For weeks, Vince Cable and Nick Clegg have come out in support of Labour’s anti-business jobs tax and attacked businesses supporting Conservative opposition to the jobs tax.

• Business community is ‘nauseating’. ‘I just find it utterly nauseating all these chairmen and chief executives of FTSE companies being paid 100 times the pay of their average employees lecturing us on how we should run the country. I find it barefaced cheek.’ (Vince Cable in The Guardian, 10 April 2010)

• Opposing jobs tax is ‘school boy economics’. ‘This is school boy economics. When you have a £70 billion permanent hole in the Government’s finances you simply can’t propose cutting tax revenue unless you spell out exactly how you are going to pay for it.’ (Vince Cable)

• Opposing jobs tax is ‘voodoo economics’ and a ‘con’. ‘Now they [Conservatives] say they’re going to stop the increase in national insurance which of course everyone would like to do but they won’t tell you how they’re going to pay for it. This is voodoo economics it’s just funny money it’s trying to con people into thinking you can have something for nothing. It’s not serious, it won’t work… (Nick Clegg, ITN News on YouTube, 1 April 2010)

And yet, guess what? Today, in their manifesto the LibDems say they would reverse Labour’s jobs tax.

‘…the increase in National Insurance Contributions is a damaging tax on jobs and an unfair tax on employees, so when resources allow we would seek to reverse it.’ (Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010, April 2010, pg. 97)

Talk about having your cake and eating it! I do hope Saint Vince and Young Nick will be quizzed on this latest example of blatant hypocrisy!

This surely has to be the picture of the campaign so far. it shows Gordon Brown arriving at Yeadon Health Centre near Leeds eaerlier today.

What I want to know is this. Is any action being taken against these young men for surreptitiously trying to put their hands up the skirts of Sarah Brown and the other lady? If not, why not?

Paul Waugh carries the news that David Cameron has turned down the chance of being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman for Panorama. Gordon Brown has still to decide whether to appear. I think it's a shame Cameron won't be doing this interview. I well remember how well he came out of the interview he did with Paxman for Newsnight during the Tory leadership contest. Also, the Panorama interview is a bit of an election tradition. I used to love Robin Day's ding-dongs with Mrs T.

However, I suspect Cameron's team have decided that prepping for the TV debates must take precedence. To do the Panorama interview would have taken another half a day out of his schedule.

As I say, I'd have liked Cameron to have accepted the Panorama interview as I think that, like Nick Clegg, he'd have emerged well from it, and Brown wouldn't. But it seems now we will never know.

Let's have a bit of this in the debate tomorrow, please. David Cameron is always at his best when he has some fire in his belly and talks unscripted. This is the reason why people expect him to do well tomorrow night.

I listened to Nick Clegg and Vince Cable like many others did - on the radio. And on the surface what they offered sounded quite attractive. Vince was there playing the wise old sage and telling it like it is. Well, telling it how Vince thinks it is. Clegg put in an impressive performance explaining the four cornerstones of the Liberal Democrat approach. They both confronted the deficit head on, and seemed to offer cast iron public spending cuts, albeit only £10 billion of them. But they managed to portray this as somehow being rather courageous. It is, however, true, that unlike the Labour and Conservative press launches, they did speak about the deficit at length and appearing to offer ideas on how to solve the problem. Some of the journalists picked holes in their plan, which may be why Clegg would only take seven questions.

But of course when you dig beneath the surface you find the normal idiotic LibDem policies, which put saner people off voting for them. For instance, they want to put VAT on new houses, adding £11,000 to the cost of an average house for a first time buyer. And later on you find that they rule out military action against Iran "in all circumstances". Totally irresponsible.

So, where are we, now that all three parties have published their manifestos? Probably exactly where we were before. None of the parties has produced a gamechanger in their manifestos. There have been no big surprises, so we now move on to the next big election moment - the first Prime Ministerial debate. And it is the polls in the Sunday papers which may indicate if there has been any real movement over the last seven days.

1. Dylan Jones-Evans on the poll story in Wales that the media missed.
2. Labour Blogger Skipper praises the Tory manifesto.
3. Toque on the level of support for an English Parliament.
4. The Taxpayers' Alliance launches its debt clock.



5. Paul Waugh on how Cameron could win an outright majority.
6. Capitalists@Work on whether your future is safe in Gordon's hands.
7. Lord Norton on managing purdah.
8. UK Polling Report on how the Tories are doing better in the North.
9. Peter Kenyon on another Labour selection stitch up.
10. Party Lines starts a new series on the election campaigns of party activists.
11. Lobbydog on Labour's problems in Stoke.
12. Carlos Tevez says: One day I'll play for West Ham again.

This is the automated Out of Office email generated by Jane Edbrooke, the Labour candidate for East Hampshire. You'd think she would take more care of her spelling in an automated reply that is clearly going out to all who email her.

If Labour wins she's clearly destined for a job in the Education Department...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jane Edbrooke [mailto: xxxxxx@googlemail.com]
Sent: 12 April 2010 17:43
Subject: Automatic reply - Responding to emails.
Dear all,
In the run up to the general and local elections I am recieving large volumes of emails. Managing these in tandum with a full time job which deserves my attention and party and personal committments is challenging!
Friends - please text or call me for a response.
Other - please bare with me but I won't be able to respond immediately.
Thanks
Jane
--
Jane Edbrooke
www.edbrooke.com

From next Monday the Daily Politics will be conducting daily election debates on different policy areas. As part of the public service remit of Iain Dale's Diary I feel duty bound to inform you of the details, as I am sure you will want to break into your working day to watch them.

There will be nine "cabinet contender" live television debates, on BBC 2 at 2:15-3:00pm and repeated on BBC Parliament and the News Channel. Politicians will be cross examined by Andrew Neil and specialist BBC journalists. The debate details are as follows:

Monday 19th April 2:15-3:00
The Foreign Affairs Debate. David Miliband for Labour, William Hague for the Conservatives and Ed Davey for the Lib Dems, cross examined by Andrew Neil and BBC Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner.

Tuesday 20th April 2:15-3:00
The Crime Debate. Alan Johnson for Labour, Chris Grayling for the Conservatives and Chris Huhne for the Lib Dems, cross examined by Andrew Neil and BBC Home Editor, Mark Easton.

Wednesday 21st April 2:15-3:00
The Chancellors' Debate. Alistair Darling for Labour, George Osborne for the Conservatives and Vince Cable for the Lib Dems, cross examined by Andrew Neil and BBC Economics Editor, Stephanie Flanders.

Monday 26th April 2:15-3:00
The Environment Debate. Ed Miliband for Labour, Greg Clark for the Conservatives, Simon Hughes for the Lib Dems and Darren Johnson for the Greens, cross examined by Andrew Neil and Newsnight's Justin Rowlatt.

Tuesday 27th April 2:15-3:00
The Business Debate. Peter Mandelson for Labour, Ken Clarke for the Conservatives, John Thurso for the Lib Dems and John Swinney for the SNP go head to head in live debate, cross examined by Andrew Neil and BBC Business Editor, Robert Peston.

Wednesday 28th April 2:15-3:00
The Health Debate. Andy Burnham for Labour, Andrew Lansley for the Conservatives and Norman Lamb for the Lib Dems, cross examined by Andrew Neil and BBC Health Correspondent, Branwen Jeffreys.

Monday 3rd May 2:15-3:00
The Education Debate. Ed Balls for Labour, Michael Gove for the Conservatives and David Laws cross examined by Andrew Neil and education expert, Mike Baker.

The Immigration Debate. Phil Woolas for Labour, Damian Green for the Conservatives, Sarah Teather for the Lib Dems and Lord Pearson for UKIP, cross examined by Andrew Neil and BBC Home Editor, Mark Easton.

Wednesday 5th May 2:15-3:00
The Trust in Politics Debate. Harriet Harman for Labour, George Young for the Conservatives, Lynne Featherstone for the Lib Dems and Adam Price for Plaid Cymru, cross examined by Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn.

And if that lot don't put you off voting, nothing will!

Having now had an opportunity to actually read the Conservative Manifesto I have little trouble in saying it is the best manifesto since the Next Moves Forward manifesto in 1987. Oliver Letwin and James O'Shaunnessy should be congratulated for writing a manifesto which is truly inspirational. The Power to the People theme runs throughout the document and is a brilliant start on the road to introducing more direct democracy into our political system. And that's what I like most about the manifesto - it is not just a series of random commitments, promises and soothing words, it hangs together because of its theme.

No one has any excuse for saying they don't know what the Conservative Party stands for. No one can say it has no policies. This document tells you in plain language the direction a Conservative government will travel in and gives firm policy commitments in a number of important areas. The manifesto shows beyond doubt that accusations from voters that all three parties are the same simply do not stand up to scrutiny. That accusation betrays both laziness and lazy thinking. The people that say it are those who simply can't be bothered to look for the differences. All they need to do is read the three party manifestos and the differences become readily apparent.

And you don't even need to buy the Tory manifesto. You can download it for free HERE.

I've been in meetings all morning so I have only just had a chance to skimread the Tory manifesto press release. At first glance it seems very exciting, with a real feel of direct democracy. I like the fact that it has a real theme running throughout it, and that's power to the people. It reflects the 'change' slogan well and indicates that David Cameron really does intend to do politics differently.

What do you think?

More later.

PS I will be on 5 Live with Richard Bacon at 3pm to talk about the manifesto, by which time I hope to have read it in a little more detail!

On Saturday BNP leader launched his campaign for Barking in, er, South Hornchurch, which is not even in his own constituency. To great fanfare, he welcomed his supporters into the Cherry Tree Pub and then proceeded to rally the stormtroops.

The meeting didn't prove a great success for the pub's business, however. On Monday it closed down and today its windows are being boarded up. Was it something he said?

Or perhaps Nick Griffin is another party leader who has inherited the reverse midas touch?

1. Mark Pack reveals how the Government can now snoop through your post.
2. Nabidana has some spoof Labour manifesto covers.
3. Iain Martin on the Labour Party manifesto show trial.
4. Philip Cowley says out with the new, in with the old.
5. Wife in the North gets an exclusive interview with Chris Grayling.
6. Your Freedom & Ours on a tilt to the Right in Hungary.

Last week I posted about the victory for the campaign to save election night counts. Today the Electoral Commission has confirmed my mathematics and there are only 34 24 constituencies which will now count on the Friday. That means 95% will count on the Thursday night.

It really is a disgrace, though, that Broadland Council in Norfolk is holding out and will not count either the Broadland seat OR Norwich North until Friday. I phoned the Chief Executive, Colin Bland, who told me that it was due logistical difficulties surrounding the counting of postal votes. I asked him why it was different for his council and he couldn't really give him an answer. I asked him if he wasn't concerned by the Electoral Commission guidance that he could be personally liable if his reasoning wasn't accepted and he replied that he wasn't sure what "liable" meant. Let's hope he finds out.

Here is the list... (now down to 24)

Argyll & Bute
Berwick Upon Tweed
Blyth Valley
Broadland
Buckingham
Cheltenham
Copeland
Henley
Hexham
Huntingdon
Kenilworth & Southam
Lancaster & Fleetwood
Morecambe & Lunesdale
NE Hampshire
Norwich North
Oxford West & Abingdon
Penrith & the Border
Saffron Walden
Skipton & Ripon
St Ives
Torridge & West Devon
Wansbeck
Wantage
Warwick & Leamington
Westmorland & Lonsdale

*The Electoral Commission says Wokingham is counting on Friday but a local councillor tells me this is wrong.

So it's now down to 24 seats as of Tuesday evening.

@BevaniteEllie is one of those annoying irritants on Twitter who you're desperate to unfollow, but is so comical in her love of all things Gordon, that you just have to stick with her to see what kind of vomit inducing comment she will come up with next. She is not known as Comical Ellee for nothing in her slavish devotion to the Prime Minister. Well, today she got her reward and was given the task of introducing the Prime Minister at the manifesto launch.

Unfortunately for Ellee Gellard she has form. Back in July 2008 she wrote a tirade against Gordon Brown, calling on him to quit.

Brown needs to speak up, change the face of Labour from New to Old, slimy and slick to rugged and honest, champion of the poor and 'normal' rather than the super rich, do this or go. We all know this, and he probably does too so why can he not speak - I have not heard from him as PM speaking with passion. How dare he stand by with personal interest watching our party sink it is not his to lose, it is ours. It is time to move on... In short, Brown (although I had high hopes and don't burden you with total responsibility) get your coat, time's up.

For the first time in my life, I find myself agreeing with her.

I am astonished that Labour has again promised not to put up Income Tax - this from the party that made that same pledge in 2005 and yet abolished the 10p tax rate affecting milions of low earners. In addition, they effectively put up income tax this year by not touching the threshholds.

Again, a sleight of hand by a party which doesn't deserve a second look, let alone a fourth one.

As Labour launches its manifesto today, I thought it might be helpful to demonstrate how meeaningless the whole exercise is. Why? Well, all you need to do is go back to their 2005 manifesto and check their promises against what they have acually delivered. Here are 27 of Labour's broken promises...

1) p. 12: ‘Our ten year-old pupils are . . . the fastest improving in numeracy.’

Ofsted Report, 2008/09:
• 2 million children in England being taught in mediocre or failing schools;
• 30% of 11 year-olds failing to reach basic standards in English and Maths.

Ofsted Report, 2009/10:
• 50% of schools ranked either satisfactory or inadequate;
• Schools ranked inadequate increased from 4% in 2008/09 to 10% today;
• Only 9% of schools ranked outstanding.

2) p. 12: ‘. . . long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated . . .’

Latest unemployment stats:
• Long-term unemployment: 663 000 – its highest since 1997;
• Unemployment amongst 16 to 24 year-olds: 923,000.

3) p. 15: ‘In our third term we will build new ladders of social mobility . . .’

Since Labour came to power in 1997 social mobility has decreased and the gap between the richest and the poorest has increased.

4) p. 15: ‘We will maintain our inflation target at two percent.’

In February 2010, the UK’s inflation rate rose to 3.5%.

5) p. 16: ‘We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax . . .’

April 2009 Budget, Chancellor Alistair Darling announced an increase in the top-rate of income tax to 50%.

6) p. 18: ‘The Labour Government backs manufacturing . . . we will continue to do so.’

More than 1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1997. In 1997, manufacturing accounted for 20% of the UK economy; by 2007, it had decreased to 12.4% – that scale of decline is almost 3 times greater than during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership.

7) p. 23: ‘We are tackling barriers to financing for small and growing businesses . . .’

Tens of thousands of family-run firms will be hit in a £100million tax grab this week when business rate relief is abolished. The move comes on top of an inflation-busting 5.2 per cent increase in the rate, which will cost companies another £1billion. In some cases, the combined effect will see annual bills more than treble for retailers and small firms which are already suffering from a slump in consumer demand, credit freezes and higher bank charges.

8) p. 33: ‘. . . harder A-level questions to challenge the most able . . .’

Sir Peter Williams, (the man chosen by Gordon Brown to advise on education reform):
• 'Over 20 or 30 years, I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that absolute A-level standards have fallen.
• 'They have edged south, continuously over a long period of time . . . All university academics and a good proportion of sixth-form teachers would agree.'

9) p. 38: ‘. . . we are developing a nationwide week-long summer residential programme for school students.’

No such programme exists.

10) p. 38: ‘Violent behaviour, including the use of knives will not be tolerated.’

Crime stats:
• More than half of knife crime offenders receive sentences of less than 3 months;
• 5 out of 6 people caught with a knife avoid prison altogether;
• Meanwhile, fatal stabbings have hit record levels.

11) p. 40: ‘. . . our aim for 50 per cent of young people to go on to higher education by 2010.’

University participation rate amongst 17 to 30 year-olds increased by less than 1 percent (from 39.2 to 39.8 per cent) between 2000 and 2008.

12) p. 44: ‘. . . a new £340 million a year fund will take CSO numbers up to 24,000 – to work alongside the equivalent of an additional 12,000 police officers freed up for frontline duties.’

Police/CSO numbers:
• Between March and September 2009, 26 out of 43 forces recorded a fall in police numbers;
• At the end of April 2007, there were 16,000 CSOs in England and Wales.

13) p. 44: ‘Not all problems need a 999 response, so a single phone number staffed by police, local councils and other services will be available across the country . . .’

There were plans for a new 101 non-emergency number to be rolled out across the country in 2008, but funding was withdrawn by the Home Office in 2007.

14) p. 48: ‘By 2007 every offender will be supervised after release . . .’

Prisoners who spend less than a year in jail are not supervised on release, and 50% of those prisoners go on to reoffend.

15) pp. 60-1: ‘We are . . . halving the numbers of quangos . . .’

Since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister public spending on quangos has increased by £10 billion, from £37 billion to £46.5 billion. During that time, the number of quangos had fallen from 827 to 766, but the number of employees has risen from 95,000 to 110,000.

16) p. 61: ‘. . . comprehensive out-of-hours [GP] services . . .’

Before 2004 GPs were responsible for their patients 24 hours a day. The new contract allowed them to opt out of 24-hour care by sacrificing £6,000 a year. 90% of GPs accepted.

17) p. 63: ‘By 2009 all women will have choice over where . . . they have their baby . . .’

National Childbirth Trust Report: more than 90% of pregnant women are not able to choose where they give birth.

18) p. 65: ‘We will . . . ensure that fresh fruit and vegetables are part of every school meal.’

Fruit and vegetables not part of every school meal.

19) p. 72: ‘Companies will no longer be able to force people to retire before the age of 65 . . .’

Age Concern/Help the Aged Report: more than 100 000 people were forced to retire against their will last year alone.

20) p. 75: ‘We will end child poverty, starting by halving it . . . by 2010-11.’

Department of Work and Pensions: the 2010 target is unlikely to be ‘fully met . . . because of economic and demographic changes’. The number of children in poverty has increased by 400,000 since 2004. In 2007-08, the incomes of the poorest 20% of families decreased – and this was before the impact of the recession.

21) p. 80: ‘A First Time Buyers Initiative to help over 15,000 first-time buyers who could not own or part-own a home without extra help.’

Up to the end of 2008/09 only 1071 homes had been purchased under the First Time Buyer's initiative.

22) p. 80: ‘We will increase the annual supply of new social homes by 50 per cent by 2008 . . .’

Town and Country Planning Association Report:
• England is facing its lowest levels of homebuilding for 80 years;
• The housing shortfall will total 1 million by the end of 2010, resulting in record levels of overcrowding and longer than ever waiting lists;
• Less than 100 000 homes were built in 2009 – only 40% of the number needed to satisfy demand;
• In the 1960s and 70s, about 300 000 homes were built each year.

23) p. 84: ‘We will put [the EU Constitution] to the British people in a referendum . . .’

Following the Netherlands’ rejection of the EU constitution and its subsequent collapse it was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty. Despite being ‘substantially equivalent’ to the original Constitution, Labour did not keep its referendum promise. Valery Giscard, former Minister of Economy and Finance in France, admitted Lisbon is the ‘same letter in a new envelope’, and that ‘all the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden and disguised in some way.’

24) p. 88: ‘. . . when [UK forces] are committed they will have the investment, strategy, training they need.’

Strategy:
• Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup (head of the armed forces) identifies shortcomings of strategy: defence chiefs ‘simply didn't have enough time’ to source everything they wanted and more time to prepare would have made a ‘significant difference’.
• Lt Gen Frederick Viggers criticises the lack of strategic direction: ‘It was rather like going to the theatre and seeing one sort of play and realising you were watching a tragedy as the curtains came back.’
• ‘We've got huge experience in this country - we're not using it and we're putting amateurs into really important positions and people are getting killed as a result of some of these decisions.’

Equipment:
• Sir Kevin Tebbit (former permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence) condemns defence expenditure cuts: claimed Gordon Brown ‘guillotined’ £1bn from defence spending in December 2003, while efforts to rebuild Iraq were ongoing, which created the need for ‘very major savings’.
• Major General Graham Binns identified a ‘major gap’ in attack helicopters, but that US equipment was in contrast ‘magnificent’.

25) p. 89: ‘We remain committed to achieving a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions on 1990 levels by 2010.’

Department of the Environment Report: C02 emissions projected to decreased by only 15.5% from 1990 levels.

26) p. 95: ‘Investment in schools sports will ensure that by 2010 all children will receive two hours high-quality PE or sports per week.’

14% of 5 to 16 year-olds – about 900,000 pupils – receive less than the 2 hour target.

27) p. 110: ‘We will legislate to place reasonable limits on the time bills spend in the second chamber – no longer than 60 sitting days for most bills.’

No such legislation has been introduced.

Johann Hari had always played fast and loose with what he calls "Facts". Facts to him are assertions with which he agrees. He uses the word to suit himself. In Friday's Independent, he wrote a diatribe against David Cameron, accusing him of developing policies to promulgate a class war. No, really. I really can't be arsed to rebut the whole article because it is so preposterous, but to give you a flavour let me just fisk one short paragraph...

Here are the facts.
Brace yourselves.
He will give a £1.2bn inheritance tax cut to the richest 2 per cent in Britain – with most going to the 3,000 wealthiest estates (including his wife's).
Wrong. In fact the cut means that ONLY millionaires will pay inheritance tax.
Then he promises to end the 50p top rate of tax, giving another £2.4bn to the richest 1 per cent.
No, he has never promised to do this. He said it would be an aspiration at some point in the future.
Then he has pledged to cut taxes on the pensions of the richest, handing another £3.2bn to the same 1 per cent.
Has he? This is a new one on me. Source please.
Then his marriage tax relief policies will give 13 times more to the rich than the poor.
No they won't. The tax relief is targeted at only those with an income of less than £44k. Are people on £44k rich?
To pay for this, he will slash programmes for the middle and the skint, like the Child Trust Fund, SureStart and state schools.
Wrong. The CTF will indeed be abolished, but SureStart will not.

And to think, Hari has won awards and gets paid for his columns. Some people have all the luck.

1. Greg Hands writes in praise of Peter Tatchell.
2. Ellee Seymour on what bloggers needs to know about defamation.
3. Antony Little on Vince's VAT blunder.
4. Gary Gibbon on the debate rehearsals and who's playing whom.
5. Norfolk Blogger has made a clever video on the marriage tax break. (even if he's wrong, it's still quite clever).
6. Charles Crawford on the legacy of Lech Kaczynski.

Gaby Hinsliff has an excellent feature in the Observer on the new media election.

And a new website is launched - Where's Charlie Whelan?

The latest edition of the Seven Days Show is now online.

In this week’s show (episode 20) we discuss the election campaign so far. Apologies for the swearing...
To listen to the podcast click HERE, or you can also subscribe to the show in the Tory Radio section in the podcast area of Itunes.

Over the next few weeks I intend to post every single Party Election Broadcast on the blog. Call it a gesture towards public service blogging!

The first one comes from Labour. It's simple (and cheap) but strangely effective in the way it conveys its message. But it's at least a minute too long.

Not sure about the editing, though. They could at least have removed the bit where the actor "rearranges" his crotch...

Tim Montgomerie has a fascinating insight into the life of a political leader on the campaign trail. he spent Friday with Cameron and reports on the experience HERE. If you saw Tom Bradby's report of his day with Gordon Brown last week, you will note the contrast between the two campaifgn styles. "I'd like to report a campaign that's buzzing, but I can't," he said, or words to that effect.

Labels: Tim Montgomerie

Something from David Cameron's interview in today's Sunday Telegraph which no one has commented on is his promise to legislate in the first year if a Tory government on the obligation to have a referendum before any further transferance of powers to Brussels. This is what he told Patrick Hennesy.

Among the first things Mr Cameron wants to do, he discloses, is pass new legislation ensuring a referendum will be held in Britain if the European Union makes a major new effort to transfer powers to Brussels.

"I think what's exciting about this is, that if we are able to do this, in a first Queen's Speech, the other parties will be challenged to back it. I don't see how they will be able to get out of backing it."

Let battle commence. Because I think he's wrong. I don't think Labour or the LibDems would back this. And if there's a hung parliament, what's the betting that the LibDems would demand this be dropped from the Queen's Speech?

Earlier this evening I recorded a twenty minute podcast with left of centre blogger Charon QC. He even sounds like a QC! We covered a number of issues including the role of partisan blogging, the dangers of Twitter, why I interviewed Nick Griffin, David Davis & David Cameron, voter engagement, negative campaigning, an English Parliament, how new MPs can improve parliament and the prospect of a hung parliament and would George Osborne stand aside for Vince Cable?

You can listen to the podcast HERE.

Labels: Podcast

Labour is defending its cancer scare leaflet by refuting claims that they have "targeted" people with the mailshot. They have denied obtaining data from the NHS or other medical sources. But this does provoke one to ask a question...

Why then, haven't these postcards/leaflets been sent out to voters in Scotland? Could it be because they don't have access to NHS data in Scotland? The SNP's Stuart Hosie certainly thinks so...

"Elections do result in the use of emotive language but this tactic by Labour goes well beyond the pale of decency. To even try and suggest that a voter could die because of another party’s policy is grubby politics and desperation. I challenge Labour in Scotland to state categorically that they will not adopt this tactic in Scotland and to also make clear that any databases they use are legal and above board. That there are also allegations about how Labour came upon this data? This raises questions about why it has not – yet – happened in Scotland where the SNP run the NHS compared to England where Labour are in power. This campaign tactic just adds to the dissembling and disarray that we have seen falling over the Labour campaign in the past few days in Scotland."

It is simply not tenable to say, as Labour do, that these leaflets aren't targeted. Only a quarter of a million have been sent out, so some sort of targeting must have happened. If they didn't get the data from inappropriate sources, then they must have used Mosaic or Experian to target likely current or future cancer sufferers.

Either way, it's a disgusting way to campaign.

As you know, Labour's Tom Watson and I have had our, ahem, differences in the past. But I do think the initiative he has announced on his blog is a good one and one which other candidates might like to adopt on other subjects.

Last week Watson was one of the few Labour MPs to vote against the Digital Economy Bill. He's now seeking endorsement from his West Bromwich constituents for a ten point "digital pledge", and asking people on his blog what they think of it before he puts it into a leaflet, which will then be delivered throughout his constituency.

He's clearly setting himself up as the MP for the Internet. Every MP should have one or two areas of specialisation and it could well be a good idea for them to share them with their constituents before they face them at the ballot box.

This, I can reveal, is the poster UKIP will be unveiling early this week to capitalise on the mood of the electorate. Generally, political posters don't sway votes. they are used to reinforce a point or galvanise activists. But I wonder of this now poster from UKIP, which they will unveil on is different. Why? Because it is in tune with what many voters think.

It is certainly effective, but I wonder whether some of UKIP's fustier members will like the use of the word 'sod'.

Let the spoofing commence!

On the way to Sky three friends phoned me to talk about the Labour cancer leaflet. All three had partners who have suffered from cancer. One of them sadly died a few years ago. Two of my friends seemed close to tears as their anger about this leaflet transformed itself into raaw emotion. "How could they do this?" said one. Another said it was an exaggerated version of the War of Jennifer's Ear, which you may remember from the 1992 campaign.

Also on the way I got a phone call from the Sky producer asking if there was anything I had seen in the papers I particularly wanted to talk about, so I mentioned to Sunday Times story on the cancer leaflets. However, when I got there I was told that since Labour had denied targeting people in any way (do they think we are fools?) they didn't want to talk about that in my slot. We'll see about that, I thought to to myself. In the end I managed to bring it into my final answer but more briefly than I would have liked.

There's little doubt that this leaflet has backfired in a major way, and deservedly so. I'd be horrified if my own party indulged in this sort of scaremongering among a vulnerable group of people. And judging from this comment from Anthony on the previous thread, Labour supporters are none too happy about either.

My wife (or I) have not (yet?) received such a postcard. We are (or maybe were) lifelong Labour supporters and voters, diverted recently from politics and all things by her two year tackling of an advanced cancer with, in our case,absolutely excellent NHS medical care. Our instincts are all anti-Tory and pro-labour values but ...

We surprised ourselves with the strength of our reaction to the story when we saw it first in the Sunday Times this morning. If our reaction is in any sense typical, Labour should want to explain and rebut or recant or something - or just apologise -very forcefully, very quickly.

And Cancer Research UK, who share the comms agency according to the story, will need to move fast to reassure donors like I and my family that they have not sold any data-base to Labour (or any political party).

He followed it up by saying...

What upset me and my (cancer-suffering) wife so much was the idea that Labour people would have consciously chosen to do this with such insensitivity and such use of scare tactics. What is worrying is that it is people in the middle of working for labour with commitment and zeal, who display such lack of insight and understanding. Since I started angrily commenting above and here, my previous labour voting wife has declared this to be the last nudge in pushing her to vote Lib Dem (never done before....) - this in a constituency that was lost by labour to Lib Dem in the last election in the seat but one ....

Let them reap what they have sown.

I wonder what Labour MP John Heppell thinks of it. This brave man stood down from Parliament last week in order to care for his wife who his suffering from cancer. I suspect he wouldbe appalled.

More from Dizzy HERE.

UPDATE: Andrew Lansley has issued a statement...

"It is shameful that the Labour Party, knowing that we are the only party that is going to increase investment in the NHS, have decided to deliberately scare patients and misrepresent what we have said. I’m actually rather shocked that they are trying to target breast cancer patients and alarm them by making up stories about what the Conservative Party would do. I think Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, should write to every woman Labour sent these cards to and apologise and withdraw these claims."

After Roger Alton's resignation as editor of The Independent on Friday, the media will be all agog to sse who the new Russian owners appoint. Rod Liddle has been ruled out, much to the relief of most journalists on the paper. And apparently Jeremy Paxman has turned down the opportunity.

My three top runners are riders are, in no particular order, John Kampfner, Donald Macintyre and Greg Dyke.

Kampfner has an advantage on the other two in that he speaks Russian. I'm told his name is very much in the frame. He was a high prodile editor of the New Statesman and is certainly no shrinking violet. He's currently chief executive at the Index on Censorship, but you get the feeling that he's itching to get back into the print media.

Donald Macintyre would be an inspired choice if the new owners intend to take the paper upmarket. He's one of the best journalists of his generation and is respected by virtualy everyone. He's a journalist's journalist and maybe it's time for him to return to these shores from Jerusalem, where he's been holed out for the last few years writing for the Independent. I'm told he's back to cover the election, which may be fortuitous.

Greg Dyke is probably the bookies' favourite. If the new owners intend to take the paper in a more populist direction, make more of its web presence and maybe even turn it into a daily freebie, it is difficult to see who would better match the role than Dyke. He would be a very popular boss and add some much needed fizz to the Indy's output.

Does anyone else have any insights they would like to share?

I always thought this would develop into the dirtiest campaign ever, but I didn't think it would happen this quickly. The Sunday Times front page carries the story of how Labour have sent out 250,000 postcards to cancer sufferers warning them what might happen if those wicked Tories came to power.

LABOUR has become embroiled in a row about the use of personal data after sending cancer patients alarmist mailshots saying their lives could be at risk under a Conservative government.

Cards addressed to sufferers by name warn that a Labour guarantee to see a cancer specialist within two weeks would be scrapped by the Tories. Labour claims the Conservatives would also do away with the right to be treated within 18 weeks.

Cancer patients who received the personalised cards, sent with a message from a breast cancer survivor praising her treatment under Labour, said they were “disgusted and shocked”, and feared that the party may have had access to confidential health data.

Labour sources deny that the party has used any confidential information. However, the sources admit that, in line with other political parties, it uses socio-demographic research that is commercially and publicly available...

Labour has sent out 250,000 “cancer” postcards, each addressed to an individual, asking: “Are the Tories a change you can afford?”

Many of those receiving the cards have undergone cancer scans or treatment within the past five years.

- In the Labour constituency of Sherwood, Nottinghamshire, two of a group of eight women friends received the breast cancer card. They are the only two to have undergone cancer treatment. One of them, Phyllis Delik, 80, described it as “callous” and “despicable”. The second woman, Shirley Foreman, 58, who received the card a fortnight after undergoing surgery, said: “It is bad taste after what I have been through.”

- In the marginal east London constituency of Poplar and Limehouse, the card was sent to a 44-year-old television producer who had a potentially cancerous lump that turned out to be a cyst. She appeared to be the only person who received the mailshot among 50 neighbours. She said: “It’s crude and insensitive.”

- A card was sent to a woman who has died of breast cancer. Her 33-year-old husband was so upset that he sent a message to the Facebook page of Diane Dwelly, the woman whose case is featured in the mailshot, accusing her of being a pawn for the Labour party.

This weekend Dwelly, 48, from Rugby, admitted she had “probably been used by Labour”. She believed her photograph had been taken for use in a magazine for the National Health Service, not as part of Labour’s election campaign.

The cards are being distributed by Ravensworth, part of Tangent Communications, which has won accounts sending out mail for the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

Tangent claims that it specialises in “highly targeted marketing”.

The cancer cards are part of a wider postal campaign targeting various groups. Others are aimed at parents whose children attend Sure Start centres, pensioners and the owners of small businesses.

Labour has so far sent out 600,000 cards. It plans to distribute 4.5m during the election campaign.

Janet Arslan, 40, a graphic designer who also lives in the Sherwood constituency, said: “When I received the breast cancer card at first I thought it was from the hospital.

“I did not think Labour would be that crass to deliberately target a terminal cancer patient like me.”

Damian Bentley, managing director of Tangent, said: “Our company does a lot for the Labour party but I don’t work on that side of the business.”

He failed to respond to a list of questions on how the addresses of the cancer victims were obtained.

Emilie Oldknow, 29, the Labour candidate in Sherwood, worked for the NHS before she became the regional organiser of the East Midlands Labour party. She is the fiancée of Jonathan Ashworth, Gordon Brown’s deputy political secretary and a member of his “kitchen cabinet”.

Oldknow has denied all knowledge of the cards.

“I had not seen the mailshot before and it wasn’t sent out by my campaign,” she said...

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: “For Labour’s campaign to deliberately distress or scare sufferers from breast cancer is shameful. Because we are going to increase the NHS budget in real terms and cut bureaucracy and waste, we will have the capacity to ensure that cancer patients are seen sooner than they are at the moment and to meet the quality standards that they expect.”

A Labour party spokesman said: “These leaflets highlight the Conservative party’s actual policies on cancer treatment. Cancer is a terrible condition and sadly all too prevalent in our society, which is why some of the 250,000 people we sent this message to are likely to have suffered from it.”

Full story HERE.

So, did Andy Burnham and Gordon Brown know about this despicable campaign, and how did they get the data? These are questions which I hope our colleagues in the MSM will be following up today.

1. Westminster Wisdom reviews the career of William Ewart Gladstone.
2. Sean Dilley and Daily Referendum on David Cameron's gay promise.
3. Michael Heaver reckons Douglas Carswell is worth copying.
4. Sir George Young on the power of recall.
5. Tom Harris on the fallout from Twittergate.
6. SNP Tactical Voting on The Twits.

For those who like to follow my media appearances I will be the BBC News Channel paper review tonight at 11.20pm (if I can keep awake) and then tomorrow morning at 9.40am on Sky News talking about the election campaign so far.

I imagine there will be a rash of polls tonight for me to discuss with Kate Bevan on the BBC News Channel paper review at 11.20pm. First out is ComRes for the Indy on Sunday...

Con 39 (+2)
Lab 32 (+2)
LD 16 (-4)
Other 13 (-)

Incl Green 3, Ukip 2,BNP 1

The only surprising thing about that poll is the dramatic fall of the LibDems. In every other recent poll they are around the 20 mark.

Other questions asked were: Are the Tories ready for govt? 44% agree, 44% disagree. but 54% say a Labour government is more likely to increase taxes than a Tory government.

UPDATE 8.30pm: Sunday Telegraph/ICM Con 38, Lab 30, LD 21.

UPDATE: 8.35pm: UK Polling Report analyses the NOTW ICM poll on marginals. Bear in mind these are not ALL marginals. "The poll covered 96 Labour held seats where the Conservatives need a swing of between 4% and 10% to win (so like MORI’s marginal polling, it straddles the 7% or so swing the Conservatives would need to win an overall majority – the Conservatives would need to take about half of these to win, if they won them all they would have a majority of about 100)."

This is aimed at all those patronising gits who think that £3 a week is nothing.

Tell that to the pensioner whose pension goes up by £2.40 this month. Perhaps those who think that £3 is nothing to most people think we should abandon small pension rises, because that's where their logic leads.

To be honest I am fairly agnostic on the married tax allowance but I can see the arguments in favour of it. Ken Livingstone tried to pretend he was expecting a huge whack of wonga and professed to be disappointed at the extent of it. Well, in these economic circumstances it was hardly likely to have been a huge sum, but £156 a year is better than nothing if you're on a fairly low income.

Apologies that I can't seem to approve comments at the moment. Hopefully it will be rectified soon.

I’ve had a look at the 22 “leading scientists”, who signed the lead letter in the Indie yesterday criticising Conservative science policy. This is a stunt Labour have pulled in previous years, with distinguished scientists like Lord Winston and Stephen Hawking signing similar letters in 2001 and 2005.

It seems like this year’s eminent scientists have all forgotten the importance of scientists declaring any conflicting interests when submitting material for publication: 21 are members of Scientists for Labour, an affiliated organisation of the Labour Party, whose first objective, according to their constitution is ‘To work for the return and maintenance of a Labour government’ – ahead of its objective of ‘To work to ensure that the government of the day maintains a clear commitment to science in the United Kingdom’.

One is even the Labour candidate for Gosport!

And while some are undoubtedly leading scientists, at least two are hardly ‘emminent’ – one is a student, and one, who gives his job as ‘scientific editor’ is, as far as I can see, editor of only ‘Science Matters’ – the journal of Scientists for Labour.

Oh, and S4L seems to be sponsored by Unite – their newsletter bears the Unite logo. It seems tha hand if Unite is to be found in virtually every part of the Labour Party nowadays. So here are the scientists...

David Caplin, Socialist Societies representative, Scientists for Labour
Paul Connell, Secretary, Scientists for Labour
Frances Downey, member and Executive Council member of Scientists for Labour (a third year PhD student)
Matthew Freeman, member, Scientists for Labour
Graham Giles, Labour PPC for Gosport
Stephen Keevil, Vice-Chair, Scientists for Labour
Saiful Islam, member, Scientists for Labour
Ian McGrath, member, Scientists for Labour
Sean Munro, member, Scientists for Labour
Alan Nichols, member, Scientists for Labour
Bobbie Nichols, member and Executive Council member of Scientists for Labour. He is described on the Independent letter as ‘scientific editor’ – he is the editor of Science Matters, the journal of Scientists for Labour
Paul Nurse, Patron, Scientists for Labour
Ken Pounds
Willie Russell, member and Webmaster, Scientists for Labour
Jonathan Seville, member, Scientists for Labour
Peter Stern, member and Executive Council member, Scientists for Labour
David Taplin, member and Executive Council member, Scientists for Labour
Nigel Titchen, member and Executive Council member, Scientists for Labour
John Unsworth, Chair of Scientists for Labour
Martin Yuille, member and Executive Council member, Scientists for Labour
Robin Weiss, member, Scientists for Labour

So, yesterday it was the Independent which fell for this stunt. Five years ago it was Michael White of The Guardian...

Election 2005: Science policies win over experts
BYLINE: Michael White, Political editor
SECTION: Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 8
LENGTH: 241 words

More than 30 senior British scientists have signed a letter endorsing Labour - because eight years in office have generated "a new spirit of optimism" among their younger colleagues.
The letter to the Guardian, which matches yesterday's letter to the Times from business leaders, notes that British universities are undergoing "a cultural change" that will give a competitive advantage to research-based enterprise.

"Since 1997, the Labour government has more than doubled the budget of the Office of Science and Technology from £1.3bn to £2.8bn today. This has involved investing £3bn in new scientific facilities to start repairing the chronic underfunding of the 1980s and early 1990s," they write.
The letter's signatories are led by Sir Tom Blundell, a former scientific adviser in Whitehall. They include Professor Stephen Hawking, Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge, Lord Winston, the test tube embryo innovator, and Dame Julia Polak, who pioneered new methods of cell research. Labour's manifesto has 28 references to science and engineering, against one in the Tory document and 15 from the Liberal Democrats. Today's letter also contrasts the cautious commitments of rival parties not to cut budgets with Labour's 10-year science and innovation strategy, driven by Gordon Brown's preoccupation with the "China challenge" as well as US dominance of pure and applied science.

Why doesn't Vince Cable just join Labour have done with it? On virtually every issue he sides with them against the Conservatives.

It was good to hear Justin Webb give him a hard time on Today just now. About time someone did. He gets away with far too much and the media needs to scrutinise him just as much as they do Osborne and Darling.

And while I'm about it, is calling the Tory marriage tax proposals "patronising drivel" really the appropriate way for a party leader to react? Nick Clegg's language seems to become more intemperate and perjorative as each week passes. Why not actually argue the case?

What I find reveal is the patronising attitude by Clegg and Cable on this issue. To many people on low incomes £3 a week is not insignificant. No one pretends that it is a life changing sum, or is intended to persuade people to get married, but it is a way of recognising marriage and civil partnerships are good things which form a critical part of a stable society.