Martin Bright

Labour's press conference this morning was a surprisingly cheery affair. Peter Mandelson was very much in control of proceedings and the media mob was clearly feeling benevolent on a lovely spring morning. I'm not sure it was entirely wise to run a spoof post-election news broadcast on the double-dip recession caused by Tory economic policy. It felt too much like the Labour high command has already accepted the inevitable. However, the focus wasn't really on the Tories but the Lib Dem surge. The Labour Party has the right strategy on this: hug them close and emphasise how much common ground there is. They know the Tories stand to lose most from a Lib Dem poll boost.

Gordon Brown should have done it at the beginning of the recession. He and David Cameron should be thinking very seriously about it now. Perhaps national government is an idea whose time has come. Again. With the prospect of a very close election, in which people are clearly sick of the conventional two-party system, there is every reason to imagine a genuine government of all the talents after the election, with ministerial posts given to senior figures from all three parties. Is there any reason that Nick Clegg shouldn't be prime minister in a national government? It would seem he is the people's choice.  The obvious objection is that a national government would be anti-democratic.

I must say I had a chuckle at Alastair Campbell's tweet during the leaders' debate: "Clegg done well on style, Cameron clear winner on shallowness, GB winner on substance".  I had another chuckle when Alan Johnson used the line in the post-debate analysis and now I see David Miliband congratulating Alan Johnson for using it and  Miliband's comments being recirculated by eager Labourites. So who stole it from whom? For we socialists all property is theft and everything should be owned in common so I guess it doesn't really matter. But it is amusing to see how pleased everyone is with this one-liner.

Shall we stop being cynical for a moment and congratulate Brown, Cameron and Clegg for being the first political leaders in Britain to take part in a televised election debate? Indeed, we should particularly congratulate Gordon Brown for agreeing to this. He had by far the most to lose. There is absolutely no doubt that Nick Clegg won this. He faltered from time to time, but was the only one confident enough to take thoughtful (if sometimes stagey) pauses.  I thought Gordon Brown also did surprisingly well. He kept his cool and showed that he is an accomplished debater. His jokes were over-prepared and characteristically dreadful, but he warmed up through the 90 minutes and challenged Cameron very effectively on several occasions, especially over police spending.

I had my first experience of frontline canvassing in a marginal at the weekend, when I visited my mum in the west country for a few days. She lives in a village in Nick Harvey's North Devon constituency, a key target seat for the Tories. As a lifelong Labour and former activist she is torn between wasting her vote on the Labour candidate or voting tactically to keep out  the Tory, Philip Milton. On Monday we found some Lib Dem canvassers on the doorstep and very cheery in that way Lib Dems have to be. They explained why it made no sense to vote Labour in North Devon and the clincher was when one local Lib Dem said, "You really should vote to keep Milton out, I should know, I'm his cousin." Well, it was almost the clincher.

With the publication of the Labour and Conservative manifestos we should now have some idea of the real differences between the two largest parties. But I am more struck by the similarities. I know we are supposed to believe that Labour is the party of the enabling state, but it chose to emphasise how it would enable the individual during its manifesto launch, just as the Tories did. For the Tories' Big Society read Labour's "mutualisation". There is not as much difference as the politicians would have you believe. Both policies are born out of a simple, pragmatic realisation that the state will not have the cash to intervene even if it wanted to.

I really enjoyed Anne McElvoy's Standard column today. She is absolutely right to identify the false notes of day one of the election campaign. Gordon Brown really was talking nonsense about his ordinary middle-class background and David Cameron should certainly drop the glottal stop. She is right to say that neither has any clarity of vision yet. For what it's worth I agree with Kevin Maguire agreeing me that Labour looked more confident on day one and that the Tories seemed nervous. On day two, Cameron was beginning to get into his stride and Brown's interview with NIck Robinson was awful. The wall-to-wall media coverage is almost all completely absorbing, generally well-executed and sometimes even informative. But i've already had several sneaking "so what" moments.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft has kicked off the election campaign with possibly the most depressing article I have ever read about British politics. Jetting off to the States for an academic engagement, the old curmudgeon says he feels no regret at missing an election in which he has lost interest.  This say more about the author of the piece than the election, which promises to be the most fascinating in my adult life. But then I am nearly twenty years younger than Mr Wheatcroft. His central argument is that the Labour and Conservative messages are uninspiring. The Labour government will admit that the situation is dire, but claim it would be worse under the Tories; the Tories will call for change, without having much to offer.

I have had the pleasure of meeting two major figures of the American intellectual left over the past two weeks: Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne and Michael Kazin, co-editor of Dissent magazine. I'm sure there are as many differences as similarities in the politics of these two men, but what struck me about meeting them was how complacent and flabby we have become in Britain with our progressive politics. The relative strength of the Labour Party and the trade unions make us believe our radical traditions are safe here. But last night's Dispatches made me realise just how fragile a principled left-wing politics has become.  It is as well not to get over-romantic about other intellectual cultures.