Dave, will it be alright on the night?

Monday evening started off well enough.  There was a fair portrait of Cameron by Andrew Rawnsley on Channel 4.  Then, Cameron pops up on the news to defend himself over the Ashcroft saga, presumably in the hope that it will now fade away.  There has to be some doubt that will happen as secret papers on Ashcroft will be released next week, ahead of an investigation by a Commons committee.

Then we come to the Populus poll of marginal seats that is hardily good news for Team Cameron, whichever way it is cut.  Peter Riddell has this to say:

Many voters still have doubts about the Tories. The poll shows that in the key marginals 41 per cent of all voters, and 45 per cent of women, believe that it is “time for a change” but are not sure the change should be to the Conservatives.

On the Ashcroft saga:

The row over the tax status of Lord Ashcroft, the Tory deputy chairman, has damaged the party. Of the 68 per cent who said that they had followed the story quite closely or even vaguely, some 28 per cent — including 10 per cent of Tories — said that it had made their overall view of the party less favourable.

But, there is one favourable bit of news:

Populus repeated a question that proved revealing in the 2008 US presidential campaign, on whether change or experience was needed most. In the US, the margin for change over experience was about 2 to 1, highlighting Barack Obama’s edge over John McCain. In Britain, 56 per cent favour change and 40 per cent experience.

So, we could conclude that so long as Cameron ups his game and the campaign itself goes rather better than the Tories efforts to date, everything will be OK.

Adam Boulton certainly seems to think so.  He suggests Cameron is a “late finisher”, as his biography to date indicates:

He was an average schoolboy at Eton but ended by winning a Scholarship to Oxford.  At university he behaved like any other braying Bullingdon Club toff but, unusually, finished with a first class PPE degree.

In politics he was remarkable only for his unremarkableness while a special advisor and Tory worker. Then he earned few plaudits during a stint in business for Carlton Communications. 

Most observers, including me, had written Cameron off by the time the leadership campaign started after the summer holidays in 2005.  And then in a late spurt Cameron surprised us all.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.  The next few weeks is not a schoolboy outing for novices.  This is the deadly game of grown-up politics for men.  It’s more than Cameron's appeal, but whether the Tories have the right policies and the party has changed.

Labour are fully aware that the Tory party are totally dependent on Cameron.  They also know that the electorate don’t want ‘five more years of Gordon Brown’. 

Mandelson & Co are not going wait around in the hope that Brown outwits Cameron in the TV debates.  What Labour’s election winning team will do is undercut Cameron ahead of the election campaign with policies to wrong foot the Tories, tackle the deficit and keep the patient happy.  For that they have a weapon at the disposal and it is called the Budget.

This election is more than about change and the appeal of two politicians.  It is about which party can sell the bitter pills that the voters will have to swallow after the election.

There is little evidence to date that Doctor Cameron has prescribed the right medicine.

The Ashcroft saga: Pickles speaks

This is getting silly.  Eric Pickles has told Bagehot, “that he found out about Lord Ashcroft's tax status last Monday”.

Unless you were living on the dark side of the moon, we all found out last Monday.

Patience folks.  It will not be long before Mandelson will have a few words to say about Pickles’s latest outburst.

 

Saying it with blinkers on

Without much news for the great and the good to get their teeth into down at the Westminster village, James Kirkup turns his attention to all matters Miliband:

I’m not sure what the opposite of star quality is, but David Miliband didn’t show much of it at the Iraq Inquiry today.

Mr Miliband’s evidence was spectacularly low-key: as the TV shots will show, there was only one lonely member of the public sat in the gallery behind him to listen.

People should be lining up to hear what he has to say about some of the biggest questions in international affairs today. But they’re not. I don’t know if that says more about the general public or about David Miliband. Either way, I don’t think it bodes well for any future Miliband leadership of the Labour Party.

As a further reminder, the sole purpose of Brown's evidence on Friday and Miliband’s today was to close Iraq down ahead of the election.

Miliband did a splendid job, and even sent the “lonely member of the public” to sleep.

As for his leadership ambitions, there was little point making a pitch to Chilcot.  He doesn't have a vote.

Election date correction

It is highly amusing when professional journalists, who should know better, get their facts wrong.  Kevin Maguire, Associate Editor at the Daily Mirror and close to No 10, has this to say on his blog:

Unless Gordon Brown pops to the Palace today(which I'm told he won't) the last chance vanishes for a quick 17-day sprint to a 25 March election.

Try harder, Kevin.  The last date that would allow for an election on 25 March was last Monday, 1 March.

He goes on:

Since it would be foolish to risk the ridicule of 1 April and 8 April is immediately after Easter, when voters have things other than politics on their minds, I think it safe to assume the election's 6 May.

Today is the last possible date for the dissolution, if the election was to be called for 1 April.  For an election to be held on 8 April, the last day for the dissolution is 11 March.

To round off Kevin’s education, if the election is held on 6 May, then the dissolution has to take place no later than 12 April, but is will no doubt happen before that date to allow for the TV debates to take place.

That is enough free information for now.

Do the Tory party know what they are up against?

Ben Brogan, a loyal Tory supporter, sums up with deadly accuracy the dire state of the Tory party’s pre-election campaign:

The most startling thing, to my mind, has been the way Team Dave has let itself be kicked around daily by Labour. It’s as if they don’t have a dog in this fight, as if they have walked off the battlefield sniffling because – sob – those tewwible bullies are too wough. The best defence is a good offence, as Vince Lombardi used to say (or was it Yogi Berra?), but offence we have had none. The Tory communications machine has not been, well, communicating. Instead it has let itself be bitch slapped by Peter Mandelson, including this morning in the Guardian.

He concludes:

I’ve said it before but the cemeteries are full of people who have underestimated Gordon Brown. Like the Terminator reduced to grabbling bits of metal, he is still coming for you Dave. And what cheers him? The kind of self-satisfied complacency shown by Ed ‘Friend of Dave’ Vaizey. Another week gone and the best the Tories can do on a Sunday is suggest Sam Cam votes Labour. Nice. Team Dave needs to snap out of it and get stuck in.

Communications, or the lack it, are just the icing on the cake.  Without a strategy and bullet proof policies the Tory party’s campaign will fail.

One more time.  Labour has a Rolls Royce election machine that is just purring away at present.  Mandelson and Alastair Campbell have been here before and they are in the business of winning.

What they are about is going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.

Perhaps, as Ben Brogan suggests, the Tories are not up for the fight.

The tweet of the day from Paul Waugh

An observation from the Iraq inquiry’s final session before the election :

It would seem that Brown’s little chat on Friday was more successful than even he could have hoped for.

The Ashcroft saga: “That Daily Mail test”

Predictably, Mandelson has removed his gloves and launched a highly personal attack on the Tory leader:

Mr Cameron would rather be seen as complicit in Ashcroft's deception than take him on … [Ashcroft] has David Cameron by the balls. Stand up to him, and the Tories lose his money. Bow down in front of him, and Ashcroft continues to call the shots.

Mr Cameron has zig-zagged his way through his leadership of the Tory party. He speaks the rhetoric of change but on every hard issue - whether Ashcroft, Europe, grammar schools, dealing with the deficit - Cameron is too weak to pick a fight with his own party. That's why the Tories remain fundamentally unchanged.

As we discussed yesterday, Mandelson will push Ashcroft aside and use the saga to question Cameron’s judgement.

Cameron should start listening to Lord Tebbit, who says that Ashcroft should have admitted he was a non-dom years ago and has failed to ask himself the Daily Mail question:

Many, many years ago this was explained to me by Harry Legge-Bourke, then chairman of the 1922 committee, when he said of a certain course of action that was being discussed: 'If you would not be happy to read that in tomorrow's Daily Mail, then don't do it.' That Daily Mail test is the one that matters above all in politics.

Sound advice that means little if Cameron fails to act in a decisive manner over a saga that is refusing to go away.

Shock revelations about our leaders

The nation will be in a state of deep shock this morning.  Elaine Quigley, a graphologist, has analysed the handwriting of the leaders of the main political parties.  Her findings will take your breath away:

Brown "won't be told what to do" and "doesn't trust people who are careless about details"

Cameron is "skilled at talking his way in and out of things" and is "independent, intelligent, with integrity".

Nick Clegg can "get what he wants without aggression" and is "larger than life".

Once you have recovered your composure there is an added bonus:

Mr Cameron has a taste for books by left-winger Tony Benn.

Perhaps the rumoured left-wing tendencies in the Cameron household are true.

A hung Parliament: Who should lead the Labour party?

It has to be said that Gordon Brown has played a blinder over the last couple of days.  It was like going back to the days when Harold Wilson’s mastery in the art of political tactics left everybody else flat footed.

Brown has, at a stoke, swept away both Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming issues at the coming election.  One can only imagine what the opposition would have said if he hadn't visited the troops before the election.  What would they prefer?  Brown taking the weekend off and then going on a Wednesday and missing another PMQs.

With polls now firmly in hung parliament territory, the small matter of what happens after the election looms larger by the day.  Alongside that, there is the not-so-small matter of whether the LibDems want five more years of Gordon Brown.  The answer, according to the speculation in The Sunday Times, is no:

Publicly Clegg has declared that he would keep all options open. However, in private he has said that Brown’s “patronising” style and deafness to differing views mean that striking a deal with him would be close to impossible.

Now the interesting bit:

Some members of Brown’s cabinet have secretly discussed whether he should be replaced after the election with a leader better able to cut a deal with the smaller parties. One member privately suggested that Alan Johnson, the affable home secretary, could become a caretaker leader.

We have discussed this before, with the conclusion being that whatever the result, Labour must rebuild itself and the best person to do this is David Miliband.

John Rentoul responded by saying this:

I yield to no one in my admiration of the Foreign Secretary, but I also yield to public opinion, which is as yet not wholly persuaded of his potential. And I think that Johnson is in a strong position to find common ground with the Liberal Democrats.

Short-term solutions, very much the Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown way of doing things, are one thing but the long-term future of the Labour party has to be considered in parallel.

A possible way though this dilemma would be for Johnson, as the nominated Prime Minister, to cut a deal with the LibDems, while at the same time Miliband becomes leader of the Labour party.

This may be a hypothetical matter for now, but it is worthy of consideration if the polls continue to indicate a hung parliament a real possibility.

Does Cameron have what it takes?

The Ashcroft saga, not surprisingly, spills over in the Sunday papers.  It may not be having much effect down at The Voters’ Arms, but it causing deep divisions within The Tory party.

Mandelson & Co will not let the matter rest with the news that Ashcroft will stand down from his present position after the election.  David Miliband made this point:

The culture of concealment goes to the top of the Tory party. David Cameron took hard cash without asking the hard questions

Labour are going use the Ashcroft saga to question the judgement of both William Hague and David Cameron.

Moving on from that, Matthew d'Ancona, very much a Cameron supporter says, “the damage is already done”:

The process is incremental: the Deripaska affair and George Osborne’s yacht-fondling, Zac Goldsmith’s non-dom status, the Joanne Cash episode, and Sir Nicholas Winterton’s declaration that standard-class rail passengers are “a totally different type of people”.

Each story does a little more to confirm the voters’ residual fear that the Tory party is a political front for a gang of people who want to govern so they can do the hell they like. Whether or not the fear is justified is irrelevant. It is an electoral reality, and one which should be uppermost in every Tory’s mind, every day - especially now.

But there is something else.

All successful Prime Ministers have to demonstrate the art of being ruthless, not only when they are in office but before they climb to the top of ‘the greasy pole’.

What Cameron has got to do, before it is too late, is cut Ashcroft loose and prove to himself, his party and the country that he is both ruthless and decisive.

A third poll and Samantha Cameron

Buried at the bottom of the usual Mail on Sunday nonsense are the details of a third poll showing aTory lead of just 2%.  What is interesting about this poll is that 45% think a hung parliament will damage the economy and 34% say that the Tories do not have a clear message.  What is also clear from the poll is that the Ashcroft effect may not be working its magic in the marginal seats, which is rather obvious if the UNS is only 2.5%.

As an aside, who cares how Samantha Cameron voted in 1997.  What she does in the privacy of the polling booth is entirely up to her, although you could argue that it proves Tony Blair was rather effective in not only capturing the centre ground but also traditional Tory voters.

Poll shock and a glance back to March 1997

Take your pick with the latest YouGov and ICM polls:

Anthony Wells on the ICM shock:

The changes themselves are the margin of error and don’t necessarily mean anything, but I’m sure it will give some cheer to the Conservatives. As ever, it is worth being wary of any apparent change in the trend in the polls until we see it picked up in other polling.

Now, let’s go back to the same period in 1997:

In March 1997 there were nine published pre-election polls and these gave Labour an average lead of 24% over the Conservatives.

Where would Team Cameron prefer to be tonight?

Sir John Major’s memory

Sir John Major, one of four* men that should never have become Prime Minster, also needs a lesson in recent history.

This is what he had to say today following Brown’s trip to visit the troops in Afghanistan:

Of course, Ministers should visit our troops.  But to use them as a cynically-timed pre-election backdrop is profoundly unbecoming conduct for a Prime Minister.

Sir John needs reminding that his former boss, rather than the Queen, took the salute at the Victory Parade after the Falklands War.  Then she kicked off the long march to the 1983 election by visiting the troops in those far away islands.

Back to basics, Sir John.

* The other three being Anthony Eden, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Gordon Brown.

What if Michael Foot had been PM?

Bordering on the ridiculous, that is the question Andrew Roberts attempts to answer.

Here is a more sensible view.

Foot would never have withdrawn HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic, which lead directly to the Falklands War.

Foot’s policies wouldn't being created the industrial wastelands of Scotland and northern England.

There would have been little social division.

And finally:

He would have sent Shirley Williams and Tony Benn, the two architects responsible for keeping Labour out of power for 18 years, to the Tower of London.

The icing on Cameron's dreadful week

Heaven only knows what tool David Cameron has with him in that hole he has dug for himself.  It is certainly being out to good use.

First, Peter Bringle, “a top Tory lobbyist” doesn't mince his words:

The Tory campaign is shambolic and unless somebody of quality and experience takes control of it now there is a real danger of the Tories throwing away what should be an inevitable election victory. Should this happen, David Cameron will never be forgiven by his party and his party's supporters in the country.

And the revelations about Ashcroft’s little ways keep tumbling out.  Not even Cameron himself can get anywhere with his attempts to find out the truth:

It is understood that Mr Cameron has had several conversations with Lord Ashcroft about where he paid his taxes and got little by way of response. “He is a very private person,” said one senior Conservative.

But wait, there is more:

Tory parliamentary candidates have undergone training by a rightwing group whose leadership has described the NHS as "the biggest waste of money in the UK", claimed global warming is "a scam" and suggested that the waterboarding of prisoners can be justified.

The YBF chief executive, Donal Blaney, who runs the courses on media training and policy, has called for environmental protesters who trespass to be "shot down" by the police and that Britain should have a US-style liberal firearms policy. In an article on his own website, entitled Scrap the NHS, not just targets, he wrote: "Would it not now be better to say that the NHS – in its current incarnation – is finished?"

The group's close ties to the Tories were cemented this week when the Conservative party chairman, Eric Pickles, and the shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, spoke at the annual YBF parliamentary rally at the House of Commons, which was chaired by Blaney.

Blaney is entitled to his views, but this will put the Tories on the defensive yet again.

Why, oh why would Team Cameron wish to be associated with this outfit?  It shows a lack of judgement so close to an election.

To cope with the mild panic that must be breaking out at CCHQ, the subject of immigration has been wheeled out prop up the vote in marginal seats.

We all remember how and why Michael Howard exploited this small matter in 2005.

Andrew Grice sums up “another lost week” for the Tories:

Mr Cameron's impressive speech to the Tories' spring conference last Sunday steadied nerves. But not for long. This was "education week" on the party's election grid. If you haven't noticed because of all the Ashcroft headlines, you are not alone. "I didn't know that," one Tory MP confided yesterday.

A frustrated Tory leader told journalists on Tuesday that they were "flogging a dead horse" over the Ashcroft saga. But this horse has legs, and it is still running. On the eve of an election, it is reinforcing the Tories' image as a party of and for the rich far better than Labour could ever do.

Indeed so, but Labour will be happily put the gloss paint on this tail of woe.  Mandelson has still got his foot on the brake, once he puts it on the accelerator it’s going to be a quite a show.

As Harold Wilson once said:

A week is a long time in politics.

The Tory party reveal their new election slogan: Use a non-dom

Source: Have a guess.

Sir John Chilcot would like to say a few words

Spring is just around the corner, the days are lengthening and overnight the tree of political naivety had an early growth spurt.

Two former chiefs of the defence staff, who always wanted more money, have taken issue with Gordon Brown’s evidence to Chilcot & Co:

Lord Guthrie added: "He cannot get away with saying 'I gave them everything they asked for'. That is simply disingenuous."

Lord Boyce, who was chief of the Defence Staff up to the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, said: "He's dissembling, he's being disingenuous. It's just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed".

However, they fail to suggest how the Ministry of Defence can improve its little ways when it goes shopping for the odd bit of kit and always overspends the budget.

They should leave the game of politics to us grown-ups.

Yesterday, Sir John Chilcot opened the hearing by saying that he was "acutely conscious" that the hearing is taking place in the run up to an election. He went on to say that the inquiry wanted to "remain outside party politics" and they have asked the political parties to respect that.

Let us attempt to put Sir John’s civil service speak into a bit of plain English, so these former generals, and one or two others, finally get the point of what yesterday was all about:

Neither the inquiry team or the Prime Minister wanted to be here today.  Frankly, I have got better things to do in the run up to the election than play party politics.  I was personally embarrassed that Gordon Brown, who is extremely busy, had to take the unprecedented step of cancelling his appearance at PMQs so he could prepare for this session.

Let me be plain.  The only reason this session is taking place is because of the misjudgement shown by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, both of whom had nothing to do with the Iraq conflict and should mind their own business.

Having said that, we realise that today will be a highly politicised occasion, even though we will do our best to ask the Prime Minister some probing questions.  In truth, we cannot be bothered.

Finally, before we start, I would like to apologise in advance to the press who are expecting to fill the weekend newspapers with juicy revelations.  That will not happen, in fact you will find that today will be more boring than usual.

Chilcot & Co. will drop their bombshell when the final report is published, not nine weeks (or less) from the election date.

Former chiefs of the defence staff and youthful politicians should allow Chilcot to get on with his job in the way he wants to do it.

Brown at Chilcot: Mission accomplished

The Prime Minister was well prepared, did what he had to do and left.  His performance will not have pleased some, but from a political point of view it was a success.  The critical point is that he was at one with Blair and said nothing to contradict his evidence.

There was little for the media and Paul Waugh’s tweet will be exactly what Brown will have wanted:

Hacks losing the will to live here as PM drones on.

The Inquiry was never going to wrong foot Brown on the funding of the armed forces.  Finance is his pet subject.  He came with all the figures and rattled them off as only he can.

As previously mentioned, Brown mission today was to close the Iraq issue down ahead of the election, which he has achieved.  More to the point his day in front of Chilcot will not have not damaged him, neither has it enhanced his reputation.

Nine weeks out from polling day, it was a job well done.

Brown at Chilcot: Lunchtime review

Brown was right, at the outset, to pay his respects to those serviceman that who lost their lives.

Brown arrived with a prepared set of points that he wanted to make and did so again and again.  In typical fashion he ignored the questions.

The important point is that he backed Blair to the hilt and stuck to the prepared script throughout.

His other little task today is to bore the media and, so far, he is succeeding.  It is important for him and the Labour party that Iraq doesn't spill over into the election campaign.  One day of headlines is more than enough.

So far, mission accomplished.

AJ/DM4PM: The “brawlers” were right

It is the easiest thing in the world to to sit back and play the game called, ‘What if?’.  It’s far harder to anticipate events and come up with a solution.

Bagehot asks, what if the party had ditched Gordon Brown?

In 1974 Mr Ali was pounded by the fearsome George Foreman, but rallied to knock him out. Is it conceivable that in 2010 Mr Brown might bounce off the ropes to deny David Cameron his victory—or even, amazing as it sounds, win himself?

Now for the significant point:

So, in a way, the most painful thing about the narrowing polls could be their implication for what might have been—painful for Labour that is, rather than the Tories. One big reason Mr Brown has survived in his job is that some Labour MPs thought their cause was lost whoever was in charge. The dangerous ones were the brawlers who thought they could still make a fist of it. Now the weaknesses of the Tories’ campaign, and the softness of their lead, suggest the brawlers were right. This one’s gotta hurt: imagine if Labour had sent someone else into the ring.

The members of the AJ/DM4PM committee are not “brawlers”.  We were just right.

The change to Alan Johnson or David Miliband would, at the every least, have ensured a hung parliament.  More importantly, the election result would not have been dependent on Team Cameron making a mess of things.

Chilcot: A vital day for Brown and Blair

Let us sweep away the reason why Brown is appearing in front of Chilcot today and if he should have avoided doing so by calling the election.  We are where we are.

The inevitable articles appear about the lack of funding to the armed forces that Brown was allegedly responsible for.  This is an important, but there is a fundamental matter that needs to be addressed.

Gordon Brown was a senior member of the Cabinet at the time of the Iraq conflict, although he was invisible at the time.  He is on record saying that he backed Blair's decision.  He has not deviated from that view to date.

It is vital that what Brown says doesn't conflict with the evidence that Blair has already given.  There must be none of Brown’s tactical tricks, no dividing lines between him and the former Prime Minister.  He has to approach today with a straight bat and back to the hilt everything Blair has said.

If there are any differences with Blair's evidence it will cause a media firestorm, which will result in great damage to them both.

After all that has happened to their complex relationship, today Brown has be totally loyal to his former boss and demonstrate beyond doubt that he is at one with Tony Blair.

Lord Ashcroft and collateral damage

They think it’s all over, Lord Ashcroft is in the clear. It’s not.  Far from it.  And while Cameron allows that little saga to drift along, up pops Lord Tebbit:

Putting politicans in charge of businesses is proverbially a risky business. We shall see if the converse is true. The great hoo-hah over whether a non-dom should be barred from politics here, or whether Ashcroft was economical with the truth or whether Hague and Cameron should have made a closer inspection of the mouth of this gift horse, is another matter.

It’s this other matter that should have been resolved long ago.  The Ashcroft saga is of the Tory party’s “own making”, as Coffee House correctly points out.

Liam Fox revealed yesterday that Cameron has known about Ashcroft’s tax status for over a month.  Guido Fawkes pokes his finger in that one:

Guido has been hearing that Fox has been having quiet words in dark corners recently, discussing what life would be like in the party if there was a hung parliament. He also has a little score to settle from his very public dressing down by Cameron and Hague on the back of this cock-up in 2007. Fox has played dirty before and still harbours the delusional notion that he could one day lead the Tories.  Has he really dropped Hague in it by accident…?

Meanwhile, in the latest poll from those all important marginal seats the swing to the Tories is not good enough for an overall majority.

Finally, to boost Team Cameron's confidence along comes Robert Mugabe to offer his support to the Prime Minister-in-waiting.

We need to remind ourselves that while all this is happening, we are just under nine weeks from polling day.

It may very well be that Daniel Finkelstein’s penetrating analysis will hold.  Certainly the top line polling figures have been steady during this week’s Tory party storm, but for how much longer.

Cameron can certainty communicate, but this picture of a not-so-happy party calls into question his leadership and management abilities, not to mention his judgement.

Whether the Ashcroft saga causes collateral damage to the Tory party remains to be seen.  The signs are all there, and any action Cameron now takes may not be enough to stop this happening.

The puzzling title of Blair's book

Andrew Rawnsley makes a very important point:

Why has Tony Blair called his post-election book 'The Journey'? It is a very American title aimed at the US market not us.

Which just proves the first rule of politics, that Blair knows how to communicate with his audience.

The Labour party’s “sentimentality”

Something else from Oliver Kamm.  He mentions “an ineradicable feature of Labour history”:

If you're an effective leader, such as Tony Blair, then you're vilified; if you're unsuited to the job, you'll be treated with astonishing sentimentality.

Just where was this so called comrade when the AJ4PM committee needed him?

Who saved the Labour party?

A small debate has broken out between comrades Rentoul, Richards and Kamm (is he really one?) about who ‘saved the Labour party’ back in the days when it was unelectable.

Firstly, Foot should never have become leader, simply because he was unsuited to the role and this was obvious beforehand.  The dilemma in 1980 was that Healey “never stood a chance” as Richards suggests.  Therefore, Foot has pressurised into standing because there was no alternative.  Also some Labour MPs wanted Foot, making it easier to justify the SDP.

Secondly, and this is the crucial point that Oliver Kamm has missed, it was the deputy leadership election in 1981 that was the watershed moment.  John Rentoul, as usual, is spot on:

The actual choice facing the Labour Party in this period was between Footism and Bennism, and by choosing Foot, in the form of Healey as deputy leader, over Benn, in 1981, the party chose to survive.

And that is why, comrades, it was Denis Healey who saved the Labour party.

Blair casts his vote

What does the three-times-election-winner mean by this?

Blair's memoirs come out in September, presumably to coincide with the Labour party conference:

His book is frank, open, revealing and written in an intimate and accessible style.

Is the chapter, “Coping with Gordon” included?  We will have to wait and see.

Whether it will complicate any leadership election depends on Brown hanging on for a few months, which is doubtful.

Whatever, the publication date has to be an indication from Blair that Labour will not win.

Labour's most successful Prime Minister could always judge the mood of the nation.  In May we will find out if he’s right.

David Cameron needs some new friends

The Tory Party’s little difficulties are bad enough without Ben Brogan, a so called supporter of Team Cameron, popping up this morning to highlight them:

I know several [MPs] who will take a perverse pleasure in voting against a Cameron administration in revenge for a range of slights, actual and perceived. Some were sacked, many were hammered over their expenses abuse, and a few have never bought into the Cameron version of modernisation.

And talking of slights, Brown is not the only party leader lacking interpersonal skills:

Mr Cameron recently shared a lift with one of his most successful backbench MPs – a politician he once praised as the future face of the party in power – and managed to say not a word, not even hello, for the duration of their shared ride. Trivial, you say? Maybe, but he needs to be making friends, not losing them.

Then:

Still, at least the name of the Shadow Cabinet minister who had to be dragged out of a lap-dancing club in a state of alcoholic oblivion a while back never got out.

Heaven help the Tory party.  Why, oh why would Brogan wish to highlight that?

Prepare for a shock.  Maybe the Telegraph is going to back Brown at the election.

We live in very strange times.

Cameron's “dead horse” is coming alive

We need to remind ourselves what David Cameron said the other day about Lord Ashcroft:

I admire people who want to flog this dead horse, but the horse is dead, and should no longer be flogged.

William Hague has given this story a new lease of life.

What was said to whom all those years ago when Ashcroft was given a peerage?

Has Ashcroft himself been rather economical with the truth in his little talks with Cameron and Hague over his tax affairs?

When was Cameron told about Ashcroft's non-dom status?

This small matter is raising questions about Hague’s judgment and Cameron's management of the Tory party.

The polls are indicating that this is still a Westminster village saga, but it could filter down to The Voters’ Arms before long.

One last word on Michael Foot

The sight of Shirley Williams on Newsnight paying tribute to Michael Foot was too much.  One can only assume that the producer who invited her onto the programme was too young to remember the early 80’s.  The remote control did its job.

Steve Richards says what needs to said about the life of Michael Foot:

Whenever someone feels fashionably bored with politics they should take a look at the career of Michael Foot. If they are still bored they have no interest in life.

Harsh, but true.

Michael Foot on Tony Blair

When Foot was leader of the Labour party, Tony Blair stood in the hopeless seat of Beaconsfield at a by-election.  Many years later when Blair himself was leader, Foot had this to say about the future Prime Minister:

No rising hope on the political scene who offered his service to Labour when I happened to be leader can be dismissed as an opportunist.

The death of Michael Foot

Michael Foot was much more than an outstanding parliamentarian.  He was writer, broadcaster, journalist, biographer and  literary critic.  Above all he was a brilliant orator.  His speeches in the Commons and beyond were some of the finest you will ever hear, often made without notes.

On “The Night the Government Fell” in March 1979 he delivered, without notes, the wind-up speech that was one of the finest of its kind.  It wasn't one of his greatest, but for a 23 year old lucky enough to be sitting in the public gallery that night it was memorable.

Jack Straw paid tribute to Foot in the Commons and quoted from a speech he made, again without notes, in 1980:

In my youth, quite a time ago, when I lived in Plymouth, every Saturday night I used to go to the Palace theatre. My favourite act was a magician-conjuror who used to have sitting at the back of the audience a man dressed as a prominent alderman.

The magician-conjuror used to say that he wanted a beautiful watch from a member of the audience. He would go up to the alderman and eventually take from him a marvellous gold watch. He would bring it back to the stage, enfold it in a beautiful red handkerchief, place it on the table in front of us, take out his mallet, hit the watch and smash it to smithereens.

Then on his countenance would come exactly the puzzled look of the Secretary of State for Industry. He would step to the front of the stage and say "I am very sorry. I have forgotten the rest of the trick.

That is the situation of the Government. They have forgotten the rest of the trick. It does not work. Lest any objector should suggest that the act at the Palace theatre was only a trick, I should assure the House that the magician-conjuror used to come along at the end and say "I am sorry. I have still forgotten the trick.

Note: Secretary of State for Industry that Foot refers to is Sir Keith Joseph.

Foot should never have become leader of the Labour party, but that is another story.

He was a giant of the 20th century and his death will bring great sadness to all of us who have been connected with the Labour party over the years.

Quote of the day from Daniel Finkelstein

We, the folk obsessed with politics, would do well to remember this over the coming weeks:

We will have two separate elections this year, held at the same time but in different worlds. One will feature the traditional knockabout, complete with press conferences, posters and battle buses. The other will screen out the political noise, ignore the political claims, only skim the coverage and feature instead the issues and experiences that voters encounter in their daily life. The result of this second election will be the decisive one.

A very important point.

An election in 270 minutes

It’s a considerable achievement that agreement has been reached to hold the Prime Ministerial Debates.  All involved in the negotiations should be congratulated.

Gone are days when we could go down to the local school, church or town hall and watch, listen and heckle leading politicians.  Today, 24-hour television news dominates election courage and the focus will naturally be on the party leaders, as it has always been.  At the end of the day they are ultimately responsible for how we are governed.

Bringing the three leaders together will attract a mass audience; may help to reengage the electorate in the political process and will, hopefully, increase the turnout. 

Voters, many of whom pay little or no attention to politics between elections, have the right to compare the party leaders under the pressure of unknown questions.  These debates will allow that to happen.

To those, like Tim Montgomerie, who argue, mainly from a narrow partisan viewpoint, against the debates the answer is simple.  Live in the world of 2010.

Whatever your political persuasion, there is every reason why these debates should happen.

Why has Brown pulled out of PMQs?

James Gordon Brown is a puzzle at times.  He can make the most illogical decisions.  On Monday, it was suddenly announced that he would miss PMQs due the state visit Jacob Zuma.

These visits do not suddenly happen.  They take months of preparation and Downing Street would have known all about it for sometime.  It would have been in Our Dear Leader’s diary.

There are only a few PMQs left before the election is called.  Today, Brown has more than enough ammunition to aim at Cameron and has recently been rather good at these little shouting matches.

The session could have been moved to a later time, as it was the other month due to a ceremony to mark the end of the Second World War.  Brown even managed to take PMQs on the day he entertained Obama ahead of the G20. 

Indeed, when the Prime Minister is in the country, it’s almost unprecedented for he or she not to take PMQs.

PMQs require rather a lot of homework.  Brown doesn't simply pick up his papers from the floor and walk into the Commons.  Later this week he spends the day entertaining us in front of Chilcot & Co, an event that requires days of preparation.  With all his other commitments, could it be that he just run out of time to do both?

If this is the reason why he has pulled out of PMQs, wouldn't it better just to say that?  It is doubtful there would be much of a fuss.  Indeed, he would probably be respected for doing so.  What is the problem with a bit of honesty about his workload.

The explanation given just doesn't add up.

A reason why the polls are narrowing

There is not much news in the latest poll.  Michael Ashcroft is clearly not a hot topic down at The Voters’ Arms.

One of the reasons for Labour’s stunning turnaround could well be the ongoing contribution of Fraser Nelson.  He is making a determined effort to ensure there will be a hung parliament.

At some time in the future, Brown will have to consider including him in his resignation honours list.

Blair's talented team

Having used 13 words to compare the Tory party’s one band to Blair's talent team:

It just wasn't the same in 1997 when Labour was stacked with talent.

Michael White uses 1234 words to say the same thing.

For one of us, it’s a lesson in time management.

 

 

 

Quote of the day from Iain Martin

Iain doesn't like the format that has been agreed for the TV leaders’ debates:

In fact, it looks like it’s going to be as about as much fun as a Harold Pinter retrospective on BBC 4.

If that is the case they will be quite remarkable, just like Pinter’s plays.

Cameron on Ashcroft

The Prime Minister-in-waiting has just said this:

I admire people who want to flog this dead horse, but the horse is dead, and should no longer be flogged.

Is that right?

We still need answers to a few questions, most importantly the last one, and there little sign of that happening any time soon.

Cameron’s little ways and a role for Ken Clarke

It’s all getting rather repetitive.  Rachel Sylvester navigates her way along Team Cameron's increasingly bumpy road, making a number of key points, this one being the most important:

There is growing concern among some Shadow Cabinet ministers and strategists about the increasingly aggressive tone Mr Cameron uses against Mr Brown. It is, they believe, no coincidence that the poll gap has narrowed as the Tory leader launches a series of increasingly vitriolic personal attacks on the Prime Minister. Last week, for example, by turning the bully into the victim, Mr Cameron seems to have simply solidified support for Mr Brown….The Tory leader’s attacks sound high-handed and arrogant, playing into the “born to rule” image and reminding voters of his party’s “nasty” past.

A frontbencher tells her:

It’s perfectly legitimate to frame the election as a choice between Brown and Cameron and negative campaigning has a part in that.  But David shouldn’t be doing it himself. We need a Norman Tebbit, an attack dog who can do it on his behalf.

Ken Clarke would be effective in this vital role.  He would also be able to deflect the increasing Labour attacks on George Osborne.

Sylvester concludes:

If he [Cameron] continues to concentrate on a character assassination of the Prime Minister rather than on emphasising what he would do in No 10, he will turn off voters — particularly women. If he uses the sort of language in the TV debates that he has deployed in the Commons recently the electorate will be appalled. It would be a huge mistake for the youthful challenger to turn himself into the big clunking fist.

The concern for the Tory party is that Cameron is stuck in a grove.  But he does need to listen to this advice and change his little ways.

Presently, there is no sign that he will.

The TV leaders’ debates and the election date

Oops, they are not called that.  Michael Crick has the news that they've been replaced with “Prime Ministerial Debates”.  This cunning plan has been dreamt up to justify the exclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.  Perhaps Nick Clegg is in with a real chance of becoming Prime Minister?

Anyway, it would appear that us not-so-clever folk have missed a rather important point when we were urging Brown to call an earlier election.  Steve Richards explains:

There is one reason above all others why Brown will wait until 6 May and it relates to the televised debates, the wild card of the election. Brown knows that Cameron and Nick Clegg are already carving out time to prepare for these potential game-changers. He is worried that with all the other prime ministerial distractions he would be less ready if the campaign began almost immediately. As someone who prepares too obsessively for much smaller media events, Brown has decided he needs all the time he can get to focus on these potentially pivotal events.

Richards has cracked it.  This has to be one of the principle reasons why Brown didn't choose 25 March.  He, rather than his party, was not ready.  Chilcot, Labour’s lack of money and the local election were excuses that could be easily be dealt with if Brown went earlier.

None of the April dates are plausible for reasons we have discussed.

There we have it.  All we are left to debate is when Brown calls the election; before or after Easter?

Cameron's judgement has to be questioned

Taking the correct decisions, and getting the timing right, are two important factors that a person who wishes to become Prime Minister needs to demonstrate.  Over Michael Ashcroft, the conclusion has to be that Cameron has failed on both counts.  This not-so-small matter should have cleared up before now.

The latest polls, one taken while the Ashcroft admission was breaking, have top line figures firmly in the hung parliament territory.  Anthony Wells comments:

In theory it is possible that Labour did narrow the gap before the weekend, but that David Cameron pulled it back over the weekend (or perhaps more likely, that it was a mixture of the two with a genuine narrowing of the lead, exaggerated by random sample error) – the reality is that we’ll never know.

John Rentoul, who demonstrates his knowledge of the London Underground (he’s in good company), makes the point out that betting markets are now moving against the Tories.

Tim Montgomerie comments that today’s fall in the value of pound means that we should elect “a strong government that is capable of coping with the fact that Brown has doubled the national debt”.

You could argue the the reaction in the markets is entirely due to Team Cameron and their failure to “seal the deal”.  A task that should be relatively easy when they up against Gordon Brown.

Having followed every general election in some detail since the mid ‘60’s, it’s difficult to remember when the main opposition party has so comprehensively made a mess of it during the pre-election period.

Has there ever been a Monday like this?

The day starts off calmly enough.  Cameron gives a silly interview.  Brown takes himself off to Reading to make a little speech.  Just before he gets to his feet, Michael Ashcroft tells us what we already know.  Labour make a big fuss, kicking into the long grass that they have Ashcroft look-a-likes.  Meanwhile, Michael Gove makes speech.

Now, matters descend into farce.  Alan Johnson cancels a press conference due to “technical problems”.  Then, it is suddenly announced that Brown will miss PMQs this week due to the planned visit of Jacob Zuma.

Finally, when it is all too late, along comes Mike Smithson to suggest that Brown should get down to the Palace.

Andrew Sparrow is doing a wonderful job keeping track of it all.

Meanwhile, in the real world a BBC survey suggests that thousands of council workers will lose their jobs, with one expert saying the figure could be nearer 100,000.  Oh, nearly forgot, the pound has tumbled to a 10-month low due to the possibility of a hung parliament and the concerns about government debt.

What's in store for the afternoon?

The Tory party is dependent on one man

Alone in Brighton

Andy Coulson did his job and Cameron’s speech is all over the front pages this morning.  But beneath the headlines there is a mixed bag of reviews.

The Times rips apart Cameron's little chat:

If anyone, anywhere, ever again uses the phrase “make this country great again” I will probably write something rude about them in the newspaper. Yes, the country is called Great Britain. It’s a geographical term, not an epithet. You might as well say that a week is a long time in politics. Along with the shouty delivery this spoilt the ending.

Michael White was on an economy drive and only used 601 words to sum up Dave’s utterings:

It was a lacklustre, tick-box speech and Dave had just ticked off non-judgmental compassion. A few minutes later he promised to "recognise marriage in the tax system" ("Hi, marriage"). Behind him, William Hague looked glummer than ever. Years of sitting in cabinet lie ahead of him. Probably.

The last word goes to Simon Carr:

That was a persuasive speech by any measure. From the first standing ovation I was persuaded that Gordon Brown could still be there after the election. Normally, Cameron is good at these things, but at no point yesterday did he produce the tingle that tells you you're a Tory.

Who were all those people sitting behind Cameron? 

Well two of them are lobbyists, a breed condemned by Cameron just a few weeks ago, who are yearning to become MPs at the election.

There they all sat in the hope that Our Dave can work his magic on the electorate.  At the end of the day this is very much a party of one man who does, in very sense of the word, stand out from the crowd. 

It just wasn't the same in 1997 when Labour was stacked with talent.  Then, even Gordon Brown would have won by a landside.

We are on the verge of an election, which will be dominated by the personality and character of the party leaders.

The electorate may not want five more years of Gordon Brown, but there is also considerable doubt whether they want David Cameron.

Election fever Part XII: “Gordon will choose”

From Jackie Ashley’s column:

There are few signs that Brown will jolt the country by calling that election as early as this week. Alistair Darling still expects to deliver his budget. Labour's general election team is still planning for a later polling day, probably 6 May, though everyone now adds: "But that's today. Gordon will choose.

Our Dear leader is off to Reading today, which is a handy place to make a speech, should he wish to call in at Windsor on route.

Brown will have to do something today to grab the morning headlines back from David Cameron.