'I 'ad that Churchill in the back of my cab once'

Yesterday was a long, utterly ridiculous day in what has thus far been an interesting, if uninspiring, election campaign. Certainly not a good day for Gordon Brown after dubbing a slightly batty woman from Rochdale 'bigoted', prompting all hell to break lose.

The 24 hour news channels certainly did their jobs and filled vast acres of air time with vacuous comment. Had Francis Urquhart been the prime minister, I'm sure he would have arranged a train crash just to divert the media's attention.

For me, the final straw was seeing the ghastly Quentin Letts be sanctimonious about being rude to people. That really is too much.

Light relief, though, was provided by a taxi driver who turned out to come straight from the pages of The Sun.

Gordon Brown was a ‘plonker’ – hard to disagree at this point in time – and he did have the decent to admit he was far too rude to people to stand for election.

‘But it’s just ridiculous,’ he blustered.
‘We need to get back to Thatcher and the days of Churchill.’ It was so reassuring to have a taxi driver espousing the traditional mantra of taxi drivers across London.

I couldn’t help but engage in debate. ‘You know the Human Rights Act?’

‘Yes’

‘Well, Churchill inspired much of that,’ I said.

‘Yeah, but he didn’t have all this nonsense,’ he rebutted.

‘No, he only had the Nazis to deal with.’ It made me laugh.

It is interesting how Winston Churchill is so frequently invoked as a bulldog Britisher fighting a stout battle against those nasty, land-grabbing Europeans. While it could certainly not be suggested that the gruff old war hero ever envisaged a European Union as large and unwieldy as the one in Brussels and Strasbourg, he certainly understood the importance of the united, and peaceful, Europe.

Churchill was a key figure in the United Europe Movement and in 1946 he declared 'WE must build a kind of United States of Europe'. Just imagine the kind of outcry such a comment would trigger from today's Conservative Party and its slavish press.

Another interesting feature of the Tory Party's plans were they to get into government is their commitment to dismantle and replace the Human Rights Act. Such proposals have their cheer leaders on the Tory right, but in an excellent essay published in The Guardian last October, the often thoughtful Conservative polemicist and commentator Peter Oborne highlighted this desire as a grave mistake, betraying Winston Churchill's legacy.

He writes:

'The rights set out in the Act are taken directly from the European Convention of Human Rights, which was signed by the UK in 1951. They were inspired by a Conservative politician, Sir Winston Churchill, and drafted under the guidance of another one, David Maxwell-Fyfe (later Lord Chancellor Kilmuir) in the face of considerable opposition from the Attlee government. The act should thus be regarded as the creation not of New Labour, but of the Conservative Party.'

He argues that the rights enshrined in the Act are 'absolutely fundamental to the British common law tradition'. They include the 'right to life; the prohibition of toture, first enacted by the Long Parliament in 1640; rights to liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trail, which dates back to Magna Carta; the right to respect for private and family life; rights to freedom of expression and religion; and the right to freedom of association'.

He argues these rights are 'not radical; they are deeply Conservative'. North Briton would certainly query this last point, but it is beside the point here.

Oborne pleads with the Conservative Party to stake its claim for the Act. Instead, however, Cameron and his party want to paint the Human Rights Act as a piece of foreign piece of interference, to shore up its anti-EU vote in the face of UKIP. Any replacement legislation might be perfectly acceptable but clearly obviously pointless. The full article can be read here.

Sadly, my taxi journey was not long enough to delve into such details.

Leader derails own campaign

And it's not Gordon Brown.

I had meant to put this wonderful video up the other day but didn't get round to. It's a very convincing reason not to vote UKIP.

Expenses

North Briton is currently reading Chris Mullin's excellent diaries A View from the Foothills.

An entry on Wedndesday May 1, 2002, is an interesting little nugget of what would become the biggest political story of 2009. I reprint the crucial passage in its entirety below.

Andrew Mackinlay dropped a little bombshell at this afternoon's meeting of the parliamentary committee. Apparently, under the Freedom of Information Act, by January 2005 MPs' expenses will be subject to public scrutiny, retrospectively. Goodness knows what mayhem that will cause. 'We are in a jam,' said Robin Cook. 'Few members have get tumbled to the juggernaut heading their way.' He said he had been advised that we could probably get away with publishing headline figures and it would be desirable to start publishing a year before the deadline so that any fuss would have died down come thee general election. It was agree not to minute the discussion.

Chris Mullin is one of the heroes of the Commons and it is a shame he is standing down, but his last sentence certainly reveals the complacency that members felt.

Tory! Tory! Tory!

North Briton has been ticked off for one’s usage of the word Tory. Apparently it is rhetoric which is ‘just a little too close to that eminating (sic) from the respective parties’ bunkers’. The criticism comes from my friendly Tory who appears to be slightly indignant, suggeting that I am using the word Tory as a term of abuse.

A term of abuse it of course is. Tories are outlaws, robbers, coming from the Irish word toraidhe, then torai and toir. Bands of men fighting against Cromwell’s raids in the 17th century in Ireland acquired the term.

And then it was adopted by the Tory Party, the Royalist and Monarchist party which has been in government longer than any other in Britain. The Tory Party became the Conservative Party in 1832, but Tory remains as shorthand for the party used proudly by High Tories and by various other shades of blue.

It is also an easy device to use when writing an essay. I do try, in these postings, to refer to the Conservative Party when first referring to them, before later using Tory as an alternative word and to help the scan of sentences. Similarly, I write Liberal Democrats when they first appear, before swapping to the more convenient Lib Dems, hardly a term of abuse – excepting Liberals in the US – until the Tory press got going against Clegg this morning.

North Briton also accepts that saying ‘Tory Scum’, ‘Tory Bastards’, ‘Tories are lower than vermin’ can be said with much more passion and spite than using the longer and more cumbersome alternative of ‘Conservative’.

Tories panic over Clegg bubble

Just a couple of weeks into the election campaign, the Tories are looking worried and they have every reason to be. The rise of Nick Clegg could seriously damage their prospects on May 6 and, indeed, their electoral prospects for years to come.

If the Liberal Democrat poll boost continues – and that is a big if – and replicated at the General Election, it will almost inevitably result in a hung parliament, with the Labour Party as the biggest party. The Tories have the most to lose from this bounce, as more of their supporters have switched to the Lib Dem side.

Looking at the Poll of Polls on the BBC this morning, the problem facing the Tories is stark. Cameron’s Tories would be on 33 per cent, the Lib Dems on 30 per cent, Labour with 28 per cent with others getting nine per cent. Despite receiving the largest share of the vote, the Tories would only be the second largest party with 245 seats, while Labour, in third place, would be the largest party at 276. The Lib Dems would be the kingmakers with 100 seats, with others taking 29 seats.

The neo-libertarian right, exhibited by Guido Fawkes and my good friend here, are mistaken in thinking the Lib Dems would prop up a Conservative government and lead to the end of Labour as a party of government. While it is certainly true to say that the Lib Dems under Clegg appear to have moved slightly to the right, especially compared to the days when Charles Kennedy, this more to do with the Tories moving to the centre. For much of the last two decades, the Conservative Party has been the fringes of politics, isolated by its European divisions, led by characters who were either too young – William Hague – or not effective – John Major and Iain Duncan Smith. Faced with a leader like Tony Blair, who, despite my reservations, remains a significant political figure, which way were the Lib Dems likely to turn? Only with the return of the Conservative Party to the political mainstream, skillfully managed by David Cameron, do the Lib Dems look vaguely closer to the blue corner.

Nevertheless, Lib Dem MPs have far more in common with their Labour counterparts than they do with the Tories. Most Labour backbenchers can’t stand the measures which have impeded human rights introduced by Blair and Brown. Dropping ID cards would not be a problem for most Labour members. Similarly, many Labour MPs would be perfectly happy to see trident’s replacement cancelled.

In contrast, there are too many significant issues upon which the Tories and Lib Dems could never work. Vince Cable and his economic policies have more in common with those of Alistair Darling than they do with George Osborne's plans. They don’t support Tory plans to repeal hunting ban. The Lib Dems are very pro-Europe and have a liberal – if slightly incoherent – immigration policy; both far removed from the Tory position.

Most significantly of course, Labour are promising electoral reform if they form the next government. Their Alternative Vote (AV) might not go far enough for the Lib Dems, but the Tories are implacably opposed to any reform. Only with Labour will the Lib Dems get any compromises. And, if the figures above are replicated at the election, it is hard to argue it would not be a mandate for political reform. Yet, it is the Conservatives who oppose any change to the status quo, blinkeredly hoping they might be able to form a majority government. The Tories know that political reform would do serious damage to any future prospects of forming a majority government.

Much is made of the apparent animosity between Clegg and Gordon Brown. But this can be overblown, after all difficult personal relations failed to prevent Blair working with Brown for the best part of 15 years, and Thatcher working with a whole host of cabinet members. Clegg might soon find himself being much more friendly if he were offered the Home Office and Cable the Treasury.

And the reaction of the Tories and Labour to the Clegg bounce could not be more of a contrast. Labour has been smiling, beneficently, as though one might speak of a favourite sibling.

Peter Mandelson, clearly Labour’s biggest electoral asset, declared this morning that ‘Nick Clegg should be taken seriously’ following his climb in the polls. He told the Today programme:

‘I think Nick Clegg does have to be taken seriously because has entered the fray and appealed to a lot of people who feel Labour has had a good innings, and feel it’s someone else’s turn, but who have looked at David Cameron’s Tories and baulked at them becoming the government.’

In contrast, Lord Tebbit in his Telegraph blog has warned that the Tories must ‘establish that Mr Clegg is a pro-immigration sycophantic Europhile’.

And this morning shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Philip Hammond – who is often a more impressive performer than his boss George Osborne, used fear tactics to try and prick the Clegg bubble.

‘What Britain needs in order to benefit from the recovery and put this recession firmly behind us is a government, with a working majority and a clear mandate and a credible plan to get Britain out of the mess that Gordon Brown’s left us in.

‘That’s what will support the pound, allow us to continue borrowing the very considerable sums that the Government needs to borrow, and I’m afraid that a hung parliament would send all the wrong signals to our creditors and to investors.’

Regardless of the economic arguments, this plan of attack is pretty shameful, talking the the pound and the economy down for political gain. And it won’t really work. Cable and Darling are both figures the City and economic bodies are used to and would be perfectly happy to work with. Indeed, the idea of the two finding some way of working together after the election would not only be likely to find great favour amongst the electorate but be welcomed by the international economic community.

It's perfectly possible that Clegg's bubble will soon burst but it's hard to think the polls will return to their previous position. A hung parliament is looking more likely by the day. No wonder the Tories are worried.

Dave agrees to Paxo grilling

Good news. Cameron has relented and finally agreed to be interviewed by that 'prima-donna Jeremy Paxman.

Despite Just call me Dave's hesitation at being grilled by Paxo, it was inevitable that he would have to relent, especially as Nick Clegg, who could derail the Tory Party's entire campaign, and Gordon Brown had agreed to be so.

So, Cameron will appear at 8.30pm this Friday, with Gordon Brown exactly a week later.

A bit more entertaining election television to come then.

Why Dave doesn't do Paxo

A frequent discussion within our family are the various merits of interviewers such as John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman. Some think they have hung on too, long, are overly confrontational and are due to be put out to stud. North Briton, however, generally sticks up for them, their style of interviewing and their role in our political life.

Yes, Humphrys does interrupt too much and I often find myself shouting at the radio (unfortunately for others, I am incapable of watching or listening to the news without arguing – I blame my upbringing). Paxman is frequently far too rude, sneering, eyebrows arched dismissively and condescending. But, personally, I would struggle not to interrupt politicians when they refuse to answer a questions, instead they plough on with a pre-prepared statement regardless. And, the temptation to be rude to a politician who is clearly avoiding the question, being economic with the actualité would be overwhelming.

They justly, in my view, deserve their formidable reputations.

But poor David Cameron doesn’t want to face Jeremy Paxman.

‘If I want to be shouted at by an overpaid prima donna, I’ll join a Premier League football club,’ he is reported to have said after being interviewed by Evan Davis on Today.

So he’s already avoided Humphrys and now seems set to squirm away from Paxman – though to be fair a final decision has yet to be confirmed. According to Mandrake in the Telegraph Cameron didn’t approve of a question Paxman once asked about his links to the drinks industry. A really quite pathetic piece of evasion.

Just for background, David Cameron was once a director of Urbium, earning £28,000 a year. During Mr Cameron’s time, the company’s bars included Tiger Tiger in the Haymarket, and a host of chic West End venues such as Sugar Reef, Zoo Bar, Strawberry moons etc. Sugar Reef was the bar from which drunk West Ham players were thrown out after one was sick and another urinated on a bar top.

He resigned from the board in 2005 as his position made it quite difficult for him to attack the Labour government’s licensing reforms.

So, as well as David Cameron’s Bullingdon membership, the Tory leader also has professional experience of the late night drinking industry.

No Oscar winner

Well that was a bit of an own goal. What’s the saying? Never work with children or animals. Perhaps aging, former tax exile, actors should be added to that list.

Having Sir Michael Caine champion one of David Cameron’s flagship policies – the ‘non-military National Citizen Service – must have looked so good on paper. But it didn’t really work. First, Sir Michael shouldn’t really be in the country anymore. He told the Mail last year that he would leave if tax hit the 51 per cent mark.

‘'The Government has taken tax up to 50 per cent and if it goes to 51 I will be back in America,’ he said. Well, the 50 pence rate has now been introduced and with all the other taxes he pays, he will be paying considerably more than 50 per cent of his income. So, by rights, he should have joined those other loveable wannabe tax exiles Andrew Lloyd Webber and Paul Daniels. Sir Michael does have form of course, as he left the country in the late 1970s and was a tax exile for most of a decade. It was very gracious of him to return at all.

In the same interview he complained that the country had ‘3.5million layabouts laying about on benefits, and I’m 76, getting up at 6am to go to work to keep them’. He’s worth, according to the Sunday Times richlist a cool £45m, so he wanted to slow down a little he could probably scrape by.

Anyway, there he was at Millbank for the Conservative Party press conference, ready to give his backing to the Dave’s National service plan. A 77-year-old, multi-millionaire, Oscar winner telling the world about the youth of today. The great actor clambered up on his hindquarters and, in those familiar London tones, addressed the gathering of journalists.

‘When they first mentioned this to me all I though was “national service” and I thought oh my God they’re bringing it back – I did it myself and it wasn’t very good’. In fact he ‘hated’ it. Not exactly the right message.

He regaled the audience with his ever so ‘umble upbring: ‘I’m here because I’m a representative of all those youngsters who have been forgotten in this country’.

‘I’m from the Elephant and Castle. I was back there last year making a movie on a council estate with all the villains and everything.

‘They said where did you come from? I said about 800 yards over there. They said, how did you get out? I had a loving father and an education. What I didn't have was drugs and guns.’

He did, however, belong to a gang. Not ‘because I wanted anyone to beat people up but because I didn’t want anyone to beat me up’. Of course not. Things may have changed since my school days but I’m sure this is still one of the principle reasons why anyone ever joins ‘a gang’.

Exactly the sort of thing, in fact, that the film he was in the area shooting was celebrating.

And he finished off, rather oddly, by praising the government. They were doing ‘a very good job’ and ‘deserved a second chance’. The audience, full of hardened hacks, was rather stunned by all this. The clapped by the selected guests was hesitant and uncertain. Was he a Labour mole? Surely not? But that is what he said. Even David Cameron was taken aback when he returned to the microphone. It was a good half a minute before he could compose himself fully. Of course, Caine wasn’t a Labour mole, but he had gaffed and, ironically, clearly failed to read his script properly.

And is there any meat to the proposals. Er, no.

The service would be funded by the millions currently spent on Labour’s ‘failing’ community cohesion schemes.

‘So many of our young people are lost. Show me a bus stop that’s been bashed up and I will show you someone who has a lack of discipline in their lives.’

Or maybe the Bullingdon Club have been drinking nearby?

‘Show me a gang taking drugs and I’ll show you a group of young people who have nothing to look forward to.’

Will Cameron ever admit to snorting Bolivian marching powder? I doubt it. I don’t mind if he did, it’s the political chicanery I’m objecting to.

‘In our society the closest thing to a rite of passage is getting drunk on your 18th birthday.’

Another rite of passage would be having your college room trashed on being accepted to the Bullingdon Club.

Mr Cameron went on:

‘It’s going to mix young people from different backgrounds, different ethnicities and religions, in a way that doesn’t happen right now.
‘It’s going to teach them what it means to be socially responsible by asking them to serve their communities. Above all, it’s going to help a generation of young people to appreciate what they can achieve. For themselves. And by themselves.’

And as if Caine wasn’t enough, Cameron brought in Gandhi for a bit more support.

‘Gandhi put it beautifully, as he did so often: “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others”.’

But none of this is going to be compulsory. Mr Cameron admitted he had initially wanted the scheme to be so but was warned by youth leaders such a threat would be ‘the kiss of death’ for the programme.

So we’ll probably end up with a few youth clubs, expensive slogans but not much else. Without it being compulsory though, it’s hard to think the scheme will ever emerge as more than a gimmick to assuage the ‘hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade’. I very much doubt Sir Michael Caine would have joined in.

Brown's heckler

Below is a selection of tweets by Ben Butterworth, going back to March 22. He is the chap who heckled Gordon Brown outside Centrepoint this afternoon. He appears to be a bit of a lad with a bit of a loud mouth, but mainly harmless.

This is his description of himself: I shout at the world through my tweets. Dad, husband, writer, director, producer of Q Pootle 5, mug. Blog

I might be in the news later chasing Gordon Brown to his limo asking why I couldn't get my boy into a decent state school. He didn't answer.

If Gordon Brown will finally admit that he lied, and that Sarah does smear Primula on her norks, then I may vote for him.

I'm going to vote for whichever party offers the best dance breaks.

@AlrightTit Indeed he did. "Fucknuts Clemmy, another arsing blackout just as I was knocking one out in the c*nting bunker" (via telegram)

I like to think that Des Lynam spends most of his time these days having sex.

Watching The Secret Millionaire. Wow, there are some wonderfully selfless carers in the world. Their generosity of spirit is overwhelming.

So Cardinal Ratzinger, you were Hitler youth, you ignored child abuse and you're a homophobe. Release the white smoke, we have our Pope!

Stephen Byers denies charging £5000 for his sperm to be used by David and Samantha Cameron.


Update: Mr Butterworth has posted this on his blog and it is only fair to print it in full below.

Cor blimey, I didn't think it would be quite as silly as headline news. I thought I would spoil Gordon Brown's photo opportunity as recently my wife and I have got pretty fed up with the fact that we cannot send our eldest to the state school of our choice. Small beer I guess in comparison with many of the problems faced by so many people in the UK and elsewhere. But it's still important to us.

The main reason I shouted at Gordon Brown today is because I really dislike the fact that he is so dishonest. His conniving on so many issues is rather depressing and he, and so many other politicians from all parties need to realise that it just doesn't wash with voters.

Time for supper, bath the kids, Masterchef final and/or footy. Depends what the boss reckons.

PS - Those looking for a political angle clear off. I'm a floating voter. Always have been.

Mr Angry is getting angrier

Nick Clegg has often stood up during Prime Minister’s Questions and played the role of Mr Angry. He raises his voice, loses his temper and repeats what he sees as key phrases for dramatic effect.

In June last year, for example, he was having a go at the government over the recession and the bailing out of the banks. His attacks were full of the typically attacking phrases he likes to employ. Gordon was ‘trying to have it both ways’, Mr Angry shouted, he was ‘passing the buck’ and had allowed bankers to ‘get away from [I assume me meant ‘with’] blue murder’.

These are all perfectly reasonable attacks in many ways but he rarely lands a punch. Partially, this is because he appears to be too earnest, too angry. And he is not helped either by the timbre of his voice which lacks the dramatic power of competent orators; it all appears to be at one level with inadequate degrees of expression.

Today, though, Clegg has stepped up his rhetoric launching much more personal, vitriolic attacks upon both the government and the Conservative Party.

Earlier today he attacked the ‘venal self interest’ of the other parties. His original script, which was sent to me, includes no such word so another piece of adlibbing there.

He went on:

‘After a year of scandal and sleaze, we are finally seeing the back of the most corrupt Parliament in living memory.’

I’m not sure I agree with this considering the levels of corruption under the last Tory government – cash for questions, arms to Iraq, Polly Peck etc, - but there we go and I take his point.

In the pre-briefed version of his speech (I’ll rely on this now rather than dredging through live reports) he continues in a personal and very attacking vein.

The Tories and Labour would ‘do anything to protect the corrupt two-party stitch up and secrecy of Westminster’.

‘That’s the reason they’ve blocked serious reform every step of the way –to keep things the way they are.
‘If Labour and Conservatives get their way, the Parliament returned on 6 May will be no different from the one being dissolved this weekend.
‘If Labour and Conservatives get their way, only the faces will change.
‘All the corruption and all the sleaze….
‘All the big money and all the backroom dealings… will remain.
‘Only the Liberal Democrats can be trusted on political reform.'

The dots were included in the speech. North Briton is very helpful of the Lib Dem press office to keep dramatic instructions in the script. Clegg goes on:


'Labour chose to protect their union paymasters.
'And the Conservatives chose to protect their chums in the City and their sugar daddy in Belize.
'The two old parties will never remove the stench of corruption from the Houses of Parliament.
'For Gordon Brown, change is what you talk about when you want everything to stay the same.
'For David Cameron, change stops on May 7th.
'A vote for Labour or the Conservative parties is a vote for corrupt politics.
'Liberal Democrats are the only party that will radically shake up politics to make it fair, and put power in the hands of citizens, rather than politicians.
'We will stop big donations.
'Old, corrupt politics with Labour and the Conservatives.
'Or open transparent fair politics with the Liberal Democrats.'


I have abridged the speech above for brevity, but it maintains the crucial points. It is all very laudable stuff of course, much of which is very true. The language is also a big step up from the language he would use in parliament: ‘venal; corrupt; stench’. It is highly likely he would have been ordered to withdraw such words in the Commons; unparliamentary language.

Nick Clegg appears to have taken the decision to get angry of this election, to try and voice the frustrations and anger of the ordinary voter. I’m skeptical such a tactic will work, but time will tell.

The big name that wasn’t mentioned by Clegg today, of course, is Michael Brown. He was the businessman who donated £2.4m to the Lib Dems in 2005 – obviously before Clegg was leader – and was later convicted of defrauding £34m from investors. He was at the time the party's biggest ever donor. The Lib Dems have never repaid the money although the Electoral Commission ruled they didn't have to. But it is surely a bit rich and some might say foolhardy to be banging on about corruption in politics with this rather large skeleton in the closet.

Collateral Murder

The below is from Wikileaks

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

The horses line up

So, it's finally begun. Those ludicrous ninnies who claim Brown hasn't been elected now have the opportunity to have their say and, with any luck, will forever hold their tongue.

Brown was all smiles today of course, not wanting to give any impression of the up hill struggle he has before him. His speech outside Downing Street, having returned from the palace where the Queen dutifully acquiesced to his request for the dissolution of parliament, was pretty standard fare really. It had all the buzz words the Labour election back room boys have come up with, but on the whole they didn't really mean a great deal. More impressive was Brown's appearance at St Pancras - surely the best station he could have chosen to set on his election travels. Built with money and materials from the Midlands, outstanding architecture, terrifically brought up to date over the last ten years and now connected directly via high speed trains to Paris and the rest of Europe.

Unlike David Cameron's speech outside City Hall, he wasn't surrounded exclusively by sycophantic party members cheering every word. Instead, while party workers were certainly at St Pancras, they were not even in the majority. Brown, hand firmly clasped in Sarah's and grinning broadly and at the right time for once, had the look of a man with a weight off his shoulders, genuinely relieved to be no longer involved in a phoney war.

As I said, the Tory leader pitched up outside City Hall, once the headquarters for dangerous lefties like Ken Livingstone and Illtyd Harrington. On the one hand, it was a well chosen spot, enabling Cameron to point accusingly, like an invading general, at the Houses of Parliament on the other side of the river. Here I am, he seemed to be saying, I will take that place and turn it upside down. Ironically, for a man so much of the establishment, he wanted to portray himself as the anti-establishment figure. He doesn't want Gordon Brown to be the underdog - that is the role for the challenger.

On the other hand, it was slightly anachronistic to see Cameron there. After all, while he has been trumpeting 'new localism', he was outside the building which was once the centre of London government and closed by The Thatcher administration because it posed more of a power to her than the weak Labour opposition during the mid-1980s.

The speech itself was, like Brown's, much of a muchness. There is a lot of bluster around Cameron and his 'off-the-cuff' speeches which, frankly, North Briton cannot grasp. I expect professional politicians, especially the leaders of parties, to be able to put together coherent speeches almost at the drop of a hat. They should be completely immersed in the policies of their party and able to defend their positions, and present their ambitions fluently, with ease. Look at the great orators of the last fifty years - Foot, Healey, Heseltine, Clarke, Hague - they could all speak, off-the-cuff, without notes, at any given moment.

Apart from anything else, Cameron clearly forgot part of his speech this morning. The phrase the 'Great Ignored' was released as the Tory buzz word by their press office last night (5/4/10).

This is what he was supposed to say:

'We're fighting this election for the Great Ignored. Young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight.'

This is what he said:

'I want to tell you what I am fighting this election for - it is the people I call the Great Ignored.
'They may be black or white. They may be rich or poor.'

Oh dear. It appears Dave forgot about the gays. Not a particular issue normally, except for the latest daft gaffe by Grayling over the weekend in which he said B&Bs should be able to refuse gay visitors.

This omission has been quickly jumped on by the twitterati and no doubt some will make hay. The Tory Party press office, though, has been quick to play it down, claiming Mr Cameron made the speech off the cuff and that later speeches would include references to sexuality.

The point is, it wasn't off the cuff, it was very carefully planned and Mr Cameron forgot. It's not a serious mistake and will quickly be forgotten but if Just Call Me Dave is going to play this dangerous game, he'd better get it right.

And Nick Clegg appeared to and made a terribly personal attack on Gordon Brown - much like Cameron used to until he realised he came across as a bully.

Clegg doesn't, however, come across as a bully. Instead, he was much like he is during PMQs, far too earnest, far too angry and not quite capable of being coherent. While he might hold the balance of power at the end of the election, it is clear this contest really is a two-horse race.