www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Economist declares for the Conservatives

Picture 3 The Economist backed Labour at the last general election but in tomorrow's edition it declares for the Conservatives.

In an editorial, it praises Brown for keeping Britain out of the euro, yet on the economy states that "a prime minister should not get too much credit for climbing out of a hole he himself dug as chancellor", describing the budget deficit as a time-bomb which Brown is "ill equipped to defuse". It concludes that "a change of government is essential".

Whilst stating that it has been "looking for a credible liberal party in Britain for nigh on a century", it is swift to dismiss the Lib Dems with their enthusiasm for the euro, flirtation with scrapping our nuclear deterrent, desire to abolish tuition fees, opposition to nuclear power and policies on business which are "arguably to the left of Labour's": "Mr Clegg has been a delightful holiday romance for many Britons; but this newspaper does not fancy moving in with him for the next five years".

As for the Conservatives, it admits that the party has its faults, but praises David Cameron for modernising the party and stamping out social illiberalism. It also congratulates George Osborne for not giving in to the demands of the Right for tax cuts and for committing the party to an austerity programme.

It sums up:

"More than their rivals, they are intent on redesigning the state. They would reform the NHS by  bringing in more outside providers; their plans to give parents and teachers the right to set up schools are the most radical idea in this election. Centralisers under Margaret Thatcher, they now want to devolve power to locally elected offcials, including mayors and police chiefs. Some of this is clouded in waffe about a Big Society. Other bits do not go far enough: it is foolish to rule out letting for-profit companies run schools and wrong to exempt the NHS from cuts. But Mr Cameron is much  closer to answering the main question facing Britain than either of his rivals is. In this complicated, perhaps inevitably imperfect election, he would get our vote."

Jonathan Isaby

Posted at 14:52 in Fleet Street | | Comments (8)

Cameron's three goals in Birmingham

ThreeKeyThoughts

"The eurozone is starting to look like a giant game of dominos – and unless the rest of the world gets its act together, it too could soon be forced to start playing. This story is highly relevant to Britain: the state is collecting 40 per cent or so of GDP in revenues and spending 52 per cent (on OECD stats) – as anybody who has ever had to run a household, a company or any kind of budget knows, such a large overdraft is unsustainable. Countries aren’t immune to the laws of economics."

- Allister Heath, City AM

This is not a good time to experiment with a hung parliament: Tonight's economy debate takes place against the backdrop of a gathering storm across Europe. Greece is already engulfed. Portugal is teetering. Spain is vulnerable. "The growing crisis," writes Iain Martin, "is at root about large debts and the markets demanding that states start taking serious action." Now is not the time for Britain to undertake a risky experiment in coalition or minority government. Cameron can quote plenty of business leaders and business polls to back his case. The Director-General of the Institute of Directors said yesterday: "The risk is that there will be no agreement on the nature of public spending reductions, and that on this key issue a coalition or minority government will be paralysed." Cameron doesn't need to set out detailed measures but he needs to look the nation in the eye tonight and say that he will take the tough decisions so that Britain can look forward to better times and that he has a growth plan to deliver it. He needs to come out of the debate as the straight-talker. People are ready for some candour.

He has an open goal in front of him on immigration: Mrs Duffy expressed the view of 75% of the British people and she was called a bigot. The Liberal Democrats have unworkable policies on immigration. The Tories have good policies. Cameron needs to set them out clearly and directly.

He needs to paint Nick Clegg as evasive on what he'd do in the event of a hung parliament: This is how I'd do it:

"Let me give you one other guarantee tonight. I will not keep Gordon Brown in power. I do not question Mr Brown’s sincerity but he and the Labour government have done enormous damage to Britain. Every baby born today carries £23,000 of debt because of Labour. Because of Mr Brown’s changes to the regulation of the City, banks were not inspected properly. Most unforgivably, our troops were sent to war without proper equipment. So, let me be clear: I will end the Labour years. I will not keep Mr Brown or any of his colleagues in power under any circumstances. Nick Clegg will not give you that guarantee and because he won’t give you that guarantee you do not know what a Liberal Democrat vote might mean. Your choice is real change with the Conservatives or a risk of more of the same. And that is why I am asking for your vote."

Tim Montgomerie

Posted at 12:57 in Economic policy, Election debates, Immigration and asylum, Tax and spending | | Comments (38)

"Bigotgate" looks nastier and is far more serious than the Prescott punch

Nick Wood square Nick Wood's daily High Noon column

I was in the Central Office war-room on the night of Wednesday May 16th 2001 when John Prescott landed his infamous punch on the mullet-haired egg-thrower.

The instant media reaction was that the Deputy Prime Minister had just floored Tony Blair's re-election  bid. But in the cold light of the following day, Labour's campaign was still on track. The public judged that Prescott was much provoked and men of a certain disposition rather admired the quality of his left hook.

William Hague responded eventually (CCO had not reacted overnight) with a joke: "It is not my policy to go around hitting the voters".

To update the jibe, it is presumably not David Cameron's policy to go round apologising to voters in person. Brown, on the other hand, need not stop with Gillian Duffy. Most of the rest of us feel he owes us an apology too.

Brown's bigot blunder looks far more serious. It is unjustifiable and unprovoked. Worse, since immigration is a major concern for most people, it brands well over half the country as bigots.

Initial polling, by YouGov for The Sun, had the Tories up 1 and the Lib Dems up 3 with Labour down 2, suggesting a drop in Labour support with core voters (they haven't got anyone else left) switching to Clegg. Nine per cent of people said they were less likely to vote Labour because of Gordon's blunder; 3 per cent (who are they?) were more likely to back Labour.

All this seems to suggest that Labour's support is heading for the mid-20s while the Libs climb into the low 30s. This is good for the Conservatives because a clear lead over Labour, say around 10 points or more will put many previously safe Labour seats at risk.

David Cameron will feel vindicated today in his cautious election strategy. This was always predicated on the belief that Brown would lose the election - partly because of his manifest policy failures but also because of his brittle and unstable character. Now he has cracked under pressure and it may well prove impossible to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Brown has one last chance - the Leaders' Debate tonight. Bizarrely, the man who wrecked the economy touts himself as the only man who can put things right.

But with Greece imploding and the contagion of market fear spreading through southern Europe, Brown's credentials as our economic saviour look shakier still. Dither and delay have exacerbated Greece's horror show. But Brown and Clegg want to put off action to tackle our ghastly deficit until next year.

Cameron has an opening here: to press his case for action this day.

Nick Wood, Managing Director, Media Intelligence Partners

Posted at 11:56 in Nick Wood's High Noon | | Comments (49)

How should tonight's debate be measured?

Stephan Shakespeare The Shakespeare Report

There has been great interest not only in the election debates, but in the polling of who ‘won’ or ‘lost’. At first sight it may seem obvious how pollsters should measure that, but on a closer look, it isn’t obvious at all.

For voting intention, we have well-established methods that all the companies accept, about the nature of the sample and the actual question used. But we’ve actually had very little discussion about how we should all approach the new issue of debate polling. There are three issues that I hope we’ll have resolved by the time of the next election:

The ‘debate question’
What should we actually be asking?  We could ask which contender the respondent was most convinced by, or impressed with. Should we prompt for quality of performance or content (in debating contests, for example, one judges debates on a number of separate criteria). We could just ask in the most simple form, “Who do you think won?”

Many viewers will have firm loyalties to one party or another, and one might want to prompt them to open-mindedness by saying “Leaving aside your own previous loyalties…” Or maybe we shouldn’t do that. It’s unsettled.

The sample
For voting intention, that’s straightforward: you try to make the sample as much as possible representative of the whole electorate. We have established techniques for doing that. Pollsters vary among themselves about which aspects of known qualities of the electorate they weight to, but the general principle is not disputed as any citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote, so the baseline is well understood.

Continue reading "How should tonight's debate be measured?" »

Posted at 07:52 in The Shakespeare Report | | Comments (36)

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Tonight's polls have Tory leads of 2%, 3% and 7%

The YouGov daily tracker poll for The Sun tomorrow has the parties on the following figures:

Yougov My understanding is that some, but not all, of those polled will have given their answers after Gordon's Brown comments about Gillian Duffy came to light today.

8.15pm update:

The latest ComRes poll for ITV News and The Independent was due for release at 10pm, but the embargo has already been broken by, er, ITV News in the form of the Meridian Tonight Twitter feed, which reports the numbers as:

ComRes More detail will follow at 10pm.

8.45pm update:

A Harris poll for Metro has, according to Sky News:

Harris 10pm update:

Elsewhere in the ComRes poll are questions about electoral reform:

“I am not really sure what using PR to elect MPs to the House of Commons would involve”
Agree - 45%
Disagree - 43%
Don't know - 12%

“I think introducing some form of PR into Britain’s electoral system would be a good thing”
Agree - 62%
Disagree - 20%
Don't know - 18%

“It would be good for British democracy if more small parties were represented in the House of Commons even if this means giving parties like the BNP a chance to win seats”
Agree - 54%    
Disagree - 40%
Don't know - 6%

“Nick Clegg’s statement that PR would be the price for him joining a coalition government makes me more likely to vote for him”
Agree - 24%
Disagree - 61%
Don't know - 15%

Jonathan Isaby

Posted at 19:59 in Opinion polls | | Comments (57)

The Life and Times of the Prince of Darkness

Eric Pickles 2 2010 Tea with Pickles

I started the day with my new favourite soap - the Labour press conference. The resilient Prince of Darkness was back, down, but not out after yesterday’s disastrous performance.  I almost felt sorry for his Lordship. He looked rattled as his eyes darted around the room sizing up the enemy. Thankfully for him there was not a nokia in sight.

One of my chums at CCHQ who goes along to make sure everyone behaves and hands out the odd bit of literature highlighting Labour’s record in office had some of his work confiscated by a Labour spin doctor. Apparently all  documents of high level importance must be rubber stamped by our supreme leader.

The highlight today was seeing my friends at the Mirror holding Labour to account on spreading yet more lies about our policy on CCTV.  This was definitely not in the script but all great moments are unscripted.

After the Prince of Darkness called time and the credits rolled, I raced down to the West Country to carry on my doorstep offensive. The south west is a key battleground for us and a stunning part of the country.

I love this part of the world and am always struck by the warmth of the people. As I said yesterday, the doorstep always gives you the best insight into what people are thinking and today there were more telling comments.

One disgruntled voter in Plymouth said to me “the problem with Labour is that they think Plymouth is Portsmouth, they just don’t know where we are.” This government thinks a one size fits all policy that rides roughshod over local communities  is the answer. Memo to Gordon: It isn’t.

Next stops on the Pickles roadshow were Newton Abbot, Exeter and North Devon.  Again and again on the doorstep the same subject came up. More and more people expressed deep frustration at the barrage of stealth taxes they’ve been hit with over the past thirteen years. And for what they asked me? I am sorry to say as much as I tried I couldn’t find a credible answer.

After all of the media coverage on Gordon Brown’s comments today, I suspect my favourite soap may be off air tomorrow.   I must say I hope it’s allowed back on our screens before May 6th.  The life and times of  the Prince of Darkness is compelling viewing. I am sure there’s a book in it. But that’s another story.

Eric Pickles

Posted at 19:28 in Tea with Pickles | | Comments (11)

The Spectator warns Cameron against a coalition with the Liberal Democrats

Don'tFallForItIn the leader column for its latest edition, The Spectator has warned against a coalition with the Liberal Democrats should David Cameron fail to win a majority:

"Without a majority, Mr Cameron will be back on the election trail soon — probably within a year. He should ask himself: how does he want to spend that year? Governing on his own terms? Or in a never-ending series of principles-for-power compromises with Nick Clegg’s divided party? Worst of all, if he agrees to electoral reform, the Conservatives — as we know them — might never find themselves in a position to govern again."

The Spectator says that Nick Clegg should be allowed to form a coalition with Labour if he chooses:

"If they threaten to join with Gordon Brown and let Labour cheat political death, then so be it. But the marriage would not last, and the public would pass judgment in the election that would follow when their axis collapses. By spurning Mr Clegg’s advances, Mr Cameron can still govern — he only needs a parliamentary majority to pass laws, and there is reassuringly little in his manifesto that requires new primary legislation."

Most Tory members would agree with this. Last week, a ConHome survey found 49% saying a coalition would be "unacceptable". Only 10% thought it would be "acceptable" and most of the remainder said it would be "disappointing".

Also in The Spectator, Political Editor James Forsyth reports that there may be an emergency meeting of the parliamentary party after an indecisive election result and that meeting would make it clear that "any form of PR would be unacceptable". James continues:

"Those who know Cameron well believe that the parliamentary party’s fears about what he might offer up are unfounded. One tells me that Cameron’s instinct will be ‘to go it alone’ and that he is fully aware that the Liberal Democrats are ‘going to want what we are not prepared to give them’."

Hopefully we'll win a majority and there'll be no need for any of this. To help victory please give to the YellowToBlue campaign.

Tim Montgomerie

Posted at 18:03 in LibDem-Tory relations | | Comments (17)

How a Tory government would regulate and police the banks

George Osborne 2010 micced up The media may have focused on Gordon Brown's encounter on the streets of Rochdale for most of the day, but other elements of the election campaign have continued apace elsewhere.

Today George Osborne launched a document, Change for the better in Financial Services, setting out how a Conservative government would introduce "the most radical overhaul for a generation in the way that banks are regulated and policed".

It contains the following key pledges:

  • We will take action in our first Budget within 50 days of the election to get credit flowing to businesses with government guarantees, building on our proposals for a National Loan Guarantee Scheme.
  • Within months we will take the first steps towards sweeping away Gordon Brown’s failed system of regulation and putting the Bank of England back in charge by creating a new body – the Financial Policy Committee – to monitor credit conditions and the growth of debt in the economy.
  • We will start immediately on the design of a new bank levy, with the aim of introducing it within a year of the election.
  • The bank levy will help to bring down remuneration across the banking sector. We will also empower the Bank of England to crack down on risky bonus structures.
  • Unlike Labour we will push for international agreement at the G20 and other forums to separate the riskiest investment banking activities like large scale proprietary trading from retail banking.
  • We will start work on the creation of a tough new Economic Crime Agency to crack down on white collar crime and sweep away the confused alphabet soup of agencies that are currently responsible for tackling serious economic crime.
  • We will start work on the creation of a new Consumer Protection Agency to take over the roles of the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading when it comes to protecting consumers of financial products.
  • Within a year we will set up a free financial advice service and a free annual financial health check, to help families get their finances on track.

Click here to download the document.

Jonathan Isaby

Posted at 18:01 in Economic policy, Tax and spending | | Comments (16)

Let's cut immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands

LETSPUT Earlier, in reflecting on Mr Brown's attack on Mrs Duffy, Jonathan Isaby focused on Mr Brown's duplicity.

For me the episode betrayed the gulf between Labour and British voters on the subject of immigration.

A friend emailed me this:

"The reason this is a disaster for Brown is that millions of people think his Government has given up trying to control immigration, this woman expressed concern, and Brown's real view, expressed in private but revealed to us all, is that any one of those millions who questions the open door immigration policy is a BIGOT. That is the true opinion of Brown and his Government. It is a disaster and it will confirm the views of millions that the Government has stopped representing ordinary British people and looks down on us all as ignorant bigots."

I hope Mr Cameron gets an opportunity to hit Brown hard on this issue during tomorrow evening's debate. Thanks to the work of Chris Grayling and Damian Green the Tories have good policies on immigration. It's time to highlight them and contrast them with the Liberal Democrats' crazy proposal of regionalising immigration permits.

Tim Montgomerie

Posted at 17:21 in Immigration and asylum | | Comments (60)

David Cameron must press home that only a Conservative government would deal with the deficit as a matter of urgency - unlike Labour or the Lib Dems

Nick Wood square Nick Wood's daily High Noon column

Just about everyone expected the deficit, the spending cuts and the tax rises needed to get the economy back on track to be the defining feature of this campaign. The great irony is that instead of engaging with the biggest problem facing the country, all three parties have shied away from it.

Now the Institute of Fiscal Studies has brought that omission into sharp relief, calculating the black holes in the parties' spending plans that will have to filled by a combination of tax rises and spending cuts.

It is a fair bet that the independent and authoritative IFS report will play a key role in the leaders' debate on the economy tomorrow night.

How should David Cameron respond? It is far too late for him to produce a shopping list of new tax rises or spending cuts. But he can seek to underline his personal commitment to getting the nation's finances back under control. He needs strong rhetoric to drive home the point that he has the will and the means to stop the UK going the way of Greece.

And, just as "New Politics" Clegg succeeded in lumping together "Old Politics" Brown and Cameron in the first debate, so the Tory leader can distinguish his approach from that of his two rivals.

He needs to drive home the point that only the Conservatives recognise the gravity and urgency of the crisis. Only the Conservatives will make an immediate start on balancing the books, unlike Labour and Lib Dem plans to delay action for another day. They are the mañana parties.

Cameron can couple this attack with a further stark reminder of the dangers of a hung Parliament. A Lib-Lab pact would bring together two parties with conflicting views about how to tackle the deficit but united on one point - a commitment to dithering and delay.

As Churchill would have put it, "they are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift."

Cameron's other task is to pin the blame for the recession squarely on Brown's slumping shoulders. The last Conservative government left the economy in fine fettle. Brown's Labour government has left it as a basket case.

Nick Wood, Managing Director, Media Intelligence Partners

Posted at 11:51 in Nick Wood's High Noon, Tax and spending | | Comments (14)

The funniest thing so far from Election 2010?

Screen shot 2010-04-28 at 11.33.53 Perhaps not; Elvis was funnier but click here and turn up the volume... but be warned... you might not get the jingle out of your head.

Hat tip to Shane Greer.

Tim Montgomerie

Posted at 11:38 in Light relief | | Comments (14)

The voting system is now going to be part of how people think about 'change'

Stephan Shakespeare The Shakespeare Report

Before the first leaders' debate, I wrote:

“I think it's unlikely the debates will have much effect on the Conservative-Labour swing, as I've argued here, but it might just help the Lib Dems a bit and who knows how that could tweak the calculations”.

I could claim to have been technically right. But of course what really matters is what I missed: the election stopped being about Cameron v Brown, and became all about Clegg. Even now, and probably till voting day itself, Clegg is at the centre of the stage. Clegg is what this election is all about.

That’s a huge shift. Who would have imagined that a single debate could make such a huge difference. How could it happen? Are we really so easily affected by a strong one-hour TV performance?

It makes more sense to me that it wasn’t the debate that shifted mountains, that it was simply the trigger which released an avalanche of pre-existing voter frustration. Had the audience not been already so sceptical of all politicians, it could not have turned so easily.

What happens if the structure of our voting system means we end up with the Lib Dems getting the second-largest pile of votes, but winning far fewer seats than third-placed Labour? If people vote for change, and get the same result as usual, the call for reform of the voting system will be hard to resist. What worries me most is not so much the prospect of reform, but the likelihood of a poorly considered compromise cobbled together in the confused grab for power.

I heard IDS on the Today Programme on Monday wanting to rule out any thought of PR, but I only half-agree with him: I'm sceptical too, but one way or another, the voting system is going to be part of how people think about 'change' from here on. There should be one or two people at CCHQ taking time off campaigning and thinking deeply about all this. 

Stephan Shakespeare

Posted at 08:34 in The Shakespeare Report | | Comments (80)

How to deal with the deficit becomes a big issue before the leaders' debate on the economy

Picture 9

With the economy set to be the main theme of tomorrow night's final leaders' debate on the BBC, that issue looks like it could well dominate the news agenda for the next 48 hours.

Many of the papers this morning run with the story based on the figures released yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggested that none of the three main parties had disclosed the scale of cuts and tax rises required to tackle the financial crisis under their plans.

The Telegraph sums up the IFS findings:

"The average family already faces tax rises of more than £500 a year in the face of the £1 trillion deficit. But, according to the IFS, Labour will need to increase taxes by another £7 billion a year under its economic plan and the Conservatives will need to raise taxes by about £3 billion. A government run by any of the main parties would find it impossible to cut public services as sharply as they have proposed and would have to raise billions more in taxes, it claimed."

The IFS director, Robert Chote, is quoted in The Independent:

"The institute's director, Robert Chote, condemned all the parties for being "strikingly reticent" about their true intentions and for their failure to come clean on precisely where cuts would be made. Mr Chote added: "The opposition parties have not even set out fiscal targets clearly, and all three are particularly vague on their plans for public spending. The blame for that lies with the Government for refusing to hold a spending review before the election."

The Conservatives have also seized on that IFS attack on the Government for failing to hold a spending review.

However, the party insists that the think-tank has failed to take into account several aspects of Conservative policy which mean that there would not be a need for further tax rises under a Conservative Government:

  • They say the IFS does not take account of Tory plans to cut £6 billion of government waste this year as set out by former Government advisers Sir Peter Gershon and Dr Martin Read, with their assumption that all parties are equally able to make efficiency savings in government not being borne out by Labour’s record.
  • Additionally, IFS calculations assume that Conservative proposals for a bank levy will raise only £1 billion, whereas the party has said that this is a minimum and expects that the total will be "considerably higher".

Philip Hammond on Marr Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Phillip Hammond, gives the following take on the IFS numbers:

“This report exposes the scale of tax rises planned by the Lib Dems and Labour, with extra tax rises of £470 per household under the Lib Dems and £220 under Labour compared to the Conservative plans. The IFS also slam the Lib Dem estimates of tax revenues as ‘highly speculative’ and destroy their claim to fairness by showing that people earning up to £113,000 benefit more than those earning under £10,000.

“The IFS lay the blame for the lack of detail in the debate about public spending cuts squarely on Gordon Brown’s cynical decision not to publish a spending review in order to hide the truth about his spending cuts from the voters. Labour claim they want to talk about policy but refuse to publish the figures and refuse to debate the issues. People will conclude that Gordon Brown doesn’t want anyone to know the truth about the consequences of his economic failures.”

Jonathan Isaby

Posted at 07:59 in Economic policy, Tax and spending | | Comments (115)

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Tonight's polls have the Conservatives ahead by 4%, 4% and 8%

Populus More in The Times.

8pm:

YouGov

More in The Sun.

10.30pm: ComRes:

ComRes

Tim Montgomerie

Posted at 19:16 in Opinion polls | | Comments (131)

A brush with the Prince of Darkness... or is that the Prince of Stability?

Tea with Pickles.

It was a lovely way to the start the day. A name check from the prince of darkness, sorry, the prince of stability, as he now likes to be referred to at Labour’s morning press conference. Not many people know this but we’ve got history. More than thirty years ago we both served on the British Youth Council. His Lordship sent me out to the Soviet Union in an attempt to convince me about the merits of communism.  I didn’t fall for the spin but I am eternally grateful that the prince of darkness, sorry stability, let me back into the country.

I also have to say it was not my dear Lordship’s finest hour as he waged war on journalist after journalist who dared to utter the truth this morning. My favourite moment was when Lord M attacked Adam Boulton sniping at him: “Adam you are not standing for election.” Andrew Neil fired back “neither are you Lord M.” Couldn’t have put it better myself. Watch the clip here.

And what could be a more fitting way to finish off this Soviet style press conference than by locking journalists in at the end and forcing them to witness what I can only describe as a masterpiece in scaremongering from Lord Mandelson with his latest Party Election Broadcast. It nearly didn’t happen as the Prince forget to run the tape and was walking out the room when he was called back by a worried Labour spin doctor ...  sadly it wasn’t Alistair Campbell. I wonder if our supreme leader gave his Lordship the nokia treatment afterwards for losing control of what was meant to be a carefully choreographed set piece?

I have to say I was surprised to see Ed Balls making a guest appearance at this wonderful event. We know he’s practically spending every waking hour in Morley and Outwood battening down the hatches fearful of the relentless surge in support for our great PPC there Anthony Calvert. It was in that vein that I was back in the north today pushing the Conservative message in more Labour heartlands flirting with going blue. I always think the doorstep is the best barometer of the public mood and there’s definitely something dramatic happening in traditional Labour areas. Peter I am pleased to tell you they’re going blue.

Eric Pickles

Posted at 18:09 in Tea with Pickles | | Comments (19)

People power can mend Britain's broken society, says Cameron

Highlights from David Cameron's 'Let's mend our broken society' speech to the Centre for Social Justice.

Screen shot 2010-04-27 at 12.22.26 There is something wrong in Britain today: "There has always been violence. There has always been evil. But there is something about the frequency of these crimes – the depravity of these crimes, that betrays a deep and fundamental problem in Britain today... When you see schools that have metal detectors at their entrance. When you see fire engines called out on a hoax only to be pelted with bricks. When you see people with disabilities abused on the streets because they are in a wheelchair. When you see people take their lives because they’ve become so overwhelmed by out-of-control debt and they can’t bear to tell their family. When you see addicts whose only daily event is the queue to get some methadone to take the edge off life for a little bit. When you see those who have never worked, who have no shape to their day or structure to their life and the grim grind of hopelessness is there in their eyes, your inner voice says – something is fundamentally not right here. Something is broken. Society is broken."

Some of the key statistics: "Teenage pregnancy is the worst in Western Europe. Levels of family breakdown are some of the highest in Europe. Violent against the person has risen since Labour came to power. Drug offences are up seventy percent. There are now 10,000 incidents of anti-social behaviour every day. And one in six children now grow up in a home where no one works."

We have lost a sense of responsibility to each other: "There are the concrete characteristics of our broken society – the violent crime, teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol addiction, family breakdown, debt, worklessness, inequality – which have been bad for decades. And there is the less tangible feeling, that we have been slowly losing the value of responsibility in our society... a sense that more and more people are less concerned about their responsibility to themselves, their duty to their family, their obligation to their community. This is something we can trace back to cultural changes and shocks that have been going on for decades at least. So I’m not going to pretend that the broken society was born under this Labour government. But I do believe that, after thirteen years, it is reasonable for us to evaluate Labour’s effectiveness in dealing with our biggest social problems."

Continue reading "People power can mend Britain's broken society, says Cameron" »

Posted at 12:25 in Cameronism, Compassionate conservatism, Law and order | | Comments (89)

The Tories' Hung Parliament message will only work if it is endlessly repeated until polling day

Nick Wood's High Noon column.

92080428 Will it work? That question will be uppermost in the minds of CCHQ officials in the wake of yesterday's fierce assault on the perils of a hung Parliament mounted by David Cameron and George Osborne.

As I noted at the weekend, Cameron is now running not against Brown and Clegg but against the cosy idea that Britain would be in better hands if the election ended in a draw and the parties had to work together.

For all kinds of reasons, this is nonsense. But it is a public perception that will be hard to shift. That's why the Tory high command was right to go on the front foot yesterday, changing their PEB to target the Hung Parliament Party.

They will have to go on driving the message home all the way to polling day. No message ever gets across unless it is endlessly repeated. Dave should use the Leaders' Debate on Thursday to step up the attack, leveling with the public and pointing out that the painful decisions necessary to restore the nation's finances to health will not be taken by a weak coalition government.

The media will help. Today's Daily Mail contains an excellent piece on how proportional representation has made the government of Italy a byword for corruption and instability. Do we want that in the UK?

It is a time for hard pounding by the Tory leadership. And it will work.

Nick Wood of Media Intelligence Partners.

Posted at 11:51 in Nick Wood's High Noon | | Comments (63)

A nine day plan to win a majority

With just nine days to go until polling day the Tories are running out of time to get an election winning lead.

Target more vulnerable Labour seats
The decision to target harder-to-win Labour seats is a sensible one. The weakness of the Labour vote means that the constituencies of Ed Balls, John Denham, Jack Straw and lesser known Labour MPs could be within reach. We could call it 'The Melanchthon strategy'.

Campaign against the Hung Parliament Party
The decision to run against the Hung Parliament Party is necessary but a double risk. It's a risk because it may mean voters see the Tories as too negative and it is a risk because voters are divided on the merits of a indecisive result. According to today's Sun/YouGov poll 47% of voters think that a hung parliament will be bad because it "produces weak government, unable to take the tough decisions Britain needs". But 37% think a hung parliament would be "good" because "it will force at least two parties to work together in some way".

The economy debate is an opportunity for straight-talking
Thursday night's economy debate on BBC1 is David Cameron's last, best opportunity to add a few points to the Tory position. My own hope is that he'll do three things in that debate:

  • Level with the British people about the gravity of the economic situation. There's a good leader in The Telegraph, accusing all politicians of ignoring the deficit. If Cameron can present himself as the truth-teller he could get the respect that may lead waverers to see him as a Prime Minister-in-waiting. If voters are reminded of the seriousness of the economic situation they may also be more likely to worry about a hung parliament. We can't expect voters to treat the election seriously if we ignore the most serious of issues; the deficit.
  • He needs to confront Nick Clegg about his claim to offer new politics. He needs to confront Nick Clegg about his lack of honesty about who he'll support in the event of a hung parliament. I drafted some words here.
  • Go into the debate ready to deploy a memorable phrase. The Conservative leader has not emerged from either of the first two debates with a phrase that reverberates.

Define what can happen from day one of a Conservative government
The final thing Cameron needs to do in the final week of the campaign is define change. The Big Society rhetoric must be dropped. It's a brilliant governing philosophy, not a campaign theme. Every voter in Britain - through email, through a party political broadcast, through stump speeches, through eve-of-polling leaflets - needs to know there are ten worthwhile things that will happen from day one of a Conservative government. My ten are listed below:

  1. Stopping Labour's tax on jobs; the National Insurance rise
  2. A cut in net immigration of 75%
  3. No more early release for convicted criminals
  4. A two year freeze in council tax
  5. The abolition of inheritance tax for all families except millionaires
  6. A cut in the cost of politics including a 10% cut in the number of MPs and a 5% cut in ministers' pay
  7. Restoration of the link between the basic state pension and earnings
  8. New laws that will give householders more rights against burglars
  9. Abolition of Labour's expensive ID cards
  10. Free anti-cancer drugs for all those need them on the NHS.
Deploy the big beasts
Get the big beasts - Boris, John Major, IDS, Michael Heseltine, David Davis, Ann Widdecombe - on to the TV screens.

Tim Montgomerie

Posted at 09:00 in Conservative strategy | | Comments (200)

Conservative options for a Hung Parliament

Ken Clarke took centre-stage last week to warn of a hung Parliament's effect on the economy.  Nick Clegg gained no new momentum from Thursday's debate, and his party seems to have peaked.  Labour is running its worst election campaign since 1983, and is riven over how to deal with the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives are creeping up in the polls.

According to YouGov, support for a hung Parliament is falling. Voters may at last be getting a key Cameron message: that a hung Parliament risks instability at best and Brown returned to Downing Street at worst. It's possible that the Labour vote could fall low enough to ensure that Conservative gains in red/blue marginals offset Liberal holds in blue/yellow ones - delivering the Commons a Cameron majority.

After five see-saw years which have seen Labour ahead by as much as eleven per cent, and the Conservatives in front by more than 25, anything could happen in the last ten days of this election.  I believe that a blue majority is possible. None the less, the polls continue to suggest a hung Parliament, and David Cameron is having to answer questions about his response in such an event.

My assessment is that he has three main options in such circumstances, assuming that we get more votes than Labour  - a reasonable assumption.  Let me set out how he might present each one.

1)  "The people have spoken.  No Party has a majority in Parliament.  At this moment, Gordon Brown is trying to persuade Nick Clegg to confirm him as Prime Minister.  The stark fact is that Brown has no mandate for change.  He is discredited and his Party is humiliated.  He is the first Prime Minister in modern times to lead his Party into third place in an election.

My Party won more votes than any other.  Only a new Government can deliver the change which Britain's voted for.  If Nick props up Brown, he will be turning his back on democracy and spitting in the face of voters.  He will also be putting people's prosperity, mortgages, savings and jobs in peril.  An emergency budget to salvage our economy is now a matter of urgency.

Continue reading "Conservative options for a Hung Parliament" »

Posted at 08:23 in Conservative strategy, Constitution and democracy, LibDem-Tory relations | | Comments (101)

Monday, April 26, 2010

Are Liberal Democrats the ‘Condorcet Party’?

The Shakespeare Report.

This is an unusually difficult election for pollsters to feel confident about, because the strength of the LibDems changes the very nature of the polling question. We ask people who they will vote for. Well, that’s unambiguous question, you might think, but the reality of voting in a marginal seat creates a genuine ambiguity. Imagine you are a Labour supporter in a LibDem-Conservative marginal, and you know you will vote LibDem, tactically, to stop the Tories in that seat. What should you answer? “LibDem” would be factually correct. But you actually want Labour to win. You don’t want to ‘vote’ for LibDem in a poll, you want to indicate the real nature of your support, which is for Labour. There isn’t a simple ‘honest’ answer.

This can play havoc with the voting intention figures, once more and more seats are perceived as marginal, and the Liberal Democrats become the 'Condorcet Party'.

The conventional model of voter choice imagines, for each issue, individuals placing their preference along a line running from one extreme to another. For example, one line may run from complete pacifism to neo-Con interventionism. The views of the public are spread along this line, with a peak somewhere near the middle. Imagine a multi-dimensional area defined around these peaks, each weighted according to the relative importance of the issue to the voters, and you have the ‘centre ground’. Parties generally try to place themselves very close to that centre ground in order to give themselves the best chance of winning.

Continue reading "Are Liberal Democrats the ‘Condorcet Party’?" »

Posted at 22:25 in The Shakespeare Report | | Comments (14)

Next »

Support Conservatives ousting Liberal Democrat MPs


Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

About

Archives

Subscribe to this blog's feed
Quantcast