CentreRight

How will the media react to the new political environment?

By Sheila Gunn, Former press adviser to John Major who was a Times political correspondent for 12 years and now lectures in journalism at City Unversity

One aspect of this new political world, whatever coalition emerges, is the role of the media. Journalists have been as addicted to the tribal, confrontational style as the politicians themselves.   Nor by any analysis do reporters enjoy any more trust or respect as politicians.

So imagine:  there is a coalition government (and this applies to any parties involved).  There will inevitably be party activists who do not like it. The media’s automatic reaction will be to give them a totally unrepresentative hearing.  For the one thing that most journalists fear is the sight of politicians of different parties largely agreeing with each other. That’s not news. The temptation will be to try to wind up interviewees, re-igniting their tribal instincts. It will not be hard as there are plenty of activists with swollen egos who think their views are more important than competent government.

This may be inevitable. It may sound a little pompous to ask the media to consider its role in helping to rebuild the economy and social fabric of our country. But on this Sunday when we do not yet have a new Government, it is probably not a bad idea for editors, commentators and producers to do a little soul searching about how they are going to react to this new environment

We are about to underwrite future EU bailouts - and can do nothing to stop it

Over at the Daily Telegraph, a truly upsetting article: British taxpayers ordered to bail out euro. Finance ministers have been summonsed (for that's how it works) to Brussels today, to sign off on a "European stabilisation mechanism":

British exposure to liabilities created by a bail-out under the scheme would amount to around 10 per cent of the total loan.

Which, given the current crisis and the example of Greece, would obviously be billions of pounds.

You might wonder how the article's authors can speak with such certainty about the result before the meeting has taken place. The answer is that all 16 Eurozone members seem to have agreed on this course already, and between them they command a majority in a vote. Invoking Article 122 of the Lisbon Treaty, intended to enable a collective response to natural disasters, they ensure that the decision does not need unanimous agreement.

A disgrace. A brazen stitch-up. A repulsive abuse of power. A vivid demonstration of the costs of membership, and of the nations in whose interests the Union is run. Prompt (and shameless) use of contentious legislation ratified for one purpose, to secure an entirely different end. It's a useful demonstration of how the EU works:

• Their decision.
• Their currency.
• Our money.

How the grassroots can make a coalition work

On Thursday, the electorate had its big day out. They voted. Now they are back in their armchairs watching the drama unfold.

For that one day the big players were silent, but now they are back on the stage and performing their roles. But what about the rest of us? And what about party members? Do we just stay seated until the curtain comes down, or do we still have a part to play?

One of the things the campaign demonstrated was the importance of party members. At least part of the failure of the LibDems to win any additional representation, in spite of their 'surge', was their lack of campaigning infrastructure. Even with today's wrap-around media, you still need to get leaflets out, to make the people at home feel you've come to their door, and to communicate those targeted local messages. You still need small armies to knock on doors and drive voters to the polling booth. Local activists connect the candidates with the community, they keep them in touch with the world beyond Westminster. And while it is true that recently the big donors have fattened the party accounts, the largest proportion of the money year in year out comes through smaller contributions from the members. So as Clegg has just found out, performing well on TV is not enough: if you don't have a substantial party base to carry your campaign, you can't win seats.

Party members are not just free workers, they are free thinkers too. Most of them don't want to be MPs or councillors, they are not slaves to the culture of Westminster. They are people of vast and varied experience and talent. True, most of them are old, and are often dismissed for being old-fashioned, but that has its advantages too: a recent scientific research study - "Reasoning about social conflicts improves into old age" - concluded: "It might be advisable to assign older individuals to key social roles involving legal decisions, counseling, and intergroup negotiations". Indeed, the world won't function well without their contribution.

If there is to be a coalition government then it will need more than anything else the support of Conservative Party members. Their support will matter even more than that of Nick Clegg, because one day the Mr Clegg will go his own way, but the party will still need its members. Tim Montgomerie wrote on this site yesterday, "Cameron should mind his internal as well as his external coalition".

The internal coalition has a vital role to play to get the right kind of compromises if the external coalition is to achieve anything worthwhile. There are mushy compromises and there are hard, productive compromises. The soft kind involves giving a little ground on all fronts; instead of providing a corrective dose of true Conservatism, we'll become mere onlookers to a slight temporary slowing of the statist ratchet. But in a hard compromise, each side gets something it really believes in: it prioritises what it wants to see fully achieved, and gives up entirely on some lesser goals. That way there can be real progress.

The way to get the productive compromise, a properly working coalition, is for each side to stay closely linked to, and guided by, its members. It must not cut them off, but embrace them. Most party members are not looking for jobs in the future and therefore can act as the conscience of their party; they sharpen the thinking of the political establishment because they are an authentic alternative voice. Members are often obstructive and demanding; they are not always sophisticated in their arguments; their intelligence is perhaps not so fluid; they sometimes fail to see the subtleties of government: that is why they are so important. They are in the trenches of the true battle of ideas. They are closer to the real life of the nation. They apply simpler rules of thumb for their judgments, but based on greater experience. Fans of crowd-sourcing - which certainly includes the Conservative Party leadership - will value them.

A few reflections

Consider this, 39 minutes in: "The markets have decided that it's bad news.  It was an indulgent outcome.  It was an outcome which was steadfast in refusing to acknowledge the need to take very difficult decisions."

My prediction about the outcome of this election was badly wrong.  Partly that was because circumstances changed between the time of that forecast and later - in particular the Conservatives played their hand very badly from January to March and lost their reputation for integrity on the deficit.  But even a couple of weeks before the Election I still believed that a solid majority was possible if the correct strategy were pursued.

Now, I could note that the Party was wise enough to largely ignore my urgings and instead devote most of its effort for a couple of weeks to countering the Lib Dems.  I could also claim that my scenario was guided by opinion polls about the Lib Dems that were badly wrong in the event.  I might even claim that there was an element of encouraging the troops in a difficult situation in the belief that victory was still possible.  Perhaps I might even have been encouraging myself.

But the blunt truth is that even setting all those things aside, I would still have confidently asserted that the Conservatives would win a reasonable working majority, right up to the day (and did so).  And the reason is quite straightforward.

Knock, knock...

"Who's there?"

"David."

"David who?"

"Gordon, get out of my bloody house."*

(*As seen elsewhere on the net, but not here, at least till now.)

Cameron can turn this into a conclusive victory

A coalition government is likely to take this country in either of two directions, one with short-term, the other with long-term implications for our political system.

In one scenario this could simply be a temporary liaison of convenience. It allows David Cameron to get on with immediate urgent tasks. It might possibly make it easier for him to do the most important things more radically, as the responsibility will be more widely shared. There are huge issues looming within the EU, heavy pressures on the Euro that could create a crisis in which national unity will be essential, and some sort of partnership between Euro-enthusiasts  and Euro-sceptics could turn out to be invaluable.

A liaison-of-convenience will split up, perhaps in acrimony, because at some point it will be in the political interests of the minor partner to disassociate itself from some difficult decision. If up to then Cameron has handled things well, this is more likely than not to lead to a an election which would see the Conservatives returned with a sufficient majority.

Alternatively, for greater stability, Cameron may conclude that his partners be offered the prize they really desire, a change in the voting system, and we may end up with a form of proportional representation that makes coalitions a more-or-less permanent feature of British politics.

For myself, I don’t much like that, but I regard it as almost inevitable that in the medium-term future we will end up with some firm of proportional representation; it’s hard to see how our present system can satisfy the public’s desire to express itself in more varied ways than possible at the moment. Our old arrangements, which worked well when sluggish communications kept a distance between government and the public, has in the modern age become much less effective; it does not deliver decisive government but a permanent poor compromise in what has become the permanent campaign.

David Cameron is the kind of leader likely to thrive in a coalition. It could bring out the best of him: his strength is being pragmatic and persuasive. And don’t forget, the public has a rosy view of coalitions, it rather likes the idea opponents working together for the national good. Whether it turns out to be for short-term convenience or lasting reform, Cameron might yet be able to turn this messy moment into a conclusive victory.

The LibDems may live to regret wishing for a hung parliament

“I think it is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest,” Nick Clegg told the press, with a certain tone and emphasis on the words “capable” and “seeking”. There was something about that statement that felt odd; there felt more to it than what was actually said. There was a sense of discomfort, a sense of disappointment, and a sense of uncertainty – as you’d expect – but most of all I felt there was a sense of an attempt to avoid future blame. With all the talk of coalitions and deals, we are missing that the actual result – bad for the LibDems in terms of vote share and seats – is perhaps even worse for the LibDems than the figures initial show. Clegg knows this, and I am without doubt that Cameron does too.

Nick Clegg of course long wished for a hung parliament, but it’s always wise to be careful what you wish for. The LibDems hoped that they would wake today not only holding the balance of power but also in a situation where they had some degree of moral authority themselves – in terms of vote share if not seats, perhaps polling a strong second and nearing 30% – which would enable them to take a major role in the formation of a new government. A new government that is with Labour. During the campaign Clegg even spoke of ousting Gordon Brown in the event of a Lib/Lab deal, and Labour is their natural ally. With a good result they would have the ability to make the government feel sufficiently new and LibDem, even if mostly Labour, to aboid public wrath for propping up an unpopular Labour government – particularly in their affluent southern seats such as Cheltenham. That authority is though not existent and this leaves the LibDems in a corner – or rather on a fence.

When Clegg said “it is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest” he was not inviting Cameron to pop round for a chat or giving his blessing to a Conservative minority government. That might be what it was meant to look like, but it’s not what it was. LibDems hate Tories, the seats they hold they do so by squeezing Tory-hating Labour voters; a pact with the Conservatives would cause an exodus. Yet a pact with Labour– their natural ally – without the orange revamp I discussed, would cause a different exodus of the more affluent voters they also need. It’s a lose/lose situation; LibDems have been able to play both ways, sitting on the fence – last night that fence collapsed.

Clegg knows that Brown has the constitutional right to the first attempt at forming a government, but by offering an olive branch first to Cameron he was hoping for a rejection. “Old politics strikes again,” he would say, attacking the Conservatives for being arrogant in refusing to share power and putting politics before the national interest. Having made the offer and been rejected, he could then sit back on the fence – opting for neutrality – and thus avoid blame for either propping up Brown or “letting the Tories in”. A kind of “Don’t blame me, I voted Liberal*” policy which, in the ensuing instability and tough times might even be popular as a campaign. (*Was it Tony Hancock who said this?)

However by (rightfully I add) making a genuine “big, open and comprehensive offer” to Nick Clegg to “work together in tackling the big and urgent problems - the debt crisis, the deep social problems and broken political system”, David Cameron has put the ball back in Clegg’s court as well as putting the country first. Do the LibDems accept this, shedding their anti-Tory vote, or reject this – putting electoral reform before the national interest on the economy, jobs, stability, schools, tax reform etc and shedding affluent liberal voters – to save a failed, rejected and unpopular PM?

Now Clegg must decide – the fence has been demolished. Either way they will lose voters and seats, realigning politics back to two parties. But then, wasn’t realignment something else they wished for?

Hung parliament games

I've been thinking about the strategic options open to the different parties in forming the next Government.

Things are simplest for Labour.  They have two options: the first is to drop out of government and enter opposition gracefully; the second is offer the Liberal Democrats whatever they want to form a coalition.  They have chosen the latter and will only leave Downing Street on being dragged kicking and screaming.  That is rational in my view.  The party is starved of funds, which won't be helped by going into opposition.  They risk internecine warfare in the resulting leadership contest.  They might make the transition from power to opposition cleanly after a decade in government, but the odds don't look good.

The question for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is how accommodating they should be in coalition negotiations.  The two leaderships are closer on policy (the Tory Left and the Liberal Democrat right) than the rest of the parties.  So the key question will be what they can promise to the other party without causing infighting within their own.

The decision is complicated by the Conservatives having a second option - forming a minority Government.  As has been written elsewhere, they could probably get quite a lot done in those circumstances as a lot of what they want to achieve can be done through secondary legislation, or is popular and Liberal Democrat friendly, enough that it will likely pass from a minority.

The decisive factor is how the two Conservative strategies - minority government and coalition - end.  From there, we can work things out by backward induction.

Everyone has to be aware that with the strains of dealing with the fiscal crisis and a hung parliament there is every chance that this Parliament will not die a natural death after four or five years.  The political fortunes of the two leaderships over the next decade may well hinge on how it ends.  The manner in which the new parliament is dissolved will frame the issues and sentiment for the next campaign and the timing could affect the parties' finances.

If the Conservatives form a minority government then they have considerable discretion over how and when the Parliament ends.  When the timing feels right they can start a fight over an issue where the public are on their side but the other parties will feel compelled to fight them; anything from Europe to a well constructed reform of party finance.  The combination of being able to set up an election on an issue of their choosing and their financial advantage will allow them to do well politically as a minority government, as the Canadian Conservatives have.  By contrast, in a coalition the Liberal Democrats will have a powerful ability - like that possessed by the Northern League in Italy - to take a stand at a time that suits them and force the Conservatives to either back down or break the coalition.

So I think that a minority government is probably the best political option for the Conservatives.  But they mustn't look too keen on that outcome.  They want to appear as if they are trying to work with the Liberal Democrats because anything else might look arrogant given their relatively modest electoral success.  That means they have an incentive to look like they are offering a lot but still cannot work out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.  By contrast, the Liberal Democrats are in a powerful position in a coalition and will ignore the promise of PR under Labour because they know that a minority coalition is a recipe for a complete mess.

The outcome of those sets of incentives - if the parties play their hands well - is probably a coalition where the Liberal Democrats don't get anything meaningful on the key points of contention - their tax plans and PR for example.  Instead, they'll probably get a good range of personnel - I don't think Cameron is that attached to most of his Shadow Cabinet - and movement on the areas where the parties broadly agree.  They'll accept that.

Post-sleep analysis

OK.  Some further thoughts on this, and on what to do now.

Conservatives should agree to raising Income Tax threshold to £10,000

Looking on the bright side is the possibility that the Conservatives will agree to introduce the Lib Dems manifesto proposal to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. This would be a £17 billion tax cut - although I believe part of the cost would be recouped by the impact it would have on increasing economic growth and reducing welfare bills by making it more rewarding to get into work.

However given the level of the deficit it should be a funded tax cut through a stronger start on reducing public spending. The Lib Dem approach to fund it through higher taxes elsewhere - on pensions, Capital Gains, the Mansion Tax, etc is misguided.

Might the Lib Dems agree to it higher public spending cuts for such a purpose? The Conservative negotiating team might like to have a look at this paper for the Reform think tank by Vince Cable which details ideas for £14 billion spending cuts.

If it has to be a hung parliament, a Con-Lib government is the next best option

Jonty is head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at the think tank Demos. He writes here in a personal capacity.

No one wanted it, but here we are. If we cannot have a Conservative majority, it is time to consider our next best option. Here’s six reasons why progressive conservatives should support a Conservative-Lib Dem government:

1. We agree on a lot – schools, localisation, green issues, civil liberties, some aspects of bank regulation and democratic reform. Yes, there are sticking points like Europe but there is a lot more in common than Tories usually admit, and one disagreement – the euro – is clearly off the table for a decade now.

2. A lib-con coalition would turn ‘Tory cuts’ into national cuts. This could be strengthened by offering Cable BIS or a Canadian style ministry of recession

3. A coalition with the Irish is dangerous. The United Kingdom needs to be a neutral broker there, not taking sides. Likewise, it would be unfair to ring fence welsh, Irish or Scottish budgets in a time of cuts.

4. The Lib Dems have some talent. Clegg is obviously more able than he was given credit for before the campaign. Cable is well liked, and there are other talents like Jeremy Browne and Danny Alexander.

5. The lib dem case for PR is weak now. They do not have the popular vote to back it up. STV and Lords reform might be enough to tempt them in.

6. A Tory-lib pact would be at least as stable as any other combination. Without it, Conservatives face the prospect of a miliband/clegg coalition, which could be popular.

No true conservative wanted this situation, but we have always been the party of pragmatism.

Immediate post-match analysis

I'm really going to need some sleep soon, but FWIW, here is my immediate post-match analysis.

Election expectations

My son announced that they had had their school mock election last night, and that he had voted UKIP. He's getting really good at being a really bad wind-up merchant. And he didn't come clean straight away; he then declared he'd voted Labour before finally saying 'How could I betray you mummy? Of course I voted Conservative'! Salient point - a vote for any other party is a betrayal. He was thinking on a personal level, I am thinking on a national one. This country is leaking debt in a way that rivals the crude flows from the damaged Gulf oil rig - but more about that in a moment.

I was thinking last night that it was a bit like Christmas eve: no idea what 'present' we are going to get today; planning on being with family and friends; staying up too late; a no-news day (are exit polls really news?) and everyone's mind is on the same thing....

Yet I don't think it hasn't turned out like we thought it would. Fascinating though the leadership debates were, they have left many with a firm impression of the leader they like but varying levels of confusion over how they would lead. How do we move on, taking the benefits of engagement from the leaders debate but reducing the costs of confusion?

Subjects we thought would be key turned out not to be. Where has the NHS been apart from the cancer confusion (a voter told me yesterday he wouldn't vote Tory as they were cutting cancer medicines...)? Why haven't we heard more on Afghanistan? Immigration, a taboo at the last election, has been a hot topic. And what happened to the 'mumsnet' election? Women have not been seen, let alone heard. Ok, that's a mercy when we're considering Harriet Harperson, and Stephanie Flanders is a superb media exception, but I wonder if Gordon's 'that woman' jibe reflected the all too frequent macho irritation with having to consider a female perspective?...

We know of course that it always comes down to 'it's the economy, stupid' but truly, hasn't that turned out to be this year's taboo? i.e. How to tackle the deficit? In my humble opinion, the only reason we aren't still in recession is the billions Labour has spewed into the public sector that have created a false-positive in economic growth. They won't admit it; the Tories can only guess at the severity of the spillage and for an ex oil-man, Vince has remained typically opaque.

I am longing, hoping and praying for a Conservative victory tonight so that George Osborne can put in place his equivalent of the 100-ton concrete-and-steel contraption for oil siphoning and apply it to the debt that has polluted our future. Like the oil, so much damage is done and it will contaminate the nation for a long time to come. So just as this election has not turned out the way we thought it would, here's hoping the the real poll turns out better than we have been led to believe. Off I go to GOTV!

Nicholas Bennett: How accurate will tomorrow night's exit polls be?

By Nicholas Bennett, a former Conservative MP who is seeking re-election to Bromley Council tomorrow

A tradition in the past 25 or so years has been the exit poll announced on the main TV channels as soon as the polls close.  In the main, the polls have been reasonably accurate - although in 1992 they came badly unstuck, predicting a Kinnock victory whilst the reality was a Conservative overall majority of 21.

In 2004 the US networks called a win for John Kerry but it was George Bush who ended the night re-elected as President.

This time the pollsters have to contend with the fact that in some constituencies almost half the electorate will have been eligible to vote by post before May 6th. Across the UK around 1 in 6 voters are thought to have applied for postal votes and on previous polling at least 80% will be cast compared with a probable 70% turnout overall.

The key question therefore must be: how accurate will the exit polls be?

Are Conservative voters more inclined to apply for and use postal votes? The evidence of the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election in June 2006 pointed to a Lib Dem win in votes cast in person but a win for Conservative Bob Neill as a result of the postal vote.

Will the Lib Dem surge in the first week, immediately before the postal votes were issued, be higher than those cast on Thursday when the opinion polls suggest that the Lib Dem vote has fallen back?

No doubt pollsters will try to factor in the impact of the postal vote, but, in the words of Former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”

The odds of a Lisbon re-ratification

Crikey - if ever you needed proof that the Lisbon Treaty is still a hot topic, you need look no further than the storm of comments attracted by my Centre Right post on that very subject yesterday.

Some of the commenters questioned whether the changes set to be made to the Lisbon Treaty really would need to be re-ratified by Parliament, citing the Treaty's self-amending "passerelle" clause. Without going into too much legalese and constitutional hokum, these queries deserve an answer.

Mark Wallace has written a more detailed response over at the TPA site, and here is the crucial section:

First, it appears that this section of the Treaty is simply not subject to passerelle.

Second, even if it was, passerelle requires the unanimous agreement of every member state - and every state has the right to demand an InterGovernmental Conference and ratification instead. Britain would have a veto, and it would be in total conflict with David Cameron's new EU policy for a Cameron Government not to use it.

Third, even if this area was subject to passerelle, and even if the British Government failed to use the veto and demand an IGC, Spain has already demanded one. Furthermore, the European Parliament looks set to vote in Spain's support on Thursday, and the European Commission is in agreement too.

Beyond those technical, Brussels-derived arguments, there is also a compelling bit of evidence from an unlikely source here in Britain.

I spoke last night to Bruno Waterfield, the Brussels Correspondent for the Telegraph. He confirmed to me that he had checked the story with no less an authority than the Foreign Office, who had confirmed the need for Parliamentary approval of the new Treaty.

It's certainly controversial, and goodness knows the EU and its acolytes have slipped out of what would otherwise be described as "the rules" plenty times before, but it sill seems fairly likely that this is a runner.

Tessa Jowell breaks Labour Party rules

I wonder if Tessa Jowell is aware of the Labour Party's Rule Book. In particular the Membership Rules in Chapter 2. Section A covers "Conditions for Membership." Rule 4b states:

 A member of the party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a party member, subject to the provisions of part Chapter 6 A.2 below of the disciplinary rules.

So are Peter Hain, Ed Balls and Tessa Jowell up for expulsion with their advice to voters in certain constituencies to vote Lib Dem rather than Labour?

Adjudicating at Labour Party disciplinary hearings is not a matter for me. But I think Hain and Balls have been careful to keep within the letter if not the spirit of this rule. They have given a duplicitous nod and a wink to encourage people to vote Lib Dem ("It's an issue..") - then added their formal advice that everyone should vote Labour. But I think Tessa Jowell has been more careless in her words and the case that she is "automatically"  "ineligible" to "remain a Party member" would be hard to refute.

The Mirror has urged people in a large number of constituencies to vote Lib Dem. Tessa Jowell says that is a "good thing." That is a much clearer breach of Party rules than anything from the Norfolk North West Labour candidate Manish Sood. At least he is still urging everyone to vote Labour.

A game-changer for Cameron?

As my colleague Lee Rotherham documents, the prospect of a new IGC on the Lisbon Treaty offer David Cameron a potentially game-changing opportunity, to move the polls from hung Parliament territory towards a clear Conservative majority.

Due to various procedural changes, the Lisbon Treaty is going to have to be ratified by Parliament yet again after the General Election. David Cameron has always been explicit that had he been Prime Minister when the Treaty came forward for ratification, he would have held a referendum. Until now that has simply been a hypothetical situation – but now it is set to become a reality.

If, as the EU Commission intends, an Inter-Governmental Conference on 17^th/18^th June agrees a new version of the Lisbon Treaty, it will have to be put before Parliament. Will David Cameron remain true to his pledges on the topic and seize this opportunity by pledging to hold a referendum in that circumstance?

As well as being the right thing to do, a referendum pledge now could be dynamite in the last few days of the election. Clegg and Brown would be put on the spot, challenged to make such a pledge themselves. If they did, then it would be good for Britain, we’d get the Lisbon referendum we were all promised and Cameron would have shown himself to be a leader. If they did not, then Cameron would be able to head into the election as only man willing to trust the people by holding the long-desired referendum.

This is a golden opportunity for the Conservatives to do the right thing by Britain and to do themselves a favour. David Cameron should grab it with both hands.

Labour getting desperate in Hammersmith

This evening I went along to the Zizinia restaurant in Bloemfontein Road in White City where the Labour Party were holding a meeting addressed by Ken Livingstone. Residents on the White City Estate had been leafleted telling them it was a "crisis meeting" as the Conservative Council was planning to throw them out of their homes - leaving them homeless or "being sent to Barking and Dagenham."

I went along with the Council leader Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh to hand out leaflets to those attending pointing out that these allegations were straight pure lies. Only two estates are under consideration for redevelopment, which are n West Kensington not White City. Furthermore in the estates that are redeveloped residents would be offered new homes locally.

About 50 people turned up to the meeting - mostly Labour activists. The remainder were not entirely supportive. One said: "I live in Hammersmith and Fulham because I was deported from Newham where the Labour Council had an estate redevelopment. Hasn't the Labour Party doing what you are accusing the Conservatives of planning?" Another said: "The Conservatives have cut my Council Tax by 3% a year. Are you prepared to make me a better offer?" Neither question got a terribly convincing response.

A stain on a great sport

Despite the well-known Red Devilism of our co-editor, we don't talk about sport much here at Con Home, and fair enough. Despite the central importance sports hold in the lives of so many people, sport's not conventionally "political" in most senses.

But I nevertheless wanted to write about what's emerged in the world of snooker today. Because, to my mind, it has important repercussions for the sport and also for notions of fairness, morality and cheating in this most traditional - and, in a sense, conservative - of sports.

To the perennial irritation of She Who Must Be Obeyed, I am a snooker fan. This afternoon's final in the World Championships is one of the real highlights of the sport's year and is a firm fixture for me and many other snooker devotees. But, through no fault of their own, the finalists Dott and Robertson will find their match overshadowed by a remarkable and shameful cheating scandal.

The world number one, John Higgins, has been caught offering and agreeing to accept bribes in return for "throwing" frames, in a "sting" conducted by the News of the World. Higgins has thus far declined to comment and one must always append an "if true" caveat to any such story, but the video footage of the meeting, and Higgins' part in it, seem very clear.

As an outstanding professional of the modern era, in addition to his great talent, to me and other fans Higgins had seemed to embody so many virtues - grit, humility, a tremendous work ethic, skill honed by hard labour - as well as an apparently admirably balanced personal life of modest, down-to-earth rootedness that saw his family centrally important to his life as they celebrated his triumphs with him - both in 2007, when his victory in the World Championships was clinched in a thriller ending at 1 in the morning, and, most recently, when at the World Championships last year, which he won in after a memorably difficult and characteristically gritty march to the final. It is this character which saw him appointed MBE for services to sport. If I had been asked to name any professional I would have thought certain not to have accepted a bribe, it would have been him.

I mention all that to illustrate the point that this is someone at the very apex of the game, and someone who was revered and trusted within it, who seems - along with his manager, also a central figure in the complex world of snooker's international management structure - to have conspired to cheat in order to benefit financially. This scandal could hardly feature a more significant player in the modern game.

Snooker is a game of percentages, narrow angles, where fractions and moments can be the difference between victory and defeat. In such circumstances, deliberate error is desperately difficult to detect. The game is gripping to fans when one believes that players are trying their best and rise or fall as a result of their own or their opponent's skills, or luck, but the sport simply cannot be trusted by spectators - or broadcasters - if there is even a sniff of the presence of dishonesty about it.

If borne out in the course of the investigation which must now follow, it seems to me that a lifetime ban must be imposed on both the player and his manager.

Desperately sad times for this sport, which has been suffering existential doubt in recent times in any case. Black tie sporting, waistcoated professionals playing a slow, quiet game found an unstable world in which their pursuit was perhaps unfashionable compared to other sports. Cricket, which is similar in some ways in this respect, has had doubts like this but 20/20, and incredible popularity on the subcontinent, has done much to ward them off. Snooker is remarkably popular in China, but this subtle game (which - thankfully - lacks a shorter form to be popularised in a short-attention-span age) has yet to find such certainty. I love it. But if it is to survive these difficult times, snooker must now cull one of its favourite sons.

Riots in Greece

I've written here before about the seemingly perverse attitude of the Greek unions in the face of their country's financial crisis, so in noting that there are riots in the streets against the Government's austerity measures, I ask only this - just what is it to which these people think they're entitled?

Fleet Street endorsements at election time aren't worth yesterday's fish and chip paper

Well, they are - to the papers themselves, that is, particularly if they're changing horses.  The Guardian moving from Labour to the Liberals is more newsworthy than the Telegraph declaring for the Conservatives again.  And papers like to be news as well as write it.

Which, no doubt, helps to explain the former's endorsement of Nick Clegg's party - the Observer has also come out for it today - as well as the Times' of David Cameron's.

Cynics will grumble that in the latter case Murdoch's view was the decisive factor. But Murdoch himself has never been an enthusiast for Cameron, and in any event allows the Times a lot of leeway.  A sense of which way the wind's blowing is a more likely explanation, at least in part.

But the notion that such endorsements count is mistaken.  Sure, the Guardian and Observer editorials are likely to send more nokias flying in Downing Street, and carpets there will cower in anticipation of being chewed.  Nonetheless, those leading articles - like this post - are here today, gone tomorrow.

What matters at elections isn't a paper's editorials.  It's the totality of a paper's coverage during the previous Parliament: what stories are investigated; which ones are covered, and how; how much space they command; for how long they run; what analysis and comment goes with them.

And even then, this totality may not matter.  "It's the Sun wot won it", that paper crowed after the 1992 election.  (On polling day, its front page portrayed Neil Kinnock's head as a light bulb, accompanied by a headline reading: "If Kinnock wins today will the last person in Britain please turn off the lights".)

The Sun's coverage of Labour had been unwaveringly hostile. But its boast has been disputed by claims about cause and effect: did the Sun's view lead the voters, or the voters' view lead the Sun? Certainly, it was no longer backing the Tories by 1997, or even John Major by 1995.  (It summed up that year's Conservative leadership election as "Redwood versus Deadwood".)

In any event, the papers don't always, or even usually, get their own way.  The Mail was unambiguously opposed to Labour by 2005.  But even Paul Dacre's big guns couldn't stop Tony Blair's bandwagon that year.  We had no better luck on the Telegraph when I there in 1997.

Furthermore, power's seeping away from the papers.  Not as much as some tend to claim: for example, consider how the Telegraph was able to utilise the expansive space and distinctive accessibility of newsprint during the expenses scandal.  But visibly and unmistakably to...well, to Left Foot Forward and Guido Fawkes and Harry's Place and, yes, even this site.

For a while, newsprint and the net will work antiphonally, responding to each other's work.  After that, who knows?  But in the meantime, as before, Fleet Street endorsements at election time aren't worth yesterday's fish and chip paper.

Paul Goodman

Businessmen run anti Lib Dem ads

 A late addition to the election campaign from Policy Defusion:

Policy Dufusion has been set up by businessmen Richard Thoburn, Mark Rayner, Kevin Harrington and Ken Tonkin. All are very concerned about the effect of a hung parliament on the economy and believe that a Liberal Democrat  government or a coalition government with a strong Liberal Democrat influence would be a disaster for the economy and for the country.

Here are the posters they are producing on advans. Not exactly "love bombing", is it?

 

 
 

 

Labour is down, and its throat is exposed. Finish it.

Labour is in rout.  It leader lurches from self-parody to self-parody, grooving with an Elvis impersonator, quoting Don Quixote, declaring his own supporters bigots.  The press has already lost interest in Labour's campaign, with much reporting now focusing on who will stand for leader post-election and who might be the caretaker in the meantime.  Staunch long-term supporting papers have jumped ship.

Expect further rout this week.  Labour poll support will probably fall further, even from its current low level, perhaps to consistently below 25%.  On Election day one can expect a further 2-3% fall-off as Labour voters don't come out to take part in the humiliation.