A few things.

One: you can’t really claim (surely?) that you expect David Cameron to neartly “win” all three but then also see it as an unnecessary risk. Two: although Brown will have very few expectations to meet, and will therefore be seen rather positively if he manages to just scrape a decent performance, it will almost definitely not be enough: he would have to truly make Cameron look like a “novice” for there to be any impact (and I really have a feeling that there won’t be — most people watching, hypothetically, will already be fairly certain where their vote is going to go). Three: err, surely this has to beat Cowell’s idea of some “politics meets pure entertainment” voting catastrophe?

However, I still can’t help but feel that Clegg should just be in two of the debates, and then a head-to-head of Brown v. Big Dave (…). You’d also have thought that Channel 4 — having a semi-serious news programme, compared to the utter soundbite news that is ITV — would’ve been considered.

Despite the flaws (and I think the US televised debates with the three different formats would probably be better) I think this is actually a good thing. Sure, televised debates rarely are game-changers (although a shifty Nixon and Reagan produced two moments; Al Gore’s shabby performances hardly endeared him to the electorate either) but if it offers any kind of re-engagement with politics it should be supported.

Err.

Have I missed something? Whilst the pre-budget report is going to be raised for those earning £20,000+ (hardly a grand figure) we’re giving £1.5bn? Labelled by the Guardian as “Europe’s single most generous donor?“

When we’re the only country in the G20 to still be in a recession? Did Gordon Brown miss this lovely bit of information: “Now, enter what the markets are saying. The Wall Street Journal reports that two years ago it cost $5,000 per year to insure $10 million of British government debt against default for three years. It now costs $52,000 to buy such insurance — and $72,000 to cover that risk for five years. That is $30,000 more than it costs to insure BP’s debt, and $50,000 more than to insure Germany’s. So the markets think it is more likely that UK plc will default than BP plc. Or McDonald’s. Or Gap”? (from Stelzer in the Spectator).

Prudence is his name. Apparently. I could think of a few more names for him…

Although Brown’s ratings remain dismal, our YouGov poll today reveals that 47% agree Cameron is “too wealthy and privileged to represent ordinary people”.

It is rather worrying that this is the case (and rather reinforces Churchill’s line about the five minute conversation with the ordinary voter…), especially for the Conservatives.

You’d rather think in a supposedly “meritocratic” society that the background of such a person would really be a moot, not-worth-bringing-up point. Instead, we’re going to have lots of “dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton” comments now. You can’t help but feel the Tories will no longer have the nasty party image, once Brown has finished the scorched-earth policy.

Nevermind that we’re the only country in the G20 to be left in a recession, or the other pressing economic issues we face. So long as you can land that class-war blow…

ETA: Cameron has put a nice line out on the issue this morning on The Politics Show: “My view is very simple, is that what people are interested in is not where you come from but where you’re going to, what you’ve got to offer, what you’ve got to offer the country.”

Fraser Nelson has this comment in his Guardian article:

So the Eton card works in Westminster. It forces the Tories into a kind of policy paralysis, evidenced in the me-too approach on taxation. Tory modernisers such as Oliver Letwin believed for some time that an Eton background was an insurmountable obstacle to winning the party leadership or the country. Nick Boles told Cameron as much to his face, and has only recently been forgiven for it.

But outside the political classes, it has nowhere near this effect.

Actually, it probably does have this effect. There’s very few reasons the public wouldn’t want the opposition at the moment: the only country to not emerge from the recession from the G7; appalling public debt, and interest on said debt which is around the entire education budget; a terrible handling of defence policy; public services which do not seem particularly the better after funds being pumped into them; social mobility not increasing… well, the list could go on. But, clearly, Labour support is solidifying at worst and there is very little clear reason why. By all accounts, Brown should be plummeting in the polls every time he gives one of those painful grins.

The electorate is not then convinced that Cameron has “sealed the deal”; whether that be because of a changed EU policy, foolish errors recently (the Goldsmith affair; Stewart Jackson and his foolish remarks) or something else remains undefinable.

One thing is for sure though, that even younger generations love subversive background discrimination. From my experiences, the Eton background is very much a handicap which will often resonate with many, for a variety of reasons (not similar opportunities just being one). I hate to say it, but I think Nelson overestimates the public. Background shouldn’t be an issue — they would be foaming at the mouth if somebody’s lack of privilege was mentioned, but an Eton background? Clearly fair game for all kinds of personal attacks.

It’s an awful policy, designed to detract from the real issues (just how would Labour curb the current public debt, when they have a million and one new spending promises on a daily basis?). But to say that it won’t work might be naive. The Conservatives might still win, but that isn’t to say a lot of bad feeling will not be stoked: “what does an old Etonian care about me?”; “him and his rich banker friends are in cahoots”; etc.

Sadly, the Conservative party shouldn’t worry over it. The hypocrisy of such attacks would be absolutely outstanding, particularly if highlighted effectively. And keeping taxes such as the 50p one due to this issue and to rid the “nasty party” image? It is rather soft, particularly when the current government has such an appalling record to attack.

Labour’s strategy for tackling poverty has reached the end of the road and Britain risks a return to Victorian levels of inequality, according to a major two-year study seen by The Independent.

With 20 per cent of the population still stuck in poverty, the report calls for sweeping reform of the tax and welfare systems under which higher earners would finance more generous, universal benefits. The £43,888-a-year ceiling on national insurance contributions (NICs) would be abolished, so people earning more would pay NICs at 11 per cent on all their income above that level, instead of the current 1 per cent.

Source. (Slighty misleading title…)

But, of course, Labour is the party to eliminate poverty, increase social mobility and reduce inequality. Of course. Do they really have the right to lecture the current Conservative party on such issues?

Does anybody care to ask Harriet Harman about her background? No. And yet the Conservative party leader cannot have a drink of champagne without righteous indignation and hysterics over being “removed from the issues of the people”.

Anybody would think that the UK’s deficit wasn’t such a problem, that cutting public spending wasn’t an issue, that schools weren’t failing, that we don’t have tough foreign policy choices to make — it’s these issues that the Conservatives are addressing this week that really matter, not bitterness over Cameron’s privileged background and attempts to continually portray the Tories as being “out of touch”.

But in the coming election that figure is set to fall, on present estimates, to 52 per cent, because candidates selected – both in the 116 target seats the party needs to win for a Commons majority, and in the safe seats being vacated by retiring MPs – well under half the new candidates are from private schools. In the case of the target seats, the figure falls to 42 per cent. The trend is clearly towards the point at which, for the first time in the party’s history, the state-educated will achieve parity with traditional public school products.

Moreover, most of the private-school educated MPs will have come from relatively ordinary schools, and certainly not the great boarding schools such as Eton, Harrow and Winchester – three schools which on present figures will provide between them only six of the expected new intake of some 150 Conservative MPs.

David Cameron may be an Old Etonian, but he will be one of only 16 in a 326-strong party, a mere five per cent of the total.

From Total Politics.

Well, let’s put an end to the “the Tories are only for Toffs” and “David Cameron and his Eton cronies” then.

“I am determined the recovery will be sustainable and lasting, that no one should be consigned to the scrapheap, like so many were in the recessions of the 80s and 90s.“

Alistair Darling — meet the so-called “lost generation”: the number of under 25s out of work increased by 50,000 (6%) to 928,000; 722,000 of these are aged 18 to 24 and 206,000 are 16 to 17. But this is probably the truly important part: the jobless rate among the 18-24 age group, at about one in six, is closing in on the all-time high of 17.8 per cent set in March 1993, after the 1990s recession. We are seemingly nowhere near out of the recession — despite what the BBC and others will claim — and unemployment figures aren’t stalling. It appears likely that the unemployment rate in this generation will reach the figures of the 1990s. How is that the Labour government not “leaving anybody on the scrapheap”?

All of this is without even considering last week’s “5 million have never worked under Labour“. And when you consider Brown’s plans for helping youth unemployment (announced way back in June) apply to youths who have been out of work for over a year then Labour’s proposals to combat this seem ridiculous. (Where are these apprenticeships going to come from? Where will the funding come from? Labour seemingly believes that there doesn’t have to be a limit to their irresponsible borrowing.)

What planet does Darling live on then?

Now it is being reported that the government is permitting IGCSEs in eight subjects: including history, geography and business studies. It currently refuses to do so in maths and English due to Shakespeare not being compulsory and the lack of a non-calculator paper (apparently — nevermind that the maths IGCSE is the most widely taken of them all).

Which creates another divide in education — if independent and fee-charging schools are endorsing the IGCSEs and they become the “preferred” examination method then there is every chance that they could become more valued by Universities than the traditional GCSE. Moreover, many teachers have argued that they provide a more solid foundation for A-levels which many GCSEs currently lack (the current double science GCSE, for instance, could easily be labelled as insufficient). All this appears to result in one thing: those attending comprehensive schools appear to be at a disadvantage. It also links in to another problem: those using IGCSEs do not currently appear in league tables, perhaps making state schools even more unwilling.

Schools minister Jim Knight says IGCSEs aren’t superior to GCSEs but this view appears to be discredited by the likes of Manchester Grammar School which is going to opt out of the GCSE entirely.

Just another demonstration of an education system gone hopelessly wrong.

Just when you think it couldn’t get any worse you hear that Tony Blair is condemning the pursuit of personal wealth. Tony Blair, with the £5m book deal. The Tony Blair that is paid extortionate sums to give speeches? The Tony Blair that cosied up to the city with “light touch regulation”? The Tony Blair that — well, that could get exhausting.

Suffice to say his name is not associated with selflessness and giving; many people associate him with greed, &c. Which is why it’s simply baffling to be perusing your web sources and see: ‘the “aggressive secularism and materialism found in parts of the West” should not be allowed to “gain traction” in the rest of the world.’ Guess who? Our ex-leader who is still thought of so warmly in the nation’s heart. Expressing his distaste for materialism.

Right then. An adviser to JP Morgan suggesting that materialism is wrong. It’d all be rather… well, rather ironic if it wasn’t quite so awful.