´óÏó´«Ã½

It's a pity that (yet again) the substance of a politician's speech is regarded as secondary to the strategic purpose of it. "Obsessed with spin", anyone? I'd be interested to know what the legality is of ring-fencing jobs for , I presume, British passport holders, and whether the vacancies would be left un-filled if the "British workers" declined to take them.What is the nature of the jobs, and where willthey be based? etcetera. As far as the language goes, it does sound a bit like "if you can't speak the language, don't come and live here",and therefore of the "nasty" right but, but within the context of Brown's character I think it panders more to common sense than to BNP divisiveness. I do appreciate having possible secondary agendas pointed out to me, but may we be treated to an analysis of the subject matter as well, please?

Nick, the clearly unbridled bias now shown towards this governments current leader is becoming unsufferable. You may as well just give up any pretence of reporting and run a banner headline saying 'All hail the Great Gordon'.

I know you've a mortgage and bills to pay like the rest of us, but how about a return to the independent political comment that you were very good at once upon a time?

Isn't this the same old old story.Imagine if the Tories had been closing hospitals and A.and E.the unions would be marching in the streets ,the nurses would be protesting saying Tory cuts don't heal.But when Labour do these thing there is a silence.

Just goes to show how the media influences the public's perception.

Why aren't the media saying "Brown lurches to the right"? That would probably cause as much problem in the Labour ranks as it would for Cameron.

You tell us Nick.

The words are disbelief and saddness to read Brown talking about "British worker" for "British jobs" in the 21st Century!

All these rhetorics won't take labour party anywhere. It's the public in the centre of politicians chess game.

Pityful is the word!

This is a difficult issue. As you say, Nick, the language can get a bit difficult. I'm happy with better managed immigration and employment. The language of the hard left and hard right can be a bit robust but developing a sound balance between cultural integration and domestic opportunity does look useful and fair. By raising the threshold for fluency in English immigrant workers can provide a better service and set a better impression, and opening up opportunity for lower skilled and temporary workers will help increase opportunity and reduce crime.

As someone who wants to develop a successful business and relocate to Japan, I'm well aware of the issues. The makeshift homes of unemployed sarariman line the river in Tokyo and hikikomori locking themselves away at home are an equivalent. Learning another language is tough as you get older, and that's just scratching the surface. Diet, mannerisms, and domestic arrangements are different, and that's before you get into developing business relationships, law, and fitting in with the local community. People make allowances but there's limits.

By getting a better balance between quality and opportunity, and employment and immigration, the issues that cause difficulties for business and society will calm, consensus will expand, and the outcome will be demonstrably better. When the unions on the left, BNP on the right, and everyone in between begins to see success emerge we'll all start getting on the same page, reversing the divided map of society. Who knows, maybe Bob Crowe and Nick Griffin can shake hands one day, like Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams. Anything is possible.

Hi Nick,
Ponder for a second how exactly the same policies or phrases would have been written up had David Cameron delivered them, so you say.
Ah, you see Nick, the problem is that David Cameron DID NOT deliver those words.
Isn't this a similar attitude when Gordon Brown announced that the basic rate of tax goes down from 22% to 20%? The media said that the Tories had been CONTEMPLATING of announcing this in their manifesto! Well Nick, they had 17 years to do all this, but they failed. Have a nice day Nick.

Why isn't Gordon accused of 'lurching to the right?'

Well, because the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are too preoccupied with criticism of Cameron's stance on tax breaks for married couples as one example. One whiff of the word 'immigration' has political journalists trying to put words into his mouth like 'swamped'.

In contrast, Brown has had nothing but praise lauded on him since the start of his premiership.

The re-classification of cannabis, stopping the super-casinos were the start of a shift right some months ago.

Labour always shifts right before an election, it is blantant opportunism just like his 'party of all talents'.

The media are not simply not holding him to account over it.

Cameron this, Cameron that...

Who cares about David Cameron? The man's a joke.

All he cares about is himself and the Conservative Party (i.e. the Super dooper rich).

I hope the next election rips the Tories to pieces and consigns them to history.

Anyone who earns less than £500,000,000,000,000,000 per annum does not benefit from voting for the Tories.

And let this be a warning to Britain - if you put them in power again you'll be in for years of misery.

So, when you do put them in power again - and you will because you never learn from history - don't complain about it because I warned you.

hi nick you have point why is it when cameron talks about these issues he gets slammed and brown does it its fine.

i can only think of one answer and that is the media is to blame by giving him such an easy ride while brown plays politics, which i have notice his doing alot of. but also is there right wingers in labour umm, they don't jump out to me unlike the left

and finally i agree with other bloggers this phase of lurching to the right is meaningless when it comes to voting and what brown is saying haven't we heard it be before? either way its 10 years too late.

I think Gordon Brown is speaking more sense that any politician has in a long time. It doesn't seem right-wing to me. I believe the Labour Party was formed with the intention of looking after the British working people, an agenda which seems to have been ignored for many years now.

I'm not sure if I'd characterise the comments as a lurch to the right but they are certainly anti-Welsh speakers.

Imagine an immigrant from Patagonia who is fluent in Spanish and Welsh but speaks little or no English - they will be blocked from moving to Wales even to parts where the vast majority of the population speak Welsh.

In many parts of Wales such individuals could be part of the core community, work and add value to the economy without ever needing to speak English.

Geraint Edwards

If you start on the left and lurch to the right, you end up in the centre, don't you?

Actually, Nick, all it shows is the complicity of the media in the Labour mindset, and the paucity of its actual analysis.

It's got nothing to do with Brown's strategic nous that the media are quite happy to go along with his call for 'British jobs for British workers', while screaming racism at the Conservatives should they propose something similar.

This is arguably a more racist (such that it is) policy than Cameron's announcement that immigration needs to be managed to prevent public services from being overwhelmed, yet that was greeted with calls of right ward lurches and implicit racism.

"the man in the iron mask:"

The last 10 years have seen me suffer misery anyway - and no, I'm not one of the super-duper rich: my parents earn under £30k a year, and I'm earning around half that.

The media are not simply not holding him to account over it.

The touchy feely brigade let anyone in even if they can't integrate. The hard-liners kick everyone who doesn't fit their model. This swinging pendulum is nonsense. It sets dangerously low or high standards, and only pleases ideologues. The touchy feely brigade love it because it gives them a crowd of dusky immigrants they have power over, and the hardliners love it because, you guessed it, it gives them someone to kick.

We have system which encourages learned helplessness or brutality. The touchy feely brigade love their multi-language leaflets, social housing, and community schemes. It's useful to a point but beyond that merely keeps them in salaries. Do you think they want real change? The hardliners love it because it gives them a permanent scapegoat: someone to point at and blame for all the ills of society, from crime to family breakdown.

By raising the bar for integration and pulling back from immigration, the people who do move to Britain for jobs will have richer opportunities for work and socialising, and the infrastructure and social pressures of change will have the excess steam let out. Instead of getting in a sweat and wasting time over achingly tired issues, focusing on a new centre ground policy intent will help develop a better quality and shared perspective. Nitpicking and ratings disguised as scrutiny and informing the public is no substitute for a respectful approach.

Yes, well what about English people who move to welsh speaking area's learning or being forced to learn Welsh. Oh but thats different English people dont do other peoples languages

If it walks like a shift to the right and smells like a shift to the right it is a shift to the right.Problem for Brown is that he has to walk the walk not just talk the talk. Unless you have mass deportations of illegal immigrants and are prepared to lose votes to the LibDems you end up abit of a John Major.

'Man in the iron mask'

New Labour is as much the party of the super-rich as the Tories. It's not the 1970s anymore!!

GB has presided over incredible loosening of the regulatory regimes that guard our (by our, I mean the people's) economy and markets. Even the US SEC does more than the FSA these days. GB has made sure there are tasty loop-holes for the so-called 'masters of the universe' to avoid paying vast amounts of tax etc etc.

As for the article, DC has been outwitted again here. Helps that the media want him to fail though and seem to be giving GB a relatively easy ride. Very tedious.

You briefly allude to why it is extraordinary that Brown is 'occupying the centre ground' when Cameron, were he to say exactly the same things would be accused of 'lurching to the right'. Underlying what you are alluding to and what Brown is cleverly exploiting is that it is somehow, in an odd indefinable way, shameful in this day and age to be seen to support the Tories or — heavens above! — even to join their party. And Cameron knows that, which is why he is, bizarrely, trying his utmost to make the Conservatives 'not Tory'. And that is yet another symptom of the topsy-turvy political world in which we find ourselves in 2007. Personally, I explain it by my generation, the Sixties lot (I am 58 in November) now holding the reins of power. This is a generation which has replaced thought and rationality with sentiment and which believes if it feels right, it IS right. I also suspect that far from our present national prosperity being as a result of Brown's wise stewardship of the economy, we and the rest of the Western world are enjoying the illusion of being well off because a communist China, newly converted to the ways and rewards of capitalism (for some of its people, however, by no means all of them) is flooding the world with cheap consumer goods. And it can sell these goods so cheaply because its costs of labour (the wages they pay) are extremel;y low. In, say, 10/15 years time when that flow of cheap goods dries up (for various Chinese domestic reasons, not least trouble caused by its own growing and more prosperous middle class wanting a greater political say) we privileged Brits and Westerners won't feel half as prosperous, times will get harder and our economy will take a - long overdue - downturn. It will be then that 'supporting the Tories' will not seem half as shameful.

The words to little to late spring to mind,
seeing how you created the problem in the first place.CHEERS GORDON

"The man in the iron mask" writes that Britain never learns from history and that Tory governments only result in misery for 'normal' people (I paraphrase).

What a load of codswallop. The Labour party are just as bad as the Conservatives, they've ruined economies before, ruined the country before and left it for the Conservatives to inherit.

The only reason Labour got into Government in '97 was because the country wanted (and needed) a change. Tney had the same policies as the Conservatives!!!

The fact of the matter is that David Cameron is talking a lot of sense (most of it's being ignored by the way), and Gordon Brown is reacting to Cameron, not the other way around.

I have to admit the Conservatives are missing opportunity after opportunity to make a point after Brown's hypocrise - Hiring that Tory Mercer, who they derided the Conservatives for after his racist comments; accusing the Tories of a 'lurch to the right', when Labour are using the same policies; complaining about the tories 'spending cuts' when labour are cutting spending in real terms, and the tories have promised to match labours spending over the next 3 years should they get into government.

It's all hypocrisy from Labour. It's a shame it's being ignored by the media (though I'm not saying that any media is biased by the way).

To me it sounds rather like a man preparing for an election...

Brown is consistant in his policy statements they are thought thru even if you dont agree you know where you stand, unlike Cameron who goes to the right then back to the centre depending on who he is speaking to on the day and his poll ratings.Also his Policy Commitees conflict one another, one week its Redwood who wants to reduce taxes this week its GUM GUM and Goldsmith who want to con us by putting up taxes hiding behind the Green Smoke screen.Thats why everyone is confused about Cameron with his ongoing spin and PR machine.

'the man in the iron mask' - your post is not constructive and is clearly lacking in intellectual capacity.

I am pleased Gordon Brown is taking this stance on the issue of immigration and jobs within the UK. It should be a prerequisite that if you wish to be employed, you should speak the nations native language. Although English is one of the hardest to learn languages, it certainly isn't very difficult to grasp a 'C' grade GCSE - for most people - it's just down to effort, think of it as a test - if you REALLY want to live and work in the UK - prove it by learning the language so you can communicate with the British.

This is a very honest post Nick on a very important subject.

Brown is 'lurching to the right' at least as much as the Conservatives but he just will not get called on it. This is bias plain and simple.

Poor old Cameron has to deal with the practical problems resulting from having the deck stacked against him but this issue is one broadcasting - not Brown or Cameron - needs to address.

The issue is far more important than any of the trust scandals that have hit the media recently. The thinking revealed and the ways and terms used to report parties and their ideas are so ingrained I'm sure reporters don't realise they are doing it half the time. This just shows how unquestioning the thinking has become.

This is exactly the kind of intellectual bankrupcy and lazy reporting those who have been criticising the media have been referring to recently.

Time to do something about it.

we're already having years of misery or havn't you noticed in your iron mask?

"British Jobs for British Workers" was a National Front slogan from the 1970s. It was used on their stickers and posters. I'm sure the ´óÏó´«Ã½ archives could confirm this. So Nick does have a point here, I think.

NuLabour have never 'planted a flag' where it mattered - "improved delivery!"

It all depends where the person saying it starts from and what the perceived history of their party is. If Brown spoke in favour of increased taxes on the rich or extending rights for trades unions then he'd be accused of "lurching to the left" whereas if Cameron proposed the same things it'd be viewed as moving to the centre, looking to be more socially inclusive and so on. Brown is not accused of "lurching to the right" because the most widely held fears about Labour are not that it will end up too far to the right of popular opinion.

Nick, shouldn't you, therefore, be pushing for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to use this very phrase when reporting on the action of Gordon Brown?

The ´óÏó´«Ã½, after all, is an independent entity and is thus able to report such a criticism as part of it's news rather than as a (much more low-key) website comment.

I agree that it's time that Brown and Cameron were treated equally. I don't even like Cameron, but I do wonder if much of the 'Brown Bounce' is due to the press being so one-sided in it's criticism.

How can the Opposion be an Opposition, when the government is a carbon copy? What is British democracy without an Opposition?

the man in the iron mask wrote:

...Anyone who earns less than 500,000,000,000,000,000 per annum does not benefit from voting for the Tories...

and anyone who earns more than 0.000001 pence does not benefit from voting Labour :-)

Back to the subject of the blog - Nick hase a valid point. The spin and timing of Brown's announcements are spot on and result in an absolute no win situation for Cameron.

This is thinly-veiled racism from Brown, regardless of whether or not it demonstrates his skills as a political strategist. I'm not sure the tone of breathless admiration in Nick's post is really appropriate under the circumstances.

There are a whole load of fringe events at the TUC conference this week devoted to fighting the threat of the BNP. But Labour needn't worry, because their man Brown has come up with the answer: nick all the BNP's policies and nobody's got any more reason to vote for them.

I don't care one jot whether someone can speak English as long as it doesn't affect their ability to do the job I'm paying them to do. It occurs to me that if we were to require all native Britons to speak English at A-C GCSE level there'd be a bit of a problem.

It doesn't matter what GB is saying. Everything points to an election very soon, since he knows the Tories do not have a hope of success under David Cameron.

It will be a bit like the SNP: promise the earth; get elected; oops sorry, can't afford it.

How long before the UK becomes North Korea?

The issue is not about Brown's confidence, but rather the coverage from the media...especially TV. I agree with Ian and Mike. The issue starts with ´óÏó´«Ã½ bias. Another example...try to find much comment on the drive for a referendum on the constitution on the ´óÏó´«Ã½! There is next to nothing...enough said.

With 10 MILLION unemployed BRITONS this isn't a lurch to the right, it's a lurch towards correct.

Mr. Robinson has just highlighted one example of the media bias about which conservatives have long complained. When Michael Howard tried to have a rational debate about immigration before the last general election, he was branded a racist. Everytime David Cameron tries to affirm long-held conservative, liberal, principles the media, especially the ´óÏó´«Ã½, reflexively insinuate that it represents the resurgence of some right-wing agenda and implicitly undermine the other issues, such as the environment, that Cameron is promoting. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have rubbished the principles of liberalism and civil liberties that have stood this country in good stead for centuries and barely a peep from the media. Gordon Brown, who for years failed to acknowledge the resurgence of the British economy under Margaret Thatcher's leadership and even excoriated her for laying the foundation of the current prosperity for which he never ceases to claim credit, amazingly pays her belated tribute and the media don't comprehensively denounce him for the blatant hypocrisy. The hypocrises of this government are legendary - they are now trying to recreate schools with a grammar school ethos after almost destroying the original grammars and replacing them with a failed comprehensive system - but the media have been largely silent. Nick Robinson's observation should not have come as a surprise.

I doubt very much if restricting a job for a British national is legal. I'm sure the EU would have something to say about it!

Nick,

If the PM's speech is 'a lurch to the right' you're in the position to *CALL* it 'a lurch to the right'.

Stop worrying about whether you'll be invited back for a cosy chat in Number 10 and point out that the government can't guarantee British jobs so long as it is wedded to globalisation, and EC law allows any EU worker to come here and gain employment.

The PM is lurching to the right in order to woo the tabloids prior to an election. Say so.

I'm beginning to think people are cynical of politics due to the mainstream political analysis. Openly analysing the strategic moves of politicians makes the whole affair appear shallow and undermines the entire democratic process. Should the public be applauding Gordon Brown for political posturing, congratulating his skill at media manipulation? I really don't think so, I think people have more respect for politicians that have convictions and are straight-foward. The current climate means we're so desensitizeed to spin that we are all analysing the costs and benefits of every move. But if we all recognize it as baseless posturing and spin, the impact of it in the first place is zero.

Once both parties realise that the public are becoming immune to spin through its overuse, we might return to politicians talking about what they believe in every week, rather than every year at the party conferences. It's the only way to regain trust. A lot of people are aware of Coulson from the News of the World who is operating Cameron like a puppet (to the recent effect of appearring lacking in principles and prepared to say almost anything if it gains him a point in the polls), and Gordon Brown is simply filling in the gaps that Cameron is leaving behind after his latest headline grabbing move fades into forgotten history.

Correct me if I'm wrong....The Tories occupy the Centre Right in British politics. If they adopt a hardline approach on immigration they "lurch to the right" and - as an overally package - encroach on territory more usually associated with the BNP.

Labour occupies the Centre Left. If they adopt a hardline approach on immigration to "occupy more of the Centre ground"...then surely that counts as a "Lurch to the Right".

Just like chess - the moves are the same - the only difference is where you start from...

Now - if Cameron and the Tories got more in touch with the people of the country and adopted some slightly more tolerant policies and opinions - they could "lurch to the left" and occupy more of that fabled Centre ground.

Don't you love British Politics - those on the right lurch to the right and become more like the hard right, those on the left lurch to the right and occupy more of the middle ground. Easy when you think about it!

There are several areas of Policy where a 'lurch to the right', might well be a good idea regardless of which party is promising to deliver them - crime & immigration are two which immediately spring to mind. As a floating voter with no particular partisan affiliations I hope that Gordons promise of the birth of consensus politics where experts are drawn from across the political spectrum to deal with the problems the UK faces comes to fruition and isn't just spin or hype. It would be a breath of fresh air.

We should stop using the terms "left" and "right" altogether. They belong to the 20th century, when the main issue was whether the economy should be organised on capitalist or socialist principles. Even then applying the terms to policies in other fields was an oversimplification. Now it is ludicrously crude, downright misleading, and of no value to anyone other than those who wish to slur their opponents.

What matters is whether a policy is likely to achieve its underlying objectives and whether it is advantageous to the country, and that is what should be debated. The problem is that doing so would force politicians and journalists to work harder, and to stop treating the public as simpletons.

Well Done Nick, Another case of "spottin' the bleedin' obvious".

Tony Blair first steered his submarine under the Tory melting ice-cap way back in 1997, and planted the first New labour flag.

He and the Chancellor have re-visited the position many time since, just to make sure that nobody had invaded "their" territory.

Gordon Brown is now making his first expedition as Captain of the ship, to plant the New-New Labour flag and rip the old one, with all it's associations, from the pages of history.

As for Cameron, he doesn't stand a chance as long as he considers that the British electorate are even remotely interested in real political policies.

Apologies if I haven't quite got enough mixed metaphors in there for you!!

Labour has gone completely bonkers.
I live in Rochdale and I have seen new wave of immigrants from the sub continent who are brought in the UK by their relatives each paying up to £15000 to come in using the so called skilled shortage scheme over the recent years.
How could you justify to bring in a Take away worker from 5 thousand miles away with 4 or 5 children and a wife (with no language skills), where as in Rochdale alone there are 4 thousand Asian looking for similar sort of job and are long term unemployed. ?
Similarly, more a less every Asian woman is a sewing machinist and Rochdale was famous for its sweat shops not so long ago and yet there are more people are being brought into the UK and in Rochdale under skilled shortage scheme as machinists.
Sorry Mr. Brown, the Labour party is losing its grass root support and if you do not act now, you will be voted out of the office at the next election.

I think this illustrates quite neatly how easy it is to put a spin on a story and alter public opinion. Furthermore, I think it's maybe a sign that some of your colleagues in the news should take a more careful look at the way they respond to these sorts of stories. If memory serves, when William Hague and Michael Howard proposed similar ideas certain ´óÏó´«Ã½ interviewers were tripping over one another in the rush to imply that they were racists. Policies on law and order, Europe and so on seem to be subject to the same treatment. Yet David Blunkett, possibly the most authoritarian Home Secretary we've had in recent years, always seemed to get a relatively easy ride.

I think Brown' approach to the question of immigration is the correct approach. It would seem correct for the Prime Minister to identify his position from the onset, especially on issues such as immigration, which can be quite divisive.

I suspect that GB has realised that "a lurch to the right" might be what the electorate want.

He really has no shame and seems willing to say anything to carry favour with Middle England. He also knows that the cowardly trade unions and old Labour voters might complain now but will be crossing Labour at the ballot box "just to keep the Tories out".

the media let brown get away with it and are too busy giving cameron a hard time on either side, maybe they are scared that cameron will beat brown at the next ection so they are giving him an easy ride while brown plays politics

Because on these issues Labour is already so far to the right that the proposals actually sound moderate (which they aren't)?

I totally agree with the person who said that journalists, politicians etc should acquire a memory. Mind you if they did then they'd realise we've been debating the same tired issues for the last 100 years.

Nick, talking of how media outlets report announcements from our political leaders, you may find this parody of how ´óÏó´«Ã½ News currently deals with announcements from Gordon Brown:

The Dear Leader unveils new five year plan - tractor production up 20,000%

Brown is lurching everywhere as the Labour spin machine goes into hyper-spin. I just hope Brown ends up spinning into oblivion.

kipperchris,

There is nothing wrong with Britain that cannot be put right by what is right with Britain (or rather centre-left).

Skidder,

We don't need to worry about people earning less than 0.000001p because our Tone (that's right, the same Tone who brought peace to Northern Ireland) introduced a national minimum wage.

Dean,

I'd love to know where you get your figures from mate.

Lurching? What lurch? Immigration has been at the forefront of political debate for ever, with the language issue being mooted a few times over the last decade or so (I believe most recently by Blunkett). For those who think this is a right wing policy - what is the downside of a new resident to any country learning the language, and who gets penalised so long as the requirements aren't too stringent and the classes are freely available? Speaking the language surely opens opportunities, increases safety (ever tried calling 999 in Arabic), and makes immigrants less of a target for prejudice and narrow minded behaviour from our unpleasant racist minority.
The Netherlands (not a notoriously right wing country) already has this policy, and my wife and I took advantage of the free classes when we worked there - the level was simple but enough to make life a lot easier, and we were grateful for them.

The whole lurch, right, left question is just a way for tabloid journalists to create controversy and ignore the real issues and the efforts being made to help (I believe that both sides of the house generally have the country's interests at heart, but are hindered by their own arrogance and party rhetoric). Brown getting more positive press is probably as much a reflection on who the newspapers think will win the next election - no need to cosy up to the opposition! Labour is not reticent about taking advantage of this and who can blame them when the population believes so much of what is written without really thinking of motives.

I saw a lot of comments here related to spin and how awful it is. While people believe what they are told unquestioningly, to assume that politicians won't spin the truth is naive in the extreme. It will only stop when the country opens its eyes and thinks a little more - we get what we deserve most of the time.

Nick Robinson is one of the best and most intellegent commentators to have arrived on the modern politico/ journalist scene.
Of course he is right(forget politics)and Gordon Brown with his long association with spin and voter contempt is what we see and what we get, similarly the prevarications and lack of confidence by our Dave Cameron is what we see and what we get.
With 'have a go' political candidates selected only by sitting
politicians,most of whom couldn't run
a hoop-la stall, it's no wonder Britain for generations has been on the rocks. We have had only three leaders in my 83 years: Winston,Clem
and Maggie.Find a new LEADER and then Britain has a chance.

I wish the tories would occupy the right where they should be.
Believe it or not a lot of people I speak to in this country would actually welcome it.
As it stands there appears to be no moderate right. But people are still looking for a push in that direction. The potential results of this situation are somewhat disconcerting and I believe the conservatives have an obligation to represent this side of opinion within society, to ensure the far right doesnt make gains.

Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly), the media will always try to decode a party leader's statements into what they think members of his party is likely to take from them (i.e. what he "is actually saying").

For historical reasons, and in light of the openly expressed views of those on the extremes of the parties, people will tend to be more jumpy about Tory discussion of immigration and race than Labour discussion of it - in the same way that if a Labour leader talked about gaining a better working understanding with Unions, that would ring a lot more alarm bells than if a Conservative Leader said it.

Unfortunately, we, the readers, then have to try and decode the media decode.

nick robinson is a legend and i love him :)

As an immigrant i think i should be forgiven if my spelling and grammer of English is not better than any one else on this blog.The politicians,journalists and most people in this country are hypocrites. for what it's worth it was this country which started 'global vilagism' which caused mass migration of goods, services and inevitably people. So you started global vilagism to have the best benefit of the world resources but now only when the thirld world started to benefit and live like human beings and improve the quality of life you have enjoyed for decades, you little Englanders begin to put your BNP hats on. There is absolutely no difference between Tories and Labour (please see their policies and their policy speeches). Lib Dems are slightly different but from where i stand they have no chance of winning in this country. That should say a lot about democracy in this country. have a good day englanders.

34. At 01:37 PM on 10 Sep 2007, Ian P wrote:

It all depends where the person saying it starts from and what the perceived history of their party is. [...] Brown is not accused of "lurching to the right" because the most widely held fears about Labour are not that it will end up too far to the right of popular opinion.

43. At 01:58 PM on 10 Sep 2007, Dean wrote:

With 10 MILLION unemployed BRITONS this isn't a lurch to the right, it's a lurch towards correct.

46. At 02:13 PM on 10 Sep 2007, Cllr Darren Reynolds wrote:

... Immigration and migration have obvious benefits, but they do have a genuine and scientifically measurable downside. Modern society suffers from excess mobility. Slowing that mobility down will have benefits to individuals and society as a whole.

Topics like this on the front page tend to generate froth but these comments are worth noting. They seem sound and sensitive enough, and cast more light than heat. Hopefully, this will develop.

Nick,
Brown is saying that at the moment we should be prudent with increase in salaries because it will trigger higher inflation = higher interest rates = higher value for the pound = less exports = redunduncies = repossessions = destruction of families.
I remember those days and the Conservative's policies that destroyed our economy. I also remember the days when old Labour was run by the devilish lefty Unions that gave us high national debts and high unemployment as well. The unions made such a big mess of the U.K. economy when they ran old Labour, that their party could not not even manage to impliment the promise of a minimum wage which they had wanted since the late 60s.
Brown does not want to go either way, and that is why he insists on being prudent. If the unions get their way, I for one (ex Tory) will vote Tory again, but the fact that Cameron is paradoxically in the middle lane does not make for much choice.

For Gordon, the quaint left-right ideology is old hat - and it has been for the past 10 years at least. Active Labour has got this point but the impotent Tories still seem to believe it's important. Prosaic Gordon doesn't appear to love every decision he has to announce and execute publicly; inevitably there's a degree of compromise with a lot of the more controversial stuff. In contrast, in the absence of the ability to action his ideas, Dave has to over-enthuse about them otherwise his punts would appear speculative and opportunistic.

The obvious riposte for David Cameron is to fight a different battle and relate uncontrolled immigration to rising house prices. It is fairly obvious that if more people live in the country and not enough houses are built that prices will rise. Couple this with Gordon Brown's own stamp duty regime that reduces the incentive to move and thus further reduces the supply of property and you have a crisis that Gordon has identified as a govermnment priority which was caused solely by the government's own policies. How does Labour respond to that?

The point is that you can find ways to talk about immigration without being accused of lurching to the right. Gordon Brown is a very clever politician - David Cameron has yet to demonstrate that he is.

don't big city bonuses lead to inflation aswell
gone silent on that one

I think "The Man in the Iron Mask" must have no ear pieces or eye holes in his mask. Wake up mate look around and if you want to quote history look at past Labour Govt's policies (same now as in Wilson & Callaghan's time) High tax, low public spending, self gratifying high spending Ministers (familiar picture?) - result poor return on what has been taken from poor suffering Joe Public. We had nurses marching in the streets, fire & police threatening strike action. Roads, Rail and other sectors were in bad condition feeling deja vu? Think New Labour, think old Communist techniques! It's coming under this lot

Jeff,

I take it your one of those above the £500,000,000,000,000,000 threshold.

The rest of you,

Use your heads and vote against the Tories.

Goodness! Nick, you appear to have poked a hornet's nest or two judging by the reaction.

My two-pence worth...GB is an astute politician and the Tories are howling because he has outmanouvered them, again.

The Old Left are howling because he and TB have consigned them to the wilderness and they are unlikely to return.

The old Middle Ground (the Lib-Dems) are howling because that is all they ever do.

I won't vote for GB. I couldn't stomach his populism and preparedness to go where the polls tell him.

I cannot vote for Cameron as I couldn't stomach his populism and preparedness to go where the polls tell him. Furthermore, the Tory stance on Europe is just crazy. "Britain needs Europe needs Britain" is so obvious a truism it just beggars belief that there are people who refuse to recognise it.

I will not vote for the Lib-Dems because they would like to go where the polls tell them to go but can't because everyone would laugh at them even more than they do. Instead of openly admitting their previous "policies" were completely impractical, they have tried to pander to populism without appearing to do so.

There is no "lurch to the Right". GB is whereever the polls tell him to go. It is the Press that manipulate that and then manipulate the "reaction".

The ´óÏó´«Ã½, Murdoch etc. Where is the genuine impartiality?

With regard to the use of English by immigrants, who is going to test them? The English who don't know how to speak their own mother-tongue? I have dealings with very many people every day and will freely admit that at times I have difficulty understanding what they are saying, even though they have theoretically been learning the language since birth and throughout their education.

And as for "British jobs for British workers"? How about "British jobs for those willing to WORK"?

No, you're wrong. Few things better illustrate the way in which the left decides what topics may or may not be debated. If the left doesn't like it, it plays the race card and screams 'BNP' and 'lurching to the right'.

Only Labour and its media hangers-on are allowed to decide what we the public may hear and debate. They decide the limits of our democracy and ensure that it fits their own blinkered agenda.

Nick,

Yet again, you are trying to present a piece that shows the Conservatives in a sticky position. What about the news that GB is facing a possible Autumn of Discontent? Oh sorry - does this not fit with the theme that Gordon is in fact wonderful?

I am equally sure that all those DWP workers who are facing a pay cut over the next three years, while simultaneously helping around 600,000 or more back into work, feel that your priorities are spot on (not).

Is there a topic that you can blog on that involves a hard time for Broon the bufoon?

Why is it acceptable for Gordon brown to give himself and senior civil servants pay rises of between 4 and 10% but yet the ordinary civil servant cant get 3% with no bonuses?
Please can someone explain?

Brown is very good at making pronouncements, but where is the delivery? Blair was very good at making big statements, the reality is we have had far too much uncritical reporting of anything Labour says and very little reporting on the results, which have been pretty appaling.
For goodness sake spare us the boredom of more spin.
That 20% tax rate, yep, now there is an example. Amazing that anyone can still believe that this is going to be an improvement, sounded great though, didn't it? Wait til April 2008 and see what it does for you!

'the strategic confidence of Gordon Brown' Surely not?

Remember his air of childish petulance whenever Blair was lauded - his disappearing act whenever Blair needed his support?

He has always been pretty transparent and I think the public have got his number.

It is fascinating watching Brown operating without Blair. He looks pretty lost to me - emotionally and strategically. Bit like Wise without Morecambe.

You make the point that the Tories (Conservatives) are nervous about occupying certain territory because of how it will be 'written up'. (Yet Labour can occupy that territory without a big problem from the media).
I too am nervous about even saying what I think about 'certain territory'(and I'm not even a Tory) in case I'm 'written up' as a racist, little englander, bigot etc....whereas, like many people who try to communicate common sense.. I would have to whimper 'I'm not'.
It's a bit scary and not unlike some 17th century witch frenzy.

Gordon Brown has most certainly not only lurched ,he has positively jumped to the right.How he can say "British jobs fro British People"and not be in the right whilst in Berlin last week there was a neo nazi match and they chanted "German jobs for German people".
Strange old world isn't it.

Talking about immigration is mandatory. He could not possibly talk about creating a single job without taking immigration into consideration. Immigration affects every single area of life in Britain. I think all political parties should consider the issue of immigration and should be able to do so without being accused of lurching to the right. I think the habit of attaching labels to people or political parties merely because they want to talk about the real issues is nonsensical. We should be able to talk about whichever issue we want to talk about and state our positions on every issue that affects our lives.

I think the habit of attaching labels to people or political parties merely because they want to talk about the real issues is nonsensical. We should be able to talk about whichever issue we want to talk about and state our positions on every issue that affects our lives.

Language is imprecise and people get carried away. It's worse on the internet. That's why a strong leader, like Gordon Brown, or moderation like in Nick Robinsons blog, is useful. Without sound critical thinking or emotional maturity, you end up like a classroom with the teacher absent. Chaff from scientifically unsound opinion or partisan hysteria doesn't help. It's an individual and collective thing, and why I try to aim for something more calm and affable.

Goals and outcomes are easy. Any fool can set or measure them. The hard part is "doing" and that's why "how" is so important. Bad habits accumulate, mostly, without us being aware, and can end up setting into a hard pattern where you can't see the wood for the trees. There's plenty of books out there on personal development. Zen Buddhism is one method but others are equally useful. It's not easy but keeping a focus on listening and relaxing helps. It gets easier.

"Invest in loss", "develop the centre", and "simplify" are mantras of mine. They don't mean much without explanation. A clearer way might be to say don't be too rigid, throw out the clutter, and be reasonable. Knowledge and skill are commodities. Attitude, or the experience that comes with time, tends to generate a little wisdom. I tend to think that allowing reality to develop that leads to better outcomes in the long haul. Tolerance and patience are key qualities.

Labour want to occupy the centre ground? They are already further right than the Tories, to get to the center they'd have to introduce policies that actually help the low paid rather than just tax them.

It's the more extreme Tories from the past and present who have themselves to blame for this conundrum.

Gordon Brown and others talk about encouraging "Britishness" but how can they expect any form of loyalty from immigrants these days when the government tries so hard to make them fell unwelcome.

I am a English but my wife is from outside the EU and I am fed with the way we seem to be constantly being penalised for this, I almost feel like I have done something wrong.

> So, when you do put them in power again - and you
> will because you never learn from history - don't
> complain about it because I warned you.

Is that Labour or the Tories?

I'v just been watching the turncoat Quetin Davis cow-towing to the labour party,trying to secure his future with them,well they're welcome to him,I noticed in the background the smug Harriet Harmon,she could hardly contain herself,when he mentioned the amount of money David Cammeron has spent on spin doctor's! Where was she when Tony Blair was spending astronomical sums on the same thing? And has the smarmy Peter Mandleson fell out of love with Tony or is he buttering up Gordon to keep his job? Lastly if Brown really want's to prove he is "Truly British"let him bring Old Peoples Care Homes,Tuition Fees, Prescription Charges etc.,in line with his "Beloved Scotland" where he will no doubt spend his very comfatable retirement when he's had enough of us English.Stop pretending Gordon,We all know this"Britishness" Claim of your's is an Election Ploy and I for one find it sickening.