The Labour leadership battle isn't a beauty contest

Debate is good, debate is healthy, debate is just what a political party needs after a hefty election defeat. And some Labour activists need to get a grip as many, with Dan Hodges as the standard bearer, seem to think Jeremy Corbyn's inclusion on the leadership ballot is a sign of an unprofessional party as he is simply 'not ready' to be Prime Minister (Corbyn is, for the record, 66).

It is an absurd, anti-democratic, argument. And even if it were true, it isn't unique to Labour; the Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as leader and even John Redwood had a pop.

Yes, Corbyn only got on the Labour leadership ballot as several of his comradely MPs lent their support and nominated him. But this only recognises, whether certain members like it or not, that he represents a not insignificant body of opinion within the party. Surely the hope of the other candidates is that by including him in the debate his more eccentric ideas can be exposed and anything of value can be swiftly co-opted by a candidate more likely to be successful. And, of course, by having the debate, those on the far left will not feel the need to cut their ties to the party altogether. It's a simple method of securing a few votes in the future.

Those arguing that he shouldn't be on the ballot seem to me to struggle to put forward a coherent argument. Yes, it may be the case that it is indulgent of the Labour Party and it may also be that he would take the party to an even more unelectable position, but these remain matters of opinion, not rules of law. This shouldn't, therefore, deny Corbyn of a voice.

Should he, therefore, be banned from standing? Should he and his supporters be the victims of a purge, like Militant all those years ago?

Some even argue that a leadership contest is not, in fact, a debate at all and here I'm lost. If it's not a debate what is it? Should the leading candidates simply agree on the main issues and let the contest be a judgement on physical beauty instead?

As I've argued before, the Conservatives will have their own problems at the next election as they'll either have a new leader with the baggage of 10 years in government - which rarely does them much good - or they will have a new leader without the personal appeal of David Cameron. The emotional spasms currently afflicting the Labour Party were an inevitability after May 7, but, in the main, they are recoverable (Scotland is a different matter).

Despite the best efforts of a few on the right trying to have a jolly good laugh by ironically signing up as Labour supporters just to give Jeremy Corbyn a boost, the Honourable member for Islington North won't win the Labour leadership. In a few months this will all be largely forgotten by the electorate, who, for the main, have no interest in the internal politics of our major parties. And, if anyone does remember, they'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

The Med's refugee crisis shames the country

Theresa May has been attending the latest meeting in Europe where ministers from across the region are trying to come up with a solution for the dreadful problem of thousands of people fleeing north Africa hoping for sanctuary in the relative safety of Europe.

This is what the Home Secretary had to say as she arrived:

‘Of course, the crisis in terms of migrants who cross the Mediterranean is a problem in two ways. First of all, obviously, lives are being put at risk but secondly, as we see in Calais and elsewhere, it’s putting great pressure on European towns and cities which is even reaching to our borders, although we are not part of the borderless Schengen area.

‘To deal with this issue in the long term we need to go after the criminal gangs who are plying a terrible, callous trade in human lives.

‘We also need to break the link between people getting into the boats and reaching Europe. That means returning people to North Africa or elsewhere, or to their homes countries; so that they see that there is no merit in this journey.’

The desperate people so frequently rescued from shabby boats in the Mediterranean Sea are routinely referred to as migrants; this almost suggests their decision to try and escape to Europe is a lifestyle choice. They are rarely called refugees, yet, such is the turmoil in that part of the world, it is almost inevitable than the majority have fled conflicts in Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Central African Republic and Libya itself. And, according to aid agencies, increasing numbers of people from Syria, where nine million people are displaced and more than four million people have fled abroad, are arriving to seek passage.

Libya, despite facing immense post-Gaddafi violence, is an obvious place for a migrant/refugee to target such is the coast's proximity with the southern reaches of several European countries. And there is no doubt that many who ultimately get there are victims of people trafficking gangs. Theresa May is right to say they are 'plying a terrible, callous trade in human lives'. But, while, Western nations may have the best of intentions to pursue these gangs, there is no realistic means to do such a thing. No troops are going to be put on the ground in Libya, drones cannot be used; the gangs will continue their trade unmolested for the foreseeable future.

My primary concern, however, with Ms May's statement is the last paragraph which demonstrates that the Home Secretary entered into these negotiations with not only utterly unachievable, but also the wrong, ambitions. Earlier this week Amnesty International released a report on the 'global refugee crisis' highlighting the dangers of the Mediterranean crossing, describing it as the 'most dangerous in the world' and attacking Western governments for their consistent failure to acknowledge and even start addressing the world's largest refugee crisis in Syria.

But even this crisis has competition. Steve Symonds, Amnesty's Refugee Programme director, said: 

'In South East Asia we've seen boats full of desperate and starving people literally pushed back by Indonesia and Malaysia before they were shamed into taking them in.

'This compassion deficit seems to be a global fatigue.'

And the UK could be described as being amongst the most fatigued countires of all.According to Amnesty, out of the four million who have escaped the Syrian civil war, Britain has resettled a pathetic 187.

Theresa May talks of returning people to North Africa, to their home countries, apparently with the intent of proving that 'they see there is no merit in this journey'. This actually means that the British government would rather actively seek to return people to war zones, under the most wretched circumstances, than contemplate the possibility of offering sanctuary. It is reassuring that HMS Bulwark is to continue doing its sterling work rescuing hundreds of people from the sea's waters, but simply trying to return them to their places of origin does nothing to solve the problem. And it's hard to imagine how any Western government could demonstrate to someone fleeing for their lives that there is no 'merit in this journey'. Those undertaking the perilous journey are doing so, not because they fancied a quick jaunt across the Med, but in the hope that they and their families might actually live. Argue with the 'merit' of their journeys as the barrel bombs are falling.

Britain once had a proud heritage of offering sanctuary to the oppressed and desperate, a record governments are eager to invoke. But we do not any longer. Like the Clinton government before, which refused to use the word 'genocide' in reference to the killings in Rwanda just to avoid being obliged to intervene, this government and the coalition before it, refuse to recognise the reality of the situation for parochial, political reasons, which necessitates a refusal to adopt a functional immigration system. Until we do so, the boats will keep coming, will continue sinking & people will try ever more dangerous ways to try find a place they can survive. Britain is shirking its responsibilities and it's a state of affairs which should shame us all.

Reasons to be cheerful, Part 2015

A hefty bit of blood-letting and internecine warfare within the Labour Party was inevitable after their dreadful election result. It would happen in any party. Runners and riders from various party factions, from the Blairites to the Union loyalists, will pop up and talk about the mistakes of the past, how their vision represents the path to tread. Inevitably, it seems, they'll waffle on about ‘aspiration’.

Contrary to some claims, Labour actually had a very good election campaign until the final couple of weeks; it was energetic, released new policies in a timely fashion and appeared to want power more than a lacklustre and gloomy Conservative Party. The last couple of weeks, though, were a mess. Ed Miliband should never have gone to kowtow to the dishonourable member for wasted youth, Russell Brand, and the #edstone, while probably a much needed commission for a stone mason, was utterly ridiculous. It was simply impossible to satirise, such was its absurdity.

Ultimately Labour lost, not because of ideas, but because they picked the wrong leader. Ed Miliband is an eminently decent man – something David Cameron shamefully couldn’t bring himself to admit – but he was simply never leadership material. He was and remains a policy wonk, someone fascinated by political ideas and theories, but not someone to sell a vision or map out a clear direction. Combined with a failure to challenge sufficiently the notion of ‘Labour’s Great Recession’, when it was anything but, and the SNP surge in Scotland, Labour has been left in the political wilderness for another five years.

So yes, Labour will endure bitter, inward-facing days in the months and possibly years to come, especially as they try and make some sort of recovery in Scotland; but judging from some of the reports recently one could be mistaken for thinking the next five years are going to be all sweetness and light for the Tories.

There is much euphoria following their first election victory since 1992. Today (May 27) sees the first Tory-only Queen’s speech since John Major’s days and finally those backbenchers will be able to revel in Tory policies: the Human Rights Act is for the chop; the benefits bill will have to be slashed (but just leave the pensioners alone); an in/out referendum on the EU will be set in motion.

When John Major won the 1992 General Election – like Cameron, largely based on his own popularity and campaigning – the Conservatives had a majority of 21 seats. Cameron has a majority of 12. John Major had his ‘bastards’ including three of them in his own cabinet; Cameron endured the most rebellious backbenchers in history in the last parliament. Yes, they no longer have to suffer the ignominy of having to share power with the Liberal Democrats but anyone who thinks they’ll now be a joy to work with will soon find they will be sorely mistaken.

Already, several prominent ex-ministers – Damien Green, Dominic Grieve, Andrew Mitchell – have indicated they will oppose efforts to replace the Human Rights Act with a new Bill of British rights. And these are far from the usual suspects. The government will struggle to get their plans through the House of Commons and will face an almighty battle in the Lords.

And then there is Europe.

I know some Tories who think the argument in the party is settled. After the bitterest internal political row which has lasted the best part of 30 years, the Tories now have a settled view. This seems remarkably optimistic. Assuming, and it is a big assumption, that David Cameron gets the concessions he wants from our European partners, he will campaign to stay within the union. It is hard to imagine he will be joined in the trenches by the likes of John Redwood, Daniel Hannan or Owen Paterson. They, and much of the parliamentary Conservative Party, will be on the 'out' side of the argument and there is little the Prime Minister can do to convince them otherwise.

Managing a small majority, therefore, is likely to be a tough, pretty wretched experience for Cameron, much as it was for the hapless Major. And, as governing parties frequently lose by-elections between general elections, his majority is likely to be whittled down further, perhaps even into a minority government as Major’s was.

There is one thing that Cameron and his opponents can look forward to; he won’t be standing at the next election. Contrary to his claims, the Prime Minister simply cannot serve every day of a second term, waltzing off to a wine bar singing when the 2020 General Election comes around. He must either change his mind and decide to stick around anyway, or he has to leave giving sufficient time for his successor to bed-in before the next vote. His potential successors will spend much of their time in this government jostling for the best position and once they get there may find they are seen as used and tired goods by the electorate. Labour and the Lib Dems will, by contrast, have a new leader and one not tainted by years in government or links to Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.

Labour supporters have little choice but to grin and bear it for now; and if that fails they can at least console themselves that they're not the Lib Dems.

The campaign trail to nowhere

This election campaign may have only officially begun at the end of March, but as we approach the final hours, it seems to have lasted many more months and years. And, ultimately, what has been the point? For all the polls have shifted, it might as well have just started at the start of last week. For all the flashy billboards, boisterous though far from spontaneous rallies of the faithful, the personal attacks, the sniping in the press and the plethora of pledges, the polls have barely moved an inch.

For a brief moment last week, the Conservatives appeared, in a couple of polls, to be establishing something of a lead; was clear blue water finally emerging? Well, no. The polls have levelled once more, maybe the Tories holding a slender, but far from firm, lead. A hung parliament is, it seems, an inevitability.

So how have the campaigns gone for each of the main political parties:

Conservatives

The leading member of the coalition had a very leaden, clunking, gloomy start. The messages were dour, warnings of ‘chaos’ tedious beyond belief and the operation slack. The personal attacks on Ed Miliband, such as the backstabbing one from Michael Fallon backfired, and David Cameron failing to acknowledge Ed Miliband as a 'decent man' was jarring and unbecoming of the man. 

Just from the wordcloud above, using statements made in Conservative Party press releases since Friday, the words 'Nicola', 'Sturgeon', 'SNP' are have been used almost as often as 'Miliband'; 'ransom' is also pretty prominent. For an apparently 'Unionist' party the venom stirred up against Scottish voters has been extraordinary. Stirring up English nationalism may well prove, in the long run, to have been an extremely unwise thing to do.

Then there were pledges, a windfall of them: Inheritance Tax threshold increased to £1million for a couple; 40 per cent Income Tax threshold raised to £50,000; personal allowance up to £12,500; commuter rail fares frozen; £8billion above inflation for the NHS; 30 hours free childcare for 3 and 4 year-olds, What a gold mine; who could possibly suffer from such pledges? The only problem there was little information how any of these would be paid for; they almost appeared like post-election coalition talks. And they came on top of the repeated failure by senior Tory figures to explain '£12billion in welfare cuts' apparently planned for after the election.

In the last week, however, the party has recovered lost momentum, mainly due to David Cameron's own campaigning skills. His 'I'm pumped up' and 'bloody lively' routine sounds absurd but there is something in Dan Hodges' piece from early April which talks about the Prime Minister rolling up his sleeves and hitting the road after a lacklustre campaign start. It's also possible that the constant repetition of the same slogans is finally hitting home.

If Cameron wins a majority, it will be a huge personal success and not a ringing endorsement of Lynton Crosby's election campaign; frankly the Tories should really ask for their money back.

Labour

For some reason Ed Miliband has been routinely underestimated throughout his leadership of the Labour Party. His doggedness has been entirely overlooked. So when it came to the election campaign itself expectations were not high. As a consequence, the fact that Labour launched a coherent, spirited, hungry campaign rather took onlookers by surprise.

Miliband also did well in the debates. In the spin room at the first non-debate, reporters from pro-Tory papers acknowledged to each other that the Labour leader had easily beaten Cameron, who looked utterly terrified when confronted by Jeremy Paxman.

The #edstone

But, in the penultimate week, as the polls appeared to be giving the Tories a slender leader, jitters could be seen. Perhaps this is why Ed Miliband decided that rather than a pledge card, which can be slipped easily into a wallet, he would opt to have his promises engraved on an 8-foot limestone monument; surely the invocation of gravestones or Old Testament tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments were inevitable? It is as though a member of his team watched The Thick of It thinking it was a template from which to copy rather than a satire. Perhaps, again, evidence of an imported public relations guru not really worth his weight in gold, or even limestone.


Liberal Democrats

Pitching themselves as a moderating force for both the Conservatives and Labour, this election has been one of consolidation for the Lib Dems. Whatever Nick Clegg says, they will lose seats on Thursday night, probably a lot of them. They may lose so many that he cannot stay as party leader. In many ways this would be a shame as the Lib Dem leader is unquestionably a decent man who was thrust in an invidious position back in 2010. The numbers could have allowed a Labour/Lib Dem coalition but it would have been far from stable and far less so than the Tory/Lib Dem coalition has proved to be.

Danny Alexander's leaking of apparent Tory post-election child benefit plans had the air of someone who knew who was going to lose and didn't care any more. Safe to say that after he loses his Inverness seat - which he almost certainly will - even if Alexander ends up in the Lords, he won't be the first person to whom the Tories turn to join another coalition in the future.


Ukip

Nigel Farage's party has maintained its level in the polls surprisingly well considering what a wretched campaign they have had. It may not be until after the election that the full details of why Ukip's campaign never gained any momentum is known; Farage's health issues with his back are clearly a factor. But, the cancelled events, the comments - whether reasonable or not - about Farage's own lack of appearances in Thanet South where he is standing, have all not helped.

The party also seems to have decided there is a concerted media plot against it. Farage launched a misguided attack on an independently selected audience during a BBC debate complaining it was too left wing, forgetting that, with Cameron's absence, right-wing members of the audience had little to clap for. It isn't actually the media's fault that member after member says or does something stupid or offensive. The latest is the suspension of Robert Blay, a Ukip parliamentary candidate who was caught on camera saying he would 'personally put a bullet between' the eyes of his much-tipped Tory opponent if he were ever to become Britain's first Asian prime minister.

Through the share of the vote they look likely to take, Ukip could still cause the Tories problems but it seems less likely that this will prove a breakthrough election for them; Carswell looks set to win but none other can be as sure.


Greens

Remember the Green surge? Membership shot up, overtaking Ukip and even the Lib Dems but today's poll of polls leave them on five per cent. Caroline Lucas may return for the Brighton Pavilion seat but other gains look very unlikely.

Sadly for Natalie Bennett, the party's surge never really kept going after her 'mental brain fade' on LBC radio back in February, even thought she stood her ground well when she took to the stage on the BBC Challengers' Election debate. We should not forget the fact that this programme featured three effective female politicians - Bennett, Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood. This is possibly the only time women have ever outnumbered men in such a format, and it lent the discussino a novel, even an exciting, edge. It was in this format that Bennett was probably at her best.

Before long, however, fundamental problems faced the party. Because the Greens were now pitching themselves as members of a serious political and less a campaign group, their manifesto faced more scrutiny than ever before. Bennett was repeatedly challenged as to whether she wanted to ban the grand national or outlaw rabbit hutches, or back up the party's economic policy with solid evidence. Perhaps inevitably, while there was no repeat of the 'mind-fade', she continued to struggle in interviews.

Conclusion

The next five years are likely to be troublesome: Britain's membership of the European Union could well be the subject of a referendum; the strength of the Union will be put under enormous strain; the refugee crisis in the Middle East is not going away and its effects will spread further; Russia under Putin is likely to maintain is bellicose stance; global security is shaky; the environment is under threat; and the economy is still vulnerable to shocks. And, yet it seems, if we believe the opinion polls, we may well, after the general election, be left with an unstable, fractious, government with a major party reliant on the support of one, two, even three smaller parties.

It's clear neither the Conservatives nor Labour has presented a vision for the country which has captured the imagination of the public, their campaigning has been narrow, artificial and blinkered. There has been too little discussion about several vital issues during this campaign. Foreign affairs and the environment have barely featured.

From the uncertain melee of this messy, unsatisfactory, campaign, one can hope for a stable government to emerge but if not, we might have to do it all again soon.

Wolf in Sheep's clothing - or the other way around?

The country has suffered the greatest recession in living memory, every party admits more painful austerity is on the way after May's election and this state of affairs will have to continue throughout the next parliament if there is a vague chance of wiping out the deficit, let alone the national debt. And yet, judging by their actions of the last few days, the various parties think they're living in clover.

The Conservative Party is acting like a chap who thinks he's the latest Euromillions winner, flashing the cash with abandon, promising his mates all the gifts they could want; only to discover later he got the numbers wrong.

The giveaways have come in a rush: regulated rail fares will be pegged with RPI throughout the lifetime of the next parliament; the NHS will receive the £8billion a year by 2020 which independent experts reckon it needs to keep up with our ageing population; and the next Tory government - somewhat failing to understand the principle of volunteering - would offer 15million workers the opportunity of three days' leave every year to volunteer.

All this is being offered at the same time as the party rules out raising National Insurance and VAT and offers another tax cut to the extremely wealthy through its Inheritance Tax plans.

This is not to suggest these are unpopular ideas (indeed, two of them could benefit me personally hugely - than you George!) but nothing has been offered, by way of explanation, as to how the country would pay for such perks.

And they all come on top of the Conservatives failing to say where £1billion of welfare cuts will come from after the vote. Some might think this would be a rather crucial nugget of detail before deciding which way to swing when voters finally enter the polling booth on May 7,

This campaign of giveaways emerged suddenly after a few days of negative attacks, and negative press especially in the case of Michael Fallon's ferocious attempt at knifing Ed Miliband's character. Perhaps this timing was always the tactic but it does seem abrupt; some commentators have not shied away from calling it panicky. And, there is little doubt, it comes in stark contrast to the fiscal discipline to which George Osborne has consistently claimed his party adhered.

For instance, when Labour suggested a 'tough cap' on rail fares in August 2014, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin denounced it as 'yet another unfunded spending promise' that 'would cost £1.8bn over the lifetime of the next parliament and be paid for by more borrowing and higher taxes'.

When Andrew Marr challenged Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain where the extra NHS funds would come from, all George Osborne would say was that it was 'part of our balanced plan'. So far, all the weight is on one side of the economic see-saw.

Also, as some clever person pointed out on Twitter, if the Conservatives were planning this move, why not actually commit to such spending in the most recent Budget?

Labour has not been much better. Savings have been promised but not nearly amounting to the levels needed to have a credible attempt at tackling the deficit.

In a brazen attempt to steal the Conservative Party's clothes, Ed Miliband will, at the launch of Labour's manifesto tomorrow, commit a Labour government to a new 'Budget Responsibility Lock'.

This, the party explains, will ensure that 'every policy... will be paid for without requiring any additional borrowing' and all parties 'in the future will have their spending and tax commitments independently audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility before a General Election'.

Launching the manifesto, Ed Miliband will declare:

'The very start of our manifesto is different to previous elections. It does not do what most manifestos do. It isn't a shopping list of spending policies. It does something different: its very first page sets out a vow to protect our nation's finances; a clear commitment that every policy in this Manifesto is paid for without a single penny of extra borrowing.'

And he is set to go on, rounding on the Tories for their apparently generous spending commitments.

'In recent days you have seen the Conservatives throwing spending promises around with no idea of where the money is coming from, promises which are unfunded, unfair and unbelievable.

'That approach is bad for the nation's books. And nothing is more dangerous to our NHS than saying you will protect it without being able to say where the money is coming from. You can't help the NHS with an IOU.'

Considering the state of the economy when Labour last left office, it is an audacious bid even to attempt to claim the economic moral high ground. For five years, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have called - whether reasonably or not - for Ed Balls and Ed Miliband to apologise for Labour's economic record. That being so it is fairly remarkable that the Labour Party has been given the opportunity to swoop on to this political battle ground and attempt a rebrand. Will it persuade ordinary voters that Labour is suddenly fiscally responsible? Its promise of no extra borrowing is surely a position no government could really maintain if faced with tricky economic circumstances.

Moreover, the insistence on rectitude and the refusal of any 'extra borrowing' neatly overlooks the significant distinction between deficit and debt; and this after we have been carefully introduced, in recent years, to some of the economic and linguistic distinctions nestling within these terms. it is all very perplexing.

The Conservative manifesto is being published on Tuesday; they might need to start offering some answers to all the questions.

All concerned should be aware that Paul Johnson, the Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told The World This Weekend that all parties were 'making up numbers'.

'I've found this entire debate from all the parties really deeply depressing. You've had the main parties ruling out whole hosts of relatively straightforward ways of increasing tax, talking about raising tax from some other group, be they the rich or the non-doms or the tax avoiders, but this is all real money and has real effects on the economy, and no sense from anybody about a serious way forward for the tax system.'

Did Cameron do his homework?

As I embarked on the lengthy journey home after the first leaders’ non-debate, I found myself wondering what preparation David Cameron had done for his interview with Jeremy Paxman. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, got a duffing up from one of his senior advisers and it showed; he was ready to fight Paxman’s fire with fire. But Cameron seemed genuinely shocked at the ferocity of Paxman’s questions.

There was no gentle introduction, no warm-up; the former Newsnight host went straight for the Prime Minister’s jugular, as everyone surely knew he would, especially when he only had a miserly 18 minutes to skewer his meat. Cameron couldn’t answer questions on the numbers of food banks, floundered on zero hour contracts and struggled on government borrowing. Even being a friend of Jeremy Clarkson and Andy Coulson came under attack. Cameron’s eyes and tight lips betrayed his nervousness. Whatever preparation had been done, clearly wasn’t enough.

The Tory leader did rescue it a bit as the interview went on; relaxing a little – though never hugely – and he managed to get his lines across on the size of the deficit inherited from the last Labour government, boasted about the coalition’s economic achievements and outlined a few cuts planned for the next parliament, such as unemployment benefit being frozen for two years.

He also still insisted that, if he were still prime minister after the general election, he would serve every day of a second term before standing down. Everyone knows this is impossible; it’s a ridiculous pretence to maintain.

It was striking how Cameron looked when the programme restarted after the adverts (why weren’t these scrapped?) when he was faced with questions from the audience. An enormous weight seemed to have been lifted off his back; the prime minister’s face filled with blood once more, he smiled, he charmed.  The TV ad man was back.

Ed Miliband had an advantage going second ( I understand the order was decided by the toss of a coin rather than a cunning bit of political chicanery) as it gave him the opportunity to mentally prepare for Paxman and maybe he was cheered to see his opponent squirm. But Miliband faced much sterner questions from the audience than Cameron had faced:  ‘Why are you so grumpy?’; ‘Wouldn’t your brother be better?’. Nevertheless, Miliband just about survived and even got the first applause of the evening: noticeably Cameron didn’t get any applause though this could well be that those who had gathered relaxed more as the programme went on.

Kay Burley was the circus master for this section but whereas she asked whether the Prime Minister ever had three Shredded Wheat, she whimpered ‘your poor mum’ to Miliband after a question about his brother.

The surprise was when Miliband was confronted by Paxman; he was strikingly more combative than the prime minister, answered back and even mocked the great interrogator: ‘You’re important Jeremy, but not that important’. There was an odd section where Miliband tried to be macho: ‘Am I tough enough? Hell yes’, sounding less like the mean Dirty Harry and more as threatening as Monty Python’s Black Knight after his limbs had been sliced off.

The Labour leader struggled a bit when Paxman, who clearly relished a return to action after a long lay-off,

asked him to provide a maximum population size for the country; an absurd line of questioning which both must have known but it will allow some to claim Miliband wants no limit on immigration.

Personally, I found the questions about the relationship with his brother just a bit too personal; ‘it was a bruising contest’, the younger Miliband said, betraying the pain that still clearly exists in the family. And, much like Cameron, how a future Labour government plans to cut the deficit remains something of a mystery. Removing TV licences from rich pensioners just doesn’t cut the mustard.

The snap poll giving Cameron a win genuinely surprised the press in the spin room; everyone there had witnessed the PM being mauled and seen Miliband get the only applause of the evening and the biggest laughs (both at him and with him). Even Nigel Farage, stalking into the spin room early in the evening, said the Labour leader ‘walked it’, with Cameron ‘nervous and defensive’.

The poll verdicts will help Tory spinners paint a positive gloss on the evening’s affair. In truth, expectations were so low for Miliband, the instant polls show a big rise in his personal ratings in comparison with normal opinion polls even if he were left slightly behind. Labour spinners were cheery and bullish; the message ‘this is the reason why David Cameron didn’t want to be in the same room debating with Ed Miliband’ was repeated ad nauseam.

Will it have changed any votes? Probably an insignificant few but Labour will be the most cheered; their man gave a good show and put a spring in the step of foot soldiers as they officially launch their election campaign today.

The clock is now ticking

When David Cameron pours himself a glass of wine this evening, kicks off his shoes and sits back to relax, he may feel content that not far in the too distant future, he will be a former prime minister and able to spend decent, quality time with his family. But he may also have a nagging feeling that, by announcing his intention to stand down after a full second term - should he be elected of course - he has unleashed instability and chaos upon an already troubled Conservative Party.

A ten-year tenure as prime minister is enough, as Cameron rightly observed. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had evidently lost touch with reality, to put it politely, by the time they had been in office so long. Cameron, already prone to hubris, is wise to want to escape.

There is, however, no chance that he will be able to serve a full second term. He isn't a president; the Tories will need a new leader for the next general election, currently scheduled to be held in 2020. Instead of quashing speculation that he might stand down after a 2017 in or out referendum on the EU, it seems likely to only intensify such talk. He will constantly be asked when he intends on standing down by any reporter lucky enough to be granted an interview.

And the timing is extraordinary. To announce his intention to stand down just weeks before a general election seems an utterly unnecessary distraction and might actually damage his electoral chances; do the general public want to vote for someone who already has his eyes on retirement?

In true football manager style, Cameron spoke of 'the Theresa Mays, and the George Osbornes, and the Boris Johnsons' who could succeed him. All likely candidates at this stage, certainly, but any successor would need a decent run-in time to stamp their mark on the party before a 2020 poll. And it's worth noting, both May and Osborne hold positions which are vulnerable to political weather and their stars could wane.  As for Boris, whatever his personal popularity may be, he remains a liability.

Other potential successors will inevitably emerge. Liam Fox and Owen Paterson still seem keen to be champions of the Tory right wing but it's hard to imagine either could mount a serious challenge. And the trouble for these two - and for those mentioned above - is that they would have been at the top of their party for a decade or longer. Fresh faces may be required. And, as yet, it's hard to identify likely candidates from the modernising wing of the party. A shift to the right looks likely and potentially dangerous for a party that would have been in power for ten years by 2020.

In the event that the Tories find themselves in government after May, every speech or move made by any likely successor will be scrutinised for any hint of leadership ambitions. Inevitably, these moments will be over-read and misinterpreted. All this turmoil will only destabilise and fracture the party further.

So Mr Cameron should enjoy that glass of wine while he can: he may have just unleashed years of trouble for his party.