The LibDems to use Dad’s Army’s Corporal Jones’s phrase “don’t like it up em”.  They clearly did not expect the orchestrated attacks on Nick Clegg and their Party, which according to Nick Robinson were organised by Conservative Central Office and Team Cameron.

This is a bit ironic coming from the Party that excels in this tactic at local level and in by-elections.

We are told there is a possibility of a hung Parliament and that allegedly this is the outcome that many voters would like.  This morning on the Today programme one voter said a hung Parliament might be a good idea because you would be getting the best bits of each Party.

Hmmm.

Reminds me of the apocryphal story of the exchange between Isadora Duncan and George Bernard Shaw.  She is supposed to have said that she would like to have children with him – “think of the child with your brains and my beauty.”  And he is alleged to have replied: “But what if he were to have your brains and my beauty?”

Be careful, what you wish for.

I know that one should never generalise from one canvass session.

I also know that my unexpected appearance on the doorstep may have a strange effect on the house-holder concerned.

It is, of course, well-known that my charm, sunny demeanour and general all-round people skills (note the repeated use of irony) will have a strangely persuasive effect on those subjected to its full force.

However, in the space of 90 minutes this evening I came across four people who had previously voted Liberal Democrat but were now undecided …..

Something strange is happening out there.

Civil servants are supposed to be in “purdah” during the General Election campaign.  However, despite central Cabinet Office guidance, Government Departments seem to be developing rather different interpretations of what this means and some seem to be taking it to ludicrous extremes.

Three examples that I have come across this week illustrate the point:

• one Government Department has cancelled a meeting that takes place in private, whose papers and proceedings are classified, is only attended by civil servants and official representatives of public bodies, and does not take decisions – canceled in the name of “purdah”.
• another Government Department allowed a meeting of an officially-constituted Advisory Group (on a fairly non-controversial area of work) to go ahead (on their premises) attended by about twenty voluntary sector representatives – but no civil servants attended in the name of “purdah”.
• a third Government Department has instructed a contractor to stop working on a Departmental programme (one that is likely to continue in some form whatever the result of the election) because the work involves talking to the external bodies that deliver the programme concerned – business-as-usual-not, in the name of “purdah”.

I am not sure that any of the decisions make particular sense, but they all stretch the meaning of “purdah” as previously interpreted.

Presumably, civil servants are now so busy producing policy options for so many different permutations of electoral outcomes that day-to-day government has had to come to a grinding halt – no wonder it took them so long to notice the volcanic ash crisis.

It is not a surprise, given the Manifesto launch yesterday and the Leaders’ Debate later this week, that the prime Minister is not able to attend president Obama’s summit co0nference in Washington on nuclear security.  However, given the Prime Minister’s skill at brokering deals at international summits, it is a real pity that he is not able to be there.

There are real concerns about nuclear materials falling into the hands of international terrorists and the UK Government is one of those with a real commitment to trying to make progress on this issue.

A few weeks ago I asked specifically about the summit:

Nuclear Disarmament

Question

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government who will be representing the United Kingdom at the United Nations nuclear security summit in Washington in April; and what outcomes they will be seeking at that summit. [HL2151]

Baroness Crawley: The Prime Minister plans to attend the nuclear security summit in Washington DC in April.

The Government set out their aspirations for nuclear security in last summer’s Road to 2010 White Paper. Consistent with that vision, the UK will be seeking to: increase international awareness of the threat posed by nuclear terrorism; agree a robust set of guiding principles for nuclear security that will set the tone for developing international norms over the coming decades; secure commitment by participating nations to undertake a wide range of actions, domestically and in collaboration with other states, to improve the security of fissile material and sensitive information, and to prevent them from falling into the hands of malicious actors.

And I had also asked about some of the other initiatives that were being pursued by the UK:

Nuclear Disarmament

Questions

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in establishing the United Kingdom’s nuclear centre of excellence. [HL2153]

1 Mar 2010 : Column WA328

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The Road to 2010 White Paper (Cm7675) set out the Government’s commitment to establish a nuclear centre of excellence. Since publication of the White Paper the National Nuclear Centre of Excellence Steering Group, chaired by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, has overseen development of the centre, including the appointment of an interim director and agreement on the business model to be adopted. The project has strong support from key government, industry and academic stakeholders including the Technology Strategy Board, the National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Industries Association, UK research councils and universities. There has also been international interest in the centre of excellence.

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what other countries support the Global Threat Reduction Programme; and what are its achievements so far. [HL2154]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): The Global Threat Reduction Programme delivers the UK contribution to the Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. The Global Partnership was established at the G8 summit in June 2002. The contributions made by other states are set out in the G8 Global Partnership Working Group 2009 annual report, annex A consolidated data sheets (http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/ GPWG-Report-2009-AnnexA-Consolidated-Data-Sheets,2.pdf)

Asked by Lord Harris of Haringey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many countries have now ratified the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material; and what changes are being implemented in the United Kingdom following ratification. [HL2155]

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Thirty-four countries have ratified the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM).

It is a quarter to one in the morning, but it is still Wednesday in the House of Lords.  The House is just concluding its debate on the first of 165 amendments to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.

Since the House began sitting many hours ago (the ability to do simple arithmetic goes at this time of night), the House has completed its consideration of the Financial Services Bill,  the Crime and Security Bill, the Energy Bill, and the Children, Schools and Families Bill.  When we have been through another 164 amendments, we will be finished till 11am on Thursday (ie later today).

So far there have been five votes: all won by the Government with Conservative support.

It is all part of the wash-up ritual.

As Bismarck said: “Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.”

I have just spoken at a Smith Institute debate on whether the 2010 election will be the “IT” election.

The Smith Institute invite explains:

“This will be the first election campaign where ‘tweeting’, ‘social networking’ and ‘blogging’ will be in eveidence. But how much of a role will the new information technology play, and do the politicians really understand it? This debate will address these and other related issues concerning the use of new technology in election campaigning.”

I have to admit that when I heard the topic with IT shown as “IT”, my mind was inevitably drawn to the Wikipedia definition of an “IT” girl:

“An It girl or It-girl is a charming, sexy young woman who receives intense media coverage unrelated or disproportional to personal achievements. The reign of an “It girl” is usually temporary; some of the rising It girls will either become fully-fledged celebrities or their popularity will fade. The term “It boy”, much less frequently used, is the male equivalent. This term is unrelated to the abbreviation IT.”

I don’t know about IT or its proponents in the next election being charming or sexy, but they are certainly receiving intense media attention and in my view it is probably disproportionate to likely achievement.

And indeed my view is that 2010 is not going to be the General Election where the result will be determined by bloggers, Twitter or social media.  This opinion is no doubt a jaundiced one, but there were similar claims about the significance of IT before previous General Elections.  Some will remember the claims made for the Labour Party’s Excalibur system in the run up to the 1997 Election …..

My argument is that 95% of the electorate will cast their votes in blissful ignorance of what has been going on in the blogosphere and – as in previous Elections – their votes will be influenced by their past allegiances, their perceptions of what the Parties stand for in policy terms, and their assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the different Party leaderships.

So the question is what influences those perceptions and assessments – what creates the zeitgeist?  The answer is still predominantly television, radio and newspapers.

Over time this changes: television was not a factor in the elections of 1950 and 1951 and probably did not become really significant until 1964; newspapers are no longer decisive (The Sun may have boasted that it won it in 1992, but I doubt that the same will be plausible in 2010.).

People are increasingly getting their news and opinion in new ways.  However, the old media – at present, at least – are still central.  Nevertheless, politicians need to adapt to the changing media landscape and master the new ways of communicating – as Roosevelt did with radio in the 1930s and as Wilson and later Blair did with television in this country.

But – and it is a big but – even though the new media are not yet decisive and mastery of them is not yet obligatory for an effective politician, new media will have a significant indirect impact on the forthcoming Election.  This will be manifested in the way they impact on the terms of the debate reported by the traditional media.

Individual bloggers will from time to time set the agenda, rumours in hyperspace will eventually get reported, bloggers will subject policy statements from the main Parties to rigorous analysis and fact-checking, and the speed of the blogosphere and the rapidity with which material (particularly “gaffes”) can be spread on YouTube and via Twitter will challenge the traditional media and require a more fleet-of-foot response from the political parties and from politicians.

There will be a premium on seeding material in the blogosphere and on harvesting useful information or arguments that emerge there.  Political parties will be able to energise their supporters and communicate with them more rapidly.  And there will undoubtedly be benefits for those individual politicians who can communicate effectively in the new media, retaining their own authenticity whilst avoiding creating (too many)  hostages to fortune.

Are the political parties and our leading politicians going to be able to meet this challenge?  Well, we will soon find out.

This week’s House Magazine contains an article from me on the need for public engagement in the development of counter-terrorism policy.  This develops themes I have spoken and written about before: control orders and other anti-terror measures must be sensitively explained and enforced, if they are not to feed grievance.

In the article, I point out that the terrorist threat is a very real one but that the:

“the response …  has to be proportionate and measured. I believe that this balance is appropriately struck in the government’s CONTEST strategy.

The Prevent strand of the strategy – which aims to divert individuals from going down the path towards violent extremism and to reduce the threat from extreme radicalisers – is co-equal with the Pursue, Protect and Prepare strands.”

And go on to stress:

“nobody regards control orders as being ideal. But any government has a paramount responsibility to protect the public. If there is information or intelligence that suggests that particular individuals present an extreme threat, it would be wrong to ignore it. And if that information cannot be used in court (perhaps because it puts at risk other people who have provided that information), then those who oppose measures like control orders have to explain what they would do instead.

All politicians have a role to play in ensuring that there is a sensible debate about these issues, and a genuine engagement with the public about what is being done to combat terrorism. It is important that people understand why particular measures are being taken, and are able to see that those measures are being used in a fair and proportionate way.”

I have just come from a meeting addressed by the Information Commissioner.  As an aside, he told us that the end of his reporting year – 31st March – is next week and that he is rushing through adjudications on Freedom of Information Act appeals, so that he can improve his performance statistics before the year-end.

As Information Commissioner adjudications seemed to have provided the bulk of the (limited) substance of the Leader of the Opposition’s contributions to Prime Minister’s Questions earlier in the day, one cannot help but wonder what David Cameron would have done without them (his questioning was  otherwise rather thin on substantive attack lines).

In any event, the Information Commissioner seems to be promising more adjudications over the next week – although he didn’t indicate the subject matter.  Assuming there is a PMQs in the week after Easter and given that Nick Clegg seems to working hard at his David Cameron-lite look, we now know where the Leader of the Liberal Democrats will be looking for his inspiration …..

An obscure Conservative MP, Philip Hollobone, has been referred to the Police follwoing his remarks that a burka  was ‘the religious equivalent of going around with a paper bag over your head with two holes for the eyes’ for allegedly inciting religious hatred.

Now there is a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, who as it happens is also an elected member of the London Assembly, that customarily uses the term “bin bag” instead – I wonder whether they are worried that they might now be investigated?