With the Lib Dems surging in the polls after Nick Clegg’s victory in the Leaders’ Debate, the Electoral Reform Society is working for a hung parliament with its Vote for a Change campaign. Effectively, saying vote Lib Dem or, if in Scotland or Wales, nationalist.

I’ve received a number of naive emails from the campaign’s Willie Sullivan pointing out that many voters would welcome a hung parliament and insisting that a ‘hung parliament is a reforming parliament’. But I suspect Willie Sullivan would left somewhat disappointed if parliament was hung.

Gordon Brown would be under no obligation to resign as prime minister and would be free to continue at the head of a minority administration. That would upset a lot of people and would be far from democratic, but nobody else would have a mandate to govern either. He would have a duty to soldier on.

No doubt Labour would offer the Lib Dems a chance to support parliamentary reform, but my guess is that that would be on little more than a take-it-or-leave-it basis. They’d get to be consulted on a bill to be put to a referendum, but their influence would be quite limited. All of this would take quite some time, during which the Lib Dems would be required to support the minority government or throw away any chance of reforming parliament.

It’s hard to believe that voters, having been shut out of all this, would looking to vote for a hung parliament again.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

They might be big-time Tories, but the Warburtons folk can’t be all bad as about a week ago, and despite my slagging off their bread in the past, they sent me some free samples of their snack foods — Warburtons SnackaDoodle and Warburtons ChippidyDooDaa — which they say are not as unhealthy as crisps.

Having munched through three packets of ChippidyDooDaas and one SnackaDoodle, I reckon Walkers can rest easy. A dried pitta bread snack, ChippidyDooDaas are a bit like little Doritos in the shape a chicken’s beak. They’re okay, but they come across as a touch stale. They need more flavouring to distract from being dried up bread. The SnackaDoodles are nicer, but not nice enough. These wholegrain snacks are not as unhealthy as the ChippidyDooDaas, but are still a little dry.

Neither snack is at all satisfying. Having given in to temptation and bought a packet of SnackaDoodles or ChippidyDooDaas, you’ll almost certainly be left feeling a little disappointed in yourself, as you might for having bought any snack food. But that disappointment is unlikely to be offset by any enjoyment you felt at the time.

3 graffiti, scrawl more »

Sandra Bullock’s solid, respectable, but unremarkable performance in The Blind Side is much less interesting than her coming up against Gabourey Sidibe in Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire in the Oscars for actress in a leading role as the two films have so much in common, while offering such very different perspectives on the world.

While Precious is unremittingly grim in its realism, The Blind Side strives to be uplifting and largely succeeds. But as the latter film ends with Bullock’s voice over asking us to think of all the other black kids ‘with athletic ability’ still stuck in the ghetto, the thinking viewer surely asks: ‘Yeah, what of them? (And is sport all young black Americans should aspire to?)’

It’s great that Michael Oher was rescued by some very nice rich people. He was very lucky. Statistically he stood a greater chance of winning the lottery. Good was done, but it was a fleeting good that helped one person, heartily congratulated itself and moved on.

Precious certainly cops for far more than her fair share of tragedy: an abusive single mother, incest, a disabled child, HIV/Aids and other bullying. Yet somehow, her story rings truer because we see the progression and her rescue, when it comes, is rather limited.

Inevitably, The Blind Side is destined to reach more people. It’s a great story well told. A feel good movie if you don’t think too much, it is ultimately conservative. Precious is the film for radicals who believe in real change of substance.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

Having watched last night’s Leaders’ Debate closely for ninety minutes, it was something of a surprise to me that Nick Clegg – dismissed yesterday as the other guy – has come out top in all the opinion polls. The poll most generous to Labour, for Sky News, puts Clegg on 37, five ahead of Brown and six ahead of Cameron while others have Clegg as high as 61 percent with Cameron on 22 and Brown 17.

Interesting. Like anyone already committed, I pre-judged it and every time Cameron spoke he confirmed that prejudice, while I enjoyed Brown’s performance. Nick Clegg was mostly inoffensive. Take an online survey like Vote Match and it’s no surprise that I agree most with Labour, but the Lib Dems aren’t far behind. But I wouldn’t vote Lib Dem because I know that they have no underpinning vision for Britain; just a few cherry picked policies.

Clegg beat Cameron by stealing his sales pitch – the need for change – and delivering it with far more credibility. Cameron still hasn’t told as what Conservatives would actually change, why and how. Brown put him on the spot and he squirmed. Clegg was so much more confident, relaxed and self-assured than Cameron.

Brown’s willingness to highlight areas of agreement between Labour and the Lib Dems was a nice attempt to build consensus and gang up on the slimy Tory. It backfired because people clearly thought: ‘well if Brown agrees with Clegg, so do I.’

How this all translates into voting intentions is anyone’s guess and it certainly makes the next two debates far more interesting. It’s fair to say that Clegg will get a tougher ride; perhaps Brown will put him on the spot too this time. Brown needs to stop chuckling when Cameron squirms and dump any pre-rehearsed lines like thanking Cameron for the posters of him smiling (it comes across as forced and unnatural). Cameron needs to relax and finally let us know what Conservative change is, as to we uninitiated it sounds like an oxymoron.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

UPDATE: Nick Clegg wins Leaders’ Debate shocker
Tonight’s Leaders’ Debate is historic and very exciting to those of us who don’t just follow politics at election time. But we should check ourselves and remember that most people tune into politics only when they come to vote, which is why opinion polls held months (or years) from an election mean very little.

Knocking on doors in the marginal constituency where I live a few months ago did not bring out hoards of eager voters with killer questions on matters of policy. The most popular question was: ‘So when is this election, then?’

This explains why the polls have narrowed as the election has approached. Respondents are less glib and more thoughtful. They’ve had a look at the Tories and stepped away.

So when it comes to the Leaders’ Debate, its worth remembering that most voters won’t tune in, they’ll go off the reviews. And for most who watch it will be the first time they’ve actually seen Gordon Brown, David Cameron and the other guy in action. They’ve heard that Gordon Brown is crap and that David Cameron is spectacular. That’s great, because expectations are very important.

If David Cameron doesn’t run rings around Gordon Brown, he’ll have disappointed his audience, who will reappraise. Cameron needs to demolish Brown just to stand still.

The winner will be declared on the basis of the first opinion poll to come out post-debate. With the Tories already riding high, a lot’s being asked of Cameron, while just the slightest narrowing of the Tory lead will result in Brown being declared the surprise winner. Hearing that Brown has won, those who didn’t watch will follow suit and Labour will gain momentum.

To be fair, there will be a lot of pressure on Brown to repeat the trick and it will be harder to beat Cameron a second and third time. If the Tories can keep their cool, they might be able to draw level. But my reckoning is that Brown’s surprise victory tonight will prove decisive.

Scrawl graffiti over this »