“Gillian Duffy had only popped out to buy a loaf of bread. But by the time she got home, following a chance encounter with the Prime Minister, the 65-year-old widow had become the woman who could seal the outcome of the general election.” – Daily Telegraph

“It was the day that the great unspoken issue of the election – immigration – exploded in Gordon Brown’s face. What should have been a routine encounter with a Labour-supporting grandmother turned into an unmitigated disaster for the PM. Seconds after telling her she was a ‘good woman’, Mr Brown was caught by a TV microphone privately attacking Gillian Duffy, 66, as a ‘bigot’ for daring to raise immigration with him – laying bare his contempt for the concerns of millions of voters.” – Daily Mail

A week is a long time in politics, as the old saying goes.

And this time last week we were anticipating the first ever TV debate between party leaders in a British general election, with many on the Right nervous that giving Nick Clegg equal billing with Gordon Brown and David Cameron would give a boost to the Liberal Democrats.

Those fears were proved correct, and in spades, with no-one predicting that within 48 hours of the debate that the Lib Dems would have hit 30% in the polls and even be in the lead in several surveys.

The media, having been collectively a little bored by the campaign until that point, got hugely excited and proceeded to spend several days building up Clegg further and it seemed that the man and his party could do no wrong.

But on the morning of the second leaders’ debate (on Sky News and Radio 4 at 8pm tonight) it would appear that Fleet Street is now moving to burst the Clegg bubble and bring him back down to earth, not only by putting Lib Dem policy under serious scrutiny for the first time, but also by delving into Clegg’s personal record:

• As we noted last night, the Daily Telegraph today exposes irregularities in how Nick Clegg received political donations into his private bank account;
• The Express splashes on the “madness” of Lib Dem immigration policy;
• The Sun goes for a triple whammy (right), also accusing him of U-turning on policy towards Afghanistan;
• The Daily Mail unearths ill-judged comments Clegg has made referring to British “delusions of grandeur” over defeating Nazism in World War Two;
• Metro splashes on Lib Dem plans to imposes taxes of up to £14,000 on buying a new home.

Carry on reading at Conservative Home.

Both the Tories and Labour claimed to have slowed the Lib Dem bandwagon today after a far more confrontational TV debate left everything to play for in the final fortnight of the election campaign.

David Cameron edged victory in a series of instant polls after the make-or-break clash in which he rounded on Nick Clegg over his expenses claims, immigration policy and plans to scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

To the Tories’ delight, he also landed a blow on Gordon Brown as he attacked him over Labour smear tactics, demanding he withdraw leaflets falsely claiming a Tory government would scrap free bus passes and eye tests for the elderly.

The Conservatives and Labour argued that they had managed to show Mr Clegg’s weaknesses unlike his runaway victory last week.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: ‘Nick Clegg was weak on immigration and weak on defence. That has started to come through in the debate so it was not the perceived success for him that it was last week.’

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox added that Mr Cameron ‘looked every inch a potential prime minister. He was clear, strong and authoritative.’ Read in full at the Daily Mail.

“It is not often that we reproduce a whole article, but I read this blog yesterday and thought it did so good a job of exposing the hypocracry of the Lib Dems that I simply had to post this piece in full on our humble website. I hope that our friends at Conservative Home do not mind our usage of this. Harry Phibbs has written many more brilliant articles some of which can be found on Conservative by clicking here.” The Editor

I am sceptical as to whether the extraordinary opinion poll boost for the Lib Dems will be sustained. In the TV debate Nick Clegg tapped into the anti-politician, “plague on both your houses” mood. But surely he will get found out as he and has party finally come under scrutiny for their policies and conduct. For instance we have Nick Clegg’s his assertions that Lib Dem MPs were blameless over expenses. Of course they were in it up to their necks. But consider who the beneficiaries would be if the voters accepted Clegg’s assurances.

Several of the Lib Dem MPs who were culprits in the expenses scandal are in target Tory seats. They will be hoping that Nick Clegg’s protestations of virtue mean they will be able to escape a damning verdict from their constituents for their misconduct.

Three of the Tory targets are Lib Dem MPs in outer London seats – Susan Kramer in Richmond Park, Tom Brake in Carshalton and Wallington and Paul Burstow. They did not claim second home allowances. Then on the other hand this doesn’t qualify them as saints. Neither did the overwhelming majority of outer London MPs (inner London MPs aren’t entitled to them.) I think among the 19 Tory MPs there were only two who did – Andrew Rosindell and Theresa Villiers both of whom have constituencies right on the edge of London that probably are rather a long commute. By the way, before you feel too sorry for the London MPs not claiming, they get a London Costs Allowance (which Kramer, Brake and Burstow have all claimed) of £7,500 a year – in return for not claiming for a second home.

Furthermore the “saints” Kramer, Brake and Burstow are happy to raid the taxpayer’s pocket to make us pay for their boastful propaganda under the Communications Allowance. Burstow is the 20th highest spender among MPs of taxpayers money on propaganda. They were only following orders. Official Party guidance was to “be imaginative” in milking the taxpayer for as much free vanity publishing as possible.

Among our target seats from the Lib Dems are a couple of new ones without sitting MPs. There is also Hereford South where the siting Lib Dem MP is standing down so we can eliminate him from our enquiries.

What of the rest? A swing from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives would see the following ousted.

Lorely Burt. Solihull. She claimed £12,500 in Stamp Duty and fees when buying a flat in Westminster when first elected in 2005. There is nothing more exasperating than politicians passing taxes for the rest of us to pay and then charging it back on tax themselves. She also claimed £1,110 for blinds and £746 for wardrobes.

Sandra Gidley. Romsey and Southampton North.She used to live in a flat in Dolphin Square charging the rent to us on expenses. After a change of ownership at Dolphin Square she accepted a payment of £18,751 to surrender her tenancy. She kept the money and moved to another property where she also claimed the rent on expenses.

The Committee on Standards and Privileges said:

We conclude that Ms Gidley made a serious misjudgement when she decided to accept the principal offer of a lump sum without sharing it with the public purse and that in doing so she breached the Code of Conduct by putting her personal interest before the public interest.

Pathetically, her punishment was to hand over only a quarter of her ill gotten gains.

Martin Horwood. Cheltenham.  He claimed, according to the Telegraph, “large rent bills of around £1,500 and the rare bill for food. In 2008 submitted an £11.03 receipt for washing up liquid, £2.39 plasters and £1.79 for a tube of Savlon.” What sort of mentality of entitlement is it that leaves him to imagine we should pay for his Savlon?

Tim Farron. Westmorland and Lonsdale. According to the Telegraph he “claims £1,400 a month rent for flat near Westminster, plus utilities and council tax bills. In 2005, claimed £2,000 for furniture and appliances, and £300 for a Dyson vacuum.”

David Heath, Somerton and Frome. His own expenses are unremarkable. According to the Telegraph he “rents a flat near the Barbican in London, which he declares as his second home. Claimed £1,785 a month in rent in 2007-08, along with £1,170 in council tax and £550 on utilities but nothing else.” He supposedly supports transparency but proves an opponent in practice. Yet he also says of his colleagues: “I’m sick and tired of them all. The sooner we get rid of the fiddlers and the freeloaders, the better.” Indeed. The difference is the serious conservative offenders have been made to stand down while the Lib Dems ones are seeking to be voted back in on May 6.

Chris Huhne, Eastleigh. One of the Party’s most senior figures – and worst expenses offenders.

Jeremy Browne, Taunton Deane. According to the Daily Telegraph he “claimed £5,088 for roof repairs, £3,975 for replacement windows, £972 on a sofa and rugs and £650 on blinds.”

Adrian Sanders, Torbay. According to the Daily Telegraphhe ”claimed rent on his London flat of up to £988 a month. Claimed for £55 vase from the Dartington Cider Press Centre in Totnes, Devon.”

Dan Rogerson, Cornwall North. According to the Daily Telegraph: “He bought London flat in 2005. Claimed £2,500 stamp duty, £1,572 legal fees, £340 survey; £1,108 furniture. In March 2008, changed mortgage to interest-only, allowing maximum benefits of ACA.”

Mark Hunter, Cheadle.  He was ordered to pay back £500 for using his Communications Allowance in being blatantly partisan. As well as charging £1,365 per month rent for a second home he also claimed for food.

In the TV debate last week, Nick Clegg said he urged voters to say “yes to something new and something different.” He said:

“I don’t think that any politician deserves your trust  deserves any credibility until everybody has come clean about what has gone wrong….We can’t turn round the corner on this until we’re honest about what went wrong in the first place.”

Yet he has not ditched his offending MPs. He hasn’t thrown them out. So that duty falls to the electorate.

Harry Phibbs

In today’s blog I thought it sensible to look at the reaction to our Party’s Manifesto launch. It is fair to say that not often is there such positive coverage across the main newspapers. Even the Guardian, which has decided to revert to type and support their Labour friends, find reasons to be cheered, although you do have to wade through a lot of the paper to find them.

Jackie Ashley’s commented yesterday, “No one can fail to be impressed with Cameron’s longing for a Big Society. But I wonder how many people believe it will happen.”

Turning to the other newspapers, The Times in its Leader boldly announced, “The Conservative manifesto is an impressive attempt to reframe the role of government and unleash entrepreneurial spirit” and “Manifestos are expected to be boring. This one is not. It is thought-provoking, imaginative and intelligent. It is worldly, open-minded and peppered with ideas from other countries. It is pragmatic, but it is more than merely a ragbag of policies. In the parlous state of the economy and the public finances, there is an opportunity to unleash entrepreneurial spirit and reshape the State. In the Conservative Party there is a group of people making a powerful case that good government can cost less and do more.”

While the Daily Mail proclaimed, “We should rejoice at the Conservative Party’s clearly stated belief that government spending, borrowing and taxation  -  all to prop up a vast, incompetent, self-reliance sapping state  -  must be reduced if Britain is to have a hope of prospering.”

And the Telegraph said, “A lacklustre election campaign that had become bogged down in sterile bickering about National Insurance burst into life yesterday. The polls are making it clear that the country has already reached a settled view of Labour – there is no appetite for awarding them a fourth term of power. If they have not achieved what they want in 13 years, they never will. Full stop. But what people had not yet had was a reason for voting for the Conservatives rather than against Labour. Yesterday, David Cameron gave them one. His powerful vision of a smaller state unleashing society’s untapped potential offers, at last, a clear choice in this general election campaign.”

Finally the FT says, “Mr Cameron’s plan is attractive in its hostility to the suffocating state. His scepticism towards dirigiste industrial policy also hits the mark.”

Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed to wear long sleeves for religious reasons – despite the risk of spreading deadly superbugs.

The Department of Health will allow female Muslim staff to opt out of a strict NHS dress code to cover their arms and protect their modesty.

But campaigners warn that the NHS is putting lives at risk because guidance that all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ was introduced after long sleeves were blamed for spreading MRSA.

The change has been brought in after some female Muslims objected to being forced to bare their arms on wards. The Department of Health has also relaxed its no jewellery rule to let Sikhs wear their Kara bangles as long as they can be pushed up to the elbow when dealing with patients.

The policy is in stark contrast to the treatment of nurse Shirley Chaplin who last week lost her discrimination battle against Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust which claimed the cross she wore round her neck was a ‘hazard’ in case it scratched patients. Read in full in the Daily Mail.

Christianity is under siege in this country.

Britain’s national religion has never been so marginalised and derided, especially by the public institutions that should be defending it.

The case of nurse Shirley Chaplin, who has been banned by Devon and Exeter NHS Trust from wearing her crucifix while caring for patients, is a graphic illustration of this insidious trend.

Indeed, it is surely an affront to the very concept of religious liberty, which was once regarded as a cornerstone of our democratic, respectful and tolerant nation.

For make no mistake, a new form of virulent secularism is sweeping through society – and its target is Christianity.

I am Muslim. But even as a non-Christian, I can see all too clearly the shameful way in which Britain’s national faith is being eroded. Indeed, banning a crucifix makes a mockery of our treasured right to religious freedom.

With a typically bureaucratic mix of arrogance and authoritarianism, the Devon and Exeter Trust has claimed that the ban is not an attack on Christianity because wearing a crucifix is not an essential requirement of the faith.

But who appointed these quangocrats to pronounce on matters of religious doctrine? What right do they have to lecture a devout woman about her cherished beliefs?

And why can’t they accept that Ms Chaplin’s deeply religious convictions, which she chooses to express by wearing the crucifix, also inspire her compassionate work in the NHS?

As a Muslim, I am filled with despair at the attitude of our politically correct officials towards Christianity. Read in full at the Daily Mail.