And oh, how we waited.

But today, Total Politics (via Iain Dale) published its annual list of the top 100 political blogs in advance of this year’s Guide to Political Blogging. Whatever one thinks of TP’s methods of polling (explained in full back in 2009), this allows for a year on year comparison either side of a General Election to see if the change of stripes at the top has affected the hierarchy of political blogs.

The first and most obvious comparison to undertake is right-wing vs left-wing. Obviously this should really be broken down into more precise categories since the political ecosystem does not exist along a linear RW-LW spectrum, but most of the blogs concerned do break down quite easily into RW-LW, plus it gives nicer results. So without claiming to be strictly scientific and looking only at the top 20, in 2009 there were 13 RW blogs and 3 LW. In 2010 those figures are closer together at 9 RW and 6 LW. The most prominent rise by a blogger’s mile is Left Foot Forward. Having not featured at all in TP’s 2009 poll it is now 3^rd overall. Labour List has not only survived Derek Draper but risen, incredibly, to 6^th. Somebody buy Alex Hilton a drink. The rest of the LW top 20 are Tom Harris, Hopi Sen, Liberal Conspiracy and Next Left.

Looking at the remaining 30 from each year, this pattern is borne out. There is still a perceptible RW bias but it has lessened overall. I haven’t done the actual maths because classifying all those blogs along RW-LW lines would lead to a lot of non sequiturs. Best to see for yourself.

Other changes include a doubling of the mainstream media’s presence in the top 50 (but only from 5 to 10) and a decrease of 1 in the number of MPs’ blogs (Nadine Dorries has dropped out, the rest remain the same). Of the total 14 dropouts from the top 50 there is a good mixture of political allegiances. Breaking them down into (Total Politics’) more precise categories we find, LW = 4, Conservative = 3, Lib Dem = 1, Libertarian = 1, MSM =1 (thanks to The Times’ paywall), Green = 1, Plaid =1, (N/A = 2).

Overall, one can’t help but feel that, despite prior predictions, the change of government has had little effect. Rather, it is the quality of writing that has kept the top at the top and brought others up the rankings. To suggest that Left Foot Forward is more successful because blogging in opposition yields more readers would be to ignore the quality of its writing. Perhaps that quality rises in opposition because it is easier to criticise, which would explain the continual dominance of Guido Fawkes. But for every example that proves a theory there is one that disproves it. Say what you like about Iain Dale’s blog, it certainly isn’t out to attack and criticise.

If a blogger known for an allied but balanced viewpoint can trade places with Guido at the top of the rankings then maybe the safer theory is to say that content remains king and the colour atop No. 10’s mast is irrelevant. Of course, it might be that the slightly unusual pastel shades of the current administration’s livery best explain the general stasis within these rankings…

If you feel as though the cabinet still looks fairly Tory, bear in mind that the LDs have got a referendum on the alternative vote, fixed term parliaments and House of Lords reform. These are, or will be, major constitutional shifts.

It is easy to get carried away with all the excitement (isn’t it?) and indeed yesterday evening on Downing St was a fairly exciting place to be. But as that wise old sage Peter Hennessy remarked on Radio 4 this morning, “History has dealt Cameron one of the toughest inheritances in peace time that an incoming Prime Minister has ever had”, and he is, of course, not wrong. Pundits and politicians are, I suspect, divided between those who think this in-tray should be tackled by a single party because coalitions are inherently unstable, and those who feel this coalition is inherently stable and therefore the best way to tackle the biggest problems; problems far greater in size than any one party is able to swallow. I’m in the latter for the moment. Of course the minute anything goes wrong I will switch immediately and delete my happy tweets from last night.

My only real concern is that all this “new politics” lark – less partisanship, working together, more mature, grown-up government - will mean they actually start to behave themselves at PMQs and it might be rather dull, as in every other country. But if that’s what it takes to empty that in-tray then I suppose it’s worth it. I’ll just watch the re-runs on YouTube…

Government tariff 1: Pray As You Go: Lib-Lab coalition (24 month contract)*

Hung Parliament. Tories are the largest party but Lib Dems poll well. Labour are nowhere. Tories manifestly do not want a Lib-Tory coalition and Cameron rules it out. He’s playing the long game. Clegg has to stick to his refusal to work with the leader who polled lowest, so has to wait for Labour to elect a new leader. The markets collapse. Mandelson and Balls go head to head. Mandy wins, one of the Milibae becomes leader. Clegg is PM, Miliband (D) Home Sec. Within a year they are more hated than Thatcher as a result of their failure to deliver anything in their manifestos. The only thing they do deliver was not in their manifestos: public sector cuts on a biblical scale.

Government tariff 2: Pray Monthly: Lib-Con coalition (12 month contract)*

Hung Parliament. Tories are the largest party polling better than most expected, around 315 seats. Lib Dems poll ok but not as well as some had thought they might, say around 80 seats. Labour are in meltdown. However, Brown won’t budge. Balls/Whelan brief wildly against everything and everyone except Brown staying or Balls taking over. Mandy gives up and heads for his yacht. Campbell goes back into rehab. Clegg realises that any association with this poisonous shower is political suicide and looks to Cameron; they strike a deal. Lib-Tory dream(!) ticket government, a ‘coalition of all the talents’, emergency budget within 50 days and electoral reform is quietly sidelined (Tory grass roots breathe sigh of relief). Cameron PM, Clegg Home Sec.

Government tariff 3: Flexi Time (no contract)*

Hung Parliament. Labour do much better than expected and come second. The Tories are the largest party but only just. This causes the Lib Dems and Tories to revaluate their positions. They retreat from their stand-offish hubristic positions, created by their prior assumptions about how well they would both poll and the inevitability of a Labour meltdown. Cameron is forced to concede some ground to the Lib Dems because they now have a genuine choice of coalition partners. They agree to an unofficial coalition in which the Lib Dems promise not to vote against Tory economic reforms and the Tories agree to a referendum on electoral reform. They are, of course, free to then campaign for a ‘No’ vote.

My money is on the latter. Much as I would like a Tory majority I can’t see it happening. The fact remains that most people want rid of Gordon Brown but do not actively want David Cameron. They like Nick Clegg but know he can’t be PM. A minority Tory government, for all of Cameron’s leadership skills, would, I fear, be weak, impotent, bad for the markets and ultimately damaging to the Tory brand. So if it is the Flexi Time option, I won’t be hurling myself in the road just yet.

  *All tariffs only available on your current handset, because you will not be able to afford a new one

Poplar and Limehouse is perhaps the most surprising seat on the Conservative target list, requiring a swing of just under 6%, the same sort of figure as more obvious targets like Reading West, Ipswich or Stirling. It has come to this for two main reasons – firstly the rapid gentrification of the area surrounding Canary Wharf, and secondly the rise of Respect and the consequential splitting of the Labour vote.

It is Conservative target seat number 105 and the fact that made my ears prick up and become suddenly very interested in (my) local politics was that if the Tories are to have a majority, they must win this new seat. If this happens it is likely that P&L will be seen as a benchmark, as evidence that Cameron’s decontamination project has worked. Until 2004 the Tories had never held a single seat in Tower Hamlets. A casual glance over some of P&L’s socio-economic statistics suggests a seat more reminiscent of such Labour strongholds as Salford and Eccles than of a marginal with Tory potential.

But the goalposts have been moved, literally. Poplar and Limehouse, previously Poplar and Canning Town, now incorporates the relatively affluent area of Wapping and no longer incorporates the relatively less affluent area of Canning Town. You can say what you like about stereotyping and lazy generalisations, but Jim Fitzpatrick’s (Lab) majority, 7,129 in 2005, has been notionally reduced to 3,942, or, if you believe The Times, no longer exists (at the time of writing). So, it’s game on.

————————————————-

CHT: How is your campaign going? Any particular successes/difficulties?

TA: It’s going very well.  We are getting very strong support on the doorstep and very strong recognition for me personally too.  One or two people have been worried about the prospect of  Galloway winning – but he really is a busted flush.  You’ve only got to look at the bookies’ odds (Ladbrokes have him at 10-1 a rank outsider, and myself on at evens, ahead of Labour).  I carry around a recent local newspaper article about it which seems to do the trick.

How is David Cameron’s tax break for married couples playing on the doorstep?

It’s going down well. People appreciate the principle and with the current dire economic situation the prospect of a tax break for hard pressed married families is very welcome.  It’s especially strong among the local Muslim and Christian community groups who have very strong traditional family values.

Your campaign leaflet states that the Shadow Housing Minister promised you at last year’s conference that a Conservative Government would build more homes than Labour have done. What will you do if they don’t deliver on this promise?

I believe we will. Labour have built fewer homes every year bar one since they have been in power than the Conservatives when they were in power.  Labour has let down those at the bottom of society by not investing in the affordable homes we need.  If we are elected and don’t fulfil this pledge then I will become the biggest thorn in the side of the Housing Minister possible.

Because of the boundary changes your constituency now includes an extraordinarily diverse range of people in terms of socio-economic statuses. What would you say to those who feel it is somehow inappropriate for a Conservative, or indeed any politician, to both represent some of the poorest and richest people in London?

It’s a fair question – but why shouldn’t a Conservative be able to?  I represent as a councillor a ward in Tower Hamlets that’s diverse in terms of wealth and status, and I have the reputation as being the most effective councillor on the council.  I certainly undertake more resident casework than any other.  I didn’t get elected by just well-off people voting for me – that’s impossible here.  I got elected by residents from across our society voting for me and I’ve worked hard for all parts of our community.  Residents need someone who can actually stand up for them. Your effectiveness is not about your class, upbringing or job, it’s actually about your ability to do the job and I’ve proven I’ve got the skills to stand up for local people.

Are there any issues that broadly unite people in P&L, investment bankers, Respect voters and students alike?

Concern about crime and anti-social behaviour.  It doesn’t matter if you live in a posh estate or a sink estate, we’re all affected by crime and crime in P&L has gone up 8% in the last year and that’s in an area that has already got a high crime rate.  We need to get more bobbies on the beat and we need them at the times when there is trouble, not ten o’clock on a Monday morning but when the schools turn out at three thirty, in the evening and at night and Friday and Saturday nights in particular.  We need to cut the paperwork and get the police out of the police stations and onto the streets.

Of the other seven candidates standing in P&L, which do you feel there is most support for on the doorstep and if there is a specific policy of theirs that attracts this support, what is it? 

It’s certainly not Labour, whose support would appear to be collapsing.  I have heard some support for the Greens and specifically their green policies, but in reality they are not going to get anywhere, and the Conservatives have a really progressive agenda on green issues.

What are your thoughts on the Lib Dem surge in the opinion poll ratings and if you were David Cameron, what would your strategy be? 

We need to stick to our core messages (dealing with crime, dealing with the deficit, dealing with the broken society) and not be too distracted by the Lib Dem bubble.  I firmly believe that when push comes to shove, people will not want a hung parliament and they certainly won’t want a Labour government propped up by Clegg, and they will vote accordingly.

George Galloway’s battle bus has been driving up and down my road for some time now. Any reason you haven’t invested in one yourself? (Optional question: any ideas how I can legally make him stop?)

The pollution coming out of that bus is something else and I’m not necessarily talking about the exhaust!  I’ve had lots of complaints from local residents fed up with the noise and traffic problems that this bus is creating.

I’ve not spent money on a bus for two reasons: one they are very expensive on a very limited campaign budget, and I’d rather spend the money we’ve got on more meaningful communication with local residents. Secondly I think it turns people off politics and it does more harm than good.

Can I persuade you to join Twitter?

Not at this stage in the campaign!!  I am actually already on twitter, but have just not got into it [I tried and failed to find you.].  If elected then I will force myself to start using it seriously as I think it would be a great tool to let my constituents know what I’m up to.  I have also committed to publishing a monthly timesheet, detailing who I’ve met and what I’ve been doing.

Thanks Tim, and good luck.

(Interview conducted by email. Image of Poplar & Limehouse from ElectionMaps.co.uk. Image of the old Poplar & Canning Town constituency stolen from Jim Fitzpatrick’s old website, which he only updated to reflect boundary changes two weeks ago. Keep up Jim.)

Iain Martin – BBC News – Sky News – Iain Dale (see here too) – you get the idea.

Whatever you might think of someone who says, “All these Eastern Europeans what are coming in – where are they flocking from?”, she is Labour to the core and the core of Labour. To be nice to her face and insulting behind her back is about as bad as it gets and will be seen as indicative of Brown’s wider personality, whether or not it actually is. Not only this, she raised what has been for so many people the silent issue of this campaign: immigration. To see such views batted away as bigoted will deeply upset many other Labour voters.

No wonder this followed soon after.

UPDATE: Believe it or not, it gets worse.

With that in mind, I felt it necessary to look at one of the Lib Dems’ favourite mantras, that of reforming our ‘broken politics’, as Clegg puts it. A large part of that would be reforming the electoral system. This is also an area worthy of exploration because, if it were my money, I would bet on this being one of the tricky areas of agreement in a Lib-Tory coalition. What electoral system would be proposed, why, by whom and to what end?

Most of the time you only hear Clegg talk about “Some form of proportional representation”, but according to Chris Huhne, it is the Single Transferable Vote system they favour. Gordon Brown’s deathbed conversion to another form of PR, the Alternative Vote, is nonsense in two senses: his zeal for reform is completely disingenous and the AV system is crap. I won’t go into why because I’m already going into the why the STV system is good, and that’s complicated enough. 

In First Past the Post (the current system), once a candidate has won their constituency, all of the remaining votes for that person are wasted. None of those voters need have turned up, their vote is meaningless. Under the STV system, instead of putting a cross next to one candidate’s name on your ballot paper, you would vote for all of the candidates standing in your constituency but in order of preference. That way, when your first choice candidate has won, your vote transfers to your next choice and is counted. Every vote counts.

Marvellous, you might think. Where has it been all our lives? What’s the problem? Well part of the problem is that it would take days to get an election result rather than 24 hours. But you might say that’s a price worth paying for the increased level of fairness in the system, and I would have to agree.

A much bigger problem – potentially, depending on your views of fairness – is that majority governments might become a thing of the past. At this point I am going to hand you over to my esteemed colleague, The Rt Rev Andrew James and his analysis of what the last election would have looked like and how the forthcoming election might look under an STV system.

In essence there is one main problem if you’re not a Tory and two if you are. The first one is the one already raised; if your voting system tends to return hung parliaments and requires coalition governments, is it fairer than one that wastes votes but gives you strong governments that, as Andrew points out, whatever you think about their unfairness, were the choice of the majority? In other words, does ‘fairness’ only pertain to the strength of your vote? One might argue that there’s no point making sure your vote counts if less is done to improve your country as a result.

The second problem (the one that only exists if you’re a Tory) is that, because the votes trickle down through your selections, the fact that there are two relatively strong centre left parties and only one relatively strong centre right, in an STV system the Tories would be severely punished. Clearly most Lib Dem and Labour voters would choose the other as their second choice. This might not have mattered quite so much before the recent Lib Dem revolution but it matters hugely nowm first for that very reason but also because there are plenty of Tories, like myself, who would put the Lib Dems second as well.

To borrow an example from Andrew’s post, using PoliticsHome/YouGov regional data, the forthcoming election would yield the Lib Dems 106 seats under First Past the Post, but 161 seats under STV. I am not arguing that this is intrinsically bad – clearly it is much fairer. Rather I am pointing out the political dangers of it for the Tories and, by implication, the huge problems for a Lib-Tory coalition in which the former puts electoral reform at the top of their list of demands.

I don’t think there is genuine appetite for electoral reform amongst the public. Rather it is the Lib Dem surge that has brought to people’s attention just how unfair the current system is for them (the LDs). But as I’ve said before, three party politics is not the norm; most of the time FPtP does favour our party system. Changing the electoral system because of an unsual turn of events in the party system is not necessarily the best idea and not, I would argue, good for the country. There is an in-tray from hell waiting on the next government’s desk; whomever it consists of need to be working on that, not squabbling about how they got there.

• Telegraph.co.uk: Boris Johnson: Only two can play – which leaves no room in the game for Labour
• Heresy Corner: How to dish the Whigs

Meanwhile, this is a great round up of the situation as it stands:

• BBC – Andrew Neil’s blog: The We Mo

Heresy Corner’s suggestion that Cameron does a Disraeli is an interesting one. The idea being that, as Disraeli did with Gladstone, Cameron steals the title of grand reformer of the people from Clegg by proposing something even more radical and populist, thus handing him the support of all those who currently support Clegg’s policy of proportional representation. There are some problems with that though. First, I suspect there was far more support for widening the franchise in 1867 than there is for PR now. Bear in mind most Tories by nature do not want it and that they constitute a majority of the electorate, according to the polls. Second, Disraeli managed to persuade his party to push through these ultra-radical reforms by pointing to the fact that people would thank them by voting for them. However, the Tories lost in 1868. Whether the current Tories remember 1868 is not really the point. It’s more that they will never accept Clegg’s proposed reforms. So Cameron has to come up with something that benefits the Tories electorally but is also fair for and understandable to the country. He’s gone on about radicalism enough; if he could only demonstrate he is the true reformer on the ticket, he might just pull off a majority.

——————–

We’re all coalitions really…

Now, since so many people have suddenly developed the bizarre idea that a hung parliament would be a good thing and that coalitions are somehow good for the country, in that very spirit, the rest of this post is just a useless amalgam of stuff I thought and saw with no real point, purpose or outcome, much like a coalition…

I would also point out that the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens etc, are all themselves coalitions. Not everyone in every party agrees entirely on everything, as we all know. But they coalesce around a series of ideas because that way lies power and the ability to put some of those main ideas into practice. Stretch that coalition of ideas to the point where you include two opposing ideas and you obviously have an unstable alliance and usually some kind of split. See the SDP split from Labour in ‘81 for example…

——————–

Nobody understands Gordon anymore

Questions about Gordon Brown’s sanity have been doing the rounds for years now, and hiring an Elvis Impersonator did nothing to assuage concerns. It was a truly bizarre moment. At first it looked as though the guy had broken in, like some kind of guerrilla impersonator, but no. He had been hired. Newsnight covered it beautifully. Gordon walked on to the lyrics, “When no-one else can understand me/when everything I do is wrong.” Masterful.

But as the campaign grows ever more surreal not even the most professional commentators can any longer contain themselves. Paul Waugh and Laura Kuenssberg  both struggled to hide their exasperation at GB’s behaviour at this morning’s speech to the nurses. Meanwhile another Labour PPC has been sacked following some extraordinarily dark behaviour in the corners of the internet. Lovely picture of him on Tory Bear for those of a strong constitution.

——————–

Twittering for a tw*tting

For those sceptical about the uses of Twitter, a little story for you with links to status updates. Yesterday, while moving a coffee table around Tower Hamlets, I pulled up outside my house and noticed George Galloway was sitting outside a local cafe. He isn’t difficult to spot, partly because anyone wearing wrap around shades with slicked back hair tends to stand out, but also because the diesel-powered festival of nonsense that is his Respect battlebus was parked across the road. Naturally, I tweeted: ‘George Galloway currently sitting outside cafe next to my house. The possibilities are endless.’ Several minutes later I received a reply: ‘So am I his bouncer, so watch your back!!!’

I was not following Jay Stewart before this episode and neither was he following me. Therefore he must have been running a constant Twitter search for all mentions of George Galloway, which is… odd? Impressive? Either way, it was a funny encounter.

The internet tells me (make of that what you will) that Jay has a more vested interest in protecting George as he is, I gather, his son-in-law.

——————–

Vote with your throat

Finally, if you would like to ‘vote with your throat’, do visit The Cambridge on the outskirts of Soho for a political pint of London Pride. The three taps are themed according to the colours of the three main parties. I am happy to report their poll last night stood at L: 106, LD: 76 and C: 116.

Smarkets currently has the odds of winning tonight’s debate thus: Brown, 9%, Cameron 49.5%, Clegg 55.56%. Obviously this is due to last week rather than the Lib Dem’s wonderful foreign policy. In reality it is pretty weak, light on detail and fairly naïve; pages and pages on climate change, one mention of terrorism. However, this won’t matter this evening. They did not support the invasion of Iraq which obviously earns them big brownie points with the electorate. A greater threat comes in the form of Clegg’s promise of an ‘In/Out’ referendum on the EU. As David Blackburn points out, this is utterly disingenious but it’s pretty smart politics. Cameron has surely seen it coming, but he, like Brown, is tarnished with not following through on similar promises. Only Clegg’s can still sound sincere. Strangely, the discarded notes of Clegg’s adviser John Sharkey, contain no such plot.

If Clegg dominates again his polls will surely hold firm until the election (barring any rent boy scandals) and, I think, probably exceed Cameron’s. DC has to blow this one out of the water and it will  not be easy. Although to be fair, pity Brown’s advisers.

The second debate could seal the deal for a hung parliament. The real question is, what will it look like?

Photo: Andrew Cowie/ Barcroft Media

Anyway, since that metaphor isn’t really going to work, let’s move to another matter that had me punching my trackpad late last week. Past its read-by date this particular thing might be, but the overall message certainly isn’t. It is that celebrities should not comment on politics. By celebrities I mean all celebrities, but sadly, in this particular instance, I mostly refer to comedians or writers of whom I am, in every other way, a huge fan.

Now, I am no Stalin; they are free to say as they wish. By ’should not’, I mean ’should not if they want to retain a shred of credibility, if they want to sound like they know what they’re talking about in any way whatsoever’. Politicians, for all their foibles, do not opine about what is and what is not funny or worth watching on TV. So why is it that so many otherwise brilliant comic creatives decide we must bear aural witness to their ill-informed, unfounded and bigoted views? What makes this so much worse is that their invariably stupid opinions, instead of being shot down in flames as they should be, as they would be if they were on Question Time in a sensible part of the country, ride a wave of false credibility by virtue of their popularity. Listen up, the public: Just because somebody has become famous for being funny, just because they are known of by more people than they know, does not give them a uniquely vivid, all-seeing view over the population and how they should be governed. They know no more than you or I.

Probably should have made that catchier, more like a one-liner perhaps. Well, sometimes things aren’t that simple.

Eddie Izzard is the person positioned most centrally on my target, at least for the moment. Charlie Brooker, Stephen Fry and Chris Addison also feature, as does anyone else who thinks Thatcher was yesterday and jokes about her somehow constitute funny and new material. Attacking these people feels like turning a gun on my own family, but I can’t bear it anymore. These are intelligent people failing to do their research or whacking off another indolent column without a thought to the fact that perhaps Dan Hannan is entitled to say what he likes about the NHS. Perhaps, Brooker, he knows a tiny bit more than you about the welfare state; it is, after all, his job. I disagree with Hannan too, but I wouldn’t attack it if I were paid to write about television. We all know you can rattle off insults better than most, but deploying your verbal guns in an attempt to overturn a political argument, based on actual things, makes for pretty sad reading.

It was bad enough when I discovered many years ago that Izzard, my childhood hero, the man who could make socks getting stuck in the washing machine funny, was a die-hard Labour lover, but I got over that when I was old enough to understand that other people could have opinions too (circa 12 years old). Graciously, I maintain that view today, in spite of all the odds. People are free to support the Labour party, of course they are. But seriously Izzard, do you have to be so bigoted? Anyone who attacks people of an opposing political hue by resorting to such pathetic, lazy vitriol insults only their own party. This goes for left and right alike, but for some reason – I’ve no idea why - many on the left seem almost programmed to take this line of attack; it appears to be in their DNA; it is their default position.

Toby Young is absolutely right that Izzard’s delivery is brilliant, and as a Party Political Broadcast it is light years ahead of anything produced by the parties themselves, past or present. But this undeniable fact does not take away from the appalling content. Here is a selection of quotes:

• “I’m doing the broadcast because I take great offence at the Tories slagging off Britain, saying it’s broken.”
• “I ran around the country and I found that Britain is brilliant.”
• “People from all kinds of backgrounds ran with me. Kids from rural estates and kids from inner city areas.”
• “The country has a big heart, which I saw even while we were going through tough times.”
• “The Tory party have changed their suits, but still don’t believe in fairness, otherwise they wouldn’t be in the Tory party.”
• “They [the Tories] just want to take all the money and spend it on themselves and live in big houses and then have ducks and duck ponds.”
• “If you look back through the history of the Tory party, have they ever been nice to people? No. They’re nice to themselves. That’s why they joined the Tory party. They want to help themselves move forward and be richer and have duck ponds.”

I hardly know where to begin. You might say, oh calm down, he’s only making fun of them, he’s not serious. Well then f*** off out of politics, because like it or not, it is serious. You ran around the country and “found that Britain is brilliant”? Give me strength. I’m really pleased you had a good time Eddie, but has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe Britain appeared to be “brilliant” because people think you are “brilliant” and consequently, rather than stabbing you, were really very welcoming, supportive and nice? I don’t like Cameron’s Broken Britain rhetoric either, but it doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong with the country. Do you have anything to say about that? Any comments on Labour’s relatively successful efforts to tackle child poverty? No. Of course not.

For exactly the same reason that the parents of victims of knife crime should not front campaigns and have their requests made law, celebrities’ views on the state of the country should not be adhered to. Theirs is the one perspective from which all observations are invalid, because it is uniquely skewed in the positive (celebrity) or the negative (victim), when what we actually need is an objective, critical and analytical viewpoint in order that problems might be solved without causing new ones. In order that we might progress and improve in such a way that we all benefit. That is the supposed aim of politics, no?

The Tory party, Eddie tells us, “don’t believe in fairness”. If I had read this in a level 1 SATS essay from the grandchild of Arthur Scargill I might understand, but from an adult this is embarrassingly vacuous and pathetic. All politicians believe in fairness, for Christ’s sake. By all means disagree on their proposed ideological route to fairness, but to start whining, “The Tories want to take all the money and spend it on themselves and live in big houses and then have ducks and duck ponds”, is lazy, stupid, deeply irresponsible and plainly bollocks. If he is arguing that the Tories don’t believe in fairness because one of them had a duck pond, I might refer to the number of transgressions by Labour MPs uncovered by the expenses scandal, I might point out that the only MPs to face criminal prosecutions are from the Labour Party, but his argument is so screamingly inane that there’s almost no point.

The point about responsibility is particularly salient. As somebody lucky enough to have the aforementioned wave of credibility supporting their every sentiment, celebrities have a responsibility not to trot out such bilge. I am happy to hear why Eddie Izzard actually supports the Labour Party, whether it is because he prefers their tax system, or because he dislikes free market capitalism, believes banks needs greater regulation, dislikes the Tories New Schools policy, whatever, I don’t mind, go for it. Even make it funny. But at least make it accurate. The fact that he can’t be bothered undermines his every word.

Clegg’s popularity rating was basically zero before the debate because, as I say, people were unaware of him/didn’t consider him a viable option. But zero is, of course, far better than -10, -20 etc, which is where DC and GB lie in some people’s estimations. So not only will Clegg have attracted swing voters and young people who might not have voted, he will mostly have drawn the attention of those people – of whom I suspect there are a lot – who have always voted Labour but refuse to do so until Brown’s gone. They won’t vote Tory and see (saw) a Lib Dem vote as a wasted vote so they felt slightly disenfranchised and angry.

Some of the more hysterical commentators started having Lib Dem coloured kittens in response to a ComRes poll put them on 35%, up from around 21%, Tories 36% and Labour 24%. However, that was an automated phone poll of people who had watched the debate, thus it’s lack of comparability to any other poll makes it useless for predicting an election outcome.

What will be interesting is whether Clegg’s bounce holds, because if it does I reckon he’s going to have to tweak his strategy. His soft line of attack was to be the ordinary guy next to the two politicians. Somebody on Twitter last night called it the Lib Dem love bomb, which is most certainly is. “The more they argue the more they sound the same”, Clegg exclaimed in response to GB and DC discussing economic policy. Because people haven’t developed much of a hatred or liking for Clegg yet, he isn’t tarnished in the same way. He can play the everyman card and pretend to be just as frustrated with politicians as we all are. Not only that but he can also use the, “You’ve had your chance” card on both of the others, which only Cameron can use against Brown, and to far less effect.

The other challenge hurtling towards him is what he does once people’s opinions of him do form and set in their minds. Then he will be subject to the same level of scrutiny from the media and possibly vitriol from the public that DC and GB are. The length of the honeymoon and where it ends in relation to the election being held is the important factor, and it’s impossible to predict.

That aside, Clegg played it well last night, but if he really wants to succeed in these debates he will at some point have to make the transition from political upstart to statesman. Right now the idea of him stepping off a jet to shake hands with Obama is faintly ridiculous. On the other hand, a Clegg victory is only a hung parliament, so maybe he could leave the statesmanship to Cameron.

Whatever the weather, it just got a lot more interesting.

You can read a full transcript of the debate here, should you wish to…