Peter Hoskin

There's only one question which matters when it comes to Labour's tactical voting plea: will it work?  You can certainly see Brown & Co's thinking on this.  This is the election, after all, where the Lib Dems have become a viable option for a lot more people - so they might act as a speed bump for people rushing away from Labour and towards the Tories.  And anything which depresses the Tory vote gives Labour a greater chance of holding the most seats in the House, and of making some kind of post-election pact with Nick Clegg. But as David said earlier, Labour's osciallating stance towards the Lib Dems - lofty sneers one minute, sickly grins the next - is hardly convincing.  And neither is the timing.

Oh yes, the Tories are broadcasting more Ready For Government noises this morning.  There's an article in the Telegraph suggesting that David Cameron would choose a minority government ahead of coalition with the Lib Dems.  And the Guardian reports that a Tory government would set out a bulkload of spendings cuts in the first six months of office, when, as a senior Tory puts it, the "excitement of the general election aftermath" will still be hanging in the air. You can understand the Tory thinking here.  Not only will they find it easier to achieve things during the heat and righteous fury of early government, but they will also need to seize something like a mandate for the cuts which have remained off-stage during the election campaign.

Yesterday's attempted car-bombing in Times Square doesn't really tell us anything beyond that there are sociapaths willing to blow people up, and that sometimes luck – rather than judgement – foils their bloody plans.  But, given the Pakistani Taliban's claim that they were responsible for the attempt, it does serve as a grim reminder of the poison seeping out of that region.   The question now, and for the next few months, is whether the West will somehow become more engaged inside Pakistan.  It's notable how British ministers have increasingly namechecked the country when justifying our presence in Afghanistan – but, still, it seems that the Taliban and other Islamist groups have strengthened their foothold there.

There's a strange fin de siècle air about Labour this weekend: a new appreciation that the forthcoming election marks either the end of their reign, or – at best – is the start of a different, diluted kind of power.  There are still a few signs of life and struggle, sure.  I mean, Gordon Brown's interview with Jeremy Paxman last night was fairly proficient by his standards, if typically disingenuous.  But, even then, the PM is struggling to move the conversation on from Gillian Duffy.  In interview with the Telegraph today, he admits that he has "paid [a] heavy price" for his gaffe. That line forms the headline of the article. Even Tony Blair can't inject much joy into Labour's campaign.

A noteworthy set of observations from Iain Martin over at the Wall Street Journal: "The Labour family is starting to realise that if it is out of power it would need a caretaker leader in place quickly so that it can regroup, rethink and then work out which of the competing contenders has the best chance of beginning the work of reconstruction. In this context, I hear the name of Alistair Darling being mentioned increasingly as the interim option. It makes a lot of sense. The Chancellor has had a good crisis and he could steady the ship. He also has a great sense of humour - which will be crucial in the circumstances. Johnson is said not to really want it and Jack Straw is done for. Harriet Harman?

So that's the second time that immigration has had a major impact upon proceedings this week.  Until we came to the question on that topic, I thought Clegg was bossing the TV debate.  He was clear, personable and managed to hover elegantly above Brown and Cameron's dusty brawl over spending cuts.  But as soon as it came to clarifying Lib Dem policy on an amnesty for illegal immigrants, the wings rapidly fell off the yellow bird of liberty.  All of a sudden, Clegg sounded rattled and unpersuasive.  From then on in, it was Cameron's game. It helped that Cameron had the clearest – and, I suspect, the most popular – line on immigration: "We would cut immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.

So Brown has now visited Gillian Duffy's home to apologise to her in person.  Somehow, I think that's not going to defuse this row.  Labour have, in the lingo of the The Thick of It, a major omnishambles on their hands.  And he's called Gordon. The worst aspect of this for Labour, though, is the timing.  Sure, they wouldn't have chosen this at any point the campaign.  But, with only a week left, it threatens to both obliterate eveything that's gone before and overshadow whatever Brown does from now until polling day.   And then there's the final TV debate.

If you want a sense of where our politicians are when it comes to sorting out the nation's finances then I'd recommend you read this briefing paper which the IFS released earlier today.  What it shows, in stark graphs and charts, is what Adam Boulton, Andrew Neil et al were getting at in Labour's press conference earlier: yes, we know that there are significant cuts to come, but none of the parties are really letting on just where they will come from.   To my eyes, this chart tells the story particularly well.  It depicts how much each party will cut "unprotected" departmental spending by - and how much of those cuts has still got to be identified.

It's the story which has been simmering throughout the election campaign, and now it has has boiled over onto the front pages: fear and loathing in the Labour ranks.  After rumblings in the Sunday Times yesterday, its sister paper splashes with the headline "Labour in turmoil as pressure on Brown grows".  And, inside, Francis Elliot and Suzy Jagger report on the "jockeying to replace Gordon Brown".  Meanwhile, the front of the Independent speaks of "growing recriminations in senior Labour ranks over a lacklustre campaign that has seen the party relegated to third place in opinion polls."  The spotlight is finally turning, white-hot, on to Labour - after ten days of near exclusive illumination on the Lib Dems.