Conservative party

Really, what's happened to the Labour campaign?  You know things are taking a turn for the worse when you read that Gordon Brown is taking a more high profile role to save his party from a third-place finish.  But then you see that high profile role in action, and, well ... First there was an event which incorporated some deliciously ironic innuendo about the Tories' spending cuts.  The PM lamented the fact that Jeremy Paxman didn't press the Tory leader on claims that there is "too much" public spending in Northern Ireland and the North East, concluding that "there is no part of the United Kingdom that is safe from what the Conservative party would do.

The Spectator’s endorsement of David Cameron started with his ‘free schools’ policy – and we could have ended there. We said that this is, in itself, enough reason to vote Conservative. This week’s Economist has produced one of the best explanations of this policy, and its potential.  This is important because this election campaign shows that, while the public are indeed minded to oust Gordon Brown, they’re not terribly excited by the Tory offering. The Gove schools plan is something which, if properly expressed, cannot fail to capture the imagination. In my limited experience of persuading people why they should vote, I find the schools policy always works.

Planting seeds, that's what the Tories are doing – they're planting the seeds of a Lib-Con alliance.  Yes, it's a subtle process, and is couched in terms of denial and defiance.  But it's still going on.  I mean, look at Cameron's interview with Jeremy Paxman past night (video on Spectator Live), where he declined to rule out having Nick Clegg in his Cabinet – although, happily, he was more unequivocal on the subject of Vince Cable.  And then there's Ken Clarke's interview with the Daily Telegraph this morning, in which he says that the Conservative "starting point" for any coalition would be a refusal to compromise on their economic plans.

So, like last week: what's changed?  And, like last week, it's probably too early to judge.  The insta-polls may have Cameron and Clegg on level footing, but, really, we need to wait for voting intention polls before coming to any firm conclusions.  As we saw the day after the first debate, they can work in quite surprising ways. My instinct, though, is that things will remain relatively steady.  The Clegg surge of last week was, at root, a cry for change from the electorate – any change.  So it will probably take more than a solid Cameron victory in one TV debate to have voters flooding back to the Tories.  And it will probably take worse than a decent enough performance from Nick Clegg to shoot down the yellow bird of liberty.

The headlines will be "score draw", but I’d say Cameron won – and comfortably. I write this as someone who could have happily have sunk a few pins into a voodoo doll of David Cameron earlier on this evening – for taking the Conservatives (and Britain) to this appalling point where he may yet lose the election. But he raised his game, substantially. At best, he spoke with passion and authenticity. This time, he looked like he was fighting for his political life, which (of course) he is. Things are looking up. Here’s my participant-by-participant verdict: Brown Brown was his normal automaton self. He does tend to mangle his words, and his attempts at simplification backfire.

Well, one thing was clear: Brown and Cameron have both been at the textbooks, staying behind for extra classes, and learning the lessons of last week.  They came into this TV debate prepared.  Not just for the very fact of Nick Clegg, but with strategies and soundbites to slow his advance.  The result was a more passionate and confrontational show than I expected. Brown was the biggest surprise on the night.  Sure, you have to apply the usual caveats and parameters: he is Gordon Brown, and being disingenuous and deluded is what he does.  But, all that considered, he was uncharacteristically sprightly, I thought.

Europe is likely to play a big role in tonight’s debate. It is probably the one issue that divides the Liberal Democrats and the Tories as much as electoral reform. Nick Clegg, a former MEP and adviser to then-EU Commissioner Leon Brittan, is a euro-enthusiast who would like Britain to join the Euro, even if it takes time. David Cameron is a euro-skeptic (though not, to the chagrin of many CoffeHouse readers, obsessed about the issue).   But neither wants a confrontation with the EU and other European governments over the next four years - and the Liberal Democrats have become quieter over time about their pro-EU tendencies.

With Cable's and Clegg’s personal ratings being so high, the trick is to play the ball not the man. Ken Clarke and George Osborne achieved that at this morning’s press conference. Clarke said: “(Nick Clegg’s father was) a very nice, very wise guy, he was a very successful City guy, but he wasn’t a flashy guy... he was a Tory. It would have been better if Nick had stuck to the political principles of his father. (Nick Clegg) must regret going into the strange wastelands of Liberal Democrat politics.” He added that whilst he agreed with “70 percent” of Vince Cable’s analysis on the financial collapse, Cable’s solutions left him “bewildered”.

Nick Clegg handed Gordon Brown a lifeline in one respect: the economy’s old hat compared to the Clegg frenzy. Not any more. The news that unemployment rose by 43,000 between December and February, together with yesterday’s dramatic inflation rise, has dumped the economy back onto the front pages. The Tories must keep it there; this election should be about the economy and nothing else. Obviously, these figures, which are worse than expected, lend weight to the argument that Brown’s policies impair recovery. Also, they demolish Brown’s claim that he ran up a deficit in the boom years to protect employment: unemployment is now higher than it was 16 years ago.