Rather liking this T shirt

h/t @caronlindsay

Ahead of Wednesday's debate - here's some advice for Nick

My latest in The New Statesman... contains my favourite ever pun. He says modestly...

The Farage balloon was in full flight last night in the LBC debate, full of hot air and poisonous gases. Apparently, 485 million people are poised to arrive in Britain from all over the continent. Eighty million Germans want to break free from the hellholes that are Berlin and Munich, eager for the opportunity to sample the delights of Hansel and Pretzel on Ham Common; 10 million Belgians, sick to death of too many Godivas and desperate for a bar of Dairy Milk, are about to jump on a cross channel ferry. And, indeed, 60 million Brits must be readying themselves to nip over the water purely for the experience of sailing back into Dover, for they too are included in his "numbers" of folk who could be about to invade this sceptered isle.

Except, of course, it’s not going to happen. It’s a big scary number and that’s why Nigel Farage likes it – because he can frighten people with it. And for me that was the theme of the debate – Nigel trying to scare people into thinking his way. What would he want people to take from the debate last night I wonder? Twenty nine million Romanian and Bulgarians could be coming? Every family on the continent is going to come here and start claiming child benefit? The churches are going to be sued over equal marriage? Factories will be closed and your jobs transferred to Leipzig? And it’s going to cost you £55m a day? None of which is actually true. But that’s hardly the point.

Because this stuff sticks. Few folk will remember the facts and figures today. But they will recall the general tenor of the debate. Farage’s sweeping generalisations and grandiose statements against Nick’s more forensic grip on the actual facts – and in an emotional vs. rational debate, it’s generally the former that gets traction. And for me, that’s the challenge Nick has in the next debate. It’s easier to look passionate wrapped in a flag extolling the virtues of fish and chips, cups of tea and lashings of ginger beer than it is when you’re explaining that its better to be part of a trading group with a GDP of $16.6trn when on your own you’re the 8^th or 9^th largest economy, and China is five times bigger than you.

But that’s what it will take to burst the Farage bubble. Nick needs to come armed with some pointed barbs, a few more jokes and a lot more passion. He won the debate last night. But it’s not enough just to win the head. Next week, we need to win people’s hearts as well.

What's the difference between Maria Miller and David Laws?

I don't have any particular beef with Maria Miller. And I'm not one for shouts of 'resign' at the drop of a hat.

But I am genuinely bemused by the latest report in The Telegraph about Ms Millers expenses and the possible consequences

To avoid the paywall, I'll quote from the Guardian on the report., who say...

She is expected to repay thousands of pounds and also apologise for her use of the expenses system, the Telegraph said.

Now, as I understand it. Ms. Miller has not yet been found guilty of anything by The Commons 'Standards Committee', who have yet to publish the report into their investigation of her expenses.

But if she is found guilty of incorrectly claiming money - hasn't what happened to David Laws previously set the 'tariff' for the punishment for such actions - which is to resign from the cabinet?

BBC Question Time's Ignoring of the Lib Dems is now beyond a joke.

I don't think anyone with even the vaguest interest in domestic politics would argue that the most talked about political event of the last week was the European, Nick vs Nigel debate.

So when, the next day,  BBC Question Time put together a panel, you would expect that a representative of both sides would secure at least one place.

Certainly room was found for UKIP - but as so often is the case, no seat for the Lib Dems. Unbelievable.

The standard excuse, when given, is that now  we are a party of government, the government's view can be represented by a Tory as much as a Lib Dem. This is, of course, nonsense. But especially so on this occasion as

a) The Tories chose not to be in the debate and
b) The producers found room for not one, but two Tories - Justine Greening and Simon Wolfson, who is a Tory peer.

They also found seats for not only a representative of the Labour Party (Dianne Abbott) but also a Labour supporter and donor, Mick Hucknell.

So, 2 Tories, 2 Labour, one UKIP invited to to discuss the debate of the week.

Just as gobsmacking is BBC Question Time's refusal to engage on Twitter with anyone asking what on earth they were thinking? Unlike, to their credit, BBC This Week, as the exchange below demonstrates.

The Lib Dems still remain under represented on Question Time - with just 7 guests in the 12 weeks the programme has aired in 2014. But this weeks omission on any Lib Dem panellist is the most grievous omission to date.

We should demand some answers.

Pub Brawl

Had a great evening last night with Charlotte Henry, Chris Richards and Marie Jenkins at the LBC Live pub debate with a some very nice (though slightly shouty at times) Ukipers.

My view?

Nick won the debate

Farage was scaremongering and inaccurate on the facts

Nick was especially strong on Law and Order; tad less strong on the referendum.

Farage was more emotional and passionate - and Nick needs to add a touch of that next time.

All Parties can be as radical as they like in their 2015 manifestos. The mad stuff won't get done anyway.

A bevy of think tanks has written to the Guardian today encouraging Ed Miliband to be more radical in the writing of the coming election manifesto. A right wing thinker (Simon Jenkins) in that same newspaper has suggested that would be madness, if Ed wants to win.

I'm not sure it makes all that much difference either way.

Because both of these arguments suggest that people will vote according to the policies and the manifestos of the parties standing. And in 2015 I suspect this will be less true than ever.

The current polling - especially with the coming together of the polls - and the boundaries set out as they are, still indicate a coalition government is the likeliest outcome next year. Or in other words - no winner.

In those circumstances, parties deliver, not their own programme of government, but a jointly agreed coalition of policies - in the last election negotiated in 3 hurried days largely over a weekend.

This therefore suggests that whoever you vote for, you are less likely to end up with the government legislative agenda you voted for. So how do you decide where to put your cross?

Well for many people (as we know) it will be tradition - the political tribe they were born into.

For others it will be broad principle - Fairer society (Labour), stronger economy (Tory), both (Lib Dems) or um, neither (UKIP)

But for many many others it all be personality based. Sure they vote for an MP - but they also have in their minds that they are voting for a Prime Minister. And I suspect personality will count for a lot more in 2015 than policies as a result.

I'm not in The Independent

I wrote a piece for The New Statesman last week arguing the case that after the importance of the pensions changes in the budget (and the fact he proposed the motion on the economy at the last Autumn Conference), Steve Webb must be in the frame for the Shadow Chancellor's job for the General Election Campaign.

Stephen Tall was kind enough to reference it on both his own blog and Lib Dem Voice on Saturday when making  how own case that Vince Cable should get the job.

And I would agree that there is a strong case for Vince; indeed I made that point myself, a few days back, on this blog.

What I did find interesting is that in the comments on Stephen's post there is lots of support for Vince, a little for Danny but nary a mention for Steve.

And indeed, when The Independent took up the story today, Steve doesn't get a mention again.

I genuinely think Steve Webb should be in with a shout at least  of the Shadow Chancellors job.

But I suspect I am in a minority on this one.