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.

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.