Results tagged “Conservatives”

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Grant Shapps - he of Councillors should be volunteers fame - meets his Conservative Councillor colleagues from Barnet Council who, in these times of austerity, have awarded themselves allowance increases of between £7,351 to £10,126 a year.

Don't forget, folks: we're all in this together.

News this week that there is to be a referendum on voting reform next May. (The move was announced through the media, which I thought was ironic.)

The referendum is going to be on whether we should retain the first-past-the-post system or move to an Alternative Vote one.

It's therefore useful to note that AV is still a majoritarian system and not a proportional one. Indeed, by dropping the "+" element, which had originally been mooted and which was the proportional element of the potential vote (with around 15% of MPs being elected via regional lists), the move to an AV system is one that even I could support.

Grudgingly, I'm going to have give Cameron the credit for this. In the hullaballoo of the post-election result, he gave the Lib Dems enough assurances on some form of voting reform (amongst other elements) that they formed a full coalition government. (The Lib Dems were also desperate for power, at the cost of nearly all their self-respect.)

And so the country is in this fascinating position:

• The referendum on AV is won and AV is introduced. This will be enough progress to see off any voting reform for many years afterwards.
• The referendum on AV is lost and the only changes that happen are those pertaining to constituency boundaries. This will see off any votes on voting reform for many years afterwards.

Whichever happens, the outcome is the same. And that is why I have to offer my grudging credit to Cameron. The vote is already won.

(Incidentally, I think the referendum will be won, though on a low turnout below 60%.)

The new coalition government published its "State of the Nation" report on "Poverty, Worklessness and Welfare Dependency" last week. This is clearly an important document since it sets out the perspective from which a key department will operate in a vital area over the coming parliament and, as the document itself notes, provides an overview that "will be used to inform policy decisions" (p6).

This posts notes some key themes of and issues with the report, particularly relating to Disability Living Allowance.

The first point is the overarching narrative the report builds. It is one that supports the 'Broken Britain' soundbite we've heard so much over the last few months. I've made the point before that "governing in the national interest" depends on what you think is in the national interest, and much the same stands for the issues of poverty and welfare. How you approach these issues and the outcomes you are hoping to achieve is informed fundamentally by your political beliefs.

Thus, in my view, the report is quick to note statistics and trends that support the 'Broken Britain' narrative, especially focusing on people out of work and on benefits. The language it uses cements this, talking of people 'parked on benefits (p3), and the main imperative of the report is one that identifies work as the means to solve the majority of problems the report highlights.

I have no direct issue with this - it is the prerogative of a government to build a narrative in whatever way it wants to. It is worth noting, though - as the report itself does - that relative poverty (i.e. those on less than 60% of median income) fell between 1997/98 to 2008/09 (p15) and that absolute poverty (those on less than 60% of 1998/99 real-terms median income) also fell over the past decade (p15). Similarly, wealth inequality in 2005 was around the same level as it was in 1996 (p22). I can selectively quote statistics, too, it would seem.

The report is good on noting the inbuilt disadvantage that many groups of people face. For example, it notes that disabled people:

• Are more likely to live in poverty (29% of families live in poverty when at least one family member is disabled, compared with
• 20% of families with no disabled people) (p8)
• Are more likely to live in persistent poverty compared to non-disabled people (11% compared to 5%) (p18)
• Are less likely to be in work (over half of disabled people do not work) (p9)
• Are less likely to have formal qualifications (24% of disabled people have no formal qualification) (p12)

It has similar statistics for people from BME backgrounds, though not for people at different income levels.

But the report then doesn't note the factors which lead to these institutional barriers: it appears good enough to note 24% of disabled people have no formal qualifications or that over half are not in work and offer no reasons for this. The effect is to create a suspicion whichs fall on disabled people as not trying hard enough to gain a qualification or get a job - something it is convenient not to correct in order to maintain the overall narrative.

(Similarly, pupils with Special Educational Needs face some of the most significant barriers to educational achievement it is possible to face. However, the only mention of pupils with SEN in the report (in the educational disadvantage section) is to note that 9.2% of pupils with SEN are 'persistent absentees', compared with 2.1% of pupils with no SEN.)

Thus, if you want to build a narrative, it is perfectly possible to do so. Taking this approach, at best, the report draws the wrong conclusions based on the evidence available; at worst, it is willfully ignorant.

The best example of this is the report's treatment of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

The motivations for the coalition government to look at DLA are clear. In 2008/09, DWP spent £16.2bn on disability benefits from a total budget of £135.7bn. This was the third largest area of expenditure, behind the state pension (£62.7bn) and housing benefits (£17.2bn). If the coalition government is going to make inroads into budget cuts, it will feel it will have to look at disability benefits.

The report has 8 separate mentions of DLA (the second biggest disability benefit, behind Attendance Allowance), compared to just one indirect mention of Attendance Allowance (in the key of a table) and no other disability-related benefit. In these mentions, the report:

• Notes the rise in the numbers of disabled people claiming DLA, from 1.2m in 1997 to 1.8m in 2009, with an associated spending increase of £3.9bn in 1996/97 to £6.2bn in 2009/10 (p35)
• Notes the "persistence" of DLA claimants, noting that 2.2m disabeld people (including 1.1m disabled people of working age) have 'been claiming' DLA for over 5 years (p34)
• Calls DLA an 'out of work' benefit (pp33-34)
• Equates disability benefits with sickness benefits (p28)

It is worth noting that at no point does the report define what DLA is for. (DLA helps with the additional costs of disability, primarily related to personal care. It is for people under 65, though you can continue to be in receipt of DLA over the age of 65 if you have it before you are 65. Attendance Allowance is the equivalent for people over 65. Both are non-means tested.)

The sum total of this narrative around DLA leads me to believe that DLA is likely to face cuts by the coalition government. By noting the increase in spending on DLA, the increase in the number of 'claimants', the 'persistence' of such DLA 'claimants', being woolly over DLA as an 'out of work' benefit (which it isn't) and not directly mentioning any other form of disability benefits, the direction of travel is clear.

And yet the coalition government would be drawing exactly the wrong conclusion about DLA. This is based on information contained in its own report, as follows:

1. The report notes that disabled people are more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people. It notes disabled people are less likely to be in work than non-disabled people. It notes that disabled people are less likely to have formal qualifications than non-disabled people. DLA is therefore likely to make up a greater proportion of someone's income than a non-disabled person's equivalent. Reducing or removing it is therefore likely to have a greater impact on a disabled person's existing situation, especially as DLA is for care and support.

2. The report notes that pensioner poverty is greatest amongst pensioners not in receipt of disability benefits (p20). The same would also hold of working-age disabled people not in receipt of disability benefits, namely those who would be affected by any reduction in or removal of DLA.

3. It notes that "over one in five DLA claimants are in the top two income quintiles (when DLA is included as income and no account is taken of extra costs of disability)". In the first instance, DLA is designed precisely to take account of the extra costs of disability/impairment, so the parenthesis in the quote are duplicitous. In the second instance, and taking the figures at face value, they tell us that over 20% of DLA claimants are in the top 40% of income distribution. That is, 80% of DLA claimants are in the bottom 60% of income, meaning more precisely that DLA is targeted exactly at those disabled people who live in relative poverty.

The report's treatment leads you to one conclusion only: that DLA is under threat.

I therefore come back to my overarching point about the type of picture you want to paint. If you want to suggest that Britain is 'broken' and that there is a rump of poorly educated and unemployed people who rely on out-of-work benefits rather than get back into work, then you can use the statistics in the way the coalition government has chosen to do.

If, however, you want to make the case that some benefits are well-focused and support precisely those people who face institutional barriers to enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else - such as the role of Disability Living Allowance in the lives of disabled people - then this is equally as plausible.

The fact the coalition has opted for the former approach, with some convenient details missing (such as what DLA is actually for), leads me to believe DLA is under significant threat. And that, as I have demonstrated - and not just in terms of its real effect for disabled people in Britain - undermines the coalition government's own case for addressing poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency.

The Total Place initiative was a significant development in local government policy over the last term of the Labour government. Details about what Total Place is and what it's seeking to achieve are here.

I have a professional interest in Total Place because I see the Right to Control - a significant transformation project that aims to bring together several funding streams which provide choice and control for disabled people - as a kind of Total Place for disabled people. (I'm involved in the Right to Control Trailblazer in Essex, more details of which are here, and on which I'll be blogging in more detail soon.)

So it's interesting to read John Tizard's view on whether Total Place will survive under the Tories.

His view is that, though the Total Place agenda aligns with many of the coalition government's policies and intentions, there are some other changes arising from the localist agenda which may undermine Total Place. These include the evolving role of PCTs, academies and free schools, and the possibility of elected police commissioners. Thus, Total Place will need to reinvent itself and ensure these increasingly autonomous partners work together locally, based within a framework that enables/makes this happen between the centre and localities.

In many ways, Tizard's views echo Stef's post on localism yesterday. His conclusion was that:

[W]hat is appropriately local will vary from circumstance to circumstance. In most cases very strong incentives will be needed to foster the collaboration between localities and at the moment there are neither the ideas nor the funds to support this.

My interpretation (hardly unique or insightful though it is) of both Tizard and Stef's views is that the very nature of localism means it will be driven forward by effective leaders in some areas and not in others. The challenge for the centre is thus ensuring that localism benefits everyone in a given locality to some minimum level whilst enabling others to go further if they want to.

Whether this moves us into a post-bureaucratic age, or one of fairness for all - two further drivers of the coalition government - are moot points.

I only half-joke that the Big Society should be called "BS" for short. Fortunately, Andy Westwood provides a more of the Tories' big idea:

[T]here’s the massive challenge that the Tories haven’t yet acknowledged: social capital and the Big Society will always be stronger in better off places... Much more important is whether building social capital and/or the Big Society can help to turn more deprived or just less well off communities around. Places that have been increasingly dislocated from the prosperity experienced elsewhere. owns and neighbourhoods with poor health, low skills, inadequate housing and transport and high levels of dereliction, deprivation, unemployment and crime. Mining or industrial towns, seaside resorts, inner cities.

And this is where Cameron’s argument falls apart.

Do .

Or rather, they don't, as captured in this nice point from Iain Martin:

In what other club, society or members-run committee would nonmembers (ministers in this case) get to vote for their being granted full membership against the wishes of the existing members?

Public Strategist rightly noted in their comment on yesterday's post about the Civil Service in a hung parliament that:

If the author of that article thought "the blue folder was the only game in town" and that "across Whitehall the yellow folders are being taken out of the bin and carefully read for the first time" he or she should probably not be taken seriously as a guide to what was - and is - going on.

They also rightly note the slightly dodgy idea of coloured folders doing the rounds in Whitehall. The key approach, therefore, being scepticism.

With which, I'd like you to read the Sunday Telegraph's take on things in Whitehall:

Whitehall insecurities about its new Conservative masters are laid bare in eye-opening secret papers leaked to The Sunday Telegraph. The documents, instructing senior officials at the Department of Communities and Local Government how to woo their new bosses, give a checklist of what are called "hot button", Tory-friendly words, to be dropped into conversation whenever possible. These include "families," "radical," "neighbourhoods" and "progressive." [C]ivil servants are told to "talk of efficiencies / value for money without prompting" and advised to deploy blatant flattery, with suggested phrases including: "Congratulations! I had so much confidence in you, I might get complacent!" The documents order mandarins to "smile!... Lean forward!... Be interesting!" They are told to engage in "supportive listening," and "take cues from the Secretary of State." Officials are advised that "eye contact [is] the real currency."

Scepticism, folks: a true Whitehall quality.

This is a nice article from last weekend's Observer, on how the civil service has been reacting to the hung parliament:

One thing is certain. Across Whitehall the yellow folders are being taken out of the bin and carefully read for the first time.

The General Election has passed, the waters have closed over, and we have a coalition government. Without wishing to make a habit of it, since it shows a worrying understanding of how the Liberal Democrat mind works, we called the outcome of the Conservative-Lib Dem talks correctly.

I have spent much of the week in despair. I’d fully expected Labour to lose the election and had anticipated a Conservative government. That the Tories didn’t win an outright majority gave me some cheer, but this was soon overtaken by the prospect of the Liberal Democrats entering into an arrangement with the Tories to enable what has since become a coalition government to form.

Even so, and though now knowing how Conservatives felt in 1997, I take the wider points that many friends and colleagues have made about the outcome - the absurdity of the other options available to the Lib Dems (which I accept, for example never supporting the idea of a Lab-Lib pact); it’s all being in the ‘national interest’ - and will wait to see if the arrangement does indeed temper the tendencies of the Tories.

That phrase ‘national interest’. At a basic level I can understand what it means; it’s inextricably linked to the current financial situation the UK finds itself in.

But I also hesitate at its use.

Surely the national interest depends on what you think is in the interest of the nation? To take a topic I know well: social care. Labour proposed a model of collective responsibility for meeting social care needs in the future, based on the same model as the NHS. The Conservatives proposed a relatively small one-off payment which means that individuals take only personal responsibility for their own care.

In how they suggest we face the challenge of an ageing population both of these proposals take different views of what is in the national interest.

And this is right: for what is politics but the offer of competing visions for achieving what a party thinks is best for the country?

But ‘national interest’ as a unifying cry that everyone can fall behind in order to support a coalition between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems? I’m not so sure, and already find things that make me wonder about the difference between ‘national interest and ‘party interest’ (doctoring the constitution to create a 55% dissolution threshold, opening up the Olympics budget for cuts).

We are, as they say, where we are. Since it is closest to what the electorate said it wanted, it is right and proper that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition has the chance to implement its programme of government for its vision of the national interest. Beneath the eye-catching proposals of the next few weeks will be the detailed work towards what will really matter: the Queen’s Speech and the Budget.

Before then, the silence that seems to have fallen over fellow Labour supporters on Twitter and in the real world will continue. The chatter instead will be focused towards Labour’s own renewal, where we face a fundamental choice between differentiating ourselves from the Tory-Lib coalition on the centre ground of the ‘new politics’ (a Miliband-type approach) or setting out a stall built on dividing lines as Opposition (a Balls-type approach).

I advocate the former and, after quietly watching quietly waiting for the current government’s vision of their view of the national interest to take shape, hope that Labour’s voice grows strong enough once again to advocate its vision of the national interest for this great country.

Just before the election the Tories published this party election broadcast from the 'Hung Parliament Party'.

Just in case it isn't available, according to that video the four key 'pledges' of a Hung Parliament Party were:

1. Behind-closed-doors politics: an end to transparency, under the table deals, party-political wrangling will dominate, and policies will be bickered over by secret committees
2. Indecision and weak government: we will provide indecision, inaction, and half measures
3. Paralyse the UK economy: a vote for a hung parliament risks killing economic recovery. A drop in confidence could lead to a run on the pound and a diststrous increase in interest rates.
4. A new election within the calendar year. We'll waste tens of millions in [holding one].

The video summarises the results of a hung parliament thus:

A brave new world of undemocratic process, economic stagnation, and dithering.

Now that the Conservatives find themselves in a hung parliament and have spent 3 days trying to form some sort of arrangement with the Lib Dems, do they still stand by their 'hung parliament party' broadcast?

Because if they do, it leads to all of the above coming true; and if they don't, they were just scaring people into voting for them before the election.

Which one is it?

I asked my nearly-6-month-old what he thought of the prospect of a Liberal Democrat - Conservative coalition. This was his reaction:

There are plenty of people on Twitter this evening being smug about the Tory civil war which appears to be breaking out.

I'm not sure there's much to be smug about. As a Labour supporter, I was keen to stress that the Tories didn't represent much hope or change in the election. The Big Society idea was clearly BS from the start. So let's not be pleased when a Tory frontbencher confirms what we already knew: that Tory policies were little more than a PR line that sounded good on the news bulletins and that David Cameron's leadership was supported by a cabal barely representative of the bulk of the Tory party.

The Tories can in-fight all they want to, and those of us on the left can take as much pleasure from it as we want.

But it's too late to harp on about it now.

The significant likelihood is that the Tories will form the next government (probably going it alone as a minority, with a supplicant Lib Dem contribution), and Labour - who should have been able to take the Tories apart - will be left stranded at the progressive altar.

After analysing the Lib Dem position with regard to their own performance, let's turn to where it leaves them as kingmakers.

The Lib Dems are caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea. They are also in a weaker position than most people seem to realise.

Aligning with the Tories represents a short-term gain and long-term pain. In the short term, they get to implement key parts of their manifesto (particularly in education, the environment and some parts of tax reform). However, the promise of an inquiry into electoral reform sounds like a sop rather than a commitment, and the wrath of significant swathes of the wider Liberal Democrat party would be heaped upon Clegg if he goes with the Tories. The long term is that the Tories will abandon the Lib Dems as soon as they can, which won't be long at all, and certainly within 12 months.

Aligning with the Labour party represents short-term pain and long-term gain. In the short term, they would have to align themselves with an unpopular Prime Minister and probably wouldn't get much on their key policies. Even if Labour replaced Brown, though this might work for Clegg, another 'unelected Prime Minister' won't work for a considerable proportion of the general public. In the long term, the Lib Dems would have that referendum on electoral reform (though I doubt it will be on proportional representation). This option also brings more of the wider Liberal Democrat party with its leadership.

Neither of these options is particularly or politically palatable. Which is why I suggest the Lib Dem position is much weaker than most realise.

Which way is Clegg going to go? Given his European experience of horse trading and compromise on nearly everything, and his evident dislike of Gordon Brown, I suspect he'll try and work something out with David Cameron - under the banner of 'national interest' and focusing on the economic crisis.

But the price he'll pay for this is not getting a firm, timebound and specific commitment on electoral reform. He will also lose whatever claim he had to being a politician of 'change' (which I've always thought was tenuous anyway). This loss will be both with his own party and with those who were attracted to him and away from the other parties.

By the time the Tories have established themselves through a Queen's Speech and budget as a minority government, the Lib Dems' unique position as kingmakers will have dwindled to ineffective opposition and the continuing runt of a 2.5-party system.

I hope they will be surpassed by a resurgent Labour party under a new leader, but even then I fear Labour will probably still lose the next general election to an emboldened and confident Conservative party.

Vote. Obviously.

There are lots of other bloggers out there who will tell you who they are voting for and why, so I don't need to add to that. But I will tell you about the 3 main things I'm feeling today.

The first is apprehension about the result and what it could mean not for politics in this country, but for people. There are some big choices that will need to be made in the next parliament, and if those decisions aren't called correctly, significant numbers of people will be much worse off. This whole general election campaign has focused on the process of politics, especially through things like the leaders' debate. But the campaign should have been about the content, because that's what will make the difference in the next 5 years.

The second is bemusement. How on earth we don't know the outcome of this election is actually beyond me. In his last party conference speech, Tony Blair said this of the Tories:

If we can't take this lot apart in the next few years, we shouldn't be in the business of politics at all

and

They think it is all about image... the next election won't be about image unless we let it be.

The inevitable conclusion is that Labour did let it all be about image and that they didn't take the Tories apart. And yet, despite this, the public has still figured it out for themselves: from a 28-point lead in one poll in September 2008, the Tories are averaging an 8-point lead in the final polls yesterday. My bemusement is therefore that both Labour and the Tories lost this election.

And the third is excited. The sad thing is that, when the dust has long settled on this general election, my excitement will remain.

As the exchange goes at the end of Rio Bravo:

Pat Wheeler: A game-legged old man and a drunk. That's all you got?
John T. Chance: That's what I got.

Alas. Politics is that game-legged old man and the drunk.

David Cameron appears to be close to throwing his toys out of the pram.

As we approach polling day and the polling data keeps piling up, the possibility of a hung parliament (and all that entails) still looms large.

If there is a hung parliament, the basic point remains that Gordon Brown will still be Prime Minister on Friday morning. And David Cameron is none too happy about that, going so far as to say the Tories will ignore the guidelines the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service has drawn up.

As Sunder Katwala over at Liberal Conspiracy points out, the Conservative approach to a hung parliament is essentially to overlook the will of the electorate and say they’re in power anyway.

Thus, the toys are firmly out of the pram.

But this is part of a whole series of incidents which indicate to me David Cameron’s contempt of constitutional and procedural practice in order to further his ambitions for power. He suggests shamefully populist policies that ride roughshod over established convention (such as suggesting any non-elected Prime Minister has to hold an election with 6 months) and poorly thought through electoral reforms (such as equal constituency sizes).

He also took the liberty of making his speech on the day the election was announced before the election was even announced by the Prime Minister (see the timings on the Guardian's liveblog from the day here).

This drive to seize power come what may, and in the face of a system of government that has stood up pretty well to the challenges it has faced in, say, the last 300 years, is pretty arrogant.

But what’s amusing about it (if such a thing could be thought of as amusing), is that Cameron is only in this position because of himself. In September 2008, his party was 28 points ahead in one poll. In the face of this government’s apparently discredited economic management, the fact that Britain is ‘broken’ and Gordon Brown is supposedly one of the most unpopular modern Prime Ministers, the fact that David Cameron hasn’t sealed the deal with the electorate is, frankly, astonishing.

Rather than looking around at the constitution and established practice as the answer to his power-seeking woes, therefore, perhaps he needs to look a little closer to home?

The Tories want a cap on immigration. It's a policy I disagree with, but it's a policy nonetheless.

The detailed debate has taken place as to where immigrants come from: since Britain is a member of the EU, we're not in a position to stop people from other EU Member States coming to Britain.

Thus, the numbers EU-immigrants represent can't count towards any Tory cap.

So the Tories are presumably saying they'll cap non-EU immigration numbers.

But this admits the likely possibility that, though non-EU immigration numbers may fall because of the introduction of a cap, the number of net immigrants to Britain may easily exceed any cap, because EU-immigrants can't be turned back at our borders.

The question (which I during the third leaders' debate, and which is also noted by the excellent Chris Dillow) is therefore: does the Tory cap on immigration admit the possibility that they'll want Britain to leave the EU, on the grounds of immigration?

I've made a few predictions in various places regarding the General Election. Not wishing to hide behind vagueness and fogginess, I'm capturing all of them here and the reasons for them.

If I'm right, then great. If I'm not, I'll at least be able to look back at what I thought would happen and see where I went wrong.

Note: these aren't the results I want. They're the results I think we're going to get.

First, here's a quick recap of the topline 2005 General Election results:

• Labour: 356 seats (-47 from 2001 General Election), 35.3% vote share, -5.5% swing from 2001 General Election
• Conservatives: 198 seats (+33), 32.3% vote share, +0.6% swing
• Liberal Democrats: 62 seats (+11), 22.1% vote share, +3.7% swing
• Turnout: 61.3%

This time round, I think the Tories will be the biggest party and I think they'll have enough for a majority. I've already posted that I think their majority will be between 30-40. This means a vote share of over 41%. Though I probably don't agree with myself now (I think it will be a bit tighter - vote share of just over 40% and a majority circa 20), I'm going to stick with my original prediction.

I think that Labour will be the second biggest party, on both the share of the vote and in terms of the number of seats. I think their vote share will be high 28%.

I think the Liberal Democrats will be the third biggest party, on both the share of the vote and in terms of the number of seats. I think their vote share will be around 24%.

The key factors that inform this prediction are as follows:

• Turnout, which I think will be no more than 68%. Far from everyone being excited by this election, I think the nature of this General Election campaign, the personalities involved, a lack of willingness to vote for any of the parties, and the general disenfranchisement with politics created by issues like MPs' expenses will paradoxically mean people are less inclined to turn out to vote.
• Gordon Brown. I think the "5 more years" line will resonate with people when they're in the privacy of the polling booth.
• The Lib Dems' new-found support is a castle built on sand, for 3 reasons: (1) I'm highly suspicious of the jump in support the Lib Dems received following the first leaders' debate (from approx 18-20% to 30-32%) and simply don't think it will translate to votes on polling day - partly because I suspect voters between 18-24 make up a larger proportion of this jump in support than other groups. (2) I also think people moving away from the Lib Dems will have been exacerbated by the way Nick Clegg has conducted himself over the last two weeks, which hasn't suggested to me that he is the candidate of 'change'. (3) It's just not very British: we're a small-c conservative nation, and changes like this just don't happen and there's nothing (including all 3 leaders' debates, rather than just the first) that leads me to think the Lib Dems have changed this this time.

So that's the thinking behind my headline prediction. One thing is for sure: so many people have made so many claims about which way this election is going to go that quite a lot of people are going to have egg on their face on 7 May.

I hope I'm not one of them; but this post gives you the ammunition you need if I do get it totally wrong.

The 3 leaders' debates have been and gone. Stef gave me a good fisking after the first debate, based on a post I wrote a few weeks ago. Now taking the long view, I thought I'd respond to each of his points.

Note: my original points in italics; Stef's argument in italics below.

1. Debating points and issues in the debates won't really be the aim. Instead, it will be used as an opportunity to trade blows, irrespective of the content of those blows
Stef: Some real issues were aired and some interesting debates did occur, albeit they were somewhat stymied by the short amount of time available for each question.

After the first debate, it did seem that some interesting debates might occur. But they didn't. I was wrong in the sense that the debates would be used to trade blows. Instead, they were used to just say and then repeat their key messages. This wasn't really 3 debates; it was one debate repeated 3 times. (And the format of the debate, as Stef rightly says, stymied the debate.)

2. What goes on in the debates is almost neither here nor there; it's how they get spun afterwards that matters.
Stef: Whether the debates were of Aristotlian profoundness or playground pettiness, how they get spun afterwards was always going to be as important, if not more important than the debate itself. This does not invalidate the debates themselves, what went on in the debate did make a difference to how the debate was spun.

My original point safely holds. There were clearly prepared lines and put-downs which were echoed in the post-match spin. Related to point 1 above, the debates weren't genuine debates; they were just an opportunity to establish and repeat key messages, not debate the merits or otherwise of each other's policies.

3. I'm not one of those that complains about the American-isation of politics, and in particular the cult of personality in politics. The leadership debates will do nothing to assuage people who do complain about this.
Stef: Agreed.

We were agreed on this, so I don't need to re-emphasize I was right in the first place.

4. Does anyone remember the one-to-one interviews between Jeremy Paxman and each party leader during the 2005 general election? If you do, you'll remember they were not known for their jibber and jabber on policy issues but instead adversarial tosh focused disproportionately on specific issues (e.g. the number of illegal immigrants in Britain).
Stef: [T]here was a disproportionate amount of focus on the issue of immigration. Yet because of the uniquely non-adversarial format of the debates, we got into more detail and more clarity on policy positions than any PMQs or Question Time.

We did get into a bit more detail about a very few things; but focusing disproporionately on specific issues - particularly immigration, interestingly enough - did happen. The debates were narrow in their focus.

5. The worry about 'losing' the debate, or being the subject of a terrific putdown is precisely what leads to the score-draw results assigned to most presidential debates of the last 12 years. Even though this is the first time debates have been held here, the tendency will be for the candidates to play it safe.
Stef: Yes, it was a play-it-safe debate for all the candidates but especially the 'incumbents' but Clegg did better because he played it less safe. Here's betting that the next two will be a bit livelier. A real good put-down may win it.

The perspective of the 3 debates shows that the debates were primarily safe. For all the media tried to find one, there wasn't a significant moment in any of the debates.

6. Most people think these debates will be good for Gordon Brown. I don't agree because (1) the Tories are good at precisely this sort of thing, being the presentation of policy rather than what the policy is; and (2) it depends which Gordon Brown turns up. I suspect it will be the one that has turned up at Prime Minister's Questions for the last 2 years, which is no good thing.
Stef: Patently wrong on both accounts. Cameron inexplicably failed to present himself and his policies at all well, usually his forte. Brown, clearly dreading the event, actually did much better than he thought he would. Although in my opinion he came 'last' it was not by much and he, along with Cameron, can only improve over the next two debates.

I was certainly wrong on (1): Cameron did an awful job in the first debate, did marginally better in the second and was his best in the third. Brown was consistently stodgy. The polls for each of the debates bare this out - only in rogue polls did Brown not come third.

7. The spare wheel: there will have to be air time for Nick Clegg as leader as the Lib Dems. This will just be embarrassing for everyone concerned.
Stef: Erm, I'll let Rich defend himself on this one. Yes the Lib Dems won't be the largest single party but hell, the kaleidoscope has been well and truly shaken.

I wouldn't try to defend it: Clegg clearly did well. I'm going to write a post on my wider thoughts on the Lib Dems over the last two or three weeks.

8. Which television stations will cover this? If not everyone can cover every debate, what will the implication be?
Stef: 9 million viewers for a 90 minute political programme on ITV without adverts is absolutely astonishing. The Sky debate will have next to bugger all viewers, mores the shame. What I'd give for a Channel 4 debate with the mighty Jon Snow.

The ITV debate had 9.4m viewers - around 37% share of the viewing audience that night if I remember correctly. Sky had just over 4m and I still don't know the figure for the BBC debate (which I expect will be the highest viewing audience). This partly anticipates my riposte to point 9 below, but I don't think the turnout will be higher than the 1997 election (i.e. 71.4%). Viewing figures aren't much of a proxy for this, but I think the media is more excited by them than the voting public.

9. Does anyone seriously think the debates will engage a wider audience than those engaged in politics anyway? I doubt it very much.
Stef: Policy by anecdote warning! This weekend I had my first ever party political conversation with my brother whom is not atypical of the disengaged voter but a good proxy. He did not watch the debates but read about them afterwards and looked at some of it on YouTube. His verdict. Cameron "Don't trust him" (Incidentally my mother thought he looked like a porn actor) Brown "Doesn't know what he's doing" Clegg "Seemed straightforward and normal". Policy by anecdote completed. This is why anecdotes are, in the right context, very powerful. My brother and many like him will possibly vote for the first time ever because of the debate and many may well vote Lib Dem, fundamentally changing the political landscape in this country. This would not have happened without the debate.

I'll leave the point about whether or not the landscape has been changed by the Lib Dems to a later post (here's a quick preview: I don't think it has). But I stand by my original point: the leaders' debates have not engaged a wider audience than those engaged in politics anyway. Ultimately, this will be borne out by the turnout of the election. But beyond the bubble that the media has created, and which has been supported by social media (especially Twitter), I suspect a significant proportion of the public will remain disengaged by this general election.

Despite making a huge gaffe when it came to gay rights recently (as covered here), David Cameron has claimed his party now has a good record on gay rights.

Well.

Step forward Chris Grayling:

The Tories were embroiled in a furious row over lesbian and gay rightson Saturday after the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, was secretly taped suggesting that people who ran bed and breakfasts in their homes should "have the right" to turn away homosexual couples.

In a recording of the meeting of the Centre for Policy Studies, obtained by the Observer, Grayling makes clear he has always believed that those who run B&Bs should be free to turn away guests.

"I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences," he said. "I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.

He draws a distinction, however, with hotels, which he says should admit gay couples. "If they are running a hotel on the high street, I really don't think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes."

Now, if you think Grayling's distinction is a reasonable one then, bearing in mind he is in line to be the next Home Secretary, you're welcome to him. But the discriminatory position, let alone the intellectually and morally inconsistent one, he holds should be more than a major worry to every fair-minded citizen of this country.

I thought it would be useful to revisit my prediction for the General Election outcome, made here:

[M]y prediction is scenario 6b: that the Conservatives will be the largest party with a majority of between 20-40 and Labour dumping Gordon Brown. A David Cameron victory will mainly be fueled by a relatively low turnout because of voters further disenfranchised by the expenses scandals - a low turnout favours the Tories.

I'm not saying that's the outcome I want; I'm saying it's the outcome I think we're going to get.

Which is all a long way round of saying that the betting markets , which seem to play out my prediction.

I may just go and put a few quid on it.