Me, last Sunday:

I agree with Mr Blair on this. I’d perhaps go slightly further than him, because he’s left himself open to attack over women who aren’t in ‘very difficult circumstances’ but still obtain abortions, but he’s in a pretty solid position. For the first time in this not-quite-an-election-campaign, I can say: Well done, Mr Blair!

The Guardian leader, today:

It was Tony Blair who put it best in answer to Cosmopolitan. Nobody likes abortion, he said, but it is wrong to criminalise those who, in very difficult circumstances, make that choice.

They should give me a job right now, I think!

Mr Deputy Speaker:
Stability the foundation.
Investment not cuts.
Every child the best start in life.

I think I missed something early on in Mr Brown’s speech… What’s the new tax rate on verbs? Must be pretty high if even the government’s having trouble affording them.

There’s little in the speech itself to disagree with – there rarely is in a pre-election budget, I expect. I just wonder how he can manage to announce tax cuts, borrowing cuts, and yet massive spending increases. I’m no expert on the economy, but to me that says ‘tax rises after the election’.

The main message that I took away from today’s events was how much better Mr Brown would be as Labour’s leader: Tony Blair’s fake emotion and anger versus Mr Brown’s real commandeering and forceful delivery, appearing to actually believe what he says? I know who I’d choose.

Overall, not a fantastic day for Labour, but not a bad one either. A couple of days of positive reports in the newspapers might give them a bit of a boost, but I think lots of the tabloid press will instead concentrate on picking holes and making Labour look bad.

So all-in-all it’s probably been a pretty neutral day. Not exactly what Labour needed right now, but not so bad that it makes Mr Brown look bad… probably a reasonably good day for him personally.

In what may be a first for this site, I’m actually agreeing with Tony Blair. Don’t worry, I’m not going to be making a habit of it, but if abortion is to become an election issue, then I’ll have to support him on it.

Michael Howard’s position:

I think that what we have now is tantamount to abortion on demand. I believe abortion should be available to everyone, but the law should be changed. In the past I voted for a restriction to 22 weeks, and I would be prepared to go down to 20.

I don’t see what good would be done by reducing the age at which abortion can take place, and I see no scientific evidence for doing so. Mr Howard is responding to the pro-life propaganda pictures of foetuses that look like people. Jelly babies also look a bit like people, but I have no ethical dilemmas when it comes to munching my way through a packet.

Charles Kennedy:

I don’t know what I would do now

That’s not what one would call a well argued thought out position on the issue. And if he doesn’t know his position, how am I supposed to know it? And, indeed, if I don’t know his position on key election issues, how am I supposed to vote for him? Come on Charlie, you can do better than this…

Tony Blair:

However much I might dislike the idea of abortion, you should not criminalise a woman who, in very difficult circumstances, makes that choice. Obviously there is a time beyond which you can’t have an abortion, and we have no plans to change that, although the debate will continue.

I know that this will come as a surprise, but – finally – I agree with Mr Blair on this. I’d perhaps go slightly further than him, because he’s left himself open to attack over women who aren’t in ‘very difficult circumstances’ but still obtain abortions, but he’s in a pretty solid position. For the first time in this not-quite-an-election-campaign, I can say: Well done, Mr Blair!

They’re still at it!

MPs have resumed debate on the government’s controversial anti-terror bill following a 24-hour stand-off with peers in the House of Lords.

The debate now threatens to stretch into the weekend.

All the pundits I saw or read yesterday were predicting that this stand-off would come to an end this morning. They were very clearly wrong. This is one extended game of table tennis!

Twelve hours since my last post, and it’s still going on. Let’s hope they sort themselves out soon enough to donate lots of money this Red Nose Day!

I’m hooked on BBC Parliament at the moment, watching this bill ping pong like some crazy game involving wooden bats and small plastic balls. I have no inkling as to which way this one will go, but I can’t see it being good for Mr Blair either way – if he’s defeated he’ll look weak, if he’s not then he will be portrayed by Mr Howard as overreacting and irrational. Either way, he’ll appear to be playing politics with terror.

Clearly, though, the best thing for the country would be for this bill to fail miserably. And by the way, I wouldn’t bother tuning in right at this very second because both houses have been suspended, and it looks like they might stay that way for some time yet. Somebody poke the MPs with a big stick and get them working again, please!

I have said to you before that if you have a Phd and a posh accent from a school like yours, you are regarded as a sophisticate

The interesting words of John Reid on last night’s Newsnight, as he attacked Jeremy Paxman for some very unclear reason, before waving about a policy document, telling us eight pages of it were new material, and then attacking the Conservatives… without, once again, telling us what this new material is all about. I, with an above average interest in politics, still don’t know what Labour’s health plans are – all I know is that they don’t like the Tory plans. I have a much better grasp of Conservative plans, which seem sensible enough to me. So if I was choosing between Labour and the Conservatives purely on health issues I’d vote Conservative. But I’m not and I won’t. This does all begin to look like a pretty unsuccessful, excessively negative campaign by Labour, though, and is certainly giving the Conservative party the moral high ground just when Labour need it, after appearing so decietful and dishonest during their government. So, again, not good for Labour. In fact, I don’t think I’ve been able to write a post yet that been positive about the Labour campaign. Which can’t be a good sign for them, I wouldn’t have thought.

I am afraid that it is now clear to me that by failing to reveal your full legal advice and the considerations that underpinned your final advice, you misled the Cabinet and therefore helped obtain support for military action improperly. This is a very serious matter in relation to the war in Iraq, the integrity of your office, your own integrity and the proper working of UK constitutional arrangements.

So says Claire Short, which is good for her, I guess. Though not so good for Mr Blair, who just looks worse and worse as this story progresses. This means, of course, that the legal advice is very damaging, because otherwise he’d have released it and defended it under his masochism strategy. So he’s holding out until he’s out of office, and they can’t touch him. The problem with this stategy is if it somehow gets out before then, which these kinds of documents have a habit of doing, particularly when many in your own party are against you. This could be Mr Howard’s magic weapon to beat Mr Blair with – if he produces this just before the election, it wouldn’t take much for Labour to lose this election. But Mr Howard has a habit of playing these big things all wrong, and would probably end up looking bad himself somehow or other. But this could be political dynamite.

The most ridiculous thing about this news conference was the way in which Mr Blair introduced Mr Reid by saying how the Conservatives wouldn’t reveal their health policy because they were embarrassed about it, and then Mr Reid used almost his entire speech to criticise Conservative policy whilst telling us nothing about Labour policy.

And why is it that Labour completely fail to concede that there are various ways of approaching health issues? They just arrogantly state that their method is right, and everbody else is necessarily wrong. It makes them look silly and puerile, and certainly doesn’t encourage sensible, adult discussion and debate.

For a party that’s supposedly lost its arrogance in it’s Conference Epiphany, it’s doing a very good job of, erm, being arrogant.

The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner also said many critics of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill were “naive” about the threat faced.

The opposition have wanted to tell the Government what they would do for some time, in the appropriate place and in the appropriate manner – that is, in a House of Commons debate. The Government have consistently denied them this opportunity by ramming this legislation through like there’s no tomorrow. So for the Government to come out and make demands and accusations like these is misleading and dishonest. And it also lets us see who’s really playing politics with terror.