Polls apart

Both the Ipsos/MORI and ICM pollsters have the Conservative lead back to a pretty decisive 17 points, which is fairly well exactly where we were before the conferences began. The good news for DC is that the Conservative figures of 43% and 44% are where he needs to be for a serious majority45% would be ideal. The bad news for him is that the big set-piece Conservative conference, which always follows last, hasn’t permanently impacted in a positive way.

On the other hand, you can say that maintaining a 17-point lead is hard enough, let alone extending it. In response to Denzil Coulson’s questions, I did some research (albeit brief) into how the polls might act in May 2010 based on previous elections and the polls seven months before the polling day.

It showed that the Labour votes usually goes down, the Liberal Democrat vote normally goes up and the Conservative vote stays about the same. If you did that to the current figures, you’d get Con 44%, Lab 24% and Lib 22%. Type that into Electoral Calculus and you get a Conservative majority of 154. From hung Parliament to Tory landslide – now there’s a though to warm a chilly October night.

Of course it depends on where those votes are cast – as usual around 50,000 votes in key marginals will decide the actual result. But that’s the fun!

Cam's the man

The Camerons after DC's speech

The Camerons after DC's speech

I’ve now had a chance to watch DC today and I’ve got to say that I was pretty impressed overall. To a certain extent, he’s played it safe – no new policy and not too much fire in the belly (no-one likes an angry man) except for poverty, where people will think he’s right to be angry. I was impressed with his fluency as always and also with his humanity and straightforwardness. The voters wanted honest, they wanted straightforward, they wanted transparent. Is DC perfect? No – but I think this is about as close as we’re going to get to any leader meeting those requirements.

So overall I was very happy with his vision and values – he appears to understand that voters want a Conservative government that belives in free enterprise, in wealth creation, a small government and low-tax economy but they will not tolerate that at the expense of social injustice, reduced public services, increasing gap between rich and poor and unfettered corporate greed. I think DC projected that sentiment well today.

But he has got a couple of challenges. Firstly, like any opposition leader he can’t show that he is as good as his word until he gets elected – but he would find it easier to be elected if he could demonstrate he was as good as his word. Trust is an important factor in any opposition leader – and let’s not forget no Conservative has been elected from opposition for 30 years. DC has that trust personally but I don’t think the public yet trust the Conservative Party corporately in the same way; it’s a very fine line to tread and there is opportunity here for PM and the PM to locate inconsistency. And every inconsistency will have a dampening effect on DC’s personal trust level, even if it’s nothing to do with him. We need to stay consistent to maintain trust.

In addition, I still feel that the economy is weak point – unusually – for the Conservatives at the moment. Back in 1998/9, when Tony Blair wiped the floor with us about who was more trusted to run the NHS, the education system etc, the economy was usually the only element on which the Conservatives scored well. Ironically, it’s now the one area where Labour still has a chance – partly because of the above ie they’ve had the opportunity to demonstrate action but also because we have a Shadow Chancellor who’s about as economically literate as I am. Luckily, we also have Philip Hammond and Ken Clarke on board, who do understand economics - but it’s hardly ideal.

Finally, there’s the wealth thing. DC isn’t going to escape the jibes over his privileged upbringing or personal wealth (or that of SamCam). I have to say I find it very strange that Labour and the Liberal Democrats think it’s okay to say someone isn’t fit to govern because of their background or schooling. We don’t say that Labour MPs are unfit because they grew up in poverty on a council estate or Liberal Democrats because they went to third-rate universities – so why should it make a difference that DC went to Eton and Oxford?

Many great PMs have come from Eton and Oxford and most have had comfortable, if not substantial wealth – if he’s up to the job what’s the problem? I don’t believe you have to be on a low income to understand the problems of it – nor do I believe you have to be state-educated to be passionate about state education, nor a user of the NHS to “love” the NHS (as it happens, DC has been a user of the NHS). To my mind, reverse snobbery is just snobbery – and I think people will see through it a la Crewe and Nantwich.

I think the Conservative conference has undoubtedly been the most successful of the three. There is still work to do to cement the trust with voters and DC will be vulnerable to certain lines of attack. But I think he’s done enough to convince people he deserves a chance as the next PM.

Right on the money

Seeing the light? DC need to deliver the speech of his life - again

Seeing the light? DC need to deliver the speech of his life - again

The technical problems on my blog have prevented a more in-depth following of the Conservative conference but here’s how I see it up to today. Firstly, I thought that Rachel Sylvester did a great piece in The Times yesterday on the mixed messages of the first couple of days of the conference. I can’t complain that there weren’t any policy ideas – in fact, there have been so many that the government has been forced to rush out some of its own - but the problem with policies is that they often contradict each other (“Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime”, anyone?) Spread out, no-one notices but releasing them all so close together draws a more prominent relief of any inconsistency.

Having said that, what I’ve heard has been pretty sensible given the financial circumstances. In 1997, it was easy for New Labour to come up with big ideas and schemes; this time, with the country in economic dire straits it’s a lot more difficult. I support the idea of benefits being cut to fund education and training – it’s the difference between economic opportunity and economic slavery. I support a long-term view of working conditions that preserves pensions but needs us to work longer for them. I also support the measures that have been put in place to support small enterprises, which create wealth, jobs and investment in this country.

I’m delighted beyond all measure that the message that I have been telling everyone who will listen should be put out is finally being delivered – that after 12 years of Labour spin, spite, incompetence and centralisation spattered by the odd moment of common sense, the Conservative Party is the party who will be honest with voters, tell them about the pain ahead and take them through what is going to be an agonising Parliament. George Osborne isn’t my favourite member of the front bench – I’ve got far more time for Runnymede and Weybridge MP Phillip Hammond, who is a real asset and should be chancellor – but his speech yesterday was dead on the money.

And it was vitally, vitally important that he delivered a well-judged message in an appropriate way. There’s still a fair hint of arrogance about his speaking method but the content was absolutely right and I suspect the voters would rather vote for an arrogant man with good ideas than a humble man with no clue.

As Nick Robinson (who else?) points out, it’s a significant political gamble to announce cuts and tough times ahead but I think people are resigned to it and it will give the Tories acredibility lacking in the current government (and Vince Cable, who just wants to tax your mansion). This country, once again, needs to be rescued from Labour overspending by a Conservative austerity regime. Am I looking forward to it? No. It is fair that public sector workers will have to cope on frozen pay? No – but then I’ve not had a pay rise this year, either. Is it fair that they should lose their jobs? No – but this is Labour’s mess and they should remember that when they cast their vote.

Labour created tens of thousands of silly jobs in the public sector that were unsustainable to fund in the long-term. Now the party is over, those stuck in them are going to have to pay Labour’s debt. It’s a shocking betrayal – but I bet Labour (in opposition) won’t see it that way.

It is also interesting to note that despite the policies coming forward, we’ve had comparitively scant negative reaction in the mainstream media – let’s leave the Grauniad and Mirror aside. Instead, the BBC has contented itself with Chris Grayling’s mishearing of questions, the appointment of Gen Sir Richard Dannat and the When Boris Met Dave silliness on Channel 4 (although calling them mainstream is a little generous) tonight.

This reflects various things, I suspect. A quiet conference day in the build up to DC’s speech tomorrow – although this usually gives space for some criticism. There is also the realisation that the next government is almost certainly going to be a Conservative and journalists getting used to buttering up the other side. But also I think there’s an unspoken feeling at conference from the websites, papers and Twitter, that Britain has been buffeted, bungled and betrayed by Labour and that Conservative support might, as Rachel Sylvester suggests, be fragile – but they do actually have some half-decent ideas to try and restore our national self-esteem.

Purpose and clarity – there is still work to be done. But I think DC knows what needs doing tomorrow.

Come off it, Nick

Nick Clegg delivered a speech today that by most accounts rounded off a pretty disastrous Lib Dem conference in a moderately efficient way without setting any real fires in the hearts of activists.

Nick Clegg, would-be PM

Nick Clegg, would-be PM

But yet again, he seemed intent on playing to his weaknesses. Instead of displaying the resonant pragmatism that a party with little chance of government can afford to have, Clegg seemed intent on talking about what would happen if he became Prime Minister. It only served to highlight the fact that he isn’t going to be Prime Minister.

hung Parliament is still an outside possibility next May. The LDs’ best strategy is to win as many seats as they can (at least offsetting any Tory losses with Labour gains) and look to hold the balance of power after the election. By refusing to countenance sharing power or state his price as a coalition partner, Clegg has lost touch of reality at the end of a conference where members really needed him to grab hold of it again.

The Lib Dems are about 150-1 to win the next election. There is a possibility that they could go from 20% to 45% in the polls in seven months. There is also a possibility that I could end up campaigning for Rosie Sharpley in Woking next May. But it’s a pretty slim one (she wouldn’t let me, anyway) and if I started talking about it at length, people might assume that I’d let go of the handlebars and fallen off the bike. Similarly with Nick Clegg when he talks about being PM.

What the Lib Dems have is a unique credibility among voters. Because no-one really pays them much attention, no-one really understands what they stand for but they seem nice enough on telly so they get the benefit of the doubt. I’ve known right-wing Conservatives and left-wing Labourites vote Lib Dem as a protest – clearly they didn’t have a clue what they were voting for. But that credibility has been damaged this week – not least because the star player Vince Cable has received criticism in the media first the first time ever.

Nick Clegg needs to rebuild that credibility over the autumn – claiming he can be the next PM and that his party are “real contenders” to win the next general election isn’t the best of starts.

Update 24/9: I think I probably wrote this post a day too earlier because the thoughts in it hadn’t really solidified in my mind. I considered re-writing, but Denzil Coulson has written a comment below that I think is a very fair “other side of the coin” argument.

The problem the Lib Dems have is actually a credibility gap. As the third party, they have a high degree of credibility among both Labour and Tory voters – hence why either will vote for them as a protest and why at local government level they control large metropolitan councils and shire districts that by any measurement ought to be Conservative.

But as a party of government, they have no credibility at all. And when Nick Clegg tries to move them in that direction, it all seems a bit ridiculous and that in turn affects their credibility as the third party. Denzil is quite right and Clegg is quite right to not be happy as the third party and to push for opposition and government. But the issue is how to close that credibility gap without damaging their current position and weakening, rather than strengthening themselves.

Hence Clegg urging voters who support the Lib Dems to vote for them even if they don’t believe government is realistic – the more the polls show the Lib Dems at 20% the fewer supporters will leap across the gap; the fewer supporters leaping across the gap, the more that figure stagnates at 20%.

Lib Dems should be assured that I will give an equally critical analysis of Gordon Brown and Labour starting tomorrow – and yes, to DC and my party too. I want to vote for DC next year but in doing so I want to know that it is the right, not just the tribal, thing to do.