campaign rests on one deduction. Gordon Brown built an era of prosperity; then Gordon Brown saved the country from a recession that originated in America; therefore Gordon Brown

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

How Charlie Whelan killed New Labour

Last summer, The Spectator received a letter from Charlie Whelan’s solicitors complaining about this post – where we mention their client’s spot of bother with his colleagues at Unite. Carter-Ruck were instructed on one of the no-win-no-fee deals: it cost Whelan nothing to sue, but could cost us £thousands to defend. So the lawyer’s letter is, by itself, an effective form of intimidation. A magazine with a small budget obviously faces huge pressure to do what he wanted: apologise, pay up and (suspiciously) undertake not to pursue the story any further. Under the circumstances, The Spectator could do only one thing. Our full investigation into Charlie Whelan is the cover story of tomorrow’s magazine

Tuesday

David Blackburn

Brown will fear the foreign policy debate most of all

The Tories’ Invitation to join the Government was never going to dwell on defence. (You can listen to the brief chapter on defence here.)  But that doesn’t mean defence isn’t an election issue. It is, and it’s one that the Tories will win. Brown’s defence record is abysmal even by his standards. Former service chiefs have described how Brown ‘guillotined’ defence budgets whilst fighting two wars, and field commanders in Afghanistan have made constant reference to equipment shortages. These accusations were corroborated by facts that Brown then tried to distort before a public inquiry. That’s not all. As Alex notes, buried in Labour’s manifesto, is an admission that the Defence

Daniel Korski

Voting blues

One of the key questions in any election is turnout: whose voters will turn up and whose won’t. People are clearly disappointed in the political class – on a scale from 0 to 10, trust in politicians and parties is hovering around 3 points – but does it mean that they will stay at home, spoil their ballots or opt for fringe parties and single-issue candidates? What about the talk of a hung parliament ? Will it make voters believe that their vote counts – and so bring them to the polling stations — or make them stay at home, giving up on the idea that any change is possible?

Monday

Fraser Nelson

What Brown really offers Britain…

Labour’s manifesto cover has been the cause of much merriment online – creating what the Americans call “subvertisments”. ConservativeHome has already lined up some spoofs. We asked Carla Millar, who has done quite a bit of work for The Spectator, to do a version with a mushroom cloud of debt in the middle and the family shielding their eyes. This is the result. Carla is a studiously apolitical Canadian, but I’m sure CoffeeHousers will agree that she has captured the essence of it all:

Peter Hoskin

Adam Boulton’s damning verdict

We’ve already collected some of the general blogosphere response to Labour’s manifesto launch, but this addendum is worth making separately.  In a post describing the hostility of the Labour crowd towards the gathered media, Adam Boulton writes (with my highlights): “The crowd, including some cabinet ministers, booed and shouted at questions they didn’t like. Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, had his question interrupted by jeering and Graham Wilson of the Sun was booed just for identifying his newspaper. Labour did not behave like that in the last three elections when the Sun backed them. Gordon Brown was happy to join in this confrontational mood. It was the most substantive

The Spectator

Around the Web: Labour’s manifesto

We have some video footage of Brown’s speech at Spectator Live, and you can read Pete’s analysis here. Elsewhere on the Web: Hopi Sen likes the promise on early diagnosis on Cancer care, and the fact that no incredible spending pledges have been included. The Guardian’s Julian Glover attacks a ‘meaningless manifesto‘: ‘Ed Miliband, who we are told wrote Labour’s manifesto, is fond of saying that the Tories are on the wrong side of the battle of ideas. It’s a neat phrase, but an empty one unless you have ideas of your own. On the basis of today’s manifesto performance, Labour doesn’t.’ Con Home argues that ‘Gordon Brown’s new-found aversion

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s thin air manifesto

“You got that, Britain? We. Are. The. Future. Future, future, future. The Tories are the past. We are the Future. The future that is fair for all. We are that future. For all.”  And so, more or less, went Gordon Brown’s pitch to the nation at Labour’s manifesto launch.  Except it lasted a good hour and a quarter.  And it involved a eye-wateringly fuzzy screen behind Brown’s head.  And a needless introduction from Harriet Harman.  So if you managed to tune into it all, then well done: your enthusiasm for politics knows no bounds. But Labour’s problems today weren’t so much presentational as political.  After thirteen years in power, Brown

Peter Hoskin

Labour manifesto launch: live blog

1240: And Brown rounds proceedings off by saying “future” a few times.  Did you manage to stay awake?  Never mind – I did, so that you wouldn’t have to.  My immediate thoughts below, of course.  But I’ve given the actual manifesto a quick read-through as I’ve been typing – and will report back shortly.  That’s it for this live blog.  Thanks for tuning in, and all that. 1237: Brown says that “we are the party of everyone on middle or modest incomes in this country”.  Hm – try telling that to everyone who lost out from the 10p tax debacle. 1235: This is dragging on.  The Tories should be taking

Sunday

David Blackburn

Does it pay to be mendacious?

Lying is a politician’s occupational hazard. The Independent on Sunday has published a Com Res poll confirming that truism. The majority of voters do not believe that David Cameron and Gordon Brown are being honest about how they will tackle the deficit. We voters resent being taken for fools. If Brown and Cameron are being disingenuous about the economy, the honest Sage of Twickenham benefits – the Liberals are storming the marginals, a hung parliament is odds-on according to some pollsters. Is Vince Cable honest about reducing the deficit? Emphatically not. One minute he’s against a VAT rise, but refuses to rule it out the next. He’s in favour of unilateral charges

Saturday

Fraser Nelson

The case for voting Conservative

Why vote for Cameron? The reasons for voting against Gordon Brown are so numerous that the positive pro-Tory reasons for voting are often lost. This week’s Spectator gives you all the ammo you need to win around wavering friends, colleagues and family. We have restricted ourselves to the ten most compelling points. I summarise them below: 1. School reform. In itself, it’s enough reason to vote Tory. Gove has specifically promise that within four years of a Tory government everyone will have an independent school offering to educate their kid for free. This should have been a 1981 Tory proposal, but Keith Joseph lost a battle with the civil service

Friday

David Blackburn

Darling in cloud cuckoo land

Labour can’t lay a finger on the Tories over national insurance. And desperation has morphed into hysteria. Alistair Darling has just told Sky News that David Cameron contradicted George Osborne and that the Tory plan is “unravelling”. “He is going to have to find deeper cuts, some experts are saying tens of thousands of jobs will go,” he said. “He’s had to go on to say that he’s going to have to cut which will mean job losses.” Now, Cameron said: “Even after our plans for public sector pay and pensions, benefits, ID cards – yes, it’s still not enough. I accept that.” But that does not contradict George Osborne,