Alex Massie

The standard assumption about political debates is that the campaign with most to gain in all in favour of them while the candidate presumed to be the front-runner wants nothing to do with them. Franklin Roosevelt refused to debate Wendell Wilkie in 1940, LBJ refused to debate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and, four years later, Richard Nixon (perhaps recalling his experience in 1960) declined to debate Hubert Humphrey. Indeed, you can argue that the modern American practice of Presidential debates might not exist at all but for the weakness of the position in which Gerald Ford found himself in 1976. As matters stand, I suspect there will be some reluctance to repeat 2010's experiment with televised debates between the three principle party leaders.

I think it is fair to say that Dr Liam Fox has never been one of David Cameron's chief chums. The former Defence Secretary has, as Paul Goodman notes, been closer to George Osborne. Be that as it may, his speech today is a fine reminder of Dr Fox's political limitations. This is the kind of stuff - and the kind of man, frankly - that helps explain why the Conservative party has not won a general election majority since 1992. Think on that and think on how much Britain has changed these past 21 years and how little the Tory party has. Dr Fox ignored all this, delivering a call to arms like it was 1981 All Over Again. But it is not. According to Fox, however: The great socialist coup of the last decade was making wealth an embarrassment. It is not.

For a few hours this morning it looked as though Ed Miliband might do something uncharacteristically courageous. The Jewish Chronicle reported that the Labour leader had described himself as a Zionist at a meeting organised by the Board of Deputies. It may be sad that this would need to be considered, as Dan Hodges put it, 'a brave and welcome statement' but that's the modern British left for you. Mr Hodges wondered if Miliband would 'stand by' this statement. His scepticism was sensible. And sure enough, word comes that Miliband's views have been 'misinterpreted' by the Jewish Chronicle. As Hodges relates the story: 'Asked at the event whether he was a Zionist Miliband reportedly responded, “Yes, I am a supporter of Israel”.

Panic, once let loose, is hard to corral. And there seems to be plenty of panic on the Tory benches at Westminster. The Eastleigh by-election result, the stagnant economy and the rising sense that the Prime Minister has somehow lost his way all contribute to this. Each fresh setback - or perceived setback - now has an impact disproportionate to the actual size or importance of the problem. These things are no longer measured on a linear scale. Read, for instance, Ben Brogan's analysis in today's Telegraph and you will perceive an under-current of deep panic presently afflicting the Tory tribe in London. Similarly, when Paul Goodman is writing - correctly, I think - that a post-2015 leadership campaign has already, if quietly, begun you can sense the fear in Tory ranks.

Nicola Sturgeon, arguably the SNP's most effective asset at present, went to Brussels today to deliver a speech about Scotland's future relationship with the EU. Most of it was as bland and unobjectionable as you might expect. Move along, not very much to see here. And with some reason. I think it is all but inconceivable that the EU would make it difficult for an independent Scotland to join the club. I also think Spanish (and perhaps Belgian) fears that letting Scotland join would set a dangerous precedent are, for the most part, exaggerated. At the very least I doubt that the threat of a Spanish veto is a good argument for voting No. Nevertheless, the process of admission might not be quite as straightforward as the nationalists (understandably) suggest.

Like John Rentoul, I think much of the scoffing and chortling at the expense of the poor jury asked to consider Vicky Pryce's guilt (or innocence!) is misplaced. This was an unusual case. The questions* they asked - which have been much mocked - seem entirely reasonable to me. More than that, they're quite intelligent. "Reasonable doubt" for instance is not necessarily an obvious thing to measure or define. As for their conduct demonstrating that the Great British public is incapable of jury service, well, phooey to that. In any case, in both the legal systems that apply on these islands, the vast majority of trials do not involve juries at all. We do not actually believe juries are necessarily necessary for criminal proceedings.

Like grief, stupidity has a hierarchy. So, on balance, Ed Miliband's response - if it can be so dignified - to Hilary Mantel's essay about the mystery and magic attraction of royalty was even dumber than David Cameron's. Neither, plainly, had read what Mantel had written. The Leader of the Opposition at least had the advantage of playing second. Having seen the Prime Minister make a chump of himself, Miliband would have been wise to resist the temptation to demonstrate his own chump credentials. This was beyond him. In modern British politics you cannot allow the existence - or even mere appearance - of a Chump Gap. Then again, it is one thing to make a fool of yourself in response to an essay you have not read but quite another to do so having actually read the damn thing.