SO GORDON, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN YOUR OWN FLYER?

Last night Gordon Brown was caught out lying in the TV debates when he said that he had never authorised a leaflet scaremongering over bus passes for the elderly.

Incredibly, this very claim is made on his own constituency flyer.


Challenged by David Cameron on Labour's scaremongering tactics in relation to cuts in concessionary travel for pensioners, Brown said that he had not authorised any leaflets saying that.


His own leaflet in Fife states he will fight against "cuts to concessionary travel" as you can see from the illustration. Now I accept that Cameron would have no authority over cuts or otherwise in Scotland and that Brown may have been talking specifically about leaflets in England warning that the Tories would cut these benefits for English people, but it was a pretty stupid thing to say. Incidentally Cameron gave a reassurance that he would not cut these benefits, so some good has come out of it for English pensioners.


In Scotland the SNP has actually expanded the concessionary travel scheme to include disabled veterans from April 2011 and has guaranteed concessionary travel for the elderly.


As Angus Robertson said: "If he can't be trusted on his own leaflets then what can he be trusted on?

I’m interested in two things. Firstly, the Prime Minister was caught lying last night on tv. (He MUST have authorised the leaflets in his own constituency). This is a big story. He lied. So why can’t I find a story about it in either the Herald or the Scotsman?

Secondly, when you look at the things that he’s fighting the election on, why does he mention things over which Westminster parliament will have no control? Is there not an MSP for these things? As well as the pensioners’ concessionary travel, which he denies having on his flyer, he talks crime and supporting the police. Does he not know that that is nothing to do with him or his parliament? Is he THAT out of touch with what’s going on?


Pics: Gordon Brown with an advisor, twice... and Gordon's flyer.

Nick Clegg, media star, wins the night and drives the big boys wild

So, who won, and what difference did it make?

Well, I didn’t watch it and I won’t, but what I think wouldn’t matter anyway. I’m only one person and I’ll vote SNP because I want my country back, but what other people thought does matter.

Until yesterday, Labour was telling us that the Conservatives were their only enemy. Clearly in Scotland this was rubbish. We knew it, and they knew it. And despite saying it repeatedly they spent a deal of their time badmouthing the SNP, the party that was an irrelevance... weird people!

Now though, a new enemy has emerged and, according to The Times, they are about to be hit with the “big guns”. Suddenly the Lib-Dems are the only enemy in town. It’s confusing. Especially when the real only enemy in town is neither of them.

Nick Clegg

Who would have thought it? The consensus is that Nick Clegg won hands down. Ok, he’s still not going to be the next Prime Minister, but 61% of the Times poll named him as winner, and a poll by ITV/ComRes put Liberal Democrat support at 35%, up 14%, to the Tories on 36% and Labour on 27%. The big boys are worried. Paddy Ashcroft describes it as a “game changer”.

America has noticed. Much has been made of the introduction of American-style Presidential debate, which many here feel is inappropriate in a parliamentary democracy and of course in a quasi federal set up like ours, but our copying of their style has raised interest that would not normally have been there in a dull old UK election. This morning Clegg is the darling of the serious American press. The New York Times, America’s newspaper of record was fulsome in its praise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/europe/16britain.html

The Lib-Dems are boosted beyond measure. Of course they have this young, handsome, relatively charismatic lad, up against Eton smoothie, whose expensive education has certainly brought him gravitas, and the tired old bad tempered and petty spiteful Scot who sold their gold off cheap, wrecked their pensions, under-regulated their banks so that no one could call him a “socialist” thus wrecking the economy, and underfunded their troops, causing unnecessary deaths. Hard choice.

The criticism of Clegg is of course that he can say whatever he wants. He’s never going to have to put it into practice. But, some people are starting to wonder if he hasn’t got the ideas. We do need to break up the banks; we do need to NOT buy Trident; we shouldn’t levy income tax on people earning £6,500, a subsistence existence; local income tax is fairer than council tax, retirement pensions should be decent, etc etc...

And of course no-one wanted to upset Nick too much last night; they might need him onside to help form the next government.... But no one saw him equalising with front runners. Brown and Cameron must curse the day they agreed that he could join in the debate.

Here are some thoughts from our own Alistair Cooke on the subject (thanks Danny).

American presidential politics in some ways could hardly be more different from the British parliamentary system. American presidents, being independently elected from the Congress, may cruise into office in a way that often seems somewhat disconnected from the party politics that control Congress. Presidents are chosen by the voters’ perception of their personality and leadership qualities. Party labels have an effect to be sure, but that’s certainly not what makes someone a president.


This fundamental nature of the American presidency was solidified in the age of television with the first face-to-face encounter between two presidential candidates during the election of 1960. Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy met in Chicago for their first debate. Dwight Eisenhower’s Vice President Nixon, clearly the more experienced of the two men, was simply not ready for prime time TV, compared with the grace and style of JFK. Appearing haggard and nervous, and having refused television makeup, Nixon looked and acted simply awful before the cameras. He turned in better performances in the later debates, but the damage was done. In one of the closest elections of modern times, JFK prevailed, and the televised presidential debate has been an enduring feature of American political life for 50 years.


While it may not be immediately clear what the face to face confrontation between UK party leaders will accomplish for them in the party-dominated parliamentary system, the qualities of personality which are central to the American presidential system are in evidence. American media appear to have identified Nick Clegg as something of a political “star” as Tris mentions above. There may be little regard or understanding of the British political issues here, but it really doesn’t matter all that much in American style presidential politics. John F. Kennedy had charisma and Richard Nixon didn’t. The early returns seem to be awarding the charisma prize to Nick Clegg. Now if he could only be ELECTED Prime Minister.