You might assume that the radio silence here over the last few days has been as a result of the state of awe and wonderment I found myself in following the unveiling of the remainder of the manifestos this week: you would be wrong. It might not have been the most inspiring week, but it is at least heartening to see that negative smear tactics are being abandoned by some (see here for UKIP's newest addition to propaganda-wielding chip vans the nation over). Fortunately, they seem to have a far more comprehensive grasp of our current economic plight, as made evident by Nigel Farage: "It's time for some straight talking on the economy: we're skint." Such wisdom. Sadly, their grasp on their own manifesto was less impressive:
Journalist: Do you intend to extend your burkha ban to private buildings?
Lord Pearson: We haven't said anything about private buildings.
Nondescript UKIP bigwig: Yes we have, it's on page 15.
Lord Malcolm Powder: I will hand you over to our policy chief.
Journalist: You say in the first line of your manifesto that, in year one, you will reduce public spending to 1997 levels.
UKIP man: Yes.
Journalist: Can you tell us what spending levels were in 1997?
UKIP man: No.
The UKIP launch on Tuesday was, perhaps fortunately in light of the above, somewhat overshadowed by David Cameron's little blue book (I speak, of course, of the manifesto, and not of the copy of Erotic Poetry for Vegans that a local radio presenter so kindly gave him on Monday evening). Cameron reminded the electorate that 'Labour have lost their way. They don't have anything left to say' (he's a poet - and he didn't even realise, as a good friend of mine would say). The launch was held in Battersea power station: a shell of a building in need of renovation. Nick Clegg chose to interpret this as an apt comparison with the 'style-over-substance' Tory Party (he described it as 'a power station that doesn't generate power'; the art of metaphor is lost on some people). Pity that nobody thought to make the parallel observation of Labour's choice to host their launch in a hospital containing no equipment (one might argue therefore rendering it useless) and what that might say about them. Tuesday's opinion polls seemed to be suggesting a narrowing of the Tory-Labour gap. Happily, William Hague was on hand to offer this warning: 'There are three polls out tonight: one showing a three-point lead, one with five, one with eight and one with ten. And the moral of that story is not to take too much notice of opinion polls.' Surely the moral of that story is, in fact, not to trust Hague's maths skills.
The LibDems seemed to start gearing up fairly early in the week for their launch, and he obviously left a lasting impression on senior citizen Ken Stacey, who when asked by a news reporter what he had made of Mr Clegg, replied 'I haven't met him yet.' 'You've just shaken hands with him,' replied the journalist. Oh dear. The BBC has been covering the morning press conferences which seem to have left Clegg looking like a very small rabbit caught in the headlights of a gas-guzzling SUV. In essence:
Journalist: Do you acknowledge that cracking down on tax loopholes will not fill the whole of the black hole, and can you estimate how many people will be negatively affected?
NC: I'd rather talk about aviation tax, and how we will blame the airlines if they pass the increase in taxation onto their customers.
Journalist: Can you tell us where you are on VAT?
NC: Our plans do not require an increase in VAT, but by repeating yet again everything that we think is wrong with the Conservatives' tax policy I am setting myself up to be able to pass the buck if we realise at any stage that we're wrong.
Journalist: Are you going to increase taxes in order to compensate for the higher threshold of the lowest tax band?
NC: Our plans will evolve over time. This means I'm not ruling out a tax increase, but if I distract you with talk of increasing bank levies then I will divert your attention towards a common enemy.
The irony of the LibDems' choice of a city bank for their event on Wednesday and their subsequent announcement of extra bank levies did not go unnoticed. They must have been popular with their hosts. At least they stuck a few numbers in the manifesto for good measure, claiming to have set out exactly how they would afford their plans for tax-and-spend. There were a couple of negligible issues with this: they have purportedly underestimated the cost of tax breaks for income under £10,000 by £5bn, and have plucked and almost entirely arbitrary figure from out of the air to suggest what they might save by clamping down on tax avoidance. Clegg overcame with his usual war cry to the effect of 'the old parties are trying to dupe you, and we're the only ones to give you concrete figures'. Numbers are all very well, Mr Clegg, but if your sums don't add up then one of two things needs to happen: either do some real maths (as Mr Hague will tell you, just saying numbers doesn't necessarily count), or give up on the honesty and openness. It's all very laudable, but if there's one economy that most politicians are exceptionally good at managing, it's economy with the truth, and that's for a good reason: just ask Tony. It's OK to lie as long as it was in good faith. Or something.
The issue of tax avoidance was the first to be put to David Laws during an interview on Wednesday evening. I must say, I have never failed to be unimpressed by that man, and so far during this campaign he has not disappointed:
Sopel: You say you can raise £4.5bn on tax avoidances - why hasn't this been recouped already if it's so easy to do?
Laws: Labour have failed to recoup even more than we will undoubtedly fail to, so it's the lesser of two evils. At least if you vote for us we'll aim to convince you that our failing has been of a smaller magnitude, and we'll still be able to claim that we have done better even though that will be entirely misleading.
Sopel: Are any of your budgets ringfenced? You said the NHS and International Development budgets were on Newsnight.
Laws: What I said was that money saved from these organisations would be ploughed back into them. It's all there in Vince's homework.
Sopel: Vince said that you spoke out of line, and that you got it wrong.
Laws: This is an opportune moment for one of those tricks where I answer an entirely different question on an unrelated topic to distract you from the fact that I've made myself look stupid: the other parties won't admit wanting to raise taxes... [we all know the rest]
Then came the eternal question, expertly dodged by Nick Clegg on many an occasion (obviously forming a key part of his new policy to be open and honest with the electorate):
JS: In the event of a hung parliament, what constitutes the biggest mandate? Votes or seats?
DL: We have launched our manifesto today that outlines our four key policies. [You know, the ones that Clegg told Paxo probably wouldn't have any significance whatsoever in striking a deal after the election.] It'll be votes and seats that matter.
Clegg's response to the same question was essentially: 'I'm going to harp on about democratic principles so that I can reserve judgment until I know which is likely to serve us best. In the mean time, as we are all so painfully aware of my holier-than-thou pledge to clean up politics, I'll continue to slate both other parties equally. It'll be votes and seats that give the biggest mandate.' Someone really should sit these goons down and explain to them how first-past-the-post works. Having said that, their apparent total lack of understanding might go a long way to explain why they're so keen on electoral reform.
...And finally: The remainder of this week has been focussed on the first-ever live debate between our would-be PMs and Nick Clegg (discussion of this will appear here some time over the weekend). On Wednesday morning, Lord Mandelson gave some canny advice to Gordon Brown. I just love a good, honest, principled politician:
8.36am: I have told the Prime Minister not to compete with Cameron on personal insults.
8.44am: Cameron has a long, toffee nose.
Thus spake a Member of the House of Lords.
