To elect, or not to elect ...

These days elections do seen rather popular. We elect our MPs, our Councillors and soon our Police Commissioners. If Mr Clegg gets his way, we'll also have the chance to elect the members of the House of Lords. We vote for the directors of my building society. We voted in the parent governor elections at the kids school.

So, why don't we have an elected Conservative Chairman? If the Golf Club can get round to having an election for their Presidents, doesn't it seem odd that the political party in government has a complete democratic void at its top?

This morning, ConHome ran a story about Baroness Warsi (click here) having a bit of a go about the LibDems and asking them ever so nicely to stop "slagging off" the coalition. Indeed, a while ago I wrote about the potential for the Tory Chairman to have more of a leadership role in a coalition (click here). I urged that whilst the LibDems have a President and a Deputy Leader who both sit outside of government and can articulate the views of the their party members, that luxury is not afforded to the Tories whose Chairman sits in the cabinet.

Now putting aside the absurdity of the Tory Chairman sitting in a coalition cabinet whilst the LibDem equivalent does not, is there not a real chance to tie up these two ends?

More democracy and a chance for the conservative voice to be heard through a "fighting Chairman". If we directly elected our chairmam, he or she could sit outside of the government and be a real media / party figure. If the LibDems can stand on the sidelines and hastle the coalition over some issues, why can't the Tories have somebody who articulates our views like this?

Of course, it'll never happen. It really would be Cameron voting for Christmas. God knows who he'll end up with! (Although with some certainty it wouldn't be Warsi). But that is the problem with democracy - the people (in this case, the membership - the people who stuff envelopes, pay subscriptions and deliver leaflets) will decide and they don't always produce "the right result." However it would give people a reason to re-join the party and make members, many of whom feel disengeged by the party leadership and CCHQ. It would be a painless way of allowing the member to vent some of their frustrations. Who should it be? I don't know - but I am sure others will have ideas.

So if there isn't one already, I want to start the "elect our Chairman" campaign. It may only ever have one member ....

Miliband's turn for PMQs howler

I have been quick to criticise the Prime Minister on three occassions when I felt his attitude and language at the dispatch box have not been fitting for parliament - such as his remarks towards Tory MP Nadine Dorries last week.

Today the prize for PMQs blunder goes to Labour Leader Ed Miliband with his bizarre remarks about George Osborne "lashing himself to the mast ... not for the first time perhaps." That purile sexual innuendo might be OK between friends at a party but being shot across the Commons it isn't. Harriet Harman looked shocked, Ed Balls didn't know where to look. I think it was a genuine quip rather than a pre-prepared line. It doesn't make you cool, Ed, or win you any prizes for humour. You are not one of the lads. You are meant to be Leader of the Opposition. Start acting like it.

As for PMQs itself, clearly David Cameron wasn't on top form but luckily his opponent was (as usual) worse. Ed Miliband really must get a grip with his PMQs performances.

Cameron, Gove, the Free School (a door and a microphone...)

Up until around 9.30pm last night I had little idea I would be spending time today with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education, a large chunk of the political media and their entourage at the new Free School in Norwich, where I am a Governor.

The Free School here has always been low key and quiet. It has great support from people in all 3 major parties, has quietly worked on the project behind the scenes and hasn't exploded into the pages of the national papers in spats with unions, celebrities or the local population. In fact, quite the opposite, the Free School has been welcomed by the City. Certainly, being 4 times oversubscribed suggested so.

So today to find the world and their wife camped on the doorstep was quite a surprise. The shocked looking children were more than a little surprised themselves, I am sure (in fact, twice, I was asked if I was the Prime Miniser...)

I am used to the media hunting in packs but what surprised me in the build up to the speech, which has led the bulletins on the news for much of the day, was the number of Number 10 folk and the security services that buzz around the PM. His every move, every footstep, every encounter and every chair he sits on is perfectly worked out and choreorgraphed. The Number 10 handlers are quite brutal with the press - I suppose they have to be - and the press in return seemed to me to be decent and willing to play along. The audience was made up of the press huddle plus figures from the local educational community; actually quite a risk for the PM as the public Q&A afterwards could - but didn't - turn tricky.

I was in charge of a door. Ohhhh, yes. I was instructed that when I saw somebody who resembled the Prime Minister I was to open a door for him and the school principal, Tania Sidney-Roberts. The door only opened one way so without me, a nonplussed looking PM would be left standing looking in at the classroom. What a responsibility! I was even told to open the door well before Cameron reached me, for to open the door outwards when the PM was too close *may* result in me striking, nay assassinating, the British Prime Minister. The instructions were so tight and so precise, I wondered if I was up for this herculean task.

As it happens, my door opening was quite the remarkable success and I feel that everything that followed was as a direct result. In fact, should Mr Cameron go onto success in the 2015 General Election, people may trace it back to this education speech which he gave, unharmed from being smacked in the face by a door.

As the PM spoke to the teachers and saw the school ICT Cloud in operation I whisked off to see the great-and-the-good (local MPs, Headteachers, etc etc) and also Secretary of State Michael Gove. I am, as regular readers will know, a massive - MASSIVE - Gove fan. As a teacher and as a voter, I find him impressive, lucid and intellectually on top of his brief. Being able to tell him parts of the story of the Free School was a very enjoyable conversation.

But hang on, dear blog readers, just as I thought I could settle down in the second row to watch the PM speak, another shock. The Number 10 handlers felt that following my triumph with the door, I was to be promoted to holding a microphone. Luckily, unlike a certain former PM, I had the sense to check it was off before gossiping with colleagues. Anyway, should the mic at the podeum fail, I was the backup plan!! What joy; though luckily no such disaster occurred. Then when the question session started I was to leap to my feet and offer the mic to those asking the posers to the PM. I was, if I may say, like a cat. The first question was asked by my own Headteacher, Brian Conway at Notre Dame, and I think my passing of a mic looked more like a "lunge" and I nearly smacked him on the head with the furry end. Now that would have been embarrassing. Luckily Brian - clearly a semi-pro himself - grabbed the mic and settled me on my feet. If I had of crushed Nick Robinson beneath my 16 stone frame I would never have forgiven myself, although parts of the Westminster Village may have nominated me for a CBE.

It's odd how the easiest of jobs seem incredible tense when the Prime Minister is watching and waiting for you and where the menial nature of the task is outweighed by the cringe factor should you get it wrong. Its not as if I haven't done press conferences, met David Cameron before, or been on the TV live. Just today I had the image in my head of things going wrong and was desperately trying to stop them actually happening.

Anyway, Cameron's delivery was - as always - extremely good. He is very impressive in real life; even the Labourites in the audienc said so. The speech wasn't too long and easy for the audience to engage with. Most importantly his messages of academic rigour, freedom for schools and the like were all spot on. He had new ideas to announce. The speech wasn't too detailed; I'm not sure it was meant to be. It felt more like the start of a debate than anything else. For example if you cut benefits from homes where kids truant, what would you do the parents of truants who aren't on benefits? It is slightly strange to watch a speech from 6 foot away where somebody is usuing the autocues. The new transparent ones look great on TV but up close it always looks as if the speech maker is looking into the middle distance rather than at the audience. With so many nodding heads around me, Mr Cameron might have got great faith for his ideas by looking down at us!

Michael Gove is a very warm person I find - he always remembers who I am ("a great man in so many ways," he flattered me with ... I am sure he says that to everyone he meets) and can instantly recall when you last met and what you spoke about. With Mr Cameron - and this is not a criticism because we have met about 4 times and he probably meets a hundred or more people a day - he is more about listening to your story and what you have to say on issues.

On education I find myself in 99.9% agree with this government; something not all policy areas achieve. The PM and Mr Gove were kind and generous about the Free School and were genuinely impressed with it all. They left with great knowledge that the policy, here in Norwich, was working well.

So as you settle down to watch the PM on TV tonight, think of those small moments, with doors and mics, that make great speeches what they are.

Cameron vs. Dorries

I have just caught up with a rather flat PMQs in which the most bizarre sight was that of David Cameron slapping down a backbench Tory MP, Bedfordshire's Nadine Dorries.

I have blogged before that I sometimes feel Mr Cameron isn't very parliamentary; his now semi-regular slips aren't "offensive" (as some claim) or "sexist" (calm down, dear) but don't represent a very statesmanlike approach to the House of Commons.

Today, Mr Cameron I feel did overstep the mark and stuck a toe into some very murky waters. Dorries asked the PM a typically straight forward question on LibDem influence over Free Schools, NHS and abortion laws and asked him to tell DPM Nick Clegg who the boss is. That question probably summarised the way a lot of Conservative MPs, activists and members feel. David Cameron - to be fair on him trying to speak over a loud House of Commons - then suggested Ms Dorries was "frustrated". The look on his face suggested he didn't take Dorries, her question or her concern very seriously. Unable to say anymore, he then said he'd give up on it and sat down. Mr Cameron made little to no attempt to answer her question and chose to smirk rather than engage.

Where does this end - does the PM get to choose which questions he answers or doesn't? Even if he isn't very clear or detailed in the answer, he ought to give one. To not do so shows very little respect for an elected MP.

What makes it worse is that David Cameron is bigger than this. He never has any trouble dealing with Labour Leader Ed Miliband so why he feels the need to treat a backbench Tory MP at the lowest rung of the parliamentary ladder so brutally and with such discourtesy is beyond me.

We Need A "Fighting Chairman"

The job of being Conservative Party Chairman has, traditionally, been quite a unique one in British politics. The role is both political and administrative and tends to be split into 2 - the internal focus of party organisation, making campaign HQ work effectivly and firing up to troops (a job Eric Pickles did so very well) and the external one of going out onto the airwaves and beating the hell out of the opposition (a job Norman Tebbit did so very well).

So when, after the election, David Cameron appointed Sayeeda Warsi to the job I thought the new Prime Minister would have thought long and hard about this appointment. Warsi was clearly, I thought, the woman for the job - so impressive was she, that Mr Cameron had to get her into government via the appointed House of Lords rather than election to the House of Commons. At the time I remember some grumbling, from the old guard, about her getting the job because she is a female Muslim, but I had to dismiss these arguments. As if the Prime Minister, especially one whose task was made more difficult by holding a coalition together, would make an appointment on such spurious grounds.

The recent riots in Britain have, though, given me cause to think again. You see, in ordinary times the Prime Minister would balance his role in government with being the Leader of his Party. The problem Mr Cameron has is the nature of coalition government. I am sure he wants to do and say a lot of things that he just cannot do because somewhere a "senior" LibDem (and I am yet to hea of one of the media who doesn't have that label) would go ballistic. I am sure, call me niave if you wish, that Mr Cameron is much, much tougher on justice policy, human rights, EU integration and foreign policy than he could ever say in public. A coalition government is a classic balancing act in that respect and I am sure many LibDems feel the same about Mr Clegg.

So here is where I would expect the Tory Chairman to step in, and say all the things that our members and supporters want to hear (and, I warrant, a majority of the country). Where was our Chairman going from studio to studio, radio mic to daytime sofa, giving those no-nonsense tough talking interviews? Nowhere; almost invisible. The few media appearances she did make were, frankly, poor. That's why it was Michael Gove who - the PM aside - made all the running and gave the party faithful something to go door-to-door with. What stopped Baroness Warsi? Where was she and what was she doing?

When we have a Tory Leader who cannot be, and say, all that he wishes it is paramount we have a "Fighting Chairman" who goes out there and punches for us.

Now I know what my critics would say - Baroness Warsi is also a member of the government and a member of the cabinet. Her (almost) LibDem equivalents, President Tim Farron MP and Deputy Leader Simon Hughes MP, both sit outside of the government.

So I have a suggestion to make.

Use the undoubted talents of Baroness Warsi elsehwere in the government and give us our "Fighting Chairman". Then, remove the holder of the Tory Chairmanship from the cabinet to give them the freedom to speak (or shout) up for us without the constraints of collective responsibility.

Because when the Conservative Leader cannot lead the Conservatives above all else, the Chairman should.

There IS no life after Cameron

As the hackgate story claims scalp after scalp, Iain Dale wonders if the crisis will lap up against the feet at Number Ten, whilst pb.com speculates on who might be next if the PM is hit by that theoretical political bus.

I have no idea how far the investiagtions will go or what the outcome will be, but I am willing to bet at any odds that the PM will survive. And for 2 very good reasons.

Firstly there is absolutely nobody to replace him - there is, literally, no life after Cameron. Johnson isn't in the Commons, Osborne is not loved by the public and the election of Hunt would be too ironic given the circumstances. Hague? Doubtful. Even my own beloved Gove - along with Lansley - would be controversial given their reforming zeal in parliament has made them enemies. Some suggest David Davis, but he has languished too long on the backbenches to have a realistic powerbase. Theresa May is being "bigged up" by some and true she has made great strides at the home office but her leadership metal has yet to be tested. It therefore leaves Hague, but Hague would always be the caretaker leader and the public, coalition, party and parliament would know it. We've got this coalition because the nation needs stabilty and having a caretaker PM wouldn't deliver that. Until there is "another", Cameron is safe.

But also a second reason. The personal glue that holds this coalition together is Cameron and Clegg. Could any other leader hold this government together in the way that Cameron has? I very much doubt it. A lurch to the right - say under Fox - would destroy the coaltiion quickly and many of the other candidates would see a slower but equally painful death. The fact is that Cameron IS the coalition and without Cameron there is NO coalition. My view is simple - if Cameron falls, we are back into General Election territory within six months and that election would be without the smaller Commons and boundary changes the Tories crave.

As I say, I am not sure where the hackgate situation is going, but Cameron is going nowhere. The party needs him, the coalition needs him and, given the current polling (the Tories took the lead again tonight) the country still needs him.

Prime Minister: U-Turn If You Want To

I am about to break a cardinal rule of politics; I am in favour of U-Turns.

Yes, you should read that again, because its true.

I am in favour of U-Turns. Or, as I like to put it, I am in favour of government's admitting they don't always know best, don't have all the solutions, will get somethings wrong, will have to listen, will have to adapt and change proposals and won't always push and barge things through because they know best and you don't.

Of course, British politics adhors a U-turn. We like "first past the post" because it - usually - gives us strong and stable government with a majority in parliament to put through the manifesto on which they were elected. So in the real world of politics, once you have your Commons majority and the people (well, 40% of them) love you, then you can implement what you like.

But, when suddenly we are left hung, what then happens? Well I think u-turns are a natural - and almost progressive - side effect of a hung parliament. No longer can the government use the whips to ram stuff through parliament no matter what people say. They have to build a coalition from amongst their own MPs; satisfy the Simon Hughes of this world and also those on the Tory right such as Cash, Jenkins and Redwood. They are much more fragile and therefore people power and the press will have a much bigger say on what the government does.

So when you see the left-wing press (the Mirror in particular) and opposition MPs gloating about the U-turns, I would ask what they would like instead. Would Miliband, Balls, Harman - or Toynbee or Maguire - really prefer the NHS bill in its original form, or the sale of the forests to go ahead? They see the political chance to hit the government without realising they are getting more of what they want - so the U-turn must be a good thing. Aren't these proposals betetr after the u-turn than they were before (well, if you from the left)? More grown-up politics, perhaps?

I like the idea that a government puts forward an idea, gets feedback and then changes its mind (or not) depending on what happens. Dare I say, a "listening government".

So yes, I do like u-turns. And I hope that a future majority Conservative government keep that way of working as it is one of the best features of government.

And p.s. To those who say the government should have it right first time, every time. Name me a government of any political hue, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, that has done this. Cameron isn't perfect and people will respect those who got it wrong, put their hands up, admit it, apologise, move on and learn fromt it.

Who should be more worried?

Over on politicalbetting.com they are asking who should be more worried about the latest bouts of polls about the leaders of the three main parties (click here for the full thread).

All 3 leaders have gone up but Cameron (up 2) less than Clegg (up 6) and Miliband (up 4). Should the PM be concerned about this?

Maybe not as much as you might think; the details show that 95% of Tory voters think that Mr Cameron is doing well; compared to 79% of LibDems voters for Clegg and, most worryingly of all, just 72% of Labour voters for Miliband. Any leader needs to be at 90% plus for his or her own supporters, really.

What is also noteworthy is the cross-over between the LibDems and the Tories; 71% of LibDems feels that Cameron is doing well and 68% of Tories think the same of Nick Clegg.

So where does that leave us? God knows, but it shows that if you pay too much attention to the polls it can make your head hurt and leave you more confused than where you started!

How has Cable defied political gravity?

I am a loyal Conservative; very loyal, in fact, and I support the work of David Cameron specifically as Prime Minister and the Tory-led coalition generally. They are a much better government than Labour could ever have formed. However, tonight, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have made a big mistake and even loyal Conservatives have to say this.

This morning, the Cable story (I thought) was a light hearted pre-Christmas story about a puffed up LibDem in government; let's remind ourselves that Mr Cable said if he ever quit, or was forced from government, that he had the nuclear option of bringing down the administration. Tough talking (and in my view, wholly wrong, but never mind).

By this evening he has had a chance to prove himself to be correct. If any other Minister, let alone a Tory one, had done what Cable did then they would be out. The PM could have re-shuffled him, he could have quit or even been sacked. But he hasn't been - how? Do they really fear losing Vince Cable that much, or as some have suggested had they just not wanted to give into media pressure? Many are speculating that Cable fought his corner well and clung on because neither Clegg nor Cameron want a lightening-rod for the anti-coalition voices on the government side of the House.

So what now? Well, a lot depends on tomorrow's headlines ... the media will go for this, the commentators are working as a pack tonight, Labour scent blood and at the very best we have a weakened and even lame-duck Business Secretary.

Some Conservatives are lining up behind Vince tonight, but I feel that I have to say how much I believe this decision to be wrong and could potentially yet backfire on the whole government. I am not alone; Twitter is alight too, with loyal Conservatives saying the same thing.

Cable has defied political gravity today, but my feeling is that to save one man, the whole government is damaged.

A Reason to Recall?

A puzzler for a Sunday evening; would the Chris Huhne affair, or the David Laws expenses issue, be enough to allow their constituencts to re-call them under the new provisions being laid out by David Cameron and Nick Clegg?

Mr Cameron has said in the past that re-call would be option where MPs have been "guilty of wrongdoing." Would this include, as some people have suggested today about Huhne, misleading your constituents over your private life?

Personally I hope not, and I have concerns that the re-call function would be too easily triggered (10% is required in any given constituency - one party alone could probably manage this in most seats). We need to know, and know soon, what safeguards will be put in place. This is crucial and very difficult question, and I don't have an answer, because those safeguards are needed for 2 reasons - for MPs against mob-rule and for the public against wrongdoing MPs. Can we manage both?

Cameron's Coalition (Day One)

Brown's gone ... Cameron's in.

The names have started to roll in that will make up a new cabinet - Osbourne as Chancellor, Hague as Foreign Secretary, Fox at Defence and Lansley at Health all confirmed. First 2 LibDems; Clegg as DPM and Alexander at the Scottish Office.

An absolutely historic day - we'll wait to see what the deal on the table is later on today.

Making Your Mind Up!

Today is polling day and the day when you get to have your say on the future of this country.

I think Mr Cameron ought to be proud of a positive campaign based on hope and optimism for the future, and giving us the change we need - reforming politics, mending our society and fixing the economy.

It feels as if Labour have had nothing positive to say in this whole campaign - and if you don't believe me, compare the front pages of the pro-Labour Mirror and pro-Tory Sun today.

We can have better - an MP who listens, keeps in touch and has the real-life experience to know what life in Norwich South is all about and not another career politican.

If all the people we have met in this campaign who have said they'll vote Conservative do so then we can win.

But whatever you do, go out there today ... and vote.

David Cameron's Contract With Norwich South

At the start of this election campaign I invited you to join the government of Britain. My message was that we're all in this together, and we've got to stop pretending that government is the answer to every problem.

So during this campaign I've been talking about the new, active part I hope people will play in making the country better and building the Big Society.

Now, as we get into the final week of the campaign, I want to set out our side of the bargain in a contract with you. This contract - as you can see below - is a no-frills, no-nonsense commitment to do some very specific things if you vote for us.

With trust in politics at an all time low and people tired of politicians breaking their promises, this contract couldn't be clearer. If we don't do the things it sets out, if we don't deliver our side of the bargain: vote us out in five years time.

David Cameron
Leader of the Conservative Party

A contract between the Conservative Party and You
We go into the general election on 6 May with trust in politics and politicians at an all-time low. And I can understand why: the years of broken promises, the expenses scandal, the feeling that politicians have become too remote from the people - they've all taken their toll. That's why I'm making this contract with you.

For too long, you've been lied to by politicians saying they can sort out all your problems. But it doesn't work like that. Real change is not just about what the government does. Real change only comes when we understand that we are all in this together; that we all have a responsibility to help make our country better.

This contract sets out my side of the bargain: the things I want to do to change Britain. But it also makes clear that I cannot do it on my own. We will only get our economy moving, mend our broken society and reform our rotten political system if we all get involved, take responsibility, and work together.

So this is our contract with you. I want you to read it and - if we win the election - use it to hold us to account. If we don't deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years' time.

We will change politics
Our political system needs to change. Politicians must be made more accountable, and we must take power away from Westminster and put it in the hands of people - individuals, families and neighbourhoods.
If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:
1. Give you the right to sack your MP, so you don't have to wait for an election to get rid of politicians who are guilty of misconduct.
2. Cut the number of MPs by ten per cent, and cut the subsidies and perks for politicians.
3. Cut ministers' pay by five per cent and freeze it for five years.
4. Give local communities the power to take charge of the local planning system and vote on excessive council tax rises.
5. Make government transparent, publishing every item of government spending over £25,000, all government contracts, and all local council spending over £500.

We will change the economy
Gordon Brown's economic incompetence has doubled the national debt, given us record youth unemployment, and widened the gap between rich and poor. Unemployment is still rising, and this year we will spend more on debt interest than on schools. We need to get our economy moving.
If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:
1. Cut wasteful government spending so we can stop Labour's jobs tax, which would kill the recovery.
2. Act now on the national debt, so we can keep mortgage rates lower for longer.
3. Reduce emissions and build a greener economy, with thousands of new jobs in green industries and advanced manufacturing.
4. Get Britain working by giving unemployed people support to get work, creating 400,000 new apprenticeships and training places over two years, and cutting benefits for those who refuse work.
5. Control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s - meaning tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour.

We will change society
We face big social problems in this country: family breakdown, educational failure, crime and deep poverty. Labour's big government has failed; we will help build a Big Society where everyone plays their part in mending our broken society.
If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:
1. Increase spending on health every year, while cutting waste in the NHS, so that more goes to nurses and doctors on the frontline, and make sure you get access to the cancer drugs you need.
2. Support families, by giving married couples and civil partners a tax break, giving more people the right to request flexible working and helping young families with extra Sure Start health visitors.
3. Raise standards in schools, by giving teachers the power to restore discipline and by giving parents, charities and voluntary groups the power to start new smaller schools.
4. Increase the basic state pension, by relinking it to earnings, and protect the winter fuel allowance, free TV licences, free bus travel and other key benefits for older people.
5. Fight back against crime, cut paperwork to get police officers on the street, and make sure criminals serve the sentence given to them in court.
6. Create National Citizen Service for every 16 year old, to help bring the country together

A Good Day To Be A Conservative

As Nick Clegg found out a fortnight ago, the debates can indeed change everything - and David Cameron's masterful, statesmanlike, passionate and dominant performance last night has put a spring in the step of Tory activists and voters - and a real reason for undecided voetrs to lend us their votes. My feeling is that Cameron's performance was so strong because he both talked in terms of values (We are on the side of people who do the right thing) and then in specific policies (we will remove benefits from those who can work but who do not). Clegg looked and sounded nervous, and it showed. He was battered on the Euro and immigration; and for benefit of LibDems out there, "old politics" is when you have a promise in your manifesto that you dump live on TV when you realise its unpopular and unworkable. However Clegg did better on domestic policies, such as education. Brown was again better, but he started from a low base; he needs to lose the stats rolling off like a soviet propaganda film and shouldn't ever smile when it isn't appropriate to do so! My favourite bit was actually Cameron's credo about education - the central role of the child and the importance of choice, standards, discipline and funding. That was, according to Mrs Little (who is a teacher herself), the moment he may just have won the election.

This morning we have been bombarded with calls and visits at the Campaign HQ from pleased Tories and also voters coming across to us for the first time. I have just got back from a session with out Mancroft team and the peopel I met whilst leafleting were very positive. The news from the other groups around the seat is very similar.

Mr Cameron - you have given us what we wanted. For the sake of our country we need to win this election. The Hung Parliament is Mr Brown's lifeline, with Mr Clegg throwing the lifejacket to him, so we must get an overall Tory majority. Conservatives, we've got 5 days to make this a reality - let's get to it!

Post Debate Thoughts

I am sure I am the last person in the world to reflect on last night but I thought I would have my two pennies worth.

Firstly some randon thoughts in no particular order - well done to ITV - and indeed all the broadcasters and parties for making it happen. I never thought it would. The rules didn't seem to inhibit proper debate, although I felt the moderator stepped in at some of the best moment. The set was awful. It was good to see the programme without commercial breaks. And I thought it was a little bit strange to see the party leaders - whom we usually only see interact in the House of Commons - caling each other Nick, David & Gordon.

Were there any killer blows - no. Knock out punches? No. Great one-liners? Zilch.

In fact, despite the better format I am not sure that anybody really learnt anything about politics. The left (and I mean, the combined left - LibDems, Labour & Greens) united to pour bile on Cameron, the Conservatives thought he did well. 80% of people thought the Prime Minister did badly. So, basically - your man won (whoever your man is). But - I would like next time for the debate to be slower and more thoughtful. I felt the speed of responses was fast and the pace of the debate was frenetic.

And finally a word about each of them. Clegg was thought to be the winner on the night,no doubt aided by being "introduced" to people and distancing himself from the other two parties. I thought presentationally he did well butwas weaker when challenged on his own policies. He tried to referee stance (used well by Vince Cable) but it didn't work because Cameron challenged him 4 times over Libdem policies. This was much more the media star we were promised when he became leader. He was clearly very well briefed. However - my big criticism would be that he was unable to adapt. For example, when Cameron used the stat about 4,000 educational diktats per year, Clegg still "revealed" the same stat in his answer. He should have acknowledged it from Cameron.

Brown looked the odd one out and sounded the most robotic. Some people said they saw the real Gordon and passion in him; I must have missed it. My view is that his answers were still too formula driven and laden with stats. His insistance that things were not as the general public saw them (defence, crime, immigration) did not go down well and he ought to be have addressed Cameron's repeated point of being in government for 13 years. As one LibDem said, he had low expectations and failed to meet them - I think this is a little harsh but clearly this format is not good for the PM, but he may yet learn. In addition he came armed with a lot of little "one liners" but Labour know you can only use them once!

True Cameron was by far the most polished - I think his experiences at umpteen Cameron Direct town hall meetings will have helped - and some people believe this was his biggest fault. I felt Cameron had the strongest begining (going on expenses straight way was the right thing to do) and ending (positive, up beat). But he did confound my expecations - very few jokes, no yah-boo stuff and little rising to the jibes of the others. He had the most policy to lay out but in that he attracted most criticism and at times became a little bogged down. However, as I said, I felt he did the best (as expected!)

So we now look forward to the second debate with great interest - my rolling scores are Cameron 8, Clegg 7, Brown 4

Leader on Candidate

Cameron on Little: “We have got a very strong candidate in Norwich South. We showed what was possible with Chloe and we want that to be part one.”

I wonder what Brown would say about Clarke

;-)

Come On Media, Make Up Your Mind!

A curious set of coincidencies today - I went from the car where a news report was attacking the Tory decision to launch a personal attack on the Prime Minister to the house where ITN were doing the same. Then I clicked on iPlayer to watch Cameron's very impressive performace on the BBC Politics show, only for the questions to be about class, background and being a toff.

Either the media want to talk about personalities or they want to talk about policy. They can't have it both ways!

Or it is a case of when the Tories do it about Labour, it's wrong - but when the media do it about the Tories, it's fine?

(By the way - call that a personal attack? I don't think so! Each posters had a policy message - negative, yes, personal, no.)

"News of the World" Backs Cameron

Another newspaper has tonight come out to support the Conservatives - a direct switch from the paper that urged us to vote Labour in 2005. But I thought it was the reasoning that was interesting and (for a tabloid!!) very well written;

THE General Election is almost upon us. If, as predicted, the date remains May 6, we have just 40 days, including today, to make the most momentous decision about Government in a generation.

Over the coming weeks we'll be bombarded with information, propaganda and, no doubt, downright lies. So let us take stock.

When Labour came to power in 1997, with Tony Blair at the helm and Gordon Brown holding the purse strings, we were all told that things could only get better. We are now entitled to judge that pledge against results.

David Cameron and the Tory Party must be given a chance

Mr Blair himself famously chanted 'Education, education, education!' so let's start with that.
In just the last six years, the education budget has tripled from £21.7bn to £66.7bn of our money. As we report today, there are brilliant individual successes like young maths genius Yasha Ayari Asley. But 225,000 pupils left primary school last year unable to read, write and add up properly.

Tesco's Sir Terry Leahy and Sir Stuart Rose of M&S rightly complain this scandalous state of affairs follows many of them right through their education.

Last year, around 100,000 parents were refused a first choice of secondary school. And around 959,000 16-24s were not in any form of education, employment or training.

What about health? Since 1997 Labour have almost tripled spending on the NHS from £35bn to £104bn (again, our money), and we applaud many separate instances of life saving. But the fact remains that, under Labour, the number of NHS managers is increasing almost three times as fast as nurses.

After a decade of Labour rule, only 49% of cancer patients were surviving for five years after diagnosis - lower than virtually all Europe. MRSA and C-difficile have killed almost 44,000 people since 1997.

So where else does our money go? In 2007-08, Labour spent £23bn on the criminal justice system - a third more than 1997. Our policemen and women are among the world's bravest.
Yet in 2008-09, for example, there were over 100 serious knife crimes a day, almost a million victims of alcohol-fuelled attacks, and 10,000 incidents of anti-social behaviour every day.

And what of Defence? Labour says it has increased spending from £27.5bn in 97-98 to £36.2bn last year. But since they came to power, the number of regular troops have been cut by 21,000. We also have 12 fewer warships and 217 fewer planes. As the death toll in Afghanistan mounts daily bereaved families tell story after story of lack of proper equipment and support.

And as we revealed two weeks ago, despite Mr Brown's assurances to the Chilcot inquiry, defence spending WAS cut and not increased, as the Prime Minister later acknowledged.
Immigration too is an issue that has divided many under this government. Let us be clear, this country owes much of its richness to a great many law-abiding immigrants. But as recently as Friday of this week, Gordon Brown saw fit to release statistics that claim to show a decrease in arrivals.

Those figures have been attacked as misleading, but there is little doubt that total net immigration increased from 48,000 in 1997 to 163,000 in 2008. And after 10 years of Labour there were up to 700,000 illegal immigrants here.

Then we have the economy. In fairness, Britain and the world has been hit with such a cataclysm of disaster by useless bankers that neither Labour nor the Tories could have emerged unscathed.

Nevertheless, our budget deficit now stands at £167bn, the highest since World War II. Companies are still going to the wall, breadwinners are losing their jobs and homes.

The Prime Minister will be as concerned about all this as we are. He is a decent man, sincere in his beliefs. Yet despite his commitment to 'recovery' yesterday, many believe Mr Brown's earlier reckless spending got us into this position in the first place.

And at a time when the whole nation needs to pull together, his failure to rein in his Party's union paymasters threatens to tear apart any slim chance we have of securing a recovery.

They share an unholy alliance which is not healthy for Labour, and certainly not healthy for Britain.

And against this backdrop of national peril on all fronts we are saddled with a Commons of spivs and expenses chancers. Where the honest MPs are a glittering exception rather than the norm.
True, this shower of time- wasters spans all parties. But as the team in charge, Labour and Mr Brown must shoulder much responsibility.

Overwhelmingly, on all fronts, this country is crying out for change.

Which is why, after much soul-searching, the News of the World believes that David Cameron and the Tory Party must now be given the chance to run the country.

Right now, they are our best hope for a brighter, saner, safer, more honourable future.

We do not make this recommendation lightly. There is much that Mr Cameron still needs to spell out, much he has yet to prove. Many accuse him of inexperience. They said the same of Tony Blair.

And just as Blair arrived with Brown, so George Osborne will have a huge job ahead of him as the next Chancellor of the Exchequer.

His task is both to spend and cut with a sustained assurance that will deliver stability both to families and to the money markets that govern our savings and mortgages.

And it is the job of every Tory MP, new and old, to repay our trust.

To restore dignity to our Parliament, safety to our Forces, comfort to the sick, hope to our children, peace to our streets, confidence to our businesses and pride to our nation.

After the nightmare we have all suffered, Britain deserves better.

We certainly do not deserve a headlong return to the days of Old Labour, of division, strikes and lost opportunity.

This paper backed New Labour to rid the nation of such a blight.

Now, confronted with a renewed threat from old ways, the modernised Tories can be a force for good.

It is time to give change a chance and move forward with fresh vigour and hope.

When Sir Trevor met Dave ...

Tonight's efforts on ITV was a good use of an hour and provided a great overview of the man who wants to be our next Prime Minister. As a political observer I preferred the fact that Cameron went for Sir Trevor McDonald, in direct contrast to Brown's choice of his Labour-chum and disgraced former Mirror editor Piers Morgan. McDonald was polite, decent, insightful and yet probing (for example, asking about "that poster" and if Cameron could ever sack Osbourne).

Samantha Cameron came out very well indeed and the programme really enforced the loving and solid nature of their relationship plus her influence on his politics; and the interview with his Mum really illustrated how his childhood has shaped his life. The section on Ivan was touching but not over-the-top.

I didn't feel the behind the scenes footage was very revealing, but what both David and Samantha Cameron had to say was. They came across as very passionate about changing the country, very relaxed, almost normal and clearly enjoying themselves.

I think this programme will have really solidified the Tory base and, hopefully, made others think again about the Tory Leader (he really took the "posh" stuff on and made good on it). Those who have already made up their minds about "the old Etonian" David Cameron won't have budged.

But, as always, I speak as the Cameron faithful and will wait to see what the staffroom has to say tomorrow!

UPDATE: In the comments James has mentioned the lack of policies in this programme - but this effort, like Brown/Morgan, wasn't about policies and it certainly wasn't an hour long PPB. The programme told you lots about the man-who-would-be-PM and the values which drive him. I have always argued we need to policies more up front but this wasn't the vehicle for this.

Brown the Father

Just when you thought you knew somebody. I know a lot of people believe it to be a cynical stunt, and others pointing out that he said he would never put his children in the spotlight, but I thought that Prime Minister Gordon Brown's interview today (click here) was a beautiful tribute to his daughter who died just ten days old.

Mr Brown doesn't do emotion very well in public but his words will chime with every parent in the country. His words about Sarah were fitting and there is no doubt about the way that Brown, clearly a proud Dad, felt about Jennifer and the impact she made on his life.

He spoke about how he dwells about what Jennifer would be doing had she still been here - going to school, learning to read or being a teenager - and which of us would not be doing the same, almost on a day-to-day basis?

Both the Prime Minister and David Cameron know the pain of losing a child; an unusual bond for two men in their positions.

His interview has really made me see Gordon Brown in a new light today; a surprising light - Brown the Father.