Who's the Dead Parrot now?

Evening all!


"Now, that brings me to the Liberal Party. I gather that during the last few days there have been some ill-natured jokes about their new symbol, a bird of some kind, adopted by the Liberal Democrats at Blackpool. Politics is a serious business, and one should not lower the tone unduly. So I will say only this of the Liberal Democrat symbol and of the party it symbolises. This is an ex-parrot. It is not merely stunned. It has ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a parrot no more. It has rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is a late parrot. And now for something completely different..." Margaret Thatcher, Conservative Party Conference, 1990


Well, that by-election in 1990 and a fair few polls appear to have something in common. Don't write off the popularity of a supposedly dead parrot. It's certainly better than a slug.

"Does it talk?" "Nope." "Well then it's scarcely replacement, is it?!?"

You can rubbish Lib Dem policies, you can say Trident is needed, you can say abolishing six-month sentences won't work.

But just like the volcanic ash, their increasing popularity remains vigilant, as well as being irritating to some people in London. (Though I am appreciating how quiet the sky is.)

And on a day when even the Daily Mail reports that Cameron's getting heckled on his own turf, you do begin to wonder whether or not this is a temporary blip for the Conservatives. (I read it online, so my hands are clean: but my retinas will need scrubbing.)

It looks like we've all underestimated the power of a TV debate: I didn't actually think Clegg beat Cameron and Brown by much. But so far the attacks have failed to land much of a blow. Maybe they should get John Cleese in to start bashing it around.

And the weird thing is? I haven't heard a huge amount about Vince Cable recently: supposedly the "real leader" of the party.

Funny that. It's getting closer than I thought it would. Hmmm.

Chris

Who's In Charge?

Evening all!

First off, as Jonathan Ross said about the debate, "Wasn't it dull?" And at times, with the audience being incapable of saying much, I was inclined to agree. Gentlemen! I propose the next round should involve you rapping your manifestos to the tune of the Sugar Hill Gang's Rapper's Delight. Or perhaps Vanilla Ice would be more appropriate.

Anyhoo, listen to this: "While Nick Clegg is a very attractive individual in many ways, the policies of his party are outside the mainstream and a little bit eccentric - not necessarily what you would want at a time of crisis and difficulty"

So which Conservative frontman said that? Presumably, as he was at the debate last night in person, it was the Right Honourable Mr David Cameron, MP. But no, he said Mr Clegg had had "a good debate".

What about Mr Osborne? No, not him either. And it wasn't William Hague or Chris Grayling: the former being a strong Shadow Foreign Secretary, the latter being a somewhat liable Shadow Home Secretary.

In actual fact, it was this man.

Remember him? As I've said before, Michael Gove could easily have a big future in the Conservative Party: and whatever happens to David Cameron, I cannot see anyone else being a bigger challenge to him for the leadership. Osborne has to hope Cameron succeeds, and succeeds more than once, for him to be a viable successor: Gove will obviously want Cameron to win, but will benefit if he fails to win two successive elections.

If Clegg's stock continues to rise - and it's still a sizeable if, don't forget - then so will Gove's. He is the one on the attack; he is the one with the soundbites; he is the one the newspapers are quoting most. He also has 174,000 Google hits: make of that one what you will. He even has a weekly column in The Times, which is arguably the most mainstream of all the Conservative-supporting newspapers.

This is a man who is going places. And crucially, he is not reliant on Cameron being a great PM. Osborne will be sacked if things go badly; Hague cannot be leader again; Kenneth Clarke has been denied such a position three times.

I'm not saying Gove will be leader anytime soon: I still believe Cameron is the best Conservative leader for quite some time. And thankfully, he is not the same as Thatcher: he is ruthless, but he is not the only fighter in the gang.

But if he slips up too many times, someone like Gove will be quietly waiting. Not with a dagger, like Brutus: but with a rousing speech, like Mark Anthony.

Which is fitting, because at times that debate felt like a clunky production of Shakespeare. Like I said: Sugar Hill Gang.

Chris

First Leg to Clegg

Plain and simple: polls don't lie. Clegg won, though that's not to say he's already won.

You can say Clegg had the least to lose: point taken.

You can say Cameron had the most to lose: again, point taken. Too many people expect too much from one man, and it seems unfair to me.

You can say Brown has the most difficult task: but that's a challenge he should relish.

Clegg had the best soundbites, name-checked every questioner - a definite plus from me - and, more to the point, showed he can work without Cable being right by his side. He was naturally going to benefit from the publicity, but you can only beat what's put in front of you.

It should be noted that Cameron is still the favourite: but can he keep the support? In a way, I want him to. I want him to show me the Tories have changed. I want him to take them in a direction that takes Britain forward. We have had some Conservative leaders who will continue to be lauded, and in some cases rightly so. Churchill saved us from Hitler, Heath took us into Europe, Major left us with an economy that was doing well.

But the thing that worries me? Cameron got the most approval when he was talking about tighter immigration, tougher law and order, and old-school discipline. And that is full-on Thatcherite rhetoric.

I don't think all of Thatcherism is wrong. But what worries me is that Cameron is not only reliant on Thatcherite rhetoric, he's diluting it. This means he could be endangering his vote in two ways: annoying the experienced Tory stalwarts who want a leader with the guts that Thatcher undeniably had; and alienating the younger Tories who have been frustrated by the failure of Major, Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard to get out of her shadow.

Personally, I think a lot of people have conservative tendencies in this country: in terms of crime, I think I do as well. So I think we need these people to help us move Britain forward. There are some very good Conservative candidates out there: Sarah Newton, Greg Hands, Kenneth Clarke.

Which is why - and I'm sorry to say it - that the most frustrating thing about this election is the possibility that Cameron will let those good Conservatives down. Because if he does, both he and they will be utterly vilified by our national press.

He did not convince me tonight. He kept talking about the NI tax. It might be a start, David, and it's got Brown rattled (the PM was bad, but not awful: a typical summary of his premiership). But as Nick Clegg showed tonight, you need to do two things: connect with voters, and come out fighting.

One final point? I was visiting Hampstead today, a very marginal seat that could go to any one of the three main parties.

There were two Conservative placards. There were two Labour placards.

And there were six Liberal Democrat placards.

Brown and Cameron? You have your work cut out, my right honourable friends.

Chris

Breaking News As All Parties Agree On Something

A universal ANTI-VOLCANO POLICY adopted by all three parties, as Britain once again gets very annoyed with Iceland for whatever reason plausible.

Brown says "We need to give the volcano time to recover. In the meantime, what the hey?"

Cameron says "It's time for people to run their own volcano. Furthermore, what the hey?"

Clegg says "This volcanic ash is corrupting Britain and needs cleaning up. Also, what the hey?"

Electorate says "Bloody hell, that doesn't look good. What the hey, Iceland?"

More as and when it doesn't actually happen due to all this ash.

M-A-N-I-F-E-S-T-O

Am I being harsh? Quite possibly. But I couldn't resist said "invitation".

Still, we shouldn't criticise too much. After all, if the Conservatives do get into power, it's important to support the Government of the day, albeit without doing so blindly. And some of the proposals by the Conservatives could be very good indeed for Britain. If Cameron can really provide people with the opportunity to set up their own school - and it works - then he will have truly worked wonders. However, it is a sizable "if".

Unfortunately for Cameron, he can't really seem to keep on the same tack. A few months ago he was talking about the deficit being the thing to solve: the manifesto barely talks about that, and there's not a lot about taxes either. He is also clearly trying to promote the idea of "change" in the same way Obama did: but whereas Obama timed his run perfectly, Cameron is making his pitch 18 months too late. The economy has technically recovered, Brown is bad but not pathetic, and more importantly, has shown himself to be capable of hanging on in a tough situation.

Personally, I think the Conservatives do have one ace in the hole when it comes to their election campaign - and indeed their manifesto - and that is their Shadow Education Secretary Michael Gove (above). He has only been in the post for three years, but already he is looking very impressive: in an interview on Channel 4 tonight he was confident, clear and coherent. And that is a very potent mix in politics.

Many politicians who have been Shadow Education Secretary have gone on to be big things within their party. Margaret Thatcher was one, Neil Kinnock another, Tony Blair and David Cameron also.

Michael Gove might well be about to join the club. Keep an eye out for him.

Chris

Back From Paris!

And much the better for it. More on that story later. T'was a good weekend though, to be v brief, especially as I didn't have to think about politics or history much!

Blogging on the election will begin... tomorrow. So there :P

Hope you're all well,

Chris