During the day, the BBC News Channel has featured regular contributions during its coverage of the Norwich North by-election from Professor Vernon Bogdanor of Oxford University - who was one of David Cameron's tutors if I recall correctly.
He was there as a supposed independent academic commentator, but I fear that his analysis was far from balanced.
Not only has he continually suggested that there is a parallel between the next election and 1992, suggesting that this Government (like the then Conservative Government) can lose a string of by-elections and then be re-elected, he has opined that this result suggests that there is "quite a bit to play for in the general election next year".
I am far from complacent about the next general election and have always believed that if the Conservatives win, it will be with a modest majority. But when you have the Labour candidate attaining the lowest voteshare for any incumbent MP’s party at a by-election for at least forty years - and losing on a swing mirroring that suffered by the Conservatives in Wirral South a few months before the 1997 general election, in what way is there "quite a bit to play for"?
Update: Compare those remarks from Prof Bogdanor above with the brief summary of BBC political editor Nick Robinson:
"A massive 16.5 swing, not far short of what they got in Crewe and Nantwich, will allow the Conservatives to say that this is much better than the results I alluded to in my earlier post. Labour, on the other hand, will point out that the swing originated largely from a collapse in their vote (-27%) and much less by an increase in the Tory vote (just 6.5%). The truth is that Mr Cameron has done more than enough to look on course for an election victory and Labour has done badly enough to fear that one is inevitable."
