The seventeen-point strategy

I didn’t get too excited about the nine-point lead yesterday and I won’t get any more excited about a 17-point lead today. It’s still daily poll, about which I am yet to be convinced, and it comes on the day when DC has received more press coverage – largely positive – than any other.

We saw George Osborne’s speech following by a bounce and then a reality-checking un-bounce. The Labour spinners are out in force over DC – that he has called every single economic decision wrong (although the public appears to reject that) and that his wealth means he can’t understand the concerns of ordinary people. I think this last point will have some resonance but generally only to reinforce antipathy in the minds of those already likely to vote against him ie people will agree with it but still vote for him.

Around 45% is where the Conservative Party needs to be in order to be sure of a decent majority in May. I believe the chances that we will be the largest party after the next election are 99.9% – something extraordinary would have to happen to prevent that. But the electoral system is weighted hugely in Labour’s favour – as I mentioned yesterday, 40% for the Conservatives and 31% for Labour produces a Tory majority of four; if you reverse those figures, Labour gets a majority of 124. There is still a significant chance that despite a good poll lead, DC could face a hung Parliament.

Polls tend to tighten as we go into elections. Sometimes they come out again, as in 1992 and 1997. But in 2005, they got even closer. Conservative high command needs to know that until we are on 45% regularly, anything can happen. They need a really, really effective campaign lined up – with a Cameron bounce every day – to be sure of a majority in the House of Commons worth having.

And in the Parliament we’ve got coming, it’s really important that we don’t end up with a minority government that can be blocked into a stalemate. There’s a lot of hard work ahead in every consistuency.

Cam’s the man

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.

The nine-point plan

I don’t think that daily polls tell us much of a story anyway but the news that the Conservative lead over Labour is back into single figures isn’t surprising or worrying to me.

Despite everything that has happened during the past 18 months, George Osborne’s speech on Tuesday outlining cuts that need to be made if we to have any chance of bringing the country’s huge debts under control, will have come as a shock to some people. They probably don’t read a newspaper or listen to the news and use the internet for other things. The simple fact is that not everyone is going to understand the context of George Osborne’s message – for some, it might become clearer later – others will never see the necessity for spending reductions.

Others will understand the message and will have decided that they don’t like it much. Included in that may be thousands of public sector workers who fear for their jobs. For them, the Conservative message could be pretty glum – although it’s a glumness that we in the private sector have had to manage for the past 18 months. Today in the FT, there is an advert for a Deputy Head of Internal Audit at the DfT for £80,000 + benefits and in the Local Government Chronicle for an Interim Change Manager at £35-43k. I could go on.

This stoking of the public jobs market that Labour has indulged in not only has to stop – it has to be redressed. There are, for example, 99,000 soldiers in the Army and 85,000 officials in the MoD. That’s the equivalent of each soldier having a 0.85FT official to look after their needs – it’s clearly ridiculous. And turkeys won’t vote for Christmas – what is important is the creation and expansion of alternative economies for people to move out of the public sector into.

If you put 40%, 31% and 18% into Electoral Calculus, you still get a Conservative government – albeit with a majority of four (the same nine-point lead for Labour produces them a majority of 124). But I’d rather have a Conservative government that will sort out our national problems with a razor-thin majority than a Conservative government that tells people what it thinks they want to hear with a majority of 124.

If people then vote for five more years of Gordon Brown’s denial and escapism, they will get everything they deserve.

Right on the money

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.

Keep facing out

Flagging appetite for the EU

Following on from my earlier deleted post about the Irish referendum, it now looks very likely that despite Czech efforts the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified before May 2010. I don’t think many Conservatives will be happy about that and I include myself among them - but one of the most important areas of judgement in politics is knowing when a battle is lost.

The public gets very annoyed with politicians who try to prolong battles – look at Gerry Malone in Winchester in 1997 - and knowing when to move on for the sake of the country, rather than continue the fight for their own personal reasons, is something that Conservative activists must understand.

There is a real danger that the Conservative Conference, aided by some elements of the media determined to make it every bit as disastrous as the Lib Dem and Labour conferences, will become dominated by in-fighting over Europe at a time when it ought to be looking outward towards the country. I think the opposition front bench understand this – but people like Boris and Andrew Rossindell need to take time to think about it too.

Europe put the nail in the coffin of the last Conservative government – it mustn’t be allowed to put the nail in the chances of a future one.

The Lisbon Treaty is in all likelihood here to stay. Conservatives should accept a defeat shamefully ceded by Labour and allow DC and William Hague an opportunity to step back and think carefully about how to deal with Europe in the future. Renegotiation may be an option – to take back those powers that we want – but this will not be achieved overnight, nor in opposition.

So let Europe rest for now while our UK problems are addressed first and don’t help the BBC and its friends ruin what needs to be the best conference yet.

Buttering the currant bun

Reproduced by kindest permission of the Murdoch clan. I'm a Sky+HD subscriber so they won't mind.

I did my Master’s dissertation on the effect of The Sun‘s election coverage comparing 1992 with 1997 and having done so I regard the political endorsement, whichever way it falls, of Britain’s biggest-selling daily as a key moment in any election campaign.

As a conclusion of my research, I don’t feel The Sun wields that much power politically, although it would be wrong to say that it holds no sway over its readers at all. Perhaps they don’t blindly listen to its editorials, they aren’t bound by its opinions; but what The Sun chooses to report – and how it chooses to report it – is a big deal.

In 1992, The Sun hammered Neil Kinnock in such a way that rendered it difficult for its readers to vote for him. But he wasn’t PM, and couldn’t do much to harm Rupert Murdoch’s media interests on the way out. Brown can – it will be interesting to see whether James Murdoch tells the paper to go hell-for-leather or whether it will all be quite gentlemanly after all. One suspects that Gordon Brown won’t allow such a slight to go unpunished.

The switching of The Sun yesterday is the clearest possible signal that the paper believes DC is on the way to Downing Street. Given Murdoch Jnr’s closeness with George Osborne, it is also likely that the paper already knows what DC will tell the country next week. Despite what @KerryMP – who believes Twitter will counteract The Sun’s influence (seriously) – and others in Labour may say, it is a devastating blow to them. Since 1974, when Rupert Murdoch took ownership, The Sun has never backed the losing side in a general election.

Whether it is symptom or cause – or even, as I suspect, a bit of both – I can’t imagine that they would want to start now. There is still work for the Conservatives to do – in particular, they are vulnerable economically with George Osborne and in traditional areas such as the NHS. They need to spell out some home truths in a credible and caring way – it would be nice to hear some firmer manifesto content too.

The support of The Sun, always derided by its opponents, makes victory in May that bit more likely.

It’s also important to remember that we are not even in an election campaign – I cannot recall any previous election (even 1987) where The Sun has called its endorsement so early. Clearly they have their own reasons but for Labour the only place to go now is The Telegraph - although it’s difficult to see that paper, even in its more modern guise, switching and alienating the majority of its traditional readers.

PM must be furious – he and the PM have pretty much nowhere to go except YouTube.

Two reasons for Labour shame

Two things came out of the Labour conference that real made me angry. I can put up with Labour ministers banging on about how Gordon Brown saved the world and how the Tories are planning to throw pensioners into the sea etc etc but the sight of ex-terrorists being allowed to return to the scene of one of their most infamous atrocities on an official ticket, to be able to mingle with Cabinet ministers and turn up to parties sponsored by the Grauniad really makes me doubt the character of the people responsible. We all know who I’m talking about; his name doesn’t get mentioned on this blog.

What the IRA did to the Grand last time they visited

I don’t need to go into the details of the Brighton bomb, which happened 25 years ago next month. Suffice it to say that I refuse to believe that it never occurred to the Labour Party what an inappropriate situation this was. It’s just the small, petty, spiteful and vindictive actions of a party that has lost its self-respect. No doubt next year they’ll be heading down to Eastbourne to hold the Labour conference outside the former home of Ian Gow. I don’t agree with Norman Tebbit about much but I certainly understand why he is not happy. Strangely, the BBC reports this only in its Northern Ireland coverage rather than the main conference section.

The second thing that made me mad was Gordon Brown‘s proposal for 16 and 17-year old single mothers to be housed together in shared accommodation rather than single flats. I can imagine the utter furore if a Conservative government had come forward with similar proposals. This is the politics of victimhood – of Labour saying to people “You’ll never amount to much but if you stick with us, we’ll protect you from the Conservatives who want to cut you loose in society.” Wrong.

The way to tackle teenage pregnancy is break the cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity that teaches young girls the only way to get on in life is to have babies because with those come houses and income through benefits. Young people need teachers who can instill self-worth in them, social workers who have the power to tackle parents who don’t give a damn and clear and distinct paths of opportunity to make their lives better before they bring babies into the world to share them.

It would also help if teachers didn’t hand out contraceptives to girls barely old enough to write their own names and if our culture wasn’t so wholly dominated by images of sex and peer pressure to engage in it. There are other enjoyable pursuits in life for young people – but if sex is all they know, it’s inevitable that it will become a preoccupation. It is up to government to enable the alternatives. It makes me mad that Labour has no intention to do this while telling everyone it cares about young mothers. It is not interested in single mothers – only their votes – and bunging them all together in block accommodation is a ghastly piece of ignorant and exploitative legislation that has no place whatsoever in Parliament.

I hope DC refers to this in Manchester. The Conservatives should be able to do a lot better.

Talking to themselves

On his feet

I’ve listened to the speech, heard the reactions – from the breathless enthusiasm of the younger activists to the not-even-faint praise of Barry Sheerman on 5Live earlier, having trashed Gordon yesterday too.

The most telling reaction was that of @BBCLauraK, who tweeted that she wasn’t sure what the big message of the speech would be. The main message is this - I am Gordon, your leader and I have shown in the past what will happen to people within the party who stand up to my authority. I will take your ideas and pass them off as mine, I’ll demote you and brief against you as necessary. I am here to lead you into the next election whatever you may think and the political career of anyone who dares challenge me will be over.

It’s not a message to the country, it’s a message to his party. What the country will see, I think, is a leader whose party has been in power 12 years and who should have done many of the things he is now talking about – addressing anti-social behaviour, finishing Lords reform, looking after the poor and ensuring proper childcare provision – although what low-income households will do with ten free hours a week is a puzzler. The public will give little credit for catching up with them on ID cards and the recalling of MPs is a silly Conservative idea that will lead to abuses. Everything in his speech was tired, rehashed, borrowed – it came from anywhere but him as he lamely looks around for something resembling a “vision”.

The BBC seems to have been keener on the speech than most but that’s not surprising. There were good things in it – a National Care Service isn’t a bad idea on the surface. But where is the money coming from? Brown has already spent and lent the country to breaking point and we cannot even service the debt on borrowing at the moment. Spending cuts and tax rises are inevitable – so how on earth does he expect people to take him seriously with these uncosted ideas?

More likely, they are things that an incoming Conservative government will have to “cancel” – even though they are not started – and opportunities for the Labour opposition to capitalise on. It’s politics, but it’s hardly statesmanship from the Statesman of the Year. Once again, Gordon has delivered a speech for his party rather than his country and as the Labour Party becomes ever more inward-looking, those looking outward – such as Peter Meddlesome – will seem ever more lone voices.

I would prefer a PM who can look beyond themselves and foster real reform. But the only way to do that is to take on the Civil Service (which is letting Brown “cancel” ID cards because they know he won’t be around much longer). The New Labour project looked at one point like it had the better of the Whitehall blockers. But the battle has now been lost and Gordon showed today that he simply doesn’t have the substance to fight on, even if the heart is willing.

I want to hear DC tell everyone what the plan is. Let’s hope he’s got one.

Friends in the North

Some very interesting polling news from the FT this morning, showing that the Conservatives – despite what the left-wing media will tell you – have done more than enough to cancel out Labour’s majority in the north of England and may even be winning there.

I don’t expect that cities such as Liverpool, Manchester or Middlesborough will be returning many Conservative MPs in 2010 but what this polling shows is that among C1 – classified as “lower middle-class” although I’m not keen on this type of stuff – and C2 (skilled manual workers), the Conservatives are now in the lead.

And both in the north of England, which kept Labour in power in 2005, and in the Midlands the Conservatives now have an overall lead in the polls – in the case of the Midlands, it’s a pretty thumping one too.

Strangely, none of this information appears to have been reported by the BBC, which usually defends itself by saying it doesn’t report “routine polling data”. I seem to remember it gleefully reporting routine polling data when Tony Blair was on the way up and John Major was on the way out – has politics or society really changed that much?

More likely, the BBC has become more aware of the self-fulfilling nature of polls and has come under severe pressure from PM – and the actual PM – to report more serious news - such as the buying out of ConservativeHome by Lord Ashcroft, for example.

For DC, surely this is gold dust ahead of the Conservative Conference – in Manchester. Okay, he’d be a fool to be triumphal about it – but also a fool to ignore the powerful message it sends out to the north of England; that the Conservatives can genuinely be their voice in Westminster.

Economical with the truth

It’s a mixed day for the economic forecasts at the moment. Gordon Brown, for obvious reasons, is keen to claim credit for a few signs that the recession misery is easing. More likely, the dire straits of the first few months of 2009 are calming and the economy is being stimulated by production starting up again and the billions of extra pounds that the Bank of England has been forced to print.

Elsewhere, economists aren’t as optimistic as Gordon. Ann Pettifor thinks the worst is yet to come and the FT reports that even after a recovery is in full swing, there will be parts of the economy that have been permanently damaged and that will not return to pre-recession levels.

On a political level, Gordon’s front-page splash in the FT (complete with exclusive picture of Blairite hand gestures) is designed to keep City relations on an admittedly delicate even keel by trying to convince bankers that controlling their bonuses is vital to re-establishing the City’s reputation abroad.

He also knows that the FT is the newspaper that journalists read and that a front page there will get picked up everywhere else (notably the BBC, although they are obviously annoyed the story was fed to the FT as they only run it in the business news) for more populist purposes.

The point is this – that Gordon and his gang are going to try and claim that far from wrecking the UK’s once vibrant financial services and manufacturing economy with ruinous debts, strangling regulation and non-existent oversight, the government has actually saved it from destruction and navigated the financial storm. Really?

DC writes today in the Times about the Lockerbie decision and that’s fair enough because clearly some pretty underhand stuff has gone on there. But he needs to be ready to maintain pressure on Gordon over his economy-wrecking and head off Labour attempts to create a competence myth around the embryonic recovery.

Labour governments always end up out of office with the country bankrupt and 2010 will be no exception. DC needs to bring his communications skills to bear on this fact if Labour are not to slip out of the electoral noose.