Disappointing Dave

So Dave is within a hair’s breadth of getting the keys to Number 10. He stands on the brink of being the first Conservative Prime Minister of the 21^st Century, Labour’s share of the vote has declined and Cleggstacy has failed to materialise. The boy’s done well – or has he? Far be it from me to be churlish or partisan but I can't help but wonder if his achievement is that great. Last year, I was huddled in various darkened rooms (ok pubs) with people from both Labour and Conservative who are paid to know about this sort of thing speculating about how many seats above 100 the Tories would get and how many terms (two or three) Labour would be out. My Labour chums were practically suicidal (though they wouldn't admit it now) and the Tories were trying desperately hard not to seem smug. Dave was the golden boy, Gordon Brown was a disaster and Clegg was a no mark. There was no way he could lose. And now? Ok he hasn't really lost but he hasn't really won either. So, you have to ask, has Dave thrown it away? I wouldn't like to say, but if I were a Tory donor I might be forgiven for wondering if I had got value for my money.

Ho hung

So after what seems like an aeon of campaigning (it was really only three weeks) the people have spoken. The only problem is no-one can quite work out what they have said. With almost all the results in, the only thing that is clear is that no party has an overall majority. So now we have a hung parliament and the leaders of the three parties have spent the morning resisting the temptation to play party politics and instead have put the national interest first. They have had varying degrees of success.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, was to the first to set out his stall. A disappointed Clegg, who far from taking second place actually saw his party lose seats, reiterated his view that the Conservative Party had the right to form a government having won the most seats and the largest share of the popular vote while at the same time reminding Mr Cameron that constitutional reform (for which read proportional representation) was the price he would need to pay for Lib Dem support.

An hour or so later Gordon Brown read a statement in front of Number 10 which sought to reassure the country, especially the markets, that in spite of appearances the country is not in chaos. He is still the prime minister and key decisions will still be taken, so Alistair Darling will represent the UK in talks with other G7 Finance Ministers about the deteriorating situation in Greece and the euro zone. He then went on to say that he understood and respected Clegg’s position and invited Clegg and Cameron to make use of the mechanisms and facilities already in place to give them any civil service support that they might need. That said, he also indicated that he was willing to see any of the party leaders and that should the discussions between Cameron and Clegg come to nothing, and he reminded Clegg and the Liberal Democrats that he was more likely to deliver on the kind of constitutional reform they sought.

Finally, we heard from David Cameron. He too began with a very prime ministerial air. He held the hand of friendship and compromise out to Clegg reminding him of their shared views on a whole range of issues including the National Insurance rise, climate change and pupil premiums. But inevitably there was a ‘but’, on the subject of constitutional reform he was less open handed offering only "all party committee of inquiry on political and electoral reform".

This leaves Clegg with a real problem – does he go with Cameron and effectively sacrifice a core belief of his party or does he prop up Brown? I think the technical term is snookered.

Nick and Dave are speaking to each other this evening. No doubt there will be conversations throughout the weekend. If we are lucky we will know who won yesterday’s election on Monday. Sounds ridiculous? Think about the poor people of Belgium who frequently have to endure (or is that enjoy?) weeks if not months without a formal government in place.

Chocks away

Hurrah, after almost a week of being grounded, we are free to fly. The Icelandic ash had very little impact on my life but was clearly a miserable time for stranded air passengers and the airlines. And the Government knew that which is why the idea that it sat on its hands deliberately trying to being unhelpful during the middle of an election campaign is ridiculous. In the face of huge pressure, Andrew Adonis, Transport Secretary extraordinaire, took the advice of Civil Aviation Authority and, abiding by the regulations set by aircraft manufacturers themselves, put passenger safety above the commercial well-being of the airlines. Isn't that what we want and expect our politicians to do? Isn't that what they failed to do in the run up to the banking crisis? So why are opposition politicians now criticising Adonis and demanding an immediate inquiry? Would they have seriously overruled the regulator? Their response is an excellent example of why coalition government won't work in Westminster - too many politicians are incapable of resisting the urge to play petty politics when they should be thinking about the public interest.

Ashes to ashes

So day five and we are still in lock down. No flights in or out of the UK and indeed most of Europe. It is pretty amazing. A volcano in Iceland (a country with something of a record of exporting uncertainty) has created havoc. Travellers are stranded across the world including several world leaders who planned to attend the Polish President's funeral. The intrepid Dan Snow's attempt to recreate a Dunkirk like evacuation of British travellers from the French coast has been thwarted apparently by French border officials. If the ash continues to cloud the atmosphere, you can be sure that will be the media will been flamming up stories about supermarkets running out of green beans and roses flown in from Kenya and factories shutting down as they run out of spare parts. Perhaps the most interesting impact of the ash cloud has been to knock the election off the top of the news. Campaign managers and party leaders will be furious. So is this Mother Nature giving us a wake up call? I can just imagine her in something of a Pussy Galore outfit, waving my fist at the planet shouting 'that will teach you to ignore all the other signs I have sent about the dangers of global warning'. Maybe not. But it would do us no harm to use this time when the skies are still to reflect on what we can do to protect our planet from the damage we inflict on it.

Watch out Manchester, the circus is in town!

I am easily riled. it does not take much to get my gander up. So you can imagine my mood this morning when I awoke to find that the Today programme was being broadcast from Manchester. I was a little blurry (I always am in the morning) and it took me a moment to understand why. Was this part of the BBC's mission to reflect the diversity of this country's nations and regions? No. It was because 12 hours after the programme has been broadcast, the first television debate between the party leaders will take place in the Granada studios in the city - ie a television programme being broadcast by a rival company. And the Today programme is not alone. It would seem that every single political journalist in the whole of the land is up north. It is preposterous. The debates themselves have been taken over, the 76 rules which will be applied mean that the chances of there being a proper debate are pretty slim so the media has done what it does in these circumstances and turned the whole thing into a media event. So we have Alistair Stewart being interviewed on what it will be like to host the first ever tv debate, vox pop from the streets about what the good burghers of Manchester feel about it (very little it would seem), all manner of punditry on what it will mean. Give me strength. I am sure the debates will be interesting for people like me but I seriously doubt that millions of people will be glued to their sets tonight. It will be tomorrow's reporting that will have an impact as will the YouTube clips of any terrible faux pas committed by Compo, Foggy or Clegg and the acres of write-throughs in the Sundays - God help us all.

Its a fair cop

The decision by the Labour Party to portray David Cameron as the wonderfully unreconstructed 80s TV cop Gene Hunt was roundly condemned as a positioning error. If they had bothered to talk to anyone outside the party they would have quickly discovered that Gene is admired by exactly the kind of men they are trying to engage with and fancied by lots o women. (I have to confess I am in that category although he doesn't rank as in high on my list men I shouldn't but do secretly fancy as Stringer Bell). The poster has prompted lots of commentary and coverage but possible the best follow up was in yesterday's Mail on Sunday. As well as the regular questions such as "which party is best able to deal with the economic problems", it polled readers on which TV detective most reminded them of Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Gordon was regarded as most like dour (and indeed now dead) Taggart while Dave reminded 46% of those polled of posh detective Lord Peter Wimsey and only 10% of the marvellous Gene. Hilarious. Alas we are not told who which gumshoe Nick Clegg most reminds MoS readers of but the consensus amongst colleagues is Troy from Midsommer Murders.

Working the web Obama-style

I was at a breakfast this morning hosted by NESTA entitled "Will it be the Web Wot Won It?" about the impact of digital communications on the election campaign. There was a consensus that while this time round the impact would be limited, by the time of the next general election (assuming there isn't another one later this year) things would be very different. Of course this is so, although there are legions of pundits telling us otherwise. They cite the success of Barack Obama in engaging millions of people in his election campaign and would have you believe that we are on the verge of a social revolution in this country too. It is utter nonsense. The context in which Obama pulled it off are completely different to the situation we find ourselves in the UK in 2010. The USA has no national print news media to speak of; it is difficult and time-consuming for candidates to make an impact. The absence of a national newspaper and the sheer size of the country means that a higher proportion of people use the web to get their news. Even if this was the case here, the reality is that the structures of the political parties here are too rigid at the moment to allow the kind of engagement that Obama encouraged. In this country if you want to get involved you have to join the party. You have to go to dull party meetings. You have to pay subscriptions. You can't just turn up to a coffee morning, see if you like it, make a few calls or give out a leaflets one Saturday morning. Oh no. But this is what the Obama campaign did so well. They got people to do a little, if they wanted to do more, they could. If they didn't that was fine too. The campaign was also brilliant at keeping people informed about the strategy, themes and activities going on in their area. As a result on the weekend before polling day, 4 million calls were made to voters in swing states by volunteers. It is hard to imagine local party leaders yielding control like that in this country during this campaign. If they want to take best advantage of the opportunities brought by the web, they are going to have to be a bit more relaxed.

Battle of the Chancellors

So after months of phoney war, we finally had the first formal battle in the election campaign. Yes, the campaign has yet to start officially but last night's debate between Alistair Darling, George Osborne and Vince Cable was surely the first proper skirmish. Who won? Hard to say. All three came across as nervous but all three will be pleased that they didn't drop any major clangers. Vince Cable has to be pleased that he delivered a few memorable sound bites - "pinstrip Scargills holding the country to ransom" - and got a couple of laughs. Standing centre stage, Cable, while a bit doddery, did what he does best, position himself as the man of the people, the non-politician, avoiding any real scrutiny of his own policies. He and Darling tag teamed Osborne quite effectively on the Tory decision not to impose the planned increase in National Insurance (not quite a tax cut more not a tax increase) but Osborne held his ground. Darling looked relatively assured but not as confident or polished as when he delivered the budget last week. And that was one of the issues, in the House of Commons these three battle, parry and joust all the time. They do it naturally and with confidence, without worrying about cameras. Last night, they were perhaps too fixed on their "performance". The Party Leaders are more used to being on camera so in theory ought to be more relaxed about the medium when it comes to their debates. However, given the 76 rules that will apply to the debates, I fear we may will have to endure three rather dull programmes.