Uk politics

Friday

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

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

David Blackburn

Eddie Izzard – Brilliant Britain

I’d watch anything over a party political broadcast, anything except Piers Morgan. But Eddie Izzard’s Labour broadcast (below) promised to be different. What a letdown it proved to be, just like any other bland effort. The jokes are marginally funnier than an aneurism, and the message is negative, despite the ‘brilliant Britain’ theme. The ad is a manifestation of Labour’s problem. Izzard offers nothing beyond morbid fear of Tories, Thatcher and money. (Incidentally, I recall a chummy Brown cosying up to the Handbag on the steps of No 10 not so long ago. Did she bite him?) Because Labour cannot represent change, it must guard its record. Izzard defends Labour

The Spectator

Covering the TV debate

We’ll be live-blogging tonight’s TV debate on Coffee House from 2030.  Do, please, join us then. And, in the meantime, over on our special election site Spectator Live, Spectator panellist Gaby Hinsliff has written about why she doesn’t think tonight’s debate will be a make or break moment.  And Reform’s Thomas Cawston has prepared a set of questions for the party leaders to answer.

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

Advantage Cameron | 15 April 2010

I’ve just been watching the feed coming out of the studio where the debate is taking place and what struck me was how much of an advantage his central position will give David Cameron. In all the shots of the studio, the middle lectern is where your eye is drawn first. The leaders, I’m told, have all had half an hour in there to familiarise themselves with the surroundings. They now appear to be white-washing parts of the studio.      

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

Goldsmith’s declaration of independence

Make what you will of his political agenda, but I think this is quite a refreshing admission from Zac Goldsmith today: “There are various things I have said in this campaign with absolute certainty. I said there will be no Heathrow expansion under our Government, there will be no charges for parking in Richmond Park and Kingston Hospital will be safe. If any of those promises are broken I will trigger a by-election and allow people to penalise my party.” It’s bound to rile some of his Tory colleagues, of course – particularly this close to the election.  But one of the upshots of Parliament’s recent spate of scandals is

James Forsyth James Forsyth

No sweat

The leaders will be allowed to use their own make-up artists tonight. This might sound like a trivial detail but how the leaders look is, sadly, going to be an important factor in who gets the most benefit from the debate. I expect that the big beneficiary from being allowed to use his own make-up team will be Cameron. As his Newsnight interview during the 2005 leadership contest – when Cameron used his own not Newsnight’s make-up artists and as a result looked far better than David Davis had the week before – showed, the Cameron Team appreciate the importance of these details.

Daniel Korski

Memo to Cameron: don’t be angry

There will be no shortage advice for David Cameron as he prepares for tonight’s TV debate. Wear this tie, smile a lot, be direct but not controversial and so on. The newspapers have been full of tips and lessons from the US debates. The Tory leader is also said to have hired Squier, Knapp, Dunn Communications, a DC-based political consultancy, specifically for help with the TV debates. Allow me to add my piece of (unsolicited but free) advice: don’t be Mr Angry. People want to like you; they want to feel that you can be trusted. They know they don’t like Labour. They know that the country needs change. But

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

Peter Hoskin

First poll since all the manifesto launches has the Tories ahead by 9 

The figures from YouGov’s daily tracker have just been released, and they have the Tories on 41 percent (up 2), Labour on 32 (up 1), and the Lib Dems on 18 (down 2) – so a lead of 9 points for Cameron & Co.  It’s worth noting, as well, that the Tory manifesto comes out on top in supplementary questions about which has the best policies, which is most honest and which is the best for the country.  But, to my eye, the most striking result is that relatively low level of support for the Lib Dems.  I imagine that they’d certainly hope for better as they continue peddling their

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