Daniel Korski

Britain’s role in protecting the downtrodden and protecting the weak has significant historical pedigree. The British role in abolishing the international slave trade was one of the first liberal interventions. And as Abigail Green's biography shows, Britain’s Sir Moses Montefiore was not just a pre-eminent Jewish figure of the nineteenth century, but his pioneering approach to the problem of Jewish persecution helped transform the international response to abuses of human rights. No party, though, is going to the election with the kind of commitment to promote human rights abroad as Robin Cook did when he unveiled his ideas for an “ethical” foreign policy. This is hardly a surprise.

One of the interesting features of this election campaign is the near-absence of ex-leaders in national election roles. Tony Blair has been stuck in the Middle East because of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano and has, at any rate, been “Gored” by Gordon Brown, who is as keen to have his predecessor canvassing for Labour as Al Gore was to see ex-president Bill Clinton in the 2000 election. The former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has been more active. For the Tories, Michael Howard is standing down and has not been particularly visible. When I saw him recently in Portcullis House, he looked chipper and relaxed – not like a man about to electioneer for all he is worth.

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 an end to normal politics.

Most politicos agree that a vote for Nick Clegg will likely prop up a Labour government, even if it will be led by someone else than Gordon Brown. Most voters, however, may not realise this. So what the Tories need is a poster which shows in easy-to-understand ways, the causal link. CoffeeHousers, surely the idea of the Lib Dems propping up Labour lends itself to a number of images - if you have any ideas then either mention them below, or send them in to dblackburn @ spectator.co.uk or phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and we'll post a selection of the best.

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 they are not yet sure you represent a benign form of change.

The Liberal Democrats are doing well. Very well. More voters seem actively to want a hung parliament - they neither hate Labour or love the Tories enough to act decisevely either way - and a vote for Nick Clegg seems a safe, fair choice. A few years ago Paddy Ashdown was over the moon to have won far fewer MPs than the party is hoping for at this election. Then came the "Iraq Bounce" with Charles Kennedy's anti-war stance doing the party well. Many assumed that without a clear-cut issue, and having chosen a leader who looked like David Cameron's younger brother, the Lib Dems might struggle. Instead, the party seems to be fighting off Tory inroads.

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? In the last three elections turnout was low, relatively speaking: 59 percent of the electorate voted in 2001 and 61 percent went to the polls in 2005.