Immigration

Whoever wins Labour's leadership, whether it's a breed of Miliband or Balls, its future will be dominated by its understanding of how it found itself on opposition benches. Philip Gould, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the other progenitors of the New Labour project - were wrong. Their fatal assumption was that their core vote, the working classes, had no-where else to go. Labour, therefore, could reach out the middle classes, broadening their support and thus New Labour was born. At first their calculations were correct. Two slogans, "Education, Education, Education" and "Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime" brought together the two separate demographics to create a powerful - and seemingly unstoppable - election winning machine.

Meet Ed Balls, the candidate for Mrs Duffy. As the race for nominations closes, the Labour leadership candidates are beginning to focus on party members. With varying degrees of conviction, the contenders have identified immigration as the issue the party must address if it is to reconnect with those voters who spurned it. Ed Balls is that analysis's most fervent advocate. He devoted an article in the Observer to the subject.  Balls argued that there has been too much migration from Eastern Europe, and it has caused economic and social ills in communities such as the one he represents. In hindsight, Britain should have accepted the transitional controls during the eastern bloc’s accession in 2004.

So now the coalition stretches as far as Labour, with the news that Frank Field is being lined up as an anti-poverty advisor for the government.  In itself, this is an encouraging development: Field is one of decent men of Westminster – committed, informed and passionate.  But when you look at it beside the Tories' other appointments in this area, then it really becomes exciting.  Field, IDS, Grayling and Lord Freud – all are deeply knowledgable about the welfare reform agenda, to the point where it's difficult to think of many more impressive teams in recent political history.  So perhaps there is hope for this most difficult of policy areas, after all.

Today's debate was riveting. It showed two candidates who were miles away from each other. One was clear, honest and able to avoid the traps set by the interviewer. The other was dissembling and unclear, his line of argument collapsing under the barrage of questioning. If a doubting voter had heard the debate, unsure beforehand whether to vote Tory or Lib Dem, they would likely have plumped for the former, afterwards. Oh yes, there was a debate yesterday, too, among the three party leaders. But that's not what I'm talking about. No, with the debates now firmly part of the British political system, an equally important feature has arrived with it: the post-debate debate.

Every politician will be thinking "there but for the grace of God..." today - but the Gillian Duffy incident is not just a gaffe. It is bad for Gordon Brown and Labour on very many levels. Here are ten of them.   1. The image of the Politburo pulling away in the Jag, slagging off the proles. This confirms the idea of an elite, who sneer at voters in private but try to charm them in public. And the idea that politicians (of all parties) say one thing on camera, and another when they think no one is listening. 2. The is not just a gaffe, but the PM on tape insulting the voters. It's the worst thing you can do in an election campaign (ie Obama¹s "cling to guns and religion" remark). Far worse than if Brown were, say, caught swearing, Nixon-style.

Another day, another TV debate – only this time it was Alan Johnson, Chris Grayling and Chris Huhne behind the lecterns, talking crime on the Daily Politics.  Just like yesterday's debate, the questions were incisive and insistent.  But the politicians conspired to turn proceedings into a mush.  There was very little clarity, a sizeable dollop of bickering, and proof, were it needed, that Huhne really can go on a bit. To my mind, it all boiled down to likely audience perceptions.

Cameron has not, alas, broken free of the never-ending opinion poll bungee jump which is the story of his leadership of the Conservative Party. Cleggmania is a bubble – but the thing about bubbles is that one can never quite tell when they will burst. The Tories, who have lost the most votes due to this bubble, will have their needles out. But in my News of the World column today I suggest they focus on policy because they do have hard ideas that could radically change Britain. Cameron missed a trick by failing to mention his single best policy, Gove's school reform, last week.  On immigration, his plan for reducing it is the most radical promise on the market, and his linking it with welfare shows maturity and sophistication.

Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary and former attack dog, seems to have been cast into outer darkness. As with Oliver Letwin’s disappearing act in the 2001, Labour is toasting this unofficial scalp. Denis MacShane has been adding poison to the potion this morning. The Tories are paying a heavy price for Grayling’s B&B gaffe, but it’s self-inflicted. Grayling’s comments were cackhanded and I think he is wrong, but they were nowhere near as controversial as was claimed – he was seeking a clarification of the law, not calling for Sandi Toksvig to be lynched. I doubt Grayling will be Home Secretary but such a senior Shadow minister can’t hide away for ever.

The witterings of Phil Woolas about immigration yesterday - where he accused The Spectator of contorting immigration figures and double-counting immigrants - have landed him in plenty trouble. Stephen Timms was on the Daily Politics today and conceded that Woolas was talking out of his hat. They weren't our figures, they were from the ONS - and compiled under orders from Eurostat with its Labour Force Survey (LFS) scheme. Andrew Neil has written it up in a blog here. The government is at sea because even ministers in charge of the relevant departments have no idea about the scale of immigration in Britain. This wee farrago brings three lessons for the Conservatives. 1. Honesty about immigration is crucial.