David Maddox: Pizza and beer for the new political blockbuster

They may well be seen as boring men in grey suits talking about dull economics but it seems that the Chancellors' debate last night drew amazingly high viewing figures.
According to one of the Tory spindoctors 7 million people, more than one in ten people in the UK, tuned in to Channel Four to watch Messrs Darling, Osborne and Cable talk about the economy. The peak viewing according to figures they received was 2 million.
This compares to the normal Channel Four News viewing audience of 1 million and Dispatches audience of 1 million.
It would be a good omen for interest in the political process and the forthcoming election.
However, perhaps a more accurate assessment of the viewing audience appears in the Guardian Media Guide which reports that there were 1.6 million viewers, a 6.6 per cent share of the total UK TV audience.
Let's hope that the Conservative estimates on potential savings they can make are more accurate.
Whatever, the truth of the figures, it seems that the Tories at the party's London HQ at Millbank Tower decided to have a night of it with the debate and ordered in pizza and beer before settling down to watch the first political blockbuster of the election campaign.
The choice of cuisine is largely because there is a Pizza Express nearby, but perhaps it is a sign of how far David Cameron's party has come from the days of champagne and caviar, just as Labour is returning to its traditional beer and sandwiches union tucker.

Eddie Barnes: The Future's Bright; the Future's Orange (Tony)

JUST finished watching Tony Blair. Even Tommy Sheridan has never managed to match the extraordinary orangeness of Blair's skin colour. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

As to the content of his speech, it amounted to a Man of the World summation of the global crisis, and a full-on critique of the Conservative strategy. The Tories were, he said, caught between what they believed in and what they thought they had to say in order to win. Hence the confusion over their policy on the NHS, law and order, Europe, and the economy. This, of course, was in total contrast to New Labour of the mid-90s. All those changes weren't motivated by the desire to win an election but because Tony and the gang believed in them all.

All very interesting, but there's something bigger going on here, evident both in Blair's speech today and the Chancellors' debate from last night. Today, Blair focussed relentlessly on the record of Brown and Darling during and after the financial crisis. Meanwhile, last night, Darling, Osborne and Cable all similarly discussed everything in the context of the crash - the deficit, the coming public sector squeeze, tax cuts, etc, all are explained by the credit crunch that preceeded them. The point is that the big crash of '08 has become the ground zero of this election campaign. Nothing before it matters a jot. In fact nothing else matters period.

This is good news for Labour, as it is helping them to obscure the main campaigning point of the Tories: that this lot have been in for 13 years, and that therefore we need change. But when October '08 is the base line, they've only been in for one and a bit years, and the change message becomes weakened. It be interesting to see how the Tories are going to challenge this.

NB. There will be a lot of talk no doubt about whether Labour is wise to have wheeled out Blair today, but I get the impression that this isn't so much a calculation, as the fact that all these Labour die-hards just want to be part of their cause's Final Campaign. This, as they will see it, is their life's work now being challenged - not just by the Tories, but by a new, younger, generation of politicians. It is their last hurrah - the final time any of them will get to taste the thrill of the fight, and they want to be here at the End. You can almost picture Blair et all as the characters of a classic war movie where the soon-to-be-defeated heroes rally for one last battle. "Wouldn't want to be anywhere else but right 'ere, sarg......it's been an honour serving with you Corporal....we've 'ad some good times, ain't we, Sarg?....Bloody good times, Corporal." (heads towards gunfire...patriotic music plays....credits roll....The End)

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (29) - Bookies' Balls up

As regular readers may know, The Steamie has at times tried to help you add a few pounds to your pockets by offering a tip on the political betting front with mixed success.
Those of you who put money on Iain Gray to become Labour leader may appreciate The Steamie's advice, while those who went for Ann Widdicombe to be Speaker may not.
But we've had some interesting odds regarding who will be the next Chancellor to give a Budget from our old friends at Ladbrokes. Please note these odds are ahead of tonight's debate and may change at 9.10pm, I'm reliably informed.

George Osborne 2/5 (fav)
Alistair Darling 5/1
Ed Balls 10/1
Vince Cable 16/1
Ken Clarke 16/1
Philip Hammond 20/1
Gordon Brown 100/1

So tip of the day would be to put your money on Balls.
With Labour closing the gap there is now a decent chance it will be the biggest party and may even have a majority.
If that were to happen Gordon Brown has already made it clear that he wants to replace Alistair Darling with Ed Balls, despite the fact that many people now believe the current Chancellor is the last remaining minister with any credibility and certainly could claim to have won an election for Labour.

This also applies to the newly published odds on the next Labour leader with the very same Ed Balls at 14/1. Again this tip is based on the fact that the Brownites would support him against the Blairites' David Milliband (the 5/2 favourite). He would also probably have the backing of the major unions including the dreaded Unite.

I'm not just saying this because he is a fellow Norwich City fan, but while Ed Balls is reportedly incredibly unpopular in the Commons he has enough powerful supporters and hangers on to make both sets of odds from Ladbrokes look pretty generous.

Perhaps the clever bet is to actually back Ed Balls on both. Whilst it is extremely unlikely but not impossible to clean up on both it makes a decent each way bet on Mr Balls' ultimate fate based on whether Labour win or lose the election.

Here are the rest of the runners and riders to replace Gordon Brown as Labour leader:

David Miliband 5/2
Ed Miliband 5/1
Alan Johnson 6/1
Harriet Harman 8/1
Peter Mandelson 8/1
Alistair Darling 12/1
Ed Balls 14/1
Jon Cruddas 14/1
Jack Straw 25/1
John Denham 25/1
Andy Burnham 25/1
Hilary Benn 33/1
Yvette Cooper 33/1
Shaun Woodward 50/1
Jim Murphy 50/1
Douglas Alexander 66/1
Peter Hain 66/1
John McDonnell 66/1
Liam Byrne 66/1
Hazel Blears 100/1
Tony Blair 100/1
Alastair Campbell 500/1
Cherie Blair 500/1

Eddie Barnes: The Gordonator is off

Blimey, Gordon Brown was in his element today. Addressing the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow, he was back on home turf, he had pumped-up Scottish Labour activists in the audience, they had Tories in their sights. That's as good as it gets for Gordon.

The speech he delivered was magnificently brass-necked. Just to remember the context, two days ago the Chancellor Alistair Darling acknowledged that Labour, if it wins in May, will have to cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher in order to bring the deficit under control. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne then confirmed that on Question Time on Thursday night. We are heading for a national debt of 1.4 trillion pounds. But today, in his first stump speech of the campaign, the Gordonator simply blasted all that stuff away, as if it were a bit of collateral damage. Instead, he banged out a speech of classic Brown. Labour would protect middle Britain. The Tories would pull the rug from under the recovery. And, as if the recession had never happened, and the deficit didn't exist, it was back to investment vs cuts. Half way through, Brown declared that, if re-elected, he would create a million new high-skilled jobs. It really was like being in a time warp.

You might find Brown's approach a bit galling but the Prime Minister does have a track record of winning. He is making change look risky. He's making caution sound sensible. He claims he's the one with the experience, and that Cameron and Co have none. Can he really get away with all this? It might just be so. After all, he's telling many people what they would really like to believe: that the public finances aren't that bad really, that the country can recover, that we can still have our cake and eat it.

The speech was littered with the usual Brown mistakes - the badly delivered jokes, the smile in the wrong place. But I don't think I've ever seen Brown looking so confident and so brimming with self-belief. Tories beware.

David Maddox: The rise of Willie Bain

I had coffee with Willie Bain (pictured right) recently down in the Commons, one of many I've tried to cram in with MPs before they are fully distracted by the need to persuade people to vote for them.
While I met Mr Bain during the autumn campaign for Glasgow North East, it was difficult then to weigh him up, largely because Labour kept him so well protected and the only quality they highlighted of his was his "localness" as opposed to the outsider SNP candidate David Kerr.
So it was a bit of a relief to find out that Willie Bain appears to be a capable and articulate politician, which is not something you can say about all MPs.
And since he came down from his parents' high rise in Springburn to help save Labour in Glasgow North East, Willie's stock appears to have risen.
In a very short time he has become the parliamentary private secretary (PPS) to transport minister Sadiq Khan. Being a PPS - or bag carrier as it is more disparagingly known - is the first step to becoming a minister.
His swift elevation is certainly partly due to the fact that he is relatively young, 37, and, unlike many of the younger up and comers standing in safe Labour seats in Scotland, actually has a hinterland outside party politics, having worked as a lecturer in public law in London.
There is no doubt he is one to look out for in the future depending on Labour's fortunes at the election, although he will certainly be coming back.
However, there is actually a more serious issue going on with the way Gordon Brown tries to control the Chamber highlighted by a recent report by the Public Administration Committee in the Commons.
It has raised concerns about the size of what is called the payroll vote which represents 40 per cent of the Labour MPs. These are the MPs who have a government job, including the lowly PPSs who are not actually paid a ministerial wage, and who then have to resign if they vote against the government.
By drafting in as many MPs as possible on the payroll vote Gordon Brown can limit any potential rebellions. MPs within the payroll vote are not even able to go against the government line in less strict one or two line whipped votes, let alone three line whips.
The committee actually agreed with one of Mr Brown's predecessors, Sir John Major, who said last year that the size of the payroll vote was leading him to have doubts about the first past the post voting system. He suggested it should be halved.

Eddie Barnes: Salmond having his cake and eating it

Watching BBC's Question Time, broadcast from Glasgow last night, was to marvel once again at Alex Salmond's ability to have it both ways. The First Minister was (no disrespect to Chief Secretary fo the Treasury Liam Byrne) easily the most influential minister on the panel; he is, after all, the First Minister of Scotland. But he did not have to answer a single question about his policies and record in office - not a single one. Instead, he was able to enjoy his usual role as the dis-interested pundit, jovily prodding and mocking the Tory and Labour parties.

He also used the show to make his case against the Prime Ministerial debates, to be shown on the BBC, ITV and Sky during the election campaign. And it's a good case, helped by the fact that these debates are a constitutional anomaly; a Presidential TV show awkwardly stuck onto our own constituency-based electoral system. Salmond made some fair and justified points about how much of the debates, for Scots and Welsh voters, will be entirely meaningless - for example, when Brown, Cameron and Clegg start discussing all their policies on health and education.

In other words, he had it both ways. Salmond used the fact that last night's programme was UK-wide to get away with not answering any questions about his own record - after all the BBC knows that to start asking the Scottish First Minister about his policy on local income tax, or class sizes, is irrelevent to the 90% of viewers from outside Scotland. But, at the same time, when the BBC decides to focus on those 90% of viewers (by going ahead with their TV debate) he was up in arms, complaining about bias and unfairness. Brilliant!

I do hope that Mr Salmond will at least take part in the Scottish TV debates which are also to be broadcast in the coming few weeks. If he were to take part in those, where - let us hope - his own record and policies might come under some light scrutiny, it would make it slightly easier to watch him having his cake and eating it.

David Maddox: Why did it take Jack Straw so long to realise?

I've had a few e-mails about the continuing lobbygate saga particularly over the involvement of the former ministerial trio of Byers, Hoon and Hewitt.
One e-mail asks about Justice Secretary Jack Straw's comments today describing the three as "stupid."
Why, I was asked, has Mr Straw, who is supposed to be reasonably intelligent, not realise they were stupid when Geoff Hoon was responsible for the UK's defence, Stephen Byer's the transport infrastructure and Patricia Hewitt the English health service?
The answer could be that maybe he thought letting that sort of information out might cause general panic. Afterall you do want the people in charge to have a few grey cells to rub together.
But, maybe the truth is found in looking at the end of his comments.
They were "stupid" for "allowing themselves to be suckered in a sting like this."
So now we understand the UK government definition of stupidity: You are only stupid if you allow yourself to get caught.
If this was the thinking that underlied their policy on education and justice as well it might explain a few things.

David Maddox: Lessons in how to avoid answering questions

If there is one person in the government or British politics as a whole who has a reputation for being able to deal with the press it is Lord Mandelson.
I went to a press conference today which underlined his reputation for having ruthless streak.
The press conference was on a tedious but important announcement on a massive gas pipeline deal from Shetland along with Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy and some representatives of the companies involved.
The two ministers arrived 15 minutes late, allowed for a contract sign photoshoot and then read out the statements provided on the press releases.
At this point Lord Mandelson asked if there were any questions. He took one question on the technicalities which was answered by one of the industry men.
Then Lord Mandelson picked up his papers and along with Mr Murphy literally ran for the door without allowing another question to be asked.
Just to make sure none of the pesky journalists could intercept his lordship on the way out two flunkies were positions to block the media and allow the ministers a free run to the door.
Below may be a picture of Lord Mandelson departing:

Now it may be because only the Scottish press representatives and a few specialist energy industry journalists were there, that he felt he could get away with it, but it was clear that both his Lordship and the normally chatty Scottish Secretary were interested in allowing the press conference to feature any awkward questions and, bizarrely, had planned hasty their getaway prior to the event.

Needless to say the hacks who had given up their lunchtime to wait for the two ministers were less than impressed.

It left you wondering what questions they didn't want to answer.

Feel free to leave suggestions in the comments section, although please note that obscene and defamatory suggestions will be deleted.

David Maddox: Self-certifying politicians

Just come back from the morning Downing Street briefing where the main topic of conversation was cash for access.

This was not the huge sums Labour is demanding for a bus trip with Gordon Brown during the election, but, of course, the Stephen "taxi" Byers, Geoff Hoon et al controversy of asking money from companies to lobby on their behalf.

Byers (pictured right) has apparently boasted that he managed to change legislation, although all will be much clearer this evening when the Channel 4 program making the claims is aired. But this morning it was made clear that the Prime Minister sees no reason for an investigation of any sort.

The reason for this is that the two departments concerned - Transport and Business, Innovation and Skills - run by their Lords Adonis and Mandelson have issued statements saying it is not true.

Which raises the question: What would happen if this principle were to be used in the courts or police investigations?

If it were, all criminals would need to do is say "not true gov" and, whatever the evidence, the courts and constabulary would say "well that's good enough for me, no need to take this further."

Fortunately, our legal systems do not work the same way as our political ones. But this is another example, if one were needed, of the political class operating to different standards than the rest of us.

David Maddox: A future fare for all with Gordon Brown

Lobby journalists have just discovered the price of a bus ticket with Gordon Brown.
One day on the election battle bus with the great leader is £595 while a full election season ticket is a snip at £12,995.
That's certainly an interesting way of raising election funds.
So when Mr Brown unveiled that rehashed election slogan "a future fair for all" maybe he just misspelt fare.

David Maddox: Let the election games begin

With the election timetable to 6 May becoming more clear by the day, the image of relentless, brain eating zombies trying to get your vote might be one which may be one which begins to chime with the public, especially after all the TV debates have taken place.
So already a free computer game has come out to capture that feeling. It looks like it might be a lot more addictive than the politicians themselves. Have fun by clicking here.
This may well prove to be the first of many.

David Maddox: MPs get their holiday

Well that's it then, we almost know exactly when the election will be called.
Harriet Harman announced in the parliamentary business statement that there will after all be an Easter recess in parliament much to the huge relief of MPs who had all but given up on a holiday.
Having said that they will almost certainly be spending their break tramping up and down streets in the phony election war.
MPs quit the Commons for a week on Tuesday 30 March and return on Tuesday 6 April. That means, according to the sears here in the Commons, it is almost certain that Gordon Brown will call the election after Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday 7 April giving us a month to 6 May.

David Maddox: Meeting on neutral territory

It may just be happy coincidence but Scotland is actually the perfect place in terms of ecclesiastical politics for Pope Benedict to meet the Queen.

The reason for holding the visit in September seems to be more about the symbolic nature of turning up in Scotland on the feast day (the 16th) of the country's first saint, St Ninian, who brought Christianity to the heathen Picts.

This of course falls during the Queen's holiday in Scotland, which seems to be the real reason the two are meeting at Holyrood Palace.

However, the complexities of the constitutional settlement in Britain and history of the Reformation mean that Scotland is best suited for two heads of a churches, as opposed to their roles as heads of state, to meet.

Her Majesty is Head of the Church of England, a role she takes very seriously with deep conviction. But she is, of course, not head of the Church of Scotland so how has no religious role north of the Border.

Maintaining this separate religious status was one of the conditions the Presbyterians put down before the Parliaments were united just over 300 years ago, along with separate education and legal systems. All these aspects of that agreement are with us today and have helped preserve Scotland's identity over the years.
So when they meet in Scotland they are meeting on land where neither the Queen or the Pope have religious authority.

This means they can meet as Heads of State and perhaps avoid awkward discussions over the Pope's efforts to make it easy for thousands of Anglicans to desert the Church of England and return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church.

The other advantage of Holyrood Palace is that it is holy ground. Irt was the site of a former Roman Catholic abbey built after King David I of scotland had a vision of the Crucifix (Holyrood meaning holy cross) on the site after an unfortunate hunting incident involving a white hart.

So the land is both royal and holy and can be laid claim to by both parties, a perfect place for the two to come together after 450 years of division since the Reformation.

Eddie Barnes - David Cameron's masochism strategy

An interesting insight into the likely style of the coming election campaign has emerged in the last couple of days. Viewers of the Ten O'Clock news last night may have seen David Cameron being getting a rough time of it during a visit to apprentices in Lewisham yesterday. One young bloke began heckling Cameron, before piping up a line that could have been dreamt up in Labour HQ, wanting to know why the country should try out someone untried like Cameron, when what they needed was experience.

Homus Spindoctorus (1997 version) would, of course, have done his best to try and crush the tape of this before it came out of the camera. But the 2010 Tory team have done the exact opposite. The heckling can now be seen on YouTube, uploaded by the Conservatives themselves. It is reported they are hoping that the video will go viral. So what's going on?

This is basically a mutation of Tony Blair's masochism strategy, when the Prime Minister deliberately threw himself in front of the public's bullets in the hope of soaking up their fury post-Iraq. Now that we're all so fed up of spin and presentation, the new spin isanti-spin. It looks like, in this election, it is going to take the form of un-cut, potentially embarrassing, but very 'real' incidents along the campaign trail. The calculation will be that while the leader may well get caught out, they will at least (a) be noticed by a disaffected watching public who turn the TV off when politics comes on and (b) get plaudits from the same people for simply engaging in the first place. Sitting up from the sofa, Mr Swing Voter may well turn to Mrs Swing Voter and nod that "at least he has the guts to take it on the chin". The internet becomes the perfect medium for this to spread. Viral video clips spread word of mouth, and are something we actively decide to watch, so the impact it has on us is more substantial than something broadcast which washes over us on the box.

I'm not quite suggesting that Central Office wants Cameron to get hit by eggs and custard tarts over the next few weeks, but when we punters are in such a sour mood, distrusting anything that politicians say, perhaps the only thing that will make us connect with a politician is if he is subjected to an unprovoked bit of the verbals from a fellow member of the great unwashed. This is particularly the case for Old Etonian David Cameron as he attempts to show that he's just like one of us. You never know, it might even seal the deal.

David Maddox: The onward march of the patsies

Just seen the press release about Pamela Nash being selected as John Reid's replacement as the Labour candidate for Airdrie and Shotts.
Her main qualification appears to be that she was Dr Reid's parliamentary researcher, although to be fair the 25-year-old does actually come from the constituency.
She is the latest in a long line of candidates whose political and indeed life experience is based on working in either the Westminster or Holyrood bubble. They are what is sometimes termed as the patsies (politically ambitious twenty somethings) who go to work for a party as soon as they graduate in an effort to forge a political career.
There seems to be less room for people who have had experience in a profession or lived much of an adult life for that matter.
Now that does not mean Ms Nash will make a bad MP or candidate, I'm sure she will work very hard, and it is not as if having an experience of a trade union or business makes somebody a good MP.
But in the end bringing experience to parliament, having a hinterland, does help inform debate and scrutiny and improve legislation.
It is interesting that as we are near to an election Labour's NEC has a far greater say over shortlists. Dr Reid's replacement could have been done in 2007 when he announced he would retire although the selection then ended in a bitter dispute between party bosses and the local party. Maybe Ms Nash with her strong local links makes an excellent compromise between these two points of view.
But one concern that is being raised privately by Labour members is that constituencies are being pushed into taking on patsies who hand picked by the Labour leadership because they will toe the party line and essentially their campaigning skill sets suit them for modern machine politics.
But in case this seen as an attack on Labour, the march of the patsies is a feature of every major political party in the UK.
One of the most prominent former patsies is the Conservative Party leader David Cameron, whose first job upon leaving university was to be a Tory Party researcher in Central Office.

David Maddox: Nick Clegg offers to hold your nose for you

The speech by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will be covered in tomorrow's Scotsman, but its message was pretty blunt and not exactly expected.

He wants to have the chance to hold the balance of power so his pitch has got to be that only a hung parliament can deliver change if he does.

But these lines are of particular interest:

"I want to warn you about something that is coming in the next few weeks.
"We are going to hear a nonsensical claim from the two old parties designed to scare people into voting against their best interests.
"The Conservatives will say: vote Lib Dem… get Brown.
"Labour will say: vote Lib Dem… get Cameron.
"Don’t believe it for a second. They are wrong."

He added later:

"Some people are thinking of holding their noses and voting for Brown just to keep out the Conservatives. I say to you: don’t do it.
"Some people are thinking of holding their noses and voting for Cameron just to get rid of Labour. Don’t do it.
"You have a once in a generation opportunity for real change."

The problem with this message is that if he holds the balance of power we will still get either Gordon Brown or David Cameron as Prime Minister, we will not get Nick Clegg bar an extraordinary shift in political opinion in the UK.

So in reality what he is saying is let me make the choice for you. In his words he is offering to be the one who holds the nose.

David Maddox: The Peter Baker affair

Much has been written about the three Labour MPs, including Livingston MP Jim Devine, and the Tory Peer up in court this morning for alleged fraud.
But, it is perhaps not surprising that this is not the first time this has happened.
Of course before the 1832 Reform Act and the abolition of rotten boroughs fraud and corruption were part of the job description of an MP, but what is more surprising is that it has only happened once before since the Second World War, given the recent history of people like Jonathan Aitken and Lord Geoffrey Archer.
The previous miscreant was an MP from the part of the world I originally hail from.
When Peter Baker was elected aged 28 in 1950 as the Conservative MP South Norfolk he was the youngest MP and the "baby of the house." As such he seemed to have a bright future in front of him.
He was re-elected in 1951, but soon after he was facing questions over his business dealings. In 1954 he was convicted of forgery including writing false signatures, and fraud and sent down for seven years.
Then on 16 December 1954 he became the last MP to be expelled from parliament.
Some may think that recent events suggest others should have followed him but as MPs seem to be good and protecting their own, and of course the three accused will not be standing for re-election on 6 May, Baker will remain as the last MP to suffer this indignity.
The only other two MPs to be expelled in the 20th century were Gary Allighan, the Labour MP for Gravesend and Horatio Bottomley, the Liberal MP for Hackney South.
Mr Allighan was elected in the 1945 Labour landslide, expelled in 1947 for leaking details of private meetings to the press. He was a journalist before becoming an MP and his misdemeanour now seems to be the norm among many politicians.
Mr Bottomley was elected in 1906 and relected in 1910, but then thrown out for bankruptcy in 1912. He then managed to get re-elected in 1918, found a party called the People's League, but was then convicted of fraud in 1922 and expelled again as an MP.

David Maddox: Party fundraising

Well if you haven't got Lords Ashcroft or Paul, a friendly union or, in the Lib Dems case, a criminal to fund your election campaign then you have to get down to some good old fashioned fundraising events.
Take for example this invitation circulated around Westminster by two Labour candidates Kerry McCarthy (MP for Bristol East and Labour's Twitter tsar) and Lucy Powell (candidate for Manchester Withington and apparently pal of Eddie Izzard).
The e-mail managed to get sent to all and sundry, including a few political opponents which is why it ended up with me.
The guest of honour and main speaker at this event in a posh London restaurant is no less than International Secretary come Paisley and Renfrewshire South MP Douglas Alexander.

Here's the e-mail (or part of it):
This is your last chance to purchase tickets for tomorrow night’s fundraiser with guest of honour the Rt Hon Douglas Alexander and other special guests!

We have some exciting raffle prizes that are included below! We do hope you are able to make it and forward on to other friends and colleagues that might be interested and encouraged to attend as well.

Many thanks,
Kerry & Lucy

Raffle Prizes:
Bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale signed by Nick Brown and Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown books signed by the Prime Minister
Framed copy of Gordon Brown’s “I will do my utmost” speech with photo of him and Sarah Brown, to be personalised by both.
Auction Prizes:
Bottle of House of Commons whisky signed by Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Michael Foot
Minimum Wage Bill signed by Gordon Brown, Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot, Jack Jones and Bill Morris
Historic Labour postcards framed and signed by Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, Hilary Benn, Ed Miliband, Alan Johnson, Frank Dobson, David Miliband
Set of five historic Labour postcards framed and signed by Cabinet Ministers Ed Milliband, Jim M, Nick Brown, Tessa Jowell and Jack Straw

Now the sharp eyed among you, including my source, will note that of all the ministers who have helped with the raffle prizes for this event (£40 a ticket by the way, discounted to £380 for a table for 10), the one whose name is not in fully is Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy.
Here are possible reasons why he is simply Jim M:

1. They are English and don't know or care who he is.
2. Jim M is such a laid back character that he doesn't feel the need to be dignified with a full name.
3. He is providing the post match entertainment with a take-off of his near namesakes Boney M. Anybody for Ra Ra Gordsputin...?

Scotsman Podcast: Week 4

[This week's participants: Lesley Riddoch, Tiffany Jenkins and Peter McMahon]

The fourth episode of The Scotsman's politics podcasts is now online.

This week Lesley Riddoch is joined by Tiffany Jenkins and Peter McMahon to discuss the issues that have been making the news in Scotland this week.

Play: Podcast Week 4


Click here to download the podcast » (right click and 'save as')

Subscribe to the podcast RSS feed »

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes »

Eddie Barnes - They're now Nicola's games

Steven Purcell now having departed the scene, who is now going to be the public face of Glasgow's Commonwealth games? Step forward Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

The Health Secretary pops up in the papers this morning at the promo shot for the Games' new logo (it consists of some circles and a letter 'G', and cost £95,000. Well done!) Why, you might well ask, did the Health Secretary feel it necessary to attend a photo call for a sporting event? Have you see her English counterpart Andy Burnham on the running track at London's Olympic stadium, likewise trying to associate himself with the UK's 2012 fun and games?

No. But then Andy Burnham isn't an MP for the city in which the Olympics is taking place. And nor is Mr Burnham planning on running the country when the games take place. The ambitious Miss Sturgeon, however, has an eye on lots of things. Mr Purcell had, up until last week, ensured that the Games were his own personal baby, warning that there was no way he was going to allow the SNP Government to take the credit for his show. But with Mr Purcell out of the road, and Alex Salmond clearly not all that interested in all that flinging of sticks and running about, Miss Sturgeon has wasted no time in jumping in.

Watch out for expensively produced circles and the letter 'G' on Miss Sturgeon's lapel next time she is seen in public.

David Maddox: Budget gossip

The chat in the Westminster bubble today centred on the mystery of what could be Labour's last budget for some time.
The dates mooted have been next Wednesday (17 March) or the Wednesday afterwards.
The first, as mentioned in a previous blog, would mean that we would probably have an 15 April general election, the second a 6 May election.
But the reason for the gossip is that it is common practice - convention even - for the government to give at least four weeks notice for a budget. At the morning press briefing it was pointed out that even if the budget takes place on 24 March it would be the shortest notice period given for one ever.
But as the day moved on there were some suggesting that actually we are all mistaken in expecting a budget before the election.
The words from Gordon Brown on the Andrew Marr show which has led to this assumption were: "There will be a budget in the spring." He did not specifically promise a pre-election budget.
Strictly speaking even if there is an election on 6 May, a budget could take place afterwards before 21 June, which is the first official day of summer.
As convention is out of the window in terms of warning for a budget, it is also possible that it won't take place on Wednesday.
As you can tell people excited about strange things in Westminster.

Monty: Will a real Liberal ever stand up?

Since I resigned from the Conservative Party in 2005 I have found the liberation from feeling compelled to support most, if not all, of what its leaders might espouse intellectually invigorating and good for the soul.

In 2007 I gave only my regional vote to the Conservatives and in 2010 I continue to have an open mind – open, that is, to who best might remove Gordon Brown from office and consequently begin to reduce the involvement of the state in our daily lives.

My mother's family was of Scottish Borders Liberal stock. My father's family was from Leith with Labour in their blood. I don't have a Tory gene in my make-up - it was because the Conservatives under Thatcher offered the closest thing to free trade classical Liberals that I fell under her spell.

I have sometimes found the policies of the Liberal Democrats on public finances (scaling back debt) or taxation (using tax cuts to stimulate growth) to be attractive and I have always admired the abilities of Tavish Scott. A likeable politician whom I have played golf and football with, he has that most desirous of things that too few politicians possess – a hinterland.

I could easily consider supporting the Liberal Democrats were they not such slavish followers of the European Union or have a tendency to ban everything that is meant to be bad for us or society (or was that just Donald Gorrie speaking?) Still, at this coming election I might be persuaded to give them my vote, thanks probably to some, if not all, of the utterances of Vince Cable – in particular his willingness to speak out against the unsustainable public spending programme of Brown's government before the lily-livered duet of Cameron and Osborne found the location of their spleens (revealed to them by a focus group, no doubt).

Sadly, I now think I am going to strike the Liberal Democrats off my list of possibilities. Tavish Scott has just announced that if the Liberal Democrats have anything to do with it they will see to it that Holyrood will receive £300 million that it would otherwise not get so that it can spend it on... well it doesn't matter what.

The point is that even in this worst British recession of living memory for which the spend, spend, spend attitude of collectivist politicians of all colours has a lot to answer for Tavish still wants to spend rather than cut.

What a shame. What a wrong turning. What a turn-off.

Will no one at Holyrood tell it as it is, that the spending in the fabricated debt-financed "good years" was too high then and it is certainly too high now? Will no one in Scotland stand up for the virtues of true Liberalism - that the road to prosperity is a more modest state doing less better and costing less?

Will a real Liberal ever stand up?

David Maddox: Dates for the diary

I spoke to one senior Labour backbench MP today who has been used as a campaign co-ordinator who is adamant that the election will not by 6 May but April 15.

His reasoning for this is the the next set of GDP figures which are due out on 23 April, St George's day. As with the knight and the mythical dragon he fears that they would slay any Labour recovery.

The GDP release has already been well trailed, but for those of you who have not been following the election date rumour and speculation, the theory is that the long hard winter will mean these figures will make it look as though Britain's fragile recovery has come to a halt.

The only doubts he believes Gordon Brown will have in going early is that it would mean Labour would have to spread its paltry funds over two elections to avoid disaster in the English council elections on 6 May.

But if Mr Brown really does decide that the GDP results would be too damaging 10 days before a 6 May vote, the the last day he could call an election is 19 March, because he has to give 17 parliamentary working days between informing the Queen and the poll itself.

Interestingly this falls just before 24 March, which is the day many speculate the budget will be unveiled by Alistair Darling, which would bring it further forward.

David Maddox: Remembering Michael Foot

Today in Westminster has been full of anecdotes and memories of a man who lit the place up with his eloquence and wit after it was announced that Michael Foot had died today aged 96.

My own memory of him was going with my dad to hear him deliver the annual Thomas Payne lecture at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

Of all the speakers I heard give that lecture over the years Foot probably embodied the spirit of the great 18th century British radical and even for a 12-year-old boy, as I was at the time, he was a captivating speaker for a full two hours.

Sadly I can't recall quotes from the day although many of his speeches have been quoted back in the last few hours.

But one thing of interest is on his record as a disastrous leader of the Labour Party when it was almost obliterated in the 1983 election. As has already been recounted the infamous manifesto was dubbed by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman as the "longest suicide note in history."

Yet this much maligned document is now beginning to have a prophetic quality to it. One measure proposed which was much criticised was the nationalisation of one or two banks.

How ironic that this very thing has eventually had to happen because of the banks own irresponsible behaviour, not least the bosses of Scotland's own giants RBS and HBOS.

So its perhaps appropriate that this proposal from 1983 has been recalled in an early day motion by Independent MP for Blaenau Gwent Dai Davies whose Welsh constituency includes Mr Foot's old seat of Ebbw Vale.

The EDM reads:

"That this House remembers with fondness and admiration the life, political leadership, authorship, trades unionism, journalism and unrivalled oratory of Michael Foot as one of the world's greatest Socialists; fully supports his lifelong backing of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the necessity of a world without nuclear weapons; recalls that Michael Foot was proud to call himself an 'inveterate peacemonger'; recalls the sense set out in the Labour Party Manifesto for the 1983 General Election that was prescient and before its time in calling for the nationalisation of the banks; believes had this sensible strategy by the then Member for Ebbw Vale been supported, then the current economic crisis, arising from reckless and selfish behaviour of senior bankers, could have been avoided; further believes Michael Foot was a great internationalist and fighter for justice for the poor and dispossessed; and believes that this nation would have been much better served if Michael Foot had led this country from1983."

Eddie Barnes: The SNP should be grateful for being left out of debates

My views on the rights and wrong of the forthcoming TV debates, and the fact that the SNP aren't going to be involved, are on record but I'm beginning to wonder whether this is really going to be that bad for the Nationalists after all.

On the downside for the SNP, the fact that Messers Clegg, Brown and Cameron will be on our screens vying for our votes - with no sign of the SNP - can only help the other three parties in their efforts to show that the SNP isn't really involved in what is a UK general election.

But, as I read through the 76 (count them!) rules which are going to govern these debates, there are actually going to be some upsides as well. Obviously, the SNP can play the victim card, rousing its support by accusing the Beeb and the other broadcasters of unfairness. But on on top of that, they can join the rest of the country in now royally taking the mick out of the whole affair. Those 76 rules - which will bar applause, booing, hissing or heckling - look set to ensure that the UK debates will follow the example of the US TV debates which, if you've ever had the misfortune to watch them, are almost always bore-fests of titanic proportions. The last interesting thing that happened in a US TV debate was Lloyd Bensten's immortal put-down to Republican VP candidate Dan Quayle ("Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".) Nowadays, in the era of endless prep work, it can be said with almost total conviction that none of the three combatants will be tripped up by one another. They will have anticipated every single possible line of attack from their opponents. I fear we will simply witness all three playing a conservative game, parroting out their pre-prepared lines, with some rubbish jokes sprinkled here and there in between.

There's a semi-serious point here. The most damaging thing to have happened to any leadership candidate in the election campaign so far has been the accusation of "air-brushing" levelled against David Cameron following his now notorious poster. I suspect air-brushed is what we are going to get in these debates, unless one of the threesome has the guts to ad lib. So, watched by a sour and scunnered electorate, none of them is likely to come out of particularly well. Perhaps the SNP might just benefit from not being part of something which, I suspect, most of the population will resent for getting in the way of their evening viewing.

David Maddox: Change of Lib Dem strategy?

Those of you who take an interest in party election leaflets - and I guess if you can be bothered to read this blog it will probably include you - then the utterances of Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat's Shadow Scottish Secretary, on Newsnight Scotland last night may have come as a surprise.
To put this in context I would ask you to remember the classic line used by all parties now, but developed by the Lib Dems, of only "only we can beat.... here." Usually it is accompanied by a spurious bar chart showing neck and neck support between their candidate and the sitting MP.
Often the claim bore little resemblance to reality. I remember as a 13-year-old in 1987 helping my mother deliver such leaflets for the then Lib/ SDP Alliance candidate in Norwich North only for the chap to come a very poor third.
Perhaps more famously Linda Gorn, the Lib Dem candidate in the Holyrood by-election for Moray in 2006 made a complete fool of herself by basing the campaign on that message. She disappeared shortly after coming third.
but last night Mr Carmichael said the idea of "binary political choices" was "condescending and arrogant".
He added: "The politicians have got to get real here, they've got to recognise that there's a major problem of political disengagement and instead of telling people what choice they have got why don't you just try and listen to them for a while and engage in proper, serious political debate about political issues, about the state of our economy about the state of our democracy and about the fact that most people don't see any solutions coming from a broken political system at all."
He meant this in a context of the election being one between Labour and the Tories or Labour and the SNP, but it certainly makes that old Lib Dem leaflet slogan look odd too.

David Maddox: Clarke takes centre stage

As a new boy down in Westminster I had never really appreciated until this morning how much the Conservatives need the presence of Ken Clarke, hush puppies and all, to give their top team substance until this morning.
The City raid by the three top men who hope to be running Britain's economy from about 7 May (Cameron, Osborne and Clarke, pictured above in slightly happier bigger poll lead times) represented a high risk strategy.
You can read more about it in tomorrow's Scotsman, but essentially the message is one of economic Armageddon if Labour win. It can't be ratcheted up much higher than that really.
However for this message to work you need somebody of experience and substance to deliver it. Neither Cameron nor Osborne have it yet and the warnings from them do not sound credible, which is why the floor was essentially thrown open to the former Chancellor for most of the presentation.
There is far more to Mr Clarke than the girth of his waste which suggests a long experience of business lunches. He sounds and looks like a man who knows what he is talking about, which given that he left the economy in a healthy state, is true. His two "senior" colleagues in comparison look gauche and in Osborne's case quite clearly in need of the Clarke endorsement he received.
The only problem with this strategy is that you cannot help but think the Tories might be further ahead in the polls if he was the one due to reside in 11, Downing Street or even the more famous address next door the Tories might still be further ahead in the polls.

SNP Tactical Voting - Why I'm voting SNP

In the maelstrom of 24-hour media it is easy to forget how important this coming election is for the people of Scotland despite an economy lagging behind the UK’s (which is lagging behind Europe’s), an unemployment rate that is expected to outstrip the UK’s in 2010 and health and crime statistics that are nothing short of embarrassing on even a global scale given our country’s history and potential.

So for every headline on Gordon Brown pushing someone and jabbing his pen into a car seat (or not), we should regret the loss of column inches on how to build the economy; for every story on how like Obama or Blair Cameron is or isn’t, we should regret the lack of debate on how to address global warming.

The G20 and Copenhagen Summits came and went in 2009 with the status quo easily, but regrettably, winning the day. Since both of those events we have learned that the UK was the last G20 country to come out of recession with effectively nationalised banks still paying billions in bonuses not to mention that nuclear power is being aggressively advanced south of the border despite the objections of many environmental experts. What a shame that important lessons have seemingly not been learned at these supposedly crucial summits.

So to put all the enjoyable nonsense of process and polling to one side and focus rarely and squarely on policy, I thought I would make use of my opportunity here to reaffirm, chiefly for myself but also for any interested readers, why I will be voting SNP at the General Election.

The three political issues that are most important to me right now are our country’s possession of nuclear weapons, climate change and transport.

In terms of nuclear weapons, the scrapping and non-renewal of Trident has always been a common sense conclusion. Which enemy can we realistically expect firing these eye-wateringly expensive weapons at? Bombs that will never be fired are a waste of money whichever way you want to look at it and however many billions the next generation of these weapons will cost they could be spent elsewhere or to simply plug the gap in our country’s finances.

Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are haggling over how many submarines and bombs they would cling onto. The SNP would do away with the whole lot and that chimes perfectly with my personal view of the situation.

In terms of Climate Change, I think we need to build a strong Scottish Renewables Sector as fast as possible and the window to get ahead of the competition in this vital sector is open but rapidly closing. The SNP’s campaign to amend charges for the Grid to stop making it exorbitantly expensive for wave and wind energy to be part of our power generation is crucial to Scotland’s success in building this sector. Further to this, the party’s calls for Labour (or the Tories) to free up the millions of pounds of Fossil Fuel Levy that are sitting in a bank account (earmarked for Renewables investment) are perfect common sense.

Scotland could and should be selling itself in this area. When you think fashion, you think of Milan; when you think of internet technology, you think of California and when you think of the Renewables generation, you should think of Scotland. The SNP is trying its best to make that happen, the current Government is holding that aspiration back.

For transport, despite this being a devolved policy and only so much change being effected at Westminster, the creation of a high speed rail link between London and Central Scotland is long overdue. We simply cannot continue with a five hour service, crammed with people and fares that are not family-friendly given they are targeted at the cash-rich private sector.

Labour has had 13 years to improve the rail links and cut the costs of journeys up and down the spine of the UK with little to show for it. The environmentally unfriendly Ryanair and Easyjet options are still quicker and by far cheaper than taking the train (save for The Scotsman’s regular fare offers of course!). This has to end if we’re serious about a co-ordinated transport policy. How few Heathrow terminals would we need if all domestic airfare was done away with because the train was suddenly an attractive option?

Although the Tories seem genuinely committed to a high speed rail link, there is a very real risk that it will only go as far as Leeds and Scotland will lose out. As far as I can see, only the SNP can be trusted to fight Scotland’s arrivals and destination board and argue for the economic and environmental needs of high speed rail reaching as far north as Glasgow and/or Edinburgh, at the very least.

So Brown can go on Piers Morgan to bare his soul, Cameron can release more Obama-style photos from his floundering campaign and Nick Clegg can do whatever it is that Nick Clegg does but I have my three substantial reasons, on nuclear weapons, on the economy and on transport, why the SNP will be the only box that I’ll be looking to mark on polling day, whenever the Prime Minister finally feels brave enough to call this very important election.


(from the editor of SNP Tactical Voting)