With the FT and IFS reports this week it is abundantly clear now to everyone what some of us have been saying for ages – this election is being fought with a big void where the truth about the public finances and spending cuts ought to be. But if what they are telling us about […]

When I posted a week ago about the possibility of Alan Johnson as PM in a Lab-Lib coalition, it would have been easy to dismiss it as fantasy. But, a week is a very long time in our current politics. Today’s Guardian headlines Nick Clegg saying: I could work with Labour, just not Gordon Brown

Is the idea of an IMF intervention in Britain fact or fiction?  Simple answer: fiction, on just about every level.

The idea of a hung parliament is now not only possible but is slipping into being acceptable, at least to some. So far up the agenda has it leapt that the new, more positive, term ‘balanced parliament’ is creeping into widespread use.

I’ve already hinted at this in a previous post, and I’ve been saying it privately for several weeks: it wouldn’t be a completely wild bet on Alan Johnson being the next Prime Minister.

Our first ever Prime Miniserial TV debate is over and my instant verdict is: (1) Nick Clegg, (2) David Cameron, (3) Gordon Brown. So David Cameron effectively lost, because he should have won.

The Liberal Democrats are making a great deal of how honest, detailed and clear they are being about the needs for ‘tough choices’ in public spending. And by and large they do seem to be, but there are some areas where spin seems to have gotten the better of them.

Plan for public to take control of public services will not guarantee savings and could inflame social division, say critics – Guardian BTW – before Charles Moore bursts another blood vessel I should point out I was on BBC R4’s The World Tonight (12/04/2010) criticising the Labour Manifesto’s commitments on public sector organisations.