Liberal democrats

Saturday

Fraser Nelson

Has the Lib Dem bubble burst?

Is this the end of the LibDem soufflé surge? Tomorrow’s News of the World has an Ipsos-Mori poll – conducted the day after the second debate – putting things back to where they were pre-debates: Tories with a six point lead over Labour and the LibDems lagging seven points behind Labour, i.e. 36-30-23. This is broadly where Mori had them in March. The polls are in a state of flux, to be sure. But Ipsos did a full, 1,200 weighted sample, telephone poll. Even on this basis, Cameron would be 42 seats short of a majority. But this is the best news he’s had since the first TV debate –

Peter Hoskin

Tories growing used to a hung parliament in public and in private

Planting seeds, that’s what the Tories are doing – they’re planting the seeds of a Lib-Con alliance.  Yes, it’s a subtle process, and is couched in terms of denial and defiance.  But it’s still going on.  I mean, look at Cameron’s interview with Jeremy Paxman past night (video on Spectator Live), where he declined to rule out having Nick Clegg in his Cabinet – although, happily, he was more unequivocal on the subject of Vince Cable.  And then there’s Ken Clarke’s interview with the Daily Telegraph this morning, in which he says that the Conservative “starting point” for any coalition would be a refusal to compromise on their economic plans. 

Friday

Alex Massie

In This Election Every Vote Counts: Even in Safe Seats

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. If Labour aren’t quite the walking dead the Tories were in 1997 that’s because of the current constituency boundaries, not because there’s any more life in the Labour campaign. Nevertheless the prospect that Labour’s vote could fall to 25% of the vote must be considered a real one and Labour’s team, when anyone bothers to

Martin Bright

Why Not Vote Lib Dem?

There is a terrible desperation about the Tory approach to the Lib Dem surge. There is a clear desire to find some sort of killer story about Nick Clegg or a killer strategy to reassert David Cameron’s claim to be the candidate of change. What is odd is that Cameron seems to have forgotten what made him so attractive in 2005, which was that he was the candidate of the moderate, progressive centre ground.  The recession pushed the Conservative Party into the language of austerity – a message the British public is not yet ready to hear – and they have not recovered.  I have never understood why David Cameron

Peter Hoskin

The morning after the debate before

So, like last week: what’s changed?  And, like last week, it’s probably too early to judge.  The insta-polls may have Cameron and Clegg on level footing, but, really, we need to wait for voting intention polls before coming to any firm conclusions.  As we saw the day after the first debate, they can work in quite surprising ways. My instinct, though, is that things will remain relatively steady.  The Clegg surge of last week was, at root, a cry for change from the electorate – any change.  So it will probably take more than a solid Cameron victory in one TV debate to have voters flooding back to the Tories. 

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron starts to pull the Tory campaign out of the fire

The headlines will be “score draw”, but I’d say Cameron won – and comfortably. I write this as someone who could have happily have sunk a few pins into a voodoo doll of David Cameron earlier on this evening – for taking the Conservatives (and Britain) to this appalling point where he may yet lose the election. But he raised his game, substantially. At best, he spoke with passion and authenticity. This time, he looked like he was fighting for his political life, which (of course) he is. Things are looking up. Here’s my participant-by-participant verdict: Brown Brown was his normal automaton self. He does tend to mangle his words,

Thursday

James Forsyth

Cameron is much improved – but the Lib Dem bubble hasn’t burst

It seems that the general election of 2010 will turn on 90 minutes next Thursday. David Cameron was far better tonight than he was last week. This time he managed to bracket Brown and Clegg together and had the moment of the debate when he called Brown out on Labour’s leaflets claiming the Tories would scrap various things that pensioners currently get free. If there was a YouTube moment in the debate, it was that exchange when Brown said he didn’t authorise the leaflets making these claims. The Tory press team then delighted in pointing to a Labour party political broadcast where they had suggested the Tories would take away

Peter Hoskin

Cameron’s evening – as he and Brown fight back against the Clegg surge

Well, one thing was clear: Brown and Cameron have both been at the textbooks, staying behind for extra classes, and learning the lessons of last week.  They came into this TV debate prepared.  Not just for the very fact of Nick Clegg, but with strategies and soundbites to slow his advance.  The result was a more passionate and confrontational show than I expected. Brown was the biggest surprise on the night.  Sure, you have to apply the usual caveats and parameters: he is Gordon Brown, and being disingenuous and deluded is what he does.  But, all that considered, he was uncharacteristically sprightly, I thought.  His little prepared quips were half-way

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Does Clegg go for a Love Actually moment?

The foreign policy portion of tonight’s debate offers Nick Clegg several opportunities to bracket Labour and the Tories together. Both of them supported the war in Iraq, both won’t take the military option off the table when it comes to Iran and both believe in the centrality of the alliance with the US to UK foreign policy.   On this final point, it’ll be fascinating to see if Clegg launches a full-on assault on the view that the America alliance is the cornerstone of UK foreign policy.  He sketched out the arguments against thinking about the special relationship in a speech the other day and there’s no doubt he could

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Will Cleggcapping Work?

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 Liberals must be doing something right and others who feel that it will be worth endorsing Clegg just to spite everyone else. It occurs to me that the Liberal Democrat surge is not quite unprecedented. That is, it can reasonably be compared, in some respects at least, to the SNP’s campaign during the Scottish parliamentary

Peter Hoskin

Team Brown playing the same old tunes

The strange thing about last week’s TV debate is that, for all its transformative power, it doesn’t seem to have changed Labour’s campaign strategy in any fundamental way.  Team Brown were hoping for a hung Parliament, and courting the Lib Dems, before last week.  And, as Peter Mandelson demonstrated earlier, they’re still doing the same now.  The only difference is that it’s more likely their wishes will come true. But this creates problems for Brown so far as tonight’s TV debate and the rest of the election are concerned.  His instinct may well be to repeat the “I agree with Nick” positioning of last week.  But this has already been

Peter Hoskin

People loathe politicians – but do they loathe the political media too?

One thing’s for certain: the Lib Dems are coming in for greater scrutiny and attention from the media.  The covers of the Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Express and, yes, The Spectator are testament to that – even if some are less substantial than others.  But the question is: will this derail the Clegg bandwagon?  And, like Iain Dale, I’m not so sure. Iain’s point is that some of the coverage is so spiteful that it will “serve to increase his popularity and position in the polls”.  He adds that this would be a “sure sign that the power of the press to influence an election is on the wane”.  He’s right,

Ed Howker

Paul Rowen and the anatomy of a Lib Dem expenses scam

Now the Lib Dems are riding high in the polls, they attract greater scrutiny – which, to put it mildly, they do not always stand up to. In this week’s Spectator, we look at what can be seen as the Lib Dem vice. They may not charge for duck houses, or mortgages. But they do specialise in taking money intended for MPs expenses, and finding “innovative” ways of putting it into their war chest. Here is a hard example that may interest CoffeeHousers and it stars Paul Rowen, whom Mr Clegg visited last week – and declared “has done a great job”. He certainly has: for filling the Lib Dem

Daniel Korski

Is Europe a Con-Lib deal-breaker?

Europe is likely to play a big role in tonight’s debate. It is probably the one issue that divides the Liberal Democrats and the Tories as much as electoral reform. Nick Clegg, a former MEP and adviser to then-EU Commissioner Leon Brittan, is a euro-enthusiast who would like Britain to join the Euro, even if it takes time. David Cameron is a euro-skeptic (though not, to the chagrin of many CoffeHouse readers, obsessed about the issue).   But neither wants a confrontation with the EU and other European governments over the next four years – and the Liberal Democrats have become quieter over time about their pro-EU tendencies. Their support

Wednesday

Alex Massie

A Modest Conservative Case for Modest Electoral Reform

No electoral system is perfect. First Past the Post has its advantages and it’s a mistake to suppose that switching to the Alternative Vote or multi-member constituencies elected by STV solves all problems. On the contrary it probably replaces one set of difficulties with another. Nevertheless, one wonders how sustainable FPTP is. Traditionally it has done a pretty good job of corralling extremism and producing more-or-less coherent governments that can command a majority in the House of Commons (and that can be unceremoniously turfed-oot once they’ve outlived their usefulness). Unfortunately – and increasingly – those governments enjoy only minority support in the country-at-large. Political allegiance is more fluid and conditional

Daniel Korski

Get ready for “Clameronism”

Since the Lib Dems starting surging there has been no shortage of speculation about the possible coalitions that may emerge after the election – Lab-Lib, Lib-Lab, Con-Lib. There has also been breathless speculation about what posts Nick Clegg might demand, including by yours truly.  But none have been as cleverly-written as Hugo Brady’s. A think-tanker for CER, Brady is predicting the rise of “Clameronism“: ‘Buoyed by a huge increase in the Liberal vote, Clegg at first opted for opposition. He bet that a swift second election was likely and that the Liberal Democrats would again double their seats. But the threat of a new financial crisis later that year spelt

David Blackburn

Cable catches a broadside

What is the difference between ‘an alternative’ and ‘an addition’? It is on this question that the Liberal Democrat manifesto turns. If there is a difference, then there is a substantial black hole in their deficit reduction plans. There is a difference. The manifesto presents a £3.4bn public sector payroll measure as an addition to existing government measures, when in fact the small-print discloses that it’s an alternative. Caught double counting, at best the Lib Dems would cut £36.6bn of the £40bn or so pledged. Under further scrutiny from Andrew Neil and Stephanie Flanders, Cable could not define where a further £10bn of cuts was coming from. £20bn of the

Alex Massie Alex Massie

A Tory-Liberal Coalition is Easier than a Lib-Lab Pact?

I’m glad to see that more people – Iain Dale, John Rentoul, Iain Martin among them – are paying attention to Labour’s eclipse. At present Labour could finish third in the popular vote for the first time since 1922 and yet many people seem to assume that a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition or arrangement of some sort is the most likely, even inevitable, outcome of a hung parliament. I don’t believe this is the case and not only because of Nick Clegg’s attack on “desperate” Gordon Brown this morning. The Liberal Democrats have based their campaign for proportional representation on the grounds that it is unfair that, as they did in

David Blackburn

Taking the attack to Vince

With Cable’s and Clegg’s personal ratings being so high, the trick is to play the ball not the man. Ken Clarke and George Osborne achieved that at this morning’s press conference. Clarke said: “(Nick Clegg’s father was) a very nice, very wise guy, he was a very successful City guy, but he wasn’t a flashy guy… he was a Tory. It would have been better if Nick had stuck to the political principles of his father. (Nick Clegg) must regret going into the strange wastelands of Liberal Democrat politics.” He added that whilst he agreed with “70 percent” of Vince Cable’s analysis on the financial collapse, Cable’s solutions left him

Alex Massie Alex Massie

The Lib Dems’ Iran Gaffe

It’s a gaffe, of course, because it is both true and something you’re not supposed to say. Be this as it may, it strikes me that while political professionals and grizzled foreign policy specialists may chunter about the Liberals’ naivete and the rest of it, the general public will be less likely to complain that the party opposed to attacking Iran is the dangerous, mad party that can’t be trusted. Both views, for sure, have some merit. And so do Brother Korski’s questions: What would the Lib Dems do if negotiations fail? Negotiate some more? So what happens if the International Community agrees to military action? What would Nick Clegg