
Caption suggestions welcomed.
The last Prime Ministerial debate was by far the liveliest and best. The debates have generally been an excellent innovation. They have generated huge public interest and will, I feel sure, form a permanent feature of general election campaigns.
Nick Clegg, to his credit, answered the question I posited in my last blog post. He informed the audience in unequivocal terms that he is “not advocating entry into the Euro”.
So how much else of the Lib Dem manifesto should we ignore?
Final Prime Ministerial debate tonight, this time on the economy.
The crisis in Greece and its knock-on effect throughout the Eurozone will inevitably overshadow the event.
The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto has this to say on the Euro:
We believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro. But Britain should only join when the economic conditions are right, and in the present economic situation, they are not.
It will be fascinating to hear Mr Clegg explaining precisely why he considers it to be in our national interest to join the single currency and when he anticipates the time will be right to do so.
Tonight’s Lib Dem election broadcast was an arty-farty little number, showing Nick Clegg talking portentously into camera while walking through a variety of urban and rural locations strewn with scattered A4 sheets, apparently intended to represent broken election promises.
At one point, Clegg earnestly assured the viewer that the Lib Dems intend to ensure that “the polluter pays”.
I trust that the promise applies to the Lib Dems themselves and that a suitable cheque has been sent to, among others, the London Borough of Wandsworth.
The draft of yesterday’s speech by Gordon Brown that was provided to the press made it clear that that the Prime Minister would be announcing his acceptance of Sky TV’s invitation to an election debate among the leaders of the three principal parties.
However, the speech when delivered made no mention of it.
Questioned on the Today programme about the issue, the Prime Minister replied:
“There is a time for discussing debates, but we are not in an election yet…
“I’ve decided in my own mind, but… I’m not going into that today because basically there is a time for deciding these things and the time for me at the moment, where I’ve got to spend my time, is going round the country, as I have been doing over the last few months, to explain the policies that we are engaged in.”
I have a strong suspicion that No 10 will try to enter into a negotiating process with Sky in an attempt to frame the debate within the Prime Minister’s own comfort zone. I am also sure that, quite properly, Sky will refuse to engage in such negotiations.
Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg accepted the invitation immediately and without reservation. They are content to let the broadcasters determine the format of the debate and they are quite right to do so.
The debate will be an important element of the next election campaign. It will, I hope, revive interest in the political process, which has remained dormant for so long under Labour. It is an innovation that is long overdue.
Gordon Brown must understand that the longer he vacillates, the more it will appear that he is afraid of the contest. I am sure, however, that that is not the case and that he is, in fact, entirely up for it; let him show that now.
Posted in David Cameron, general election, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg
Tagged Politics
In his speech to the Liberal Democrats’ conference yesterday, Nick Clegg declared his ambition of becoming Prime Minister. This has provoked a certain amount of hilarity in certain parts of the blogosphere, in which I, for one, do not intend to join. There can be no higher ambition for any politician, Lib Dem or otherwise, than to become the leader of his country’s government; and a politician without ambition is of no use to his electorate. So I won’t criticise Nick Clegg for that.
However, Clegg’s speech was unlikely to advance his hoped-for progress toward the door of No 10. Strangely, it directed much of its fire on the Conservatives, apparently oblivious of the fact that it is Labour who are in government; Gordon Brown was mentioned only four times.
Clegg, in short, failed to focus on the right target: the discredited Labour party, whose disaffected voters the Lib Dems, as a party of the centre left, should be actively and determinedly courting. By attacking the Tories instead, Clegg succeeded only in making himself look weak, defensive and lacking in confidence.
And, regrettably, the speech was altogether a rather lacklustre affair. Where was the passion? Where was the energy? Where was the raw anger at what Labour have done to this country? Where was the hunger to make things better? If the Lib Dems consider themselves to be a progressive party, where was Clegg’s vision of progress?
If Nick Clegg really is ambitious for himself, his party and his country, he needs to do much better than this.
For fifty minutes yesterday afternoon, he had his big chance, centre stage, to explain to the nation precisely how he proposes to realise his wholly laudable ambition.
Sadly for him, he blew it.
Speaking of the Guardian poll, there is little that emerges from it to cheer the Liberal Democrats as their Bournemouth conference draws to a close.
Run the poll’s findings through Electoral Calculus and you will find that it predicts a net loss of 26 seats for the Lib Dems, including two in Wales.
Lib Dem election planners may consequently decide that it would be better for them to seek to benefit from the collapse in support for Labour, rather than try to shore up seats under attack from the Tories.
If they do, Mr Clegg will have to adopt a change in rhetoric; calling David Cameron a conman won’t help in vulnerable Labour seats such as Liverpool Wavertree, where, on BBC Breakfast this morning, one lady who was shown a picture of the Lib Dem leader thought he was Peter Mandelson.
Posted in general election, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, Peter Mandelson
Tagged Politics
On Saturday, Nick Clegg told the Guardian that “bold and even ‘savage’ cuts in government spending will be necessary to bring the public deficit down after the next election”.
The word “savage” appears to have caused considerable alarm among senior Lib Dem figures; according to today’s Times:
They believe that the party’s rhetoric on public spending cuts should be closer to that of Labour, which is promising to cut “more kindly” than the Tories.
Asked by the Times whether he would use the word again, Clegg replied:
“I don’t have a timetable. The debate is changing very fast and I’m not resiling from a strategy where we are being very candid.”
Good to have that cleared up so unequivocally.
Speaking of the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg is apparently due to tell delegates at his party’s conference:
“If you want things to be different, really different, you have to choose different. That’s our message.”
Unfortunately, in Wales, that’s Plaid Cymru’s message, too.
I am rather disappointed in Nick Clegg, who has always come across as a courteous, mannerly politician. Apparently, at the Lib Dem conference later today, Mr Clegg intends to call David Cameron a “phoney” and a “conman”.
Whilst understanding that many members of Mr Clegg’s parliamentary party are most at risk from Conservative challengers – a matter that must be causing him considerable concern – I think it unlikely that voters will respond positively to a political message founded on personal abuse. Mr Clegg can do much better than that.
Today’s Telegraph reports that Gordon Brown is planning a “game-changing” move immediately after the Euro elections later this week by inviting the Liberal Democrats into Government.
Given current political climate, it is unlikely that the Lib Dems, notwithstanding their traditional predilection for political accommodations, would accept. An ICM poll, also in today’s Telegraph, shows that the Lib Dems have now overtaken Labour in general election voting intentions; they are on 25 per cent, as against Labour’s 22 and the Tories’ 40 per cent.
Running this through Electoral Calculus, this would give the Conservatives 376, Labour 161 and the Lib Dems 82 seats respectively. In other words, the Lib Dems, on present voting intentions, would stand to gain an additional 15 seats.
What on earth, in the circumstances, would be the benefit to Nick Clegg of hitching his wagon to Gordon Brown’s falling star? The Labour brand is now so toxic that even the very loosest of coalitions would be sure to contaminate any party that was associated with it.
If, therefore, there is any substance whatever to the Telegraph’s story, it serves only to illustrate still further the Prime Minister’s increasingly worrying detachment from reality.
Judgment will soon be delivered on the flagship of the Government’s financial stimulus package, the temporary 2½ per cent cut in the rate of VAT.
Early indications do not look too promising. Debenhams, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury and Next will update the market next week on their Christmas trading, with many analysts expecting poor figures, as the impact of the downturn on what is traditionally the busiest retail period is revealed.
The comments of Credit Suisse, reported in today’s Telegraph are particularly stark:
“This is the first time in our recent recollection that there has been such widespread breakdown in market pricing discipline.
“For this reason we will not be surprised if Christmas does not ‘happen’ in a profit sense this year after many years of retailers being saved by last-minute demand for less heavily discounted products.”
The VAT cut therefore looks very likely to have failed. Indeed, David Cameron and, today, the Lib Dems’ Nick Clegg have said as much. So, indeed, have independent commentators, such as Rhys Williams of Arbuthnot Securities:
“It was operationally difficult for retailers to implement, and in terms of a demand driver it had zero impact.”
It is, in truth, hardly surprising that consumers are reluctant to spend, given the general decline in confidence throughout the economy. With businesses unable to access credit, people are fearful of what the future holds.
Before confidence can trickle down to consumers, the logjam preventing the flow of credit to businesses will have to be cleared. At present, however, the omens are not good. A Bank of England survey just published has revealed that, in spite of Government threats and entreaties, lenders further reduced the amount of credit available in the last three months of 2008 and warned that they planned to continue to pare back.
Alistair Darling is rapidly running out of options. The Bank of England is likely to cut base rate next week, but the deep cuts already made have had little or no effect. Suggestions now include injecting yet more cash into the economy – likely to result in a further decline in sterling – or purchasing toxic assets from the banks.
The Conservative proposal of setting up a national loan guarantee scheme has not yet been taken up by the Government. This seems perplexing, given that its cost would be relatively moderate (and it is only in the context of the Government’s stratospheric borrowing plans that £50 billion could possibly be considered moderate), and given also that it has been welcomed by business bodies such as the CBI and the FSB.
The obstacle would seem to be purely political. Gordon Brown has been attempting since last autumn to portray the Conservatives as the “no nothing” party, in contrast to his own globe-bestriding hyperactivity. If he were to adopt the Tory plans, Gordon would tacitly be acknowledging that all his sound and fury over the last three months really did signify nothing.
That would truly be a bitter pill, but, given the continuing downward trajectory of the British economy, Gordon may soon be left with no option but to pinch his nose and swallow it.
Posted in Alistair Darling, David Cameron, economy, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg
Tagged Politics
The more Clegg attempted to avoid the question, the more Humphrys returned to it. When Clegg said the confession had been made in a split second, Humphrys observed that people expected split second judgment from their leaders. Clegg spluttered a bit.
Humphrys then mischievously suggested that Clegg compared poorly with his stopgap predecessor, Vince Cable. Clegg was not only irked, but clearly so.
It was a bad-tempered, chippy, brittle performance by Clegg. He came over badly and will have to do better.
Humphrys was wonderful.
Posted in Nick Clegg
Today Cameron (who spoke entirely without notes) asked Brown (who was armed with his usual paginated, indexed and colour-coded lever arch file) a couple of questions about parliamentary pensions and allowances, to which the PM gave fairly non-committal replies.
Cameron then turned to the issue of Labour’s refusal to allow a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Gordon clearly decided he wasn’t too keen on the question, so answered the earlier one about allowances again.
Cameron then challenged Brown to a televised debate at the next general election. Gordon answered the referendum question again. Cameron repeated the challenge. Brown repeated the referendum answer.
It was all very odd.
Nick Clegg, by the way, put in another feeble performance. He really must raise his game.
He did, however, raise a resounding cheer from the Tory benches with the following question about the Northern Rock (itself a misjudgment, because David Cameron had spent his own allocation of six questions giving Gordon a mauling over the same issue):
Mr. Clegg: Is not the real truth that the Prime Minister will not nationalise the bank because he is running scared of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] It has no solutions—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.
It appears Clegg is going to prove a real asset to the Conservatives in the months ahead. As for the Lib Dems, I am sure they are kicking themselves that they didn’t stick with Vince Cable.
Posted in Nick Clegg