"People worry how this puritanical and somewhat dour chancellor can stand up against the ebullient, debonair young prince. But age and style have nothing to do with it. It is the brightness and the content of their policies that matters. Cameron has made it necessary for Labour to move on progressively. Now Brown needs to storm the citadel with the shock of the new."Gordon Brown and 'shock of the new' - in the same sentence. I'm not reassured, Pol.
She's right to say that it doesn't all depend on age and style - consistently underestimating their opponents is usually a big factor in the centre-left getting humped in elections - ask Senator Kerry.
On a related point, I see the Lib Dems aren't too happy with their leader. I'm not sure why but I'd imagine it's got something to do with the fact that he's a bit of a diddy. The problem for the Lib Dems is even if Kennedy wasn't a diddy, they're left with the perennial problem of what they are for, exactly? Despite having more seats than at any time since the 1920s, the Liberal vote is soft. If Cameron continues with the touchy-feely inclusive stuff, the Tories will win back those Liberal voters that were always really Tories but just didn't like the reactionary campaigns run by Hague and IDS. This in turn is bound to lose them former Labour voters who were turned off by Blair and/or Iraq or detention without trial or whatever.
Bit early at predictions and I'm crap at them anyway, but I reckon the Liberals are in for the big squeeze while we see a more traditional two-party ding-dong in the various local and by-elections taking place before the next general election.
Ok, so it's not exactly Nostradamus...