´óÏó´«Ã½

Birmingham: "Time for a change" and "Don't risk it" are the two most powerful messages in politics. What makes the last week of this election so interesting is that both are embodied in the figure of Gordon Brown.

After 13 years, after the 10p tax fiasco, after the boom and the bust, after calling Mrs Duffy a "bigoted woman", he symbolises for many voters why it is time for a change. David Cameron clearly calculated last night that he could simply ignore the questions and the arguments posed by the prime minister, dismissing them as desperate stuff from a desperate man.

On the other hand, after weathering the economic storm, after helping to save the banks, after investing in schemes to keep unemployment and mortgage possessions lower than most people dared to hope for and after investing billions in schools, hospitals and tax credits, he also embodies Labour's warning against the risk of change.

Imagine if, say, David Miliband or Alan Johnson were now prime minister. While newness could significantly reduce the appeal of the "Time for change" message, neither would have the record or the reputation to allow them to say, with conviction, "Don't risk a change".

The battle is now on for the voters who switched to the Liberal Democrats after the first debate. The other two parties believe that Nick Clegg's appeal has been based on representing change and fairness. Therefore Labour's message is now that only a vote for it is a guarantee of fairness, given the risk of a Tory victory. Meanwhile, David Cameron's pitch is that only a Tory vote is a guarantee of change.

The question for next week is: can Nick Clegg persuade voters that Labour is finished and that the choice therefore is between a return to Tory rule and the new politics he claims to represent - or will he suffer a classic last-minute squeeze?

What a week it will be.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Birmingham: Sharper, clearer, more passionate than before.

This felt like the debate the country had been waiting for - when the choices facing voters came to life.

The prime minister pleaded with the country not to entrust government with his rivals, warning about the effect of Tory plans to cut spending now and about what he called the immorality of their proposals to cut inheritance tax while limiting tax credits.

David Cameron simply refused to engage with Mr Brown, scarcely glancing in his direction and dismissing his attacks as desperate stuff from a desperate man. He attacked Labour's record but turned his real fire on Nick Clegg - on his party's policies on immigration, the euro and welfare reform.

It was, perhaps, the greatest of all compliments to the Liberal Democrat leader, who once again tried to tap into public frustration with the performance of both big parties.

The polls called this debate for Mr Cameron. He has a week to do the one thing that has eluded him these past four years - in his own phrase, to "seal the deal".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Birmingham: Brows furrowed, hands clasped tight, eyes betraying anxiety. That was Team Brown on the morning after the disaster before.

The workers who met Mr Brown in a factory in Halesowen looked somewhat embarrassed to have walk-on parts in this painful spectacle. "Your firm's doing well in China," the prime minister told one who was lined up to meet him.

Her reply? "Our company's doing very well everywhere, but I think it's in spite of you."

His wife Sarah, now constantly at his side - if only she had been in Rochdale - tugged at her husband's sleeve to move him away and allow the smoother Peter Mandelson to deal with the awkward encounter.

The message this morning was clear: "Yesterday was yesterday; today is about the economy." Oh, and, Gordon Brown was quick to add, about immigration too. And "I understand the concerns people have."

Tonight was scheduled to be the moment Gordon Brown invited the public not to like him, but to listen to his warning about Tory economic plans. His worry must be: how many will be listening to him, and how many will treat him as he did Mrs Duffy and barely listen to a word he says?

PS: that puts tonight's debate in context. The American economist David Hale says that the governor of the Bank of England has told him that the next British government will need to launch an austerity drive so tough that it will threaten its political survival, potentially leaving that party out of power for a generation.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

An unexpected visitor arrives at the front door. He is an anonymous man in a grey suit carrying a clipboard. His presence is enough to turn a happy family scene into one of anxiety and anger. Dad tells the family: "He's just told us he's cutting our tax credit." Mum complains: "It's not fair."

That is the start of Labour's latest election broadcast which warns of the cuts the Tories are planning for families.

It is evidence, ahead of tonight's third and final prime-ministerial debate, that despite whichever party is elected, Gordon Brown still believes that fear of Tory cuts is still a major vote-winner.

He does so with good reason.

Ever since John Major's surprise election triumph over Neil Kinnock in 1992 - a defeat burned into Gordon Brown's psyche - election campaigns have been dominated by parties costing each others' tax and spending plans.

Ever since, politicians on all sides have tried to ape the success of the Tory poster which warned of Labour's tax bombshell.

Ever since, they have feared spelling out the cost of their plans as Labour's then shadow chancellor John Smith did with disastrous consequences in his shadow Budget in 1992.

That is why the prime minister refused again and again to use the "C-word" - cuts - until forced to do so by media pressure and cabinet insistence.

That is why David Cameron insisted for month after month that he would match Labour's spending plans, not change them. When he changed that position and spoke instead of an "age of austerity" and spelt out cuts in pensions, pay and tax credits his poll ratings fell and he abandoned his rhetoric.

That is why Nick Clegg dumped his warnings of "savage cuts".

It would, however, be a mistake to say, after the IFS's report, that all parties are the same and that there's nothing to choose between their pre-election offers. Here's my attempt to summarise the differences, in advance of this evening's prime-ministerial debate on the economy:

The scale of cuts

Gordon Brown believes that lower-than-feared unemployment and higher-than-expected tax revenues mean that the IFS is unduly pessimistic about the public finances. He argues that low interest rates and inflation make faster economic growth than many economic forecasters expect is possible.

Both the Tories and the Lib Dems believe that he is understating the scale of the task.

The timing

The Tories insist that "making a start" to reducing our borrowing by cutting £6bn from public spending this year is vital.

Labour and the Lib Dems will warn that this risks recovery and that if any efficiency savings can be made this year, they should be reinvested into more worthwhile government spending.

The balance between higher taxes and lower spending

The Tories say that international evidence shows that spending cuts should take more of the burden of cutting the deficit than Labour plans.

The Lib Dems agree with the Tories that bigger spending cuts are needed. Their plans are complicated by proposals for a huge tax cut - costing £17bn - paid for, they claim, by closing tax loopholes, limiting tax avoidance, increasing taxes on expensive houses, pension contributions and flying.

Who's been most honest

Gordon Brown says he deserves credit for unveiling unpopular tax rises before an election and that the Treasury has set out a plan to cut spending but that it was unwise to carry out a spending round during a period of uncertainty - you can't, he says, do a weather forecast during a hurricane.

The IFS is unconvinced, pointing out that there will be uncertainty on the other side of the election as well as before it. The Tories and the Lib Dems point out that there is a big difference between setting goals for spending cuts and taking the tough decisions needed, let alone spelling them out before an election.

The Tories have the biggest gap between the spending cuts they need to make and the detail they've given. This is because, as well as promising to cut the deficit faster, they are offering to limit tax rises and to protect spending on the NHS and international aid - what I have called a three-card trick.

The IFS says the Lib Dems have been least bad. They have, though, also faced the least scrutiny over the impact of their tax plans.

What should be cut? Which tax should be raised?

This is the debate with which we are most familiar and which most voters find easiest to follow without the help of the IFS, Stephanie Flanders and a computer spreadsheet.

Gordon Brown wants voters to focus on what he says are the Tories' priorities - cutting inheritance tax instead of protecting child tax credits and stopping the rise in National Insurance instead of protecting school spending.

David Cameron wants them to think about whether they prefer a tax cut to continued wasteful government spending.

Nick Clegg will insist that he can cut ordinary people's taxes and cut the deficit and increase school spending.

So, there are important choices facing the family portrayed in that election broadcast. However, that metaphorical man with the clipboard will be coming round asking them to pay more tax, get lower pay and pensions if they work in the public sector and cutting spending on things they value, whoever they vote for.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Never has Gordon Brown spoken truer words. He was describing his encounter with the soon-to-be-very famous Mrs Gillian Duffy of Rochdale.

It was, though, not the public encounter itself but the prime minister's private comments about it which were so disastrous.

On camera he handled himself and Ms Duffy's questions well leaving her so pleased that she was happy to tell reporters she'd be voting Labour.

Off camera but still on microphone the prime minister showed another face entirely - dubbing Mrs Duffy a bigoted woman and criticising his aide Sue Nye for fixing for them to meet.

was scarcely better. Perhaps unaware that he was being filmed, as well as heard, Gordon Brown could be seen with his head in his hands.

There are at least three reasons that this will have caused Gordon Brown and his advisers such dismay.

It highlights a huge gap between the prime minister's public and his private demeanours.

It catapults the issue of immigration to the top of the political agenda. Mrs Duffy had expressed concerns to him about the high level of East European immigration and her feeling that her home town was becoming like "a third world country".

Finally, the leader of the Labour Party has insulted one of the very type of voter it's so vital for his party to hang on to - older, white and traditionally Labour.

Of course, many may have some sympathy with the prime minister who had no idea that his private remarks would be heard let alone broadcast.

Some will say that words said in the heat of the moment in private at a time when he is tired and under great strain matter little.

Others will insist that it is Gordon Brown's judgements and actions and not his words and attitudes that matter.

My hunch is that is very very unlikely to comfort him as he fights for his political life.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

RCN Conference, Bournemouth: It's the unplanned moments in elections that can bring them alive. A punch, a heckle, or a slow handclap. "You guys are looking for someone to throw an egg," the PM said to reporters who asked him whether he really intended to meet and greet more real people in this campaign.

Mr Brown will be hoping that today's spontaneous standing ovation at a nurses' conference could help him in the way that an egg may have harmed him. It was unplanned, it did seem sincere and it followed a passionate speech in which the prime minister thanked the nurses and praised them as "angels in uniform" and "the country's heroes".

It helped, too, that he promised to protect their pensions, to avoid a pay freeze and to increase NHS spending - something that is not entirely spelled out in Labour's manifesto.

Labour was written off before this campaign began, and being consigned to third in the opinion polls behind the Liberal Democrats has made that problem worse. There is, though, at the start of this week, an opportunity for the party as well as a huge problem.

As David Cameron and Nick Clegg get tied up in questions about hung Parliaments, electoral reform and post-election deals, Gordon Brown can talk about what matters to people beyond the Westminster bubble. The PM insisted, not entirely convincingly, that he is "not worried at all" by "rumours, speculation, innuendo and gossip" about the consequences of a Labour's current poll rating.

The PM believes that if people focus on the choice as he sees it - a £6bn Tory cut in public spending this year versus maintaining spending to keep the economy growing and protect public services - he can still win.

One problem he will have to overcome is questions about his own spending plans. The Royal College of Nursing is warning that the government's planned efficiency savings could cut more than 30,000 health-service posts in the next three years and its president says it is "disingenuous" to deny it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Up until today, Nick Clegg has been very very careful to stick to a carefully drawn-up formula about how the Liberal Democrats would react to a hung Parliament - the party with the biggest mandate (a word carefully left undefined) should get the chance to govern; the Lib Dems were not interested in getting "bums on to the seats" of ministerial cars and would, instead, focus on delivering their four election priorities - a fairer taxes, extra help for disadvantaged children at school, a green economy and a fairer political system.

marked the first shift from that. Clegg said that if Labour had the most seats in the Commons but the least votes (a possibility, according to recent polls) they could not govern:

"I think a party which has come third and so millions of people have decided to abandon them, has lost the election spectacularly, cannot then lay claim to providing the prime minister of this country".

In that case, unless there is a spectacular Lib Dem breakthrough, the assumption must be that Clegg would support - if not necessarily join - the Tories in forming a government. Nick Clegg's predecessor and adviser : "A coalition (with the Tories) is not an option for us. The parties are too far apart."

Coalition with one or other big party is clearly on the Lib-Dem leader's mind, though, as this exchange shows:

Marr: Could you sit round a cabinet table with David Cameron?
Clegg: I could sit around a cabinet table with anyone who agrees with me that what we need to do is hard wire fairness into the British... into the tax system.
Marr: Including Gordon Brown?
Clegg: Anyone...

As I write this, I am aware that this is precisely the sort of "poll-based, what if" speculation that angers Gordon Brown. I'm told that Labour has asked the two other big parties to sign a joint letter to broadcasters criticising them for covering the debates and the polls too much and claiming that the news bulletins had "failed to deliver the usual specialist examination of specific policy areas". The Lib Dems and the Tories have refused to sign. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has yet to receive the letter.

Update 1520: Labour now confirms that it talked to the other parties about sending a letter to broadcasters.

A party spokesperson says:

"We believe that an unintended consequence of the attention (the debates) get has been a lack of policy scrutiny and discussion that was normal in previous election coverage.
"We think the public are being short-changed by the focus on process not policy. Yesterday both of the other main parties said this idea had merit today they don't - that's tells you all you need to know about their enthusiasm for a policy discussion. They are the anything but policy parties."

This is the full draft of the suggested letter:

"To: ´óÏó´«Ã½, ITV, Channel Four,
Ìý
"If there is one thing which all parties can agree on it's that the televised leaders' debates have been a welcome development which has given a real sense of energy and excitement to the election campaign.
Ìý
"However, as we reach the final stages of the campaign we also share a common belief that the focus on the debates, both the process surrounding them, and the polling before and after which they have attracted, has dramatically reduced the amount of airtime dedicated to the scrutiny of the policies of the parties. This is particularly so in the case of the main bulletins which remain the main source of news for many people.
Ìý
"We feel that whilst our manifestos were fully, fairly and properly covered, since then the usual specialist examination of specific policy areas has not been done.
Ìý
"We are writing to broadcasting organisations with a public service remit to ask you all to ensure that during the last ten days of the campaign your programmes analyse our policy proposals to the same level of detail as at previous election campaigns.
Ìý
"If the public are not exposed to the different policy details and arguments which we are presenting we are concerned that you will not be fulfilling your traditional duty of explaining and probing the plans of all the main parties. If the public don't hear the arguments we believe that, despite the impact of the debates, many will still be in the dark as to the differences between our plans and values.
Ìý
"We are copying this letter to Sky News."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

How do you save £1,000 million - that's a billion pounds - from a budget of £74 million? That's the question raised by one of Gordon Brown's answers at his news conference this morning. The short answer is - you can't.

I will come to the puzzling prime ministerial arithmetic in a moment but first a bit of background.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I tend to bang on a bit about whether politicians of all parties are telling you the truth about future cuts in public spending made necessary by Britain's huge budget deficit.

That is the real issue that underlines the row which broke out between David Cameron and Gordon Brown in last night's TV debate about whether Labour's leaflets are lying about the Tories plans and whether the Tories are being about the cuts they plan.

At his news conference this morning the prime minister said that he had had to flush out Tory promises to maintain benefits for pensioners and that "It is right to ask questions and to get answers".

Taking this as an invitation I asked him to tell the electorate "the scale of the spending cuts that you will introduce if you are re-elected and to give the public some indication of what they will mean for ordinary families?"

Gordon Brown responded by listing the figures set out in the Budget for, amongst other things, efficiency savings, and then to illustrate his point he claimed that plans to pay child benefit over the internet "will save £1bn in the administration of child benefit" (see full transcript below).

Thanks to the that the annual administrative cost of child benefit is, in fact, just £74m.

The Labour Party admits that the prime minister was mistaken. Apparently, he had in mind estimates of possible future savings from the wider use of the internet to pay benefits. This is a statement the party has just issued:

"PWC estimate that £600m p.a. will be saved by 2012 directly smarter government initiatives, additionally £900m p.a. is estimated to be saved if only formerly digitally excluded people make use of digital Govt services once a month. Gordon Brown was right to point out the large scale savings being planned already by this Government through the Smarter Government initiatives."

This year's Budget says: "HMRC is aiming to pilot a service for tax credit renewals for 2011 and intends to introduce a full online service for child benefit claimants as part of its online tax credit service". Tonight HMRC told me "We have not announced any plans to streamline Child Benefit, nor have we published any estimates of what any streamlining could save".

Gordon Brown simply misspoke, you may think. Perhaps. He did it, however, when asked to be open with people about spending cuts to come.

It's a question leaders of all parties have been remarkably reluctant to address, preferring instead to talk vaguely and sometimes inaccurately about efficiency savings, waste and tax avoidance.

Transcript of exchange with Gordon Brown:

Robinson: "Nick Robinson ´óÏó´«Ã½ News. Prime minister you said and I quote, 'It is right to ask questions and to get answers.' So let's have a go. Would you like to tell the electorate, the scale of the spending cuts that you will introduce if you are re-elected and to give the public some indication of what they will mean for ordinary families?"
Ìý
Brown: "Yes, I have said that. £11bn of efficiency savings by 12..."
Ìý
Robinson: "How many families?"
Ìý
Brown: "Hold on, you asked me a question Nick. I'm I'm going to to answer it. £11bn of efficiency savings by 2013. £4bn is being taken out of pensions and public sector pay. £5bn is being taken out of lower priority departments. Now, extra taxes include the national insurance rise and of course, the top rate tax rise.
Ìý
"We have been clear with people about what is going to happen. The choice will come down to this Nick - if you want your national insurance half a percent cut from the Conservatives in 2011/12 which is worth about £2, £2 or so to an ordinary family, you are not getting in return protection for the police and for the schools of our country and you're not getting the health service guarantees because the health service guarantees for cancer parents and for doctors they're all going to be removed.
Ìý
"So the issue between the two parties comes down to this - you can have your national insurance cut of half a percent, but you will lose the protection that we will give for policing, and for health and the protections that we are going to give for schools.
Ìý
"Now I know the Tories say they want to match us on health service spending, but why are they removing the guarantees for cancer treatment and for operations and the guarantees that they'll give for GPs?
Ìý
"So that's what it comes down to. I've spelt out the figures. I believe families are better off with the proposals that we put forward that mean the police on the streets are still there which means that schools are still getting the investment they need for the future and it means that the guarantees that are there for people for cancer care and for operations and for getting your GP at the weekend and in the evenings as well as during office hours, that these are still there and we're introducing the urgent needs care for people who are in their own homes so that they don't need to have to go into old people's homes. Now these are the things that we can do. I accept..."
Ìý
Robinson: "What are are your planned cuts? What will your planned cuts mean, not for efficiency savings, but for ordinary people? Well, let..."
Ìý
Robinson: "Can you confirm that the government plans spending cuts bigger than Margaret Thatcher. So would you like to tell people what those cuts are and how they will affect them? Not efficiency savings, not back office, what cut priorities has a Labour government got if they are re-elected to make cuts bigger than Margaret Thatcher?"
Ìý
Brown: "I've already said that pensions and public sector pay, we take £4bns out of that. So you can be clear that pay will not rise as it did in the past and we are taking money out of the public sector pensions scheme and that saves us £4bn.
Ìý
"Let me give you an example of how it will change for people. Child benefit, child benefit will now be paid in the next few years. It will be paid over the internet. People will register for child benefit. They will not get it paid by post. They will not get it paid through a call centre.
Ìý
"That itself will save £1bn in the administration of child benefit. We will move that into other services so if you are claiming job support, Jobseeker allowance or other services, you're going to have to do it through the internet.
Ìý
"So we will be cutting the back office services that are necessary to produce the child benefit payments and we will be cutting the costs of transactions of government. Some transactions cost about £20 simply to send a letter. Some transactions at call centres cost about £1 just to have the telephone call.
Ìý
"If you do it by the internet and you train people up to use the internet so that everybody is making that payment, you are cutting directly the costs of paying these services. Now yes, there will be other cuts because of the regeneration programmes that we're changing. We're making the regional development agencies more efficient in what they do but I've given you some examples of how we will change the way services are delivered and that is one of the ways that we will save money.
Ìý
"I repeat £11bn from efficiency savings, £4bn from public sector pay and pensions and £5bn from lower priority departments but the difference you know, between us and the Conservatives is very clear, that they are going to put policing at risk and they're going to put schools at risk and they're going to put the guarantees we are giving to the Health Service at risk and I think people will see that by the time the election happens."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

We moved from "I agree with Nick" to "I disagree with Nick" as over Trident, immigration and MPs' expenses.

The prime minister was more confident and, above all, more aggressive than last week - he warned that David Cameron was a risk to the economy and Nick Clegg a risk to security. There was more of the passion which his party craved.

Gone were David Cameron's obvious nerves. But if his supporters had been hoping that he would be more aggressive, they were to be disappointed - save for his anger at what he called "scare stories" peddled by Gordon Brown. He was determined, it seemed, to look and sound ready for office, speaking again and again about what he would do "if I were your prime minister".

Nick Clegg could not, of course, repeat the novelty of his first appearance. He appeared to want to add policy detail to the anger he expressed last week.

A week ago, the polls declared that there was one clear winner. So too did most neutral observers. This week, they seem to confirm that we are genuinely now in a three-horse race.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Bristol: Today, Peter Mandelson said that the were "straight out of the Tory Party dirty-tricks manual". He even suggested that the Conservative director of communications Andy Coulson had had a hand in them.

But isn't this simply a smear designed to lay blame for the smears against Nick Clegg firmly at the door of the Tories?

Lord Mandelson has not provided any evidence that Andy Coulson was involved; indeed, there are plenty of reasons to think he may well have not have been.

The Telegraph story originates from the newspaper's files of bank accounts acquired during the expenses investigation. The Mail story is sourced from a Guardian article which anyone could have found with a simple Google search. The Sun may well have had the odd chat with Mr Coulson: I'm sure they do; after all, the editor is a good friend of his.

Now there's no doubt that many Tories are in a panic about Nick Clegg's advance - nor that the Tory press are out to get him - but as yet there is no evidence that the Tory leadership were behind this morning's stories and until there is we must conclude that Lord Mandelson is trying to make a story about the Liberal Democrats into one that is damaging for David Cameron.

Update 1939: I now learn that political reporters from the Tory-backing papers were called in one by one to discuss how Team Cameron would deal with "Cleggmania" and to be offered Tory HQ's favourite titbits about the Lib Dems - much of which appears in today's papers.

The key personal allegation about payments from donors into Nick Clegg's personal
bank account came, however, from the Telegraph's expenses files. Incidentally, the party has now published details of Nick Clegg's bank statements and party accounts showing that Mr Clegg received payments totalling £19,690 from three businessmen (Neil Sherlock, Michael Young, Ian Wright) and then paid staff costs of £20,437.30 out of the same account. According to these figures, Mr Clegg actually paid £747.30 out of his own money towards staff costs.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Bristol: Welcome to the big time. The coffee must have tasted a little bitter, the croissants a little stale as Nick Clegg had breakfast and mulled over the morning's headlines.

he made eight years ago in which he suggested that Britain was a country obsessed by the war with delusions of grandeur. They even added the words "Nazi slur" to their headline.

evidence that money went into his private bank account from donors, cash that he says was properly registered with the Commons authorities and the electoral commission and went to pay for a member of staff. A pretty rum arrangement all the same.

And he's wobbly on the war and that even if he can be relied upon, his party conference, which has real power, could certainly not.

Is this going to make some people reconsider their support for Nick Clegg - a man who is, after all, simply another politician who has claimed his fair share of expenses to the full?

Will it make them realise that he is a politician with a European outlook, passionate about British liberalism but also deeply critical of some of what he regards as an outdated attachment to the past?

Or will it instead make some realise that the Establishment is in something of a panic at the idea that he might deny the big two parties of their moment of victory and want to stop him in his tracks?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A statement of fact? Scaremongering of the worst kind? Desperate stuff?

You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.

Those were the responses of Messrs Osborne, Cable and Darling to Ken Clarke's warning this morning that a hung Parliament could lead to the IMF having to sort out the nation's finances. This was after the former chancellor had described the last Lib/Lab pact in the late 70s as "a farce" and "a fiacso".

It produced the most memorable exchange in ´óÏó´«Ã½2's highly watchable and revealing debate between the would-be chancellors.

The other highlights were:

• Vince Cable being put on the back foot about claims that he'd "double-counted" some of his planned savings; about allegedly implausible claims about how much could be saved from cutting tax avoidance and why he had attacked the Tories for planning to hike VAT when he wouldn't rule it out himself.

• George Osborne wriggling when asked to explain what his plan to reduce the bulk of the structural deficit meant and why he'd stopped warning about an age of austerity and the shadow chancellor taking the gloves off to attack the chancellor as a failure (a rehearsal of David Cameron's next game plan perhaps).

• Alistair Darling (and Vince Cable) struggling to explain how planned Tory cuts of £6bn could possibly effect the course of an economy which was worth over £1.5 trillion.

• the chancellor looked the most comfortable throughout the debate - his friends will say that was a reflection of his competence, his enemies that the focus of this election has moved into a Con/Lib Dem spat.

What was most memorable, though, was the fact that the whole course of this debate was set by the rise of the Lib Dems.

So, on a day when unemployment rose to the highest level seen since 1994 and at a time when all parties agree we are facing the worst budgetary crisis and the biggest spending cuts in decades, these three argued about the only fact that has electrified this election - opinion polls which suggest the likelihood of a hung Parliament - and which, whisper who dares, might turn out to be wrong.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"The ultimate fulfilment of the New Labour mission."

That is how one senior Labour figure described to me the prospect of a Lib/Lab deal in the event of a hung Parliament.

It's the clearest sign that Gordon Brown and his team are preparing to woo Nick Clegg, having either ignored or belittled him in the recent past.

There is one big problem with this plan though: it is Gordon Brown himself and the history of his dealings with the Lib Dems.

Paddy Ashdown has always blamed Brown for scuppering the deal he spent many hours discussing with Tony Blair. It was one reason Ashdown turned down Brown's invitation to join his government in 2007.

Similarly, Nick Clegg has sour memories of his conversations with the prime minister on expenses reform and much besides.

Both men regard Mr Brown as a Labour tribalist who thinks the Lib Dems should simply pack up shop and join what he regards as the anti-Tory forces.

Interestingly, friends of Gordon now dispute this version of history, insisting that their man was never opposed to electoral reform - nor indeed to a referendum on it.

They blame the Lib Dems for overreaching themselves in the late 1990s by insisting that they would only accept one system of proportional representation - what's known as AV-plus and not AV. which the Labour party is now holding out on offer.

But the Lib Dems do not want to be seen as completing anyone else's mission; given their poll ratings, they now believe that they can achieve their own.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The spirit of Dunkirk has gripped the nation. The country has found , according to one poll. How long can it be, then, before we see a national government led by ?

What makes this election so unpredictable is that I can write that paragraph without it seeming like an absurd fantasy. In public, senior Labour and Conservative figures described Cleggmania either , in the case of Peter Mandelson, or as "the biggest load of media-driven nonsense since the funeral of Diana" - that was Boris Johnson speaking.

Privately, people on all sides admit that they simply do not know what to think.

. Populus asked people whether it was time for a change from Labour. 75% said "yes". Was it time, the poll went on, for a change to the Conservatives? Only 34% said "yes". Soon, it will be "make your mind up" time for that 41%.

The two big parties will struggle to tap into the mood for change, deploying the argument for political renewal and banker-bashing in Labour's case and spelling out what "the Big Society" means in the Tories'. Both will, however, deploy, above all, fear. "Imagine how you'll feel if you wake up on 7 May and find [either Gordon Brown or David Cameron] outside No 10 - and just think of the chaos an uncertain result could unleash."

Nick Clegg will try, Obama-like, to ride the wave of discontent with the other two all the way to polling day. My hunch is that the public is increasingly treating opinion-poll questions like voting in the X Factor - a sort of instant verdict on who you want to keep in the contest to make it more fun.

The country will, just as in the X Factor, only make up its mind who it wants to win at the last minute. Let me stress that I am not - repeat, not - comparing Nick and Vince with the Jedward twins.

If the Lib Dems are not to be squeezed by that most powerful of emotions, fear, they will have to make the positive case for what they used to call of British politics.

They will have to convince people that it is worth risking waking up with a prime minister you may not want, the uncertainties of and the tedium of a debate about for the sake of creating a new politics where the idea of Prime Minister Clegg in a national government seems no more bizarre than the idea of a fleet of small ships crossing the channel to rescue stranded Britons.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The first ever prime-ministerial debate will be remembered not - as so many predicted - for a gaffe or a scripted put-down or a bead of a sweat. It will be remembered as a serious debate about serious issues and, I suspect, the first of many election debates to come.

Politically it is the emergence of Nick Clegg as a serious player in this election which will prove to be most significant. The Liberal Democrat leader was given a great opportunity to introduce himself to the millions of voters who scarcely knew him and he took it with gusto.

The question is whether instant polls suggesting that he "won" the debate can be converted into increased support for his party. If so, what matters is where will that support come from.

With a hung parliament a very real possibility, and with many voters saying that they like the idea of parties working together, the Lib Dems are certain to find themselves wooed, attacked and scrutinised with renewed vigour.

The dynamic between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, their personalities and their policies did not fundamentally change as a result of this debate, but there is now a third unpredictable factor at play with three weeks to go and two more debates.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Manchester: I have just been on the set of tonight's prime ministerial debate.

What strikes you instantly is how close the three men will be standing to each other. David Cameron and Gordon Brown are literally within touching distance - which mean that if one of them wants to turn to address the other, they'll have to be happy invading some personal space.

I suspect that for much of this debate the leaders will prefer to stare down the lens and speak directly to those watching in their sitting rooms. But as and when they do decide to confront each other, they might find themselves standing uncomfortably close.

In addition, David Cameron - who got what some regarded as the "best spot" in the centre of the three lecterns - will find himself having to move his head from side to side as if watching a ping-pong match if Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown gang up on him.

This has left some advisers feeling decidedly queasy.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Spare a thought for messers Brown and Cameron and Clegg this morning. They've been told again and again that their performance under the hot studio lights in Britain's first ever prime ministerial debate could change not just their fortunes, but the course of history.

The rehearsals with stand in candidates are at an end. The role of American advisors flown in specially has finished too. Soon, they will be on their own. The hype is inevitable, given that it's taken half a century since America's first presidential debate, to stage an equivalent here.

There is more though than the Atlantic that separates our two political systems. Presidential candidates are often barely known to American voters, British prime ministerial contenders are very familiar to us though. With one exception of course - Nick Clegg receives a huge boost tonight by being given equal billing with Gordon Brown and David Cameron. How they treat him and he treats them, may be as significant as the predictable focus on the soap opera of who has the winning put down or the losing grimace, when the three men who want to prime minister take to the stage tonight at the home of Coronation Street.

Just like a gripping episode of Corrie, the nation's verdict will come not from the pundits and the commentators, but in the days to come, in canteens, coffee shops and pubs, the length and breadth of the land.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Frank, detailed, honest, straight forward, specific, concrete, tangible. Those were all words the Liberal Democrats used this morning to talk about themselves.

Corrupt, dishonest, waffling, treating people like fools. That was them talking about their opponents.

Today Nick Clegg presented himself as the honest man of British politics.

While the man who's never far from his side, Vince Cable, described himself, somewhat oddly, as the elephant man. This was not because he's like the freak show exhibit of Victorian times. But because he's ready, he said, to talk about the elephant in the room - in other words the budget deficit.

Thus the Liberal Democrat budget proposals are bound to come in for particular scrutiny. They are proposing a massive tax cut, almost £17bn, amounting to £700 a head for ordinary workers, at a time of a massive budget crisis.

The money, they say, can be raised by higher taxes on pension contributions, air travel, expensive houses, closing tax loopholes and saving over four and a half billion in tax avoidance. Not a penny of that, mind, would go to cut the deficit or to avoid tax rises like the one planned for national insurance or to protect public spending . All of it would go to give people a tax cut.

Now the party can point to other proposals to cut spending which will help cut the deficit and boost schools spending.

But you don't need to reach for a calculator or even call our friends at the Institute of Fiscal Studies to ask this question - if you were in government and could really find £17bn, would you actually be prepared to give it all away?

Nick Clegg's answer to that question is an interesting one. He argues that the public will only back what he once called savage cuts in public spending if they see that the cake is being fairly distributed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The invitation's in the post, but will you accept? David Cameron is inviting you "to join the government of Britain".

Before you get too excited, I should point out that there's no peerage, no ministerial Jag and no salary involved. No, the Tory leader wants you to join him in return for absolutely nothing - other, that is, than because you understand that Britain will only be revived "if people stop asking 'Who will fix this?' and start asking 'What can I do?'"

invites people to be their own boss - setting up co-operatives to run public services, to run their own school, to vote for their police chief, to vote to veto excessive council tax rises alongside much more familiar promises. It is an attempt to capture what the Cameroons see as their big idea - what they call the "Big Society" - a rather more sellable concept than the previous .

The idea is that power will be given to the users of public services and to voters to exercise more direct control over how services are run. The Tories' "big brain", Oliver Letwin, sees it as powerful an idea as privatisation once was. Just as we now regard as odd the idea of questions being asked in Parliament about why someone's phone line hadn't been installed (this actually happened), he believes we will soon regard it as bizarre that Whitehall runs or heavily controls all schools, hospitals, councils and police forces.

The big question about the "Big Society" is whether people will welcome this invitation and its Kennedy-esque call to arms?

Or will they prefer the idea that ran through that government is there to help you?

Of course, underneath the stark difference in rhetoric, both main parties are both offering a mixture of central government control and public engagement. There is, though, now a real ideological difference in this election - in other words, a real choice.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It may be 13 years since he moved into Downing Street.

It may be a fourth term in office that Labour are asking for.

BUT this is the first time that Gordon Brown has needed your vote to be prime minister.
is deliberately long and detailed - evidence, he said, that Labour had a programme for the future not just what he derided as an empty slogan promising change.

It promises a new industrial revolution - with the government helping to create skilled jobs and the People's Party promising to help us all aspire to be middle class.

It heralds a political revolution with a new voting system and elected House of Lords and pledges guarantees of better public services.

It talks of tough choices needed because of the deficit but doesn't spell out any of the spending cuts all agree are necessary.

Today Labour supporters lined up to have their copies of the manifesto signed by Gordon Brown.

In a few weeks' time it will either be a reminder of promises of a better future that you can try to hold him to or a memento of ideas that the country has rejected.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Labour manifesto launch, Edgbaston: Jack, James and Jill: this was a manifesto launch for you. And if you don't believe me, Labour has produced an election cartoon targeted at Jack, James and Jill.

If you're thinking that it's time for a change, or if you're worried Labour has run out of steam, : he's got a plan for the future. Indeed, he is "in the future business".

If you ask him where the jobs will come from in future, he wants "a new industrial revolution". If you're wondering about how public services will cope with a record budget deficit, he's got some guarantees of better service for you.

If you're angry at the political process, he wants you to have more of a say than every five years.

Now, of course, what every Jack, James or Jill - or indeed every Tom, Dick and Harry - knows is that the next government's going to have to do less and spend less. This manifesto, and Gordon Brown, didn't want to tell you any more about that, other than to insist that Labour's plans add up - and to deride the Tory plan written on just four sheets of paper.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The answer is "Yes, but...".

Manifestos matter because they offer a rough guide to what a party will try to do in office. They matter because they are the best guide to a party's current thinking and of the promises that they want to be seen not to break.

If an idea is in a manifesto, it gives the idea power if the next government then clashes with the civil service, with the House of Lords, or with backbenchers. If it's not in there, those people feel less inhibited about resisting it.

But, being only a rough guide, manifestos don't tell you the things that parties don't want to reveal - for example, Tony Blair's plan to retire halfway through the last Parliament. They don't reveal the promises that parties then break, such as freezing the top rate of income tax. And they don't mention the things that those writing them did not or could not foresee - the mounting death toll in Afghanistan; MPs' expenses crisis; the global economic crisis.

So if you pay attention to what's in a manifesto, you're less likely to get lost on your journey through politics. But even armed with your political rough guide, there's no guarantee that you'll reach your desired destination.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

fdsa m,gfsdl; fksdfl; kfdl;akl; fkdf fkl;sdfskl;a kfdl;a

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

In the week when Gene Hunt has been deployed by both Labour and the Tories, when it's emerged that Saatchis admen are working on all three main parties' campaigns and when the Lib Dems unveiled a re-working of the Tories' old tax bombshell ad this election is rapidly taking on a "Back to the Future" quality.

It's not, however, simply the ads or the admen who seem trapped in the past. So, too the debate. So far we appear to be locked into the tediously familiar pattern of political leaders promising that they could deliver gain for little or no pain whilst costing their opponents' promises and declaring that their "sums don't add up".

Yet all parties agree that we are in a new world in which thanks to a vast budget deficit whoever forms the next government will need to make cuts bigger than those made in any recent decade and to increase taxes as well.

It's worth pondering on when you hear:

• the Tories say they can head off one tax rise (national insurance) whilst cutting other taxes (inheritance tax, council tax and some, as yet unspecified, marriage tax breaks) whilst also cutting the deficit faster than Labour and protecting spending on health and international development.

• Labour say they can give voters service guarantees in schools, hospitals and from the police whilst holding some taxes - income tax and capital gains - and cutting others - stamp duty on house sales whilst cutting the deficit in half.

• and the Lib Dems say they can cut the deficit more, but not quicker, than Labour and cut most workers' tax by £700 a year at a cost of £16bn by closing tax loopholes.. oh, and taxing mansions... and flights... and pensions and, of course, capital gains. Ask them who will actually feel the pain and how much they'll be and you are told "it's very complicated and depends on your behaviour".

I don't doubt that all the parties could deliver what they promise. Indeed, the civil service are, as we speak, working up the ideas for whoever forms the next government. The mandarins will, however, include the the downsides as well as the up.

It will be interesting to see who's willing to tell the truth over the next few weeks that our deficit could mean cuts in public sector jobs, cuts in pay, cuts in pensions, cuts in services, cuts in benefits... oh, yes, and higher taxes too. As my colleague Stephanie Flanders has reported, they are happening now in Ireland.

We could see a return to some of the things that Gene Hunt saw when he was firing up his Quattro but, I fear, we may not be in for a burst of his refreshing candour.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Eastleigh, Hampshire: It's lunchtime, so it must be Eastleigh. I've joined Nick Clegg's campaign tour for the day and I'm already feeling like an American sightseer, touring Britain in 24 hours. We've been to Glasgow already; we're now near Southampton; the next stop is Bristol - and then home for tea in London.

At 6:30 this morning Miriam Clegg asked her husband over breakfast where he was going. His reply was telling: "Where am I not going?"

A more pertinent question might have been "Who are you meeting?" The answer would have been "Virtually no-one."

We were in Glasgow for about half an hour, where the Liberal Democrat leader met his party's candidates, his predecessor Charles Kennedy, a lot of journalists and... er... well, no-one else at all. We soon left.

In Eastleigh, Mr Clegg was on the ground for 45 minutes. He spoke to a group of workers at a cable factory and apologised for the fact he didn't have time to take their questions because he was running over schedule.

Now we're on our way back to the airport and heading to Bristol where he'll do hands-on experiments at a science museum with another ex-leader, Paddy Ashdown.

"Why?" may be the question that occurs to you. The answer is simple. Every stop guarantees local media coverage, the life-giving force for a party that feels it rarely gets the press it deserves, given that it received almost one in four votes at the last election.

Everyone who is part of this election, politician and journalist alike, can sense the madness of it all - but it's what they think they need to do to get your vote.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Gordon Brown has conceded for the first time that it is "a matter for the people" to decide whether Labour might have to share power with another party after the election.

In an interview after his speech promising constitutional reform I asked him whether he would, if necessary, work with other parties to keep the Conservatives out.

The prime minister replied "It's a matter for the people; now the people will make their decision in this election."

Pressed again about whether he would rule out working with another party he replied with the line you might have expected the first time - "I'm fighting for a victory".

Gordon Brown's comments reveal that he is having to think about how he would behave in the event of an uncertain election result - as per my earlier post.

I also asked him why he claimed that business leaders who condemn the planned National Insurance rise have been deceived; why he'd raised the issue of class and whether he'd stand down as prime minister after the election as Tony Blair had done.

Here is the transcript of part of the interview:

Robinson: "A big change in politics would be for someone like you to say if necessary 'I would share power, I would do it with another Party', would you work with other parties, if necessary to keep the Conservatives out?"
Ìý
Brown: "It's back to what I said, it's a matter for the people. Now the people will make their decision in this election, before they do so, I think it would be premature for parties to be talking about anything other than what we are doing, and I want to (interrupts)..."
Ìý
Robinson: "Are you prepared in those circumstances to say I don't rule out working with others, working with other parties?"

Brown: "I'm fighting for a victory, I'm fighting for, I believe, for a manifesto that is the right manifesto for the country" (interrupts)

Robinson: "Is there more that connects you and the Liberal Democrats say than the Conservatives?"

Brown: "Of course, of course, of course the Liberal Democrats support many of the constitutional reforms we are bringing in, and of course I want to see these constitutional reforms and I'm sorry that the Conservatives want to keep hereditary peers in the House of Lords. I'm also sorry they resisted any attempt to reform Parliament, and I think the notion that they have changed has been exposed every day by what they have failed to do. But in the end it's got to be the people that make the decision. We'll listen to what the people say, and I'm fighting for a manifesto that I believe is radical and bold. I personally take responsibility for saying that we've got to make these changes in the future so that we can ensure that politics is open and people see that public service is what it should be, and that's service to the public."

You can watch the interview here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Gordon Brown is due to give a speech this afternoon, promising to stage a democracy day in 2011 if Labour is re-elected. That will be 100 years after the Liberal leader Lloyd George's great confrontation with the House of Lords.

• Few, if any, ministers believe Labour can win an outright majority in this election.

• Labour could be the largest party in the House of Commons even if the Tories are well ahead in the opinion polls.

• Nick Clegg says the party with the biggest mandate would have the right to govern. He never says whether that means the party with more seats or more votes. The pollster Peter Kellner estimates that the Tories could gain two million more votes than Labour in England and still get the same number of seats.

• Nick Clegg is terrified of being seen to prop up an unpopular Labour government led by Gordon Brown which could trigger, or be forced to hold, another election at the drop of a hat.

• Hey Presto. A promise of a fixed-term Parliament - that is a limit on the prime minister's power to call an election - and of referendums on voting reform and House of Lords reform that may just change Nick Clegg's mind. And if not his, it may change that of Liberal Democrat activists.

Simple really.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This was not a day for surprises. It was not a day for detail. It was more a day of impressions carefully created and choreographed by the party machines.

Thus, Gordon Brown opened his electoral pitch by declaring that he came from "an ordinary middle-class family from an ordinary town" - "unlike the other guy" being his unspoken thought.

"I am not a team of one," the prime minister declared with the Cabinet at his side - this a reflection of what Labour perceives as a strength and a confirmation of their fear: that their leader is a potential weakness.

On the road, he was accompanied by the woman credited with making him more ordinary - his wife Sarah - as he popped in to people's houses and to their canteens - presenting himself as more underdog than powerful incumbent.

But David Cameron had seen that coming. He declared that he was fighting for the "Great Ignored" at an outdoor rally with Parliament as his backdrop with his wife Samantha at his side. His implicit message: we are on your your side, not theirs.

Nick Clegg had to make do with a political wife - Vince Cable - who like Mrs Brown and Mrs Cameron is regarded as a key electoral asset. They are pitching their campaign as a contest between the old politics in the form of Labour and Tory and the new in the form of, well, them.

So far, so stage-managed. But it is only Day One and the choreography is - in its own way - rather revealing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Morrisons, Strood: On Day One, Stop One of Gordon Brown's election campaign, I thought I'd found compelling evidence of the prime minister being shielded from awkward questions.

A worker at the Strood, Kent branch of Morrisons told me in hushed tones and insisting on anonymity that one of his colleagues had wanted to raise an issue of cuts - a rather specific issue, as it turns out. The canteen had cut supplies of bottles of HP Sauce, and is now charging for sachets instead. He clearly regarded this as a cut to front-line services and not an efficiency saving.

This was, though, the only evidence of Gordon Brown's "meetings with the people" being obviously rigged, although the workers the PM met in the canteen here were chosen in advance and the local Usdaw rep seemed confident that none were hostile.

Some had difficult questions ready - on immigration, and bankers' bonuses, for example - but never got round to asking them. The prime minister chatted with them, about NVQ qualifications and even about the price of Easter eggs - which has dropped, apparently, under Labour.

He did not invite them to voice their worries, and they were simply too polite, or too overawed, to do so. So if you've got a tough question for Gordon Brown, or for David Cameron, Nick Clegg, or any other leader, you'd better plan it now, in advance, so that if they should pop into your local supermarket or work canteen, you don't fluff your chance of an HP Moment.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Downing Street: It is the images - not the words - that stick in the mind after this morning's election announcement.

Image One: Peter Mandelson standing centre stage, in front of No 10, apart from the rest of the Cabinet, fingering his mobile phone as he waited for the prime minister to step out.

This will be his campaign as much as it will be Gordon Brown's.

Image Two: Alistair Darling emerging from the famous black door at Gordon Brown's side. The chancellor the prime minister planned to sack is now seen as a key electoral asset.

Image Three: The Cabinet flanking the prime minister, simultaneously flagging what Labour perceive as a strength (the team) and what Labour fear may be a weakness (the leader).

It is a reminder, too, that one of these men and women is likely to become Labour leader and possibly even prime minister before the election after this one. Remember: Tony Blair said at the last election that he planned to serve a full term. No doubt Gordon Brown will say the same.

Image Four: David Cameron pointing at Parliament behind him as he gave his rallying speech.

He is determined to position himself as the man trying to seize power on behalf of those he called this morning "the great ignored".

He is equally determined to avoid being portrayed as the Establishment candidate.

Image Five: The words "Vote For Change" held aloft for the news helicopter filming the prime minister's journey to the Palace.

Huge effort will be made by the parties to subvert their rivals' carefully planned pictures - remember the Grim Reaper who followed Michael Howard at the last election?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

At last.

The starting line and the finishing post are now both in sight.

Tomorrow morning the prime minister will announce the date of the general election. I know you knew anyway but we can now say authoritatively for the first time what we've known for so long.

Polling day is to be Thursday 6 May.

So if we can't get excited about the date what is there to look forward to tomorrow? I will be listening hard for the pitches the party leaders make to the electorate.

Gordon Brown will, I'm told, dub this election "the big choice". In a speech in Downing Street tomorrow morning he's expected to say: "The people of this country have fought too hard to get Britain on the road to recovery to allow anybody to take us back on the road to recession." He's told tomorrow's Daily Mirror that the alternative is "too big a risk...too great a danger...too much of a threat".

At around the same time, the alternative - David Cameron - will use a speech of his own to claim that he's fighting this election for "the Great Ignored". To make sure he can't be accused of ignoring anyone, he will tell us that they are "young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight". He will go on to argue that as "good, decent people...they just want a reason to believe that anything is still possible in our country. This election is about giving them that reason, giving them that hope".

Meantime the Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg will say: "Today is the beginning of the end for Gordon Brown" before presenting himself and his party as the source of "real change and real fairness".

So, that's clear then - which is more than can be said for the polls on the last night before the campaign kicks off. One - You Gov in the Sun - has the Tories crossing 40% for the first time in months and basking in a comfortable lead of 10%. The other - ICM in the Guardian - has their lead falling to 4% - a low not seen from this pollster for many months.

What that tells you is that we are in for most unpredictable, most dramatic and most exciting election in many years. I can't wait. (Shame I'm sniffling and sneezing at home drinking hot lemon to shake off a pre-campaign cold!)

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

They've been deceived.

They're bought a quack remedy from a quack doctor.

Thus the business secretary dismissed the letter from 23 leading businessmen backing the Tories' proposal to cut government waste and block part of the rise in National Insurance. The ever-more-cautious chancellor was careful to insist that he had no criticism of them and, indeed, wanted to praise their contribution to Britain.

The Tories regard the letter as a pre-election coup allowing them to claim that it is Labour and not them who are a "threat to the recovery".

Labour is pointing out that it's hardly surprising that businesses would prefer to see waste cuts than business taxes rise but ministers cannot suggest that "they're all Tories", since nine of the signatories appear to have had no previous direct links to the Tories (seven have made personal or company donations to the party and seven have had some previous link to a Conservative event or campaign).

What, though, of the substance of the argument? (If you're not interested in the detail, I suggest you skip to the conclusion!)

There are three distinct issues here:

(1) Could and should government waste be cut by an extra £12bn next year?

Yes, say former government waste-busters Sir Peter Gershon and Martin Reade, whose recommendations to the Tories, though general, are tougher than some have realised. Among other things, they advocate an immediate freeze on public-sector recruitment and call for the halting of IT contracts.

The government replies that it is already saving £1.3bn from IT, £1.4bn on renegotiating government contracts and £1.6bn on so-called "back-office savings".

In truth, it's impossible for anyone to know whether the government or the Tories will realise the savings they're aiming for (see today's post from my colleague Stephanie Flanders). What can be said with confidence is that, if they do, it will still mean real people losing real jobs (try telling a redundant IT worker or someone in finance that their job loss is an "efficiency saving"). If they don't, departmental budgets will have to be cut anyway by a corresponding amount leading to possible cuts in jobs and services. The only alternative is further increases in tax.

(2) Can and should a "tax on jobs" - National Insurance hits both employers and employees - be avoided?

Both main parties are committed to increasing NI in April 2011. It's just that the Tories say that they would stop anyone earning under £45,000 losing out. The money for that has to come from somewhere and, if it can't come from efficiencies, it will come from other spending cuts or rises in other taxes. Labour is planning to hint that the Tories will increase VAT while not ruling out increasing it themselves.

(3) Is the Tories' plan to cut the deficit credible?

David Cameron this morning conceded that the plans he has unveiled so far are "not enough to fill the hole". On Monday, I pointed to his past remarks that promises of efficiency savings are "the oldest trick in the book".

He is relying on people's instinct that Tories are the sort of people prepared to make cuts and the evidence that he's taken some tough decisions - telling people the bad news that they will have to work longer before getting their pension and, if they work in the public sector, suffer a pay freeze - as evidence of his willingness to take difficult decisions.

The truth is that all our political leaders have shied away from spelling out the true consequences of the spending squeeze to come. No tables of statistics, no complex balance sheets, no clever uses of statistics at rival news conferences can resolve the question of whether you should trust this or that party.

After all, economic forecasts fluctuate wildly so that the projected size of the budgetary black hole has dropped from £90bn in Budget 2009 to £67bn this year. After all, government found £18bn on top of planned budgets to fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, many of the political rows focus on spending figures which sound big but are within the Treasury's margin of error.

The election judgement will come down to voters' instinctive sense of whether they believe politicians are being honest, share their values and trust in their competence.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?