Scandal

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

To what extent should Cameron and Clegg use Brown’s gaffe against him?

Given the timing of Brown’s Mega Gaffe, you’ve got to wonder how it will play out in the TV debate tonight.  Will it, for instance, mean that he gets a hostile reception?  Will he try to defuse the situation by repeating his apologies, or perhaps by making some sort of light out of it (“Yesterday, I met a woman in Rochdale…”)?  Will it overwhelm the deeply serious economic questions which need asking and answering?  And so on. There’s one question, in particular, though, that I’d be keen to hear CoffeeHousers’ views on: how much should Cameron and Clegg use Brown’s gaffe against him?  My thinking is that they’ve played it

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The morning after the duffing up

It will be hard to isolate the influence of ‘bigot-gate’ on the polls as any taken after today will also include the effect of the final debate. But a few things are worth noting. First, this will be a ‘slow-burn’: Brown’s dismissal of such a large section of the electorate will take a while to sink in. It’s the kind of thing that is going to get discussed for days. I was doing a phone-in on Radio Five last night and those working on the programme told me that it was one of their highest ever volumes of calls.  Second, its ultimate result might be reduced Labour turnout—note how Mrs

Wednesday

James Forsyth

Brown’s apology to Labour members

This message has just been blasted out to Labour members: As you may know, I have apologised to Mrs Duffy for remarks I made in the back of the car after meeting her on the campaign trail in Rochdale today. I would also like to apologise to you. I know how hard you all work to fight for me and the Labour Party, and to ensure we get our case over to the public. So when the mistake I made today has so dominated the news, doubtless with some impact on your own campaigning activities, I want you to know I doubly appreciate the efforts you make. Many of you

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Ten reasons why this is a catastrophe for Brown and Labour

Every politician will be thinking “there but for the grace of God…” today – but the Gillian Duffy incident is not just a gaffe. It is bad for Gordon Brown and Labour on very many levels. Here are ten of them.   1. The image of the Politburo pulling away in the Jag, slagging off the proles. This confirms the idea of an elite, who sneer at voters in private but try to charm them in public. And the idea that politicians (of all parties) say one thing on camera, and another when they think no one is listening. 2. The is not just a gaffe, but the PM on

Peter Hoskin

The timing could not be worse

So Brown has now visited Gillian Duffy’s home to apologise to her in person.  Somehow, I think that’s not going to defuse this row.  Labour have, in the lingo of the The Thick of It, a major omnishambles on their hands.  And he’s called Gordon. The worst aspect of this for Labour, though, is the timing.  Sure, they wouldn’t have chosen this at any point the campaign.  But, with only a week left, it threatens to both obliterate eveything that’s gone before and overshadow whatever Brown does from now until polling day.   And then there’s the final TV debate.  The audience has been asked to listen to the participants

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Brown v The Voters

We have just witnessed the biggest moment of the 2010 election campaign. It wasn’t that Brown let off steam: it was that he instinctively described as “bigoted” a woman who represents what should be Labour’s core vote. Sure, she mentioned immigration – but just said “where are they coming from”? Her main concern was the national debt, and what her grandchildren will have to pay. Neither Cameron or Clegg would have thought these points bigoted – and neither would Tony Blair. The thought would not have crossed his mind. Nor that of Kinnock, Foot or Callaghan. Labour’s campaign is led by a man who dislikes campaigning, having to get down

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Deeper into the mire

It is just getting worse and worse for Brown. The woman he insulted is a widow whose husband died of cancer and who worked with handicapped children.  

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Clegg will be hurt by this too

Brown calling Gillian Duffy that ‘bigoted woman’ from the safety of his car having ended his conversation with her cordially is, obviously, hugely damaging for Labour’s campaign. But I suspect Nick Clegg will also suffer some collateral damage as it will push immigration to the top of the political agenda, an area where the Lib Dems with their plan for an amnesty for illegal immigrants are on the wrong side of public opinion.

David Blackburn

“That was a disaster…”

… Well that ain’t the half of it. Brown has just made the most garbled apology imaginable on the Jeremy Vine show: “I apologise if I said anything like that.”  Well, unfortunately, Brown had, and Vine duly played the tape. Brown had to apologise again:  “I apologise if I’ve said anything remotely hurtful…there were comments about immigration…which I didn’t get the chance to reply to…that were annoying…you’ve got to remember, it’s a case of me being helpful to the broadcasters who have recorded and played my private conversation.” He might be cowering, but verbally Brown simply comes across as arrogant and unrepentant. Small wonder that politicians are loathed. PS: Now

Peter Hoskin

Brown calls woman a ‘bigot’

Wow. Just when you thought Labour’s campaign couldn’t get any worse, they go and wheel out Brown in front of ordinary voters.  And this is the result: he has been caught on mic describing a member of the public as a “bigoted woman”.  Speaking to one of his advisers, he added “you shouldn’t have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?”  Classic. This may be trivial beside the big questions about the economy, etc. – but you can expect is to become one of the defining TV moments of the campaign.  It’s one thing to insult and attack the politicians who serve alongside you, but quite another to

Thursday

James Forsyth

Tonight’s tactical battle

If seven days ago, anyone had suggested that the first debate would propel Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems to the top of the polls we’d all have thought that their lunch had gone on rather too long. But that’s what happened. Tonight, the questions are whether Gordon Brown reprises his ‘I agree with Nick’ routine or tries to check Clegg’s momentum and whether Cameron can turn in the kind of performance that begins to turn things round for him.   Cameron shouldn’t be angry tonight. But he does need to bracket Brown and Clegg together at every opportunity. When three people are debating, the person who does the best

Peter Hoskin

People loathe politicians – but do they loathe the political media too?

One thing’s for certain: the Lib Dems are coming in for greater scrutiny and attention from the media.  The covers of the Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Express and, yes, The Spectator are testament to that – even if some are less substantial than others.  But the question is: will this derail the Clegg bandwagon?  And, like Iain Dale, I’m not so sure. Iain’s point is that some of the coverage is so spiteful that it will “serve to increase his popularity and position in the polls”.  He adds that this would be a “sure sign that the power of the press to influence an election is on the wane”.  He’s right,

Ed Howker

Paul Rowen and the anatomy of a Lib Dem expenses scam

Now the Lib Dems are riding high in the polls, they attract greater scrutiny – which, to put it mildly, they do not always stand up to. In this week’s Spectator, we look at what can be seen as the Lib Dem vice. They may not charge for duck houses, or mortgages. But they do specialise in taking money intended for MPs expenses, and finding “innovative” ways of putting it into their war chest. Here is a hard example that may interest CoffeeHousers and it stars Paul Rowen, whom Mr Clegg visited last week – and declared “has done a great job”. He certainly has: for filling the Lib Dem

Tuesday

David Blackburn

Not so squeaky clean

“All my life, I’ve opposed the old politics,” says Nick Clegg ad nauseam. Not so it seems. Peter Oborne’s Mail column reports that one youthful indiscretion has been omitted from Clegg’s CV: ‘In fact, he has a background as a Westminster lobbyist with the firm GJW, where he worked as an account executive for 18 months. (Something he has omitted from his curriculum vitae on the Lib Dem website).’ So, Clegg glosses over his stint of political kerb-crawling. Hypocrisy always makes a good story but the Tories should, and probably will, shun this story. They have lost the media narrative and the last thing Cameron needs is for the campaign

Sunday

Peter Hoskin

Dirtier tactics

I think we all expected this election campaign to be fought a few inches below the belt.  But, as Iain Dale and Dizzy say, Labour’s tactic of mailing scaremongering leaflets to cancer sufferers is some new kind of low.  I mean, just imagine how it would feel to receive, as a cancer patient or an immediate family member, a leaflet which politicises the problem to the point of suggesting that your care would be jeapordised by voting for another party.  And then imagine how it would feel if you have been specifically targeted because of your connections with the illness, as seems to have been the case here.  Well, it

Wednesday

James Forsyth

The scene is set for a bust-up

PMQs today is going to be the last time that Gordon Brown and David Cameron face-off against each other before the debates. Both men will be keen to score pyschological points against the other and to send their troops off in good heart. This means that PMQs will be an even noisier affair than usual. But both leaders will have to remember that if they behave in the debates as they do in PMQs it would be a disaster for them. The aggressive, shouty nature of PMQs would not translate well to the debates. One thing to watch today is what Nick Clegg does. He’s racheting up the rhetoric again,

Saturday

Daniel Korski

The Vatican plays the “Jewish Card”

Speaking in a Good Friday homily, with the Pope listening, the Pontiff’s personal preacher, Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, likened the drive by the victims of abuse to seek justice from the Vatican, whose priests committed the sexual crimes, with the persecution of Jews. Victims’ groups and Jewish organisations have said it was inappropriate to liken the discomfort of the Catholic Church to hundreds of years of violence and abuse. But it is more than inappropriate. It shows either an ignorance of the history of anti-Semitism; a desire to relativise the Holocaust; a near-pathological disregards for other people’s suffering; or a wilful aspiration to shift the blame away from the Vatican. The

Monday

James Forsyth

A major test for the Charity Commission<br />

There are few more damaging allegations against the trustee of a charity than that they forged the signature of a fellow trustee on a document. But that is what Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, is alleging has happened to him. Mahmood told the Sunday Times that his signature had been forged on the declaration of trust sent by the North London Mosque to the Charity Commission. Mahmood’s accusation is incredibly serious and he has referred it to the Charity Commission. When I contacted the Charity Commission today, I received this statement from them:  “The Charity Commission is aware of the allegations made relating to the North London

Sunday

David Blackburn

The most corrupt parliament ever?

It makes you proud to be British. Where resourcefulness and self-worth are concerned, our political class is unmatched. Former Sports minister and ambassador for the 2018 World Cup bid, Richard Caborn, has been stung by the Sunday Times soliciting influence for £2,500 a day ‘plus expenses, obviously’. Obviously Richard, we would expect nothing less from a man of your eminence. So to for former Defence Minister, Adam Ingram, who takes lobbying so seriously he charges VAT. I wonder how Colonel Gadaffi reacted to the 17.5 percent extra charge when Ingram facilitated the construction of a new Libyan defence academy? Hypocrisy is more ubiquitous at Westminster than Pugin. Apologists for the expenses scandal argue that