And another thing…

NICK Clegg has reassured a completely indifferent concerned nation that he would work with one of the other parties in the interests of “fiscal stability” if the election produces a hung parliament.

There’s some lazy assumptions being made about the consequences of a hung parliament. And the laziest is the one that assumes Nick Clegg will even be consulted about anything. Why would he be? If either Labour or the Tories fall short of an overall majority, it would be entirely constitutional and practical for either GB or Dave to lead a minority government, at least for a short while, provided the other wasn’t trying to cobble together a larger coaition with the LibDems.

And it’s in neither of the main parties’ interests to invite the LibDems into government – they would only get in the way. Far better to govern as a minority, even if that means you can’t actually legislate.

NICK Clegg has urged Gordon Brown to be “candid” and “open” when he gives his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry.

In other news, the LibDem leader has “strongly urged” UK drivers to drive “on the left side of the road”…

It’s good to see that Clegg is actually in tune with the rest of the country on Chilcot; he made clear in his interview this morning that the conclusions the inquiry produce will have absolutely no bearing on his view of the war. Brown must “come clean”, said Clegg during Thought For The Day, thereby admitting that he believes GB has something to “come clean” about. But if Clegg thinks the inquiry is so important, why has he already decided that he will reject its conclusions unless they happen to agree with his own views?

The answer, of course, is that the LibDems and the other minor parties see Chilcot as important only in a vote-winning role. It provides copy for their election literature, nothing more. The calculation that the Liberals made in 2003 – that an anti-war stance might garner some much-needed votes – paid off and they’re hoping to pull off the same trick again. Hence his Uriah Heep-like hand-wringing at PMQs on the issue.

But by inviting the PM to attend the inquiry this side of the election, Chilcot has allowed it to become a party political football, just another soundbite in a long and drawn out general election campaign.

TODAY at Prime Minister’s Questions Nick Clegg launched his latest press release by calling on Gordon Brown to give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry before polling day.

His motives are transparent, and as usual they’re all about opportunism rather than principle. Clegg is desperate to make Iraq an issue in the general election, and thinks he can use the inquiry as a gimmick to benefit his party – you know, the party which, the night before the vote on Iraq, decided they would oppose the war in principle.

I never saw the point of having yet another inquiry into Iraq in the first place. But if it has to happen, it should be left to get on with it without being used as a political football in the middle of a general election campaign. Given the hysteria that would surround Brown’s appearance, it’s a fair bet that appearing after the votes have been counted would allow for a much calmer and considered analysis of what he has to say.

But “calm and considered” isn’t really what the Liberals do, is it? They can do hand-wringing earnestness and cynical manoeuvring, but “calm and considered”? Nah, doesn’t really fit into a Liberal Focus newsletter, does it?

NICK Clegg has dismissed David Cameron’s claims that their two parties are identical in all but name.

Clegg

Cameron

SINCE I’ve made a resolution not to blog about the weather, I might as well say something about the only other issue that’s got the chattering classes all excited: the leaders’ debate.

First, a few observations.

I do hope that at last we can get rid of the permanent ticker tape on Sky News asking us to sign their bloody petition as if their whining about wanting a debate actually qualifies as news.

Nick Clegg? WTF?! If we must have a debate, it would surely have been far better to involve only the main party leaders, with a separate one for Clegg, Salmond and whoever is leading UKIP these days. As it is, we’re going to have Brown and Cameron talking about the big issues, occasionally interrupted by the Liberal leader’s sanctimonious hand-wringing and lip-quivering sermons on “trust”.

Remember the 1992 presidential debates between Bush Snr, Clinton and Ross Perot? You get the picture.

As for the SNP, of course they’ll fulfill everyone’s expectations by having a wee tantrum. But their previously successful policy of book-burning preventing an interview with John Major being broadcast nationally in 1992 won’t work this time – too many of us can get the English regions on our Sky boxes. But if a Scottish debate is to be held, I assume Alex Salmond will not be representing his party, since it’s a Westminster election and Alex won’t be a candidate. (Having just typed that sentence, I now realise that, no matter how hard I try, I cannot summon any interest at all in who represents the SNP in the debates, but I thought I’d make the point anyway.)

Barring any legal difficulties, election debates will now become part of UK general election coverage. My guess is that the response of the general public to the leaders’ performances will have less impact on the final result than will the coverage of the debate by the media, since I doubt if the TV audiences will be large enough to have much of a direct effect (and I imagine the audience numbers will drop with each successive debate).

THE BBC are being unexpectedly kind to the LibDems today.

“LibDems keep tuition fees pledge”? Now, technically, the headline is correct. The Liberals have decided to keep their tuition fees pledge in their party’s programme.

But away from the Liberals, back in the real world, the phrase about “keeping” a pledge would normally mean “honoured”. In other words, parties can “keep” their promises by enacting in government whatever promises they made before polling day.

Given that the Liberals will not win the 2010 general election, the headline would have been more accurate had it read: “LibDems to retain meaningless promise to scrap tuition fees”. And the Beeb might also have gone on to explain that the only way such a promise can be kept is by reducing drastically the number of young people entering further education.

NICK Clegg is pursuing his idea for a mansion tax. “That’ll show them pesky rich people!”

But I think I’m missing something. He told Radio 4 this morning:

Actually our change increases the value of the mansion tax, it actually increases the amount of money that you would generate because not only are we doubling it to £2m, we’re doubling the levy from half a per cent to one per cent.

You see what he did there? He said  that “not only” is the tax to be levied on houses worth £2 million and above (the previous threshold was £1 million) but the per centage rate is to be doubled. It’s the “not only” which is confusing me, because that should only be used if you’re describing two different things which reinforce each other’s meaning. For example:

The LibDems are not only political opportunists, but they also have bad dress sense.

So Clegg seems to be saying that the amount of money the mansion tax will raise will be increased because of two factors: the value of homes on which it will be levied is higher than the previous plan AND the per centage rate is also doubles.

Sorry if I’m labouring the point here, and it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve missed somethng obvious. But surely if you’re raising the threshold at which the new tax takes effect – doubling it, in fact – you’re also significantly reducing the actual number of homes on which the tax can be levied, thereby reducing the tax take?

So either Clegg was misleading listeners into believing that both changes to his scheme were aimed at increasing the tax take, when in fact one would decrease it and the other increase it; or I’ve got the wrong end of the stick completely.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

PITY poor Nick Clegg.

He is, first of all, leader of the LibDems. Also, he’s been finding it hard to attract any publicity. He is, after all, the only one of the three main party leaders with absolutely no chance whatever of being Prime Minister. Ever.

So that rather limits your options when it comes to seizing the agenda. In the summer he pretended that he wanted parliament to cancel its recess in order to get MPs’ expenses sorted out. He had a moderate hit with that one, so he’s tried the same thing again, by “demanding” (bless) that the Queen’s Speech is cancelled and that we spent the next six months wringing our hands in anguish (but he doesn’t want us to mention MEPs’ expenses scams, for some odd reason).

Yeah, we know that very little of the next legislative programme will make it onto the statute books before the general election, Mick – we read newspapers when we were at school as well; we know how the constitution works. Just get back in your box and concentrate on what LibDems do best: complaining about dog crap on the pavement then doing sod all about it.

And if you don’t feel like making conversation with a parliamentary under-secretary of state during the walk from the Commons to the Lords on Wednesday while Brown and Cameron discuss grown-up stuff at the front of the procession, why not just stay at home and write whateer you intend to say next time you appear on “Thought for the Day”?

GORDON Brown made an unintended (but rather good) attempt at stand-up poetry on Monday night as he addressed the Parliamentary Party:

It has been a difficult time, a difficult day
And difficult letters are on the way

So is this a new development in political communication, I wonder? At the risk of encouraging some unprintable attempts at similar rhymes from readers, may I suggest this for David Cameron:

It’s Gordon Brown, not me, who’s failing
I do hope someone’s told Chris Grayling

Or how about this for Nick Clegg:

Why can’t everyone be as pure as me?
The voters would thank, not moan at us
Yes they’re less honest than I
But I’m going home to cry
Cos I can’t find a rhyme for “sanctimonious”

Okay, folks – do your worst. But please remember, this is a family blog.

KEEP a look out in The Guardian’s vacancy pages in the next couple of weeks for a Head of Media for the LibDems.

Apparently, Clegg’s keynote speech to conference was planned for this morning and for reasons best known to themselves was switched to this afternoon – at the same time as President Obama’s address to the United Nations. A difficult choice for the discerning viewer, eh?*

Hat-tip to Paul Waugh.

* No.