Memento mori?

Is that Latin?

What does it mean?

601,

“Remember you are mortal”

or as I’ve said here on many occasions, don’t believe your own propaganda or that those who vote for you are actually your supporters.

Peter.

Many thanks for a very perceptive summary. The turning point for Cameron was at the time of the Party Conferences in October. Brown dithered over an election and lost much of his authority as a decisive, if somewhat uninspiring, speaker.

Prior to that it looked as though Labour were on a high and the poor polls for them had been due to the overlong Blair departure. Cameron lost some credibility with his own supporters earlier over Grammar Schools but hat seems to have gone away. I am stil trying to factor in the importance, or otherwise, of Nick Clegg. Although some commentators put him as a possible alliance maker with Brown he looks to me to be very much like Cameron in background. The empathy would seem, on the surface, to be with the Conservatives and LibDems rather than LibDems and Labour.

2008 will be very interesting indeed.

Cameron’s approval rating among Conservative voters, immediately prior to the Conference, had fallen as low as 45%. Yet, the party’s vote share never fell below 32/33%, and only one or two polls actually showed the Conservatives going back in terms of seats (so low had the Lib Dems fallen).

I’m convinced Labour would have won had they called an election for October, but I’m equally convinced it would have been with a smaller majority than at present, even if they retained a 3% lead, due to a relatively strong Conservative performance in the South (where Labour’s most marginal seats are concentrated), boundary changes, and a further decline in anti-Conservative tactical voting. Hence, it would have been a pyrrhic victory - and in all likelihood - Cameron would have got a second chance.

Dr. Robert Waller is of the view that Labour have simply run their course, (as in 1979, and as the Conservatives had in 1964 and 1997) and that the political cycle has now shifted in favour of the Conservatives, almost regardless of who their leader is. I’d be interested for your view on this Anthony.

A very rigorous analysis as always! A point that ,perhaps, needs making relates to the assumption of many that if the Tories become the largest party they form a minority government.In a scenario where the Tories win 300 seats and Labour in the region of 280, Brown would not be under any constitutional obligation to resign and make way for Cameron - he could simply hang on and invite the House of Commons to defeat him on the Queens Speech and so put the Lib Dems - in particular- in a dilemma as to whether they would wish to be seen to help put the Tories in!
Indeed, the only minority parties likely to be at all supportive of a minority Tory Govt would appear to be the Unionists - Democratic and Official - implying that Cameron needs something of the order of 315 MPs if he falls short of a majority.

I would agree with the last comments of Sean Fear. I don’t feel that Mr. Brown has done anything wrong as such, I just think that many are looking for a change. I also think that the main architect of labour’s problems in the last few months (aside from themselves) has been the media. Not that the media are particularly anti-labour, but simply that they want a change more than anyone else…. Not sure if I can back this up as such, but it is an impression I get (and I’m an ex-media monkey).

Graham,

A minority government could work for the Tories.

Alasdair,

Brown’s dithering over the election and his trip to Iraq during the Tory Conference destroyed the good will people had towards him as a new leader.

Trying to govern on 280 seats (even if the Lib Dems did prop him up in a confidence vote) would be an awful experience for Brown.

Anthony, I think most of your analysis is about right, although I think you underestimate the importance of the inheritance tax announcement in terms of the leap to 40%. While it’s true that it enabled the Tories to show they stood *for* something, that something still has to have some measure of popularity amongst key likely-to-vote swing voters and the inheritance tax proposal (along with the non-dom tax) with its eye-catching £1 million threshold did that. To contrast with an absurd extreme, supposing Cameron had said what this party stands for is racism, then although they would have a very clear image and set of policies I doubt it would have gained them much support, and probably would have lost them almost all their support. You may object that that’s absurd example, but the point is that having a clear policy agenda is necessary, but totally sufficient to getting a boost in the polls, there has to be something about it that resonates and is popular.

You are then quite right to point out how Brown and Labour’s fumbles, mistakes and bad luck have kept the Tories at that level of support, but I think it’s important to note that once you saw the initial leap to 40% it assisted an unrelenting and obsessive media narrative (and you’ve written well in the past on the impact it has on polls) of ‘Brown under pressure’. So while you say that Labour shot the inheritance tax ‘fox’ in the pre-budget report, with the shift in the media narrative this was turned into ‘dithering Labour/Brown cynically steal Tory policy to boost poll rating’ with little attention given to the finer points of detail that illustrate the differences in the policies. Then ‘chicken Saturday’ as you mention helps to complete the humiliation, and from there Labour has struggled to gain much total control of the political agenda. I seem to recall Nick Robinson’s main report on the Queen’s Speech debate focussing more on Brown’s supposedly shaking hand rather what he was actually saying in response to Cameron’s questions and criticisms. Then in addition you have the bad luck for Brown at least of the data losses and events not going his way. All of which has helped the Conservatives stay at 40% or more.

So while it’s probably right to say most of this is to do with Labour’s failings and bad luck, it would be wrong to say that the voting public hasn’t shown any enthusiasm from the little taster they’ve gotten from the Conservatives in terms of policy. However, given the amount of time till a likely election it will take far more than one tax proposal (that might have been placed much more under the microscope in terms of who it benefits and its affordability during an election anyway) to take the Tories to the next level to be certain to form the next government.

Excellent analysis, as ever, but I do think one thing you perhaps do not credit enough is Cameron himself. To have come from nowhere at all, cleansed the Tories sufficiently to make them appear non-toxic (not an easy job), to have contributed heavily to the removal of Blair, Kennedy, and Ming Campbell, and to have capitalised on the media’s hunger for a Tory fightback a few months ago with that conference speech- is quite a remarkable series of political achievements for anyone, really. The turnaroud in the polls was probably one of the largest ever recorded- at a time when opinion polls are supposed to be extremely accurate.

Being leader of the Tory party is not an easy job. I remember well the (sometimes almost religious) hatred that so many people seemed to feel towards the Tories a few months ago. Some had their reasons, but many - especially younger people - didn’t really know why they thought this way. He has gone some way to altering deep-seated perceptions- and that is a very hard thing to do. Blair did it by making his party no longer seem incompetent. That was one thing- to make your party no longer seem nasty (which is a much more abstract problem) is quite another, and definatly no easier.

We can conclude that the Tories have benefitted from Labour’s mistakes now- but I think Cameron’s election as Tory leader is an almost equally large factor in explaining the party political position we now find ourselves in.

Ralph,
My point really is that even if the Tories become the largest party unless they reach 315 seats they may not be given the chance to form a minority government!

Sean - in September there already seemed to be people pondering leadership candidates, chosing sides and so on. My guess is that Cameron would have had to go, Hague would have refused to touch it with a bargepole and the contest would have ended up Fox vs Osborne. Still, we shall never know.

I’m largely in agreement with Robert Waller, but with some caveats. I think it could have been possible for Labour to renew themselves in office, at least enough to hang on for another term. There does come a time when it is simply impossible, the drip-drip of blame for everything the government does, the burden of events, the complacency of office just make it impossible to stay on - but perhaps with a different leader, or if Labour had really managed to espose a brand new mission.

The other caveats are in the article - I don’t think things have turned against Labour enough yet for people to vote in a Tory government regardless of what it says and does, as they probably would have done for Labour in 1997. Given Labour’s advantage in the electoral arithmatic and the mountain they’ve got to climb, I don’t think the time for a change will necessarily be big enough to get the Conservatives a majority either.

Graham - there’s so many different possibilities it would deserve a post of its own. Brown does indeed not have to resign, he has first bite of the cherry at convincing the Lib Dems not to vote down his Queens speech. I’d be surprised if he managed it though, it could be suicidal for the Lib Dems - Labour have just been kicked out office and they let them back in, in what is likely to be a pretty fractious and shaky government. One slip, one loss of a confidence vote, and they are back to the country, this time tethered to a Labour government the people had already attempted to kick out once. Ouch, ouch, ouch.

My guess is that in practice Brown would resign and Cameron would form a minority government, the Lib Dems ruling out any formal deal and saying they’d judge issues on their merit. The Lib Dems (or possibly Labour, who would want a second election like a hole in the head) agree to abstain on the Queen’s speech and Cameron would then sprint along to a second election in the Autumn to attempt to get an overall majority. There are so many other possiblities though, and no way of saying what would really happen.

I have a cousin in Blackpool and the day after Osbourne’s speech I went to see him. He keeps a pub on the south Shore and as I walked in he pulled me a pint of Guiness - being a good barman and relative he remembers these things - then we said our hellos etc.

I asked him how he thought we were doing and he said, “You’re cutting taxes again, you’ll do for me”.

I think the public mood underlying some of these changes in opinion polls stems from two things. First, a deep seated resentement at Labour’s failure to deliver, despite being given the benefit of the doubt over their increases in taxes to pay for “reform” of public services. It hasn’t worked to any great extent and the public have recognised this.

Second, they wanted to know that the Tories still believed in lower taxes - whether they promised to deliver them or not. That’s not the same as calling for them, in whatever circumstances, just a desire to know where we stood if they did favour us with their votes once more.

I think there is an element of this in the changes, but AW is correct in that the biggest factor was the failure by Brown to translate his personal Bounce into a Labour Bounce, because of the Iraq trip, Chicken Saturday and now the various other woes that have befallen them.

Graham: I did not think that the old PM needed to either resign or be defeated in order for a new PM to be picked after an election. I thought that the process was that after an election the Queen picked an MP to invite to form a government (and thus become PM), typically the leader of the winning party.

Were Labour to get 280 seats and the Tories 300 would Brown have any say in getting propped up or could the Queen not just invite Cameron to form her new government?

Anthony,
I tend to agree that the Lib Dems would be very wary of sustaining a Government in the scenario I presented, but I can also see tactical advantage to Brown - and Labour generally - in wnting to push them into a position where they have to choose!In particular, it would make it possible for Brown - or his successor - to blame the Lib Dems further down the line when the Tories become unpopular - in a way similar to how David Steel’s Liberals were portrayed by the Tories in the late 1970s following the Lib Lab Pact!

Philip,
This is not correct.The Monarch only becomes involved when the existing Prime Minister resigns as a result of the leader of an Opposition party having obtained a majority in the House of Commons - a Prime Minister whose government has been reelected is not reappointed as such he simply continues in office!Thus , in 1992 Major did not visit the Palace in the immediate aftermath of his victory - neither did Thatcher in 1983 or 1987. I have questioned elsewhere why Blair DID go to the Palace after being reelected in 2001 and 2005 when there was no constitutional requirement for him to do so- a mere photo opportunity I suggest!
In the hitherto rare case of a hung Parliament, the Monarch has more of a role to play - but only after the Prime minister has resigned or been defeated on the Queen’s Speech.

Graham in entirely correct. The PM remains PM until he resigns, they don’t have to resign just because they’ve lost their majority at a general election and the Queen won’t invite someone else to form a government while she’s still got one. In practice this means that in a hung Parliament the sitting Prime Minister has the first go at forming a government, even if they aren’t the largest party.

The classic example is February 1974. Wilson won 4 more seats than Heath, but since Heath was the sitting Prime Minister he was free to remain in office for another three days while he tried to form a coalition with the Liberals. Only when that failed did he resign as Prime Minister, after which the Queen summonded Harold Wilson as the leader of the largest party to ask him to try and form a government. If Heath had wished he could have just remained in office and tried to get the Commons to pass his Queen’s speech, though presumably he would have failed.

I think the Wisconsin style welfare reforms, and the school reforms the Conservatives outlined at their conference were/are a major part of their poll boost.

Labour have made some tentative steps towards welfare reform since the autumn so I assume they see a threat there, and the Balls school-till-18 is all a left-wing ideologue can offer to oppose a popular Conservative schools policy.

I think these policies could well have won an autumn 2007 election for the Conservatives. I think Labour have been vulnerable since 2001, the electorate was just waiting for the Conservatives to be electable. They are.

From reading Heath’s biography, it sounds like he stayed on for a few days because he’d won the popular vote, which he believed gave him some added legitimacy. If he’d lost on seats and the popular vote, he may well have resigned immediately.

You don’t for a minute believe that Labour shot the Tories IHT fox with their announcement do you?

Excellent analysis Anthony

Despite all Labour’s gifts I still think the turning point for the Tories was their conference.

Cameron’s speech was highly impressive and they did come up with at least 5 major policy announcements that week - inheritance tax, referendum of europe, more prison places, immigration, tax cuts etc which clearly resonated with the public.

The policies may have been populist - but hey, aren’t politicians (and especially oppositions) supposed to come up with policies that most people agree with.

A very good analysis.

Labour at Westminster seem to be in much the same position as Liverpool in the Football Premiership League. On the figures, they might come back although it is an uphill struggle. But when one looks at their people, systems and current performance it is difficult to see how Labour can change things around.

Brown is part of the problem, but I think the poor effects of his recent performance can be overestimated. Brown has a previous history of strong performance, and will keep fighting.

The Autumn saw the emergence of major problems, including Northern Rock and the loss of confidential data, that emphasised just how far Labour, not just Blair, has become enmeshed in the right-wing business system. Whilst ministers have a sadly low public profile in general individually, their mistakes have also given rise to a generlaised image of lack of competence. It is difficult to see how Labour can address either the problem that it has betrayed its basic beliefs or the lack of ability on the Government benches before the next General Election.

And of course Labour are likely to be tarred with the effects of international economic problems they can do little about.

Brown would have won if he had called an election immediately he became Prime Minister to get a mandate. Then he had a real reason to go early. Waiting until October was already dithering.

I have started with Labour, rather than the Tories whom you are primarily analysing, becuase I am inclined to think that the Tory lead is largely negative in that it is a reaction to a Government that has run its course.

Firstly, Cameron is an adequate leader, but I am not sure he is a vote winner in himself. The popularity of Vince Cable’s temporary leadership of the Lib Dems I think showed that people are growing wise to young leaders selected on the basis of their image rather than experience and executive ability. But that does not mean they will prefer an inflexible older leader with experience of only one government office before becoming Prime Minister.

Secondly, people know little about Tory frontbenchers, even, or perhaps in particular, Osborne.

Thirdly, Tory policies seem to me confused, and I think they still seem to promise all things to all people. There is a fundamental conflict between repositioning for the Tories to give more emphasis (Disraeli style) to social cohesion with short-term tax-cutting Thatcher style. But Labour cannot exploit this as they suffer from the same problem.

As I don’t think the Tories are gaining for other reasons, I am forced back on thinking that they are keeping their act together while Labour suffers from external events and their own weaknesses.

I know your analysis was about the Tories, but it is significant that you do not give much consideration to the position of the Liberal democrats in the polls. They appear to be stagnating, and whilst it is early days Nick Clegg seems to meet a political situation that has passsed (see my comments above about Cameron’s image).

Perhaps Eirope is a possible challenge to the Tories position in the polls. They have managed to patch up their differences on the EU, but will have to deal with the issue of the European Constitu…sorry Treaty.. going through Parliament in the coming months. The alarming possibility is that if the Tories maintin their unity against Labour they may instead shed votes to minority parties further right, particularly if there are bye-elections. The introduction of a points based immigration system will also come into play here.

As in the last years of the Major Government, it may well be that the psephological scene is largely set until the next election. This site is largely about trying to predict what will influence the next General Election, but if this is in effect a done deal (a small Tory majority), questions arise as to what will happen then psephologically. A Cameron government, unlike Thatcher who benefitted from North Sea Oil, is likely to have a rough ride as the terms of the international economy move against the UK, and as the consequences of excessive Government borrowing by successive Governments come home to roost.

I have posted several times on this site about the Greens, and issues may well arise at the election after next about the Scottish National Party. It may be important which minor candidates build a position, perhaps a saved deposit is the criterion at the next election, from which they may win around 2015 when both Labour an the Tories have been sunk by economic adversity. I made the point during 2007 that the opinion polls could usefully improve their reporting of “Other” voting intentions.

But the major longer-term unforeseen must be about how the moderate left reacts if Labour is defeated. Labour activists had to put huge efforts into rebuilding three times in the twentieth century, from 1931-1945, 1951-1964 and 1979-1997. There must be a major issue about whether it would be worth doing this a fourth time, particularly as the party has largely lost its membership, particular trades union, base. I have just posted for the South Ribble Constituency, about a local party spun out of Labour, the Idle Toad Party. Perhaps we should be looking at the election results posted on this site to ask which consitituencies might swing to a new moderate left (”Guardian Tendency”?) party at the General Election after next. But to find out more about such long-term possibilities would require specifically designed attitude surveys rather than Opinion Polls in their standard forms.

The references to bad luck are nonsense. Bad luck for GB does not equate to bad luck for the Labour party, which is now seen as responsible for all events- even those outside its control.I suspect that even the removal of GB will not change public perception of a party that has lost authority.

A fair Analysis Anthony.

I find it amusing-and puzzling-that issues like Crime, Immigration, Personal Tax levels and Europe are being described as good for the Conservatives now .The first two are indeed at the top of public concern issues when Polls ask that question-ahead of things like NHS .

KTL describes Cameron’s policies in these areas as “resonating with the public”…and yet these were the very issues on which the Tories were castigated as “right wing” during the last three GEs.These were among the very issues with which Labour-successfully-branded the Conservatives as “living in the past”/”unreformed”/”Racist”/”Eurosceptic”/-”Toxic” & “Nasty” even!

So have the public suddenly become “right wing”?
Clearly not.

The fact is that these subjects have always been of genuine & legitimate concern for large sections of the public.Somehow though the Conservatives lost the credentials to talk about them-and Labour was allowed to be the sole arbiter of policy in these areas.The Conservatives were beyond the Pale.

It’s as though the message is less important than the messenger. The Tories were not to be listened to or trusted -even though the message was on target.
It is Cameron’s greatest achievement in my view that he has regained the Conservatives’ credentials to talk about these topics and thus be able to put Policies forward on them which Labour are forced to address in principle ( or as is increasingly the case-copy)-rather than dismiss as ” right wing ” etc.

How has he done this?-I think it includes things like language ( “demographic change” rather than “illegal immigrants”), Like concern about social breakdown ( IDS’ work on this is groundbreaking for the Conservative Party), like concern about Green Issues ( though I fear he will learn that Nuclear & Clean Coal rather than Wind Turbines are the only answer to the Energy Gap-and just as Carbon-Free).
Maybe it’s also that he doesn’t look and sound like an “old fasioned” Tory Grandee-which given his personal background is something of a feat.

It’s been a very strange process, but he must be relieved that he has got his Party back to where it can put forward Conservative solutions to public concerns without fear.

DaveB mentions the Wisconsin style Welfare Reforms . This will be yet another quagmire ( like immigration) where Cameron must tread carefully as well as purposefully. Peter Hain is ready with the downside of Wisconsin-horror stories of the effects of removal from state benefits .
But the public know there is a problem-that we have too many people who could work who are on long term benefit. This feeds into Immigration, Crime & Social Cohesion.
Labour will be ready with the cries of “Heartless Tories”-but if Cameron can devise policies which look fair he can retrieve yet another area for legitimate discussion by Conservatives.

The only thing that is Thatchrite about this government is that they have not re nationalized much if anything. Except maybe with the exception of Northern Rock. However they have been deliberately spending borrowing and wasting YOUR money and YOUR future as fast as they can trow it down the proverbial drain.

Our government in a conspiracy with the international banking system has created an unsustainable boom and we the people of the WORLD are now going to suffer the consequences BIG TIME. Stagflation is here for the first time in our lives, and here to stay. Get used to it, and take the appropriate actions NOW. Your quality of life and standards of living are going to now fall at a truly alarming rate. This, even if you manage to keep your job, which at least two million are not going to.

So all this speculation about what POLL results mean NOW, based on what you have picked up on the MSM and the BBC will not change one thing. This country and its currency has had its chips,as good as dead, no-more, demised. How many more ways do you want to here it before you all get the picture?

The BBC is not your friend it is your worse enemy. It may make you feel better to see that they are not panicking. But they did the same when bombs were falling on London. Lying disinformation and straight forward propaganda is the BBCs stocking trade, and they are well payed experts in their field.

The BBC and Gordon Brown has lead you to this place not me, and certainly not the last Conservative governments. If you voted for these fascist/communist/evil dishonest despotic maniacs you are responsible for destroying your children’s future. Who will be paying for your stupidity for the rest of their lives.

This is not a nice message but it is the truth just the same. Burying your heads in the sand will not help. Switch off your TVs, throw away your news papers, buy gold, and pray for salvation. Cameron cant help you now even if he wanted to, because no one can for a long while at least. It is as simple as that.

This might all just be my paranoid personal opinion. But it really is my most honest assessment based on years of experience business and political research. I could be wrong but I seriously do not believe I am. Never have I wished so much that I am talking nonsense, I have a wife and four children to consider. However these days ignorance is not only, not bliss, it could cost you your very lives.

An interesting, fair and insightful analysis there Anthony.

Just a couple of points:
“The Conservatives may be in a nice position now, but they came perilously close to destruction.”

I think that was entirely due to the temporary Brown Bounce, which I think was mostly brought about by the excitement of a new PM rather than ill-feeling towards David Cameron, whose prospects look far greater than those of his three predeceasors as Tory leader.

I still think the mere calling of an election could have unexpectedly swung the polls back to where they were before Brown became PM - a similar scenario to what happened in 1970 under Harold Wilson, when almost everyone thought he was going to win. After all, a landslide for Brown would have defied the political pendulum for the first time since the coming of universal suffrage.

Anthony Wells

Can I also state that your assessment of the current political position not withstanding my above comments is spot on. The best I have read anywhere, very well done indeed?

Seeing that most on here are certain on what will happen at the next election which could be many months away,any chance of letting me know the six numbers for Saturday?

The question which I find most interesting is whether there is a new limit for the Conservative party today in terms of potential vote share in comparison to previous years.

For example, in the period 1983-1992, it was clear that the limits of Tory support were 43-44%. The suspicion today is that maybe the best the Tories could hope for is nearer 40%. Whether this is true or not will be one of the most interesting questions over the next couple of years, because it could end up determining whether the Tories can win an overall majority, or will have to instead settle for being the largest party in a hung parliament, and therefore having to make a call to Nick Clegg.

The fact that Tory support in Scotland, Wales, and some cities such as Liverpool does seem to be permanently lower than 20-25 years ago does suggest that the Tories have forever lost 2-3 percentage points of support, but there is always the chance that they could make up for this with extra support in England, in places like suburban Essex for example.

Atlas - “even if you manage to keep your job,which at least 2 million are not going to”…would that figure not be well over 1 million less unemployed than when Thatcher was in power….or was that figure a conspiracy of the BBC aswell???

T Wright

I’m not defending the comments of Atlas but unemployment was never higher than 3M in the Thatcher years or even during the last Tory government years.
This was just Labour propaganda. Check the figures.

Whilst on the subject of unemployment figures one could say that unemployment is actually much higher than published today - its just that many people who previously would have claimed unemployment benefit now claim incapacity benefit instead. Look how the figures for that have gone up in the last 10 years

Thanks Anthony.

This year - 2008 - Will be tremendously important for David Cameron. This is the year that will decide, whether or not he makes that fundamental breakthrough that will ensure he goes on to secure a workable majority in 2010, IMO.
If the lead stretches out to about 43-45% at the local elections, then I think the Tories will be on course for a workable majority. The lead will become so great that even acounting for some sort of recovery in Labour fortunes, the Tories should still be in a position to get that proper majority.

If, by the end of 2008 we’re still seeing the Conservatives in the 38-41% vote share, then I think we’re heading for a very messy election and post election period. For Conservative supporters, they much hope Cameron can take that one last step once he sets out a coherant vision for the nation. For all of us political anoraks, I think we’d have more fun with a much closer general election and a messy election aftermarth.

According to the pre Brown polls, Brown was regarded more as an electoral liability and problem number one was that nobody in the Labour pp had the nerve/clout to stand against him. Problem number two imho was that the press seemed to regard Brown as the second coming, completely over the top coverage for Brown saving us all from floods, terrorism,and foot and mouth. Brown was pretending to be a smiley, likeable chap, one of us etc, having his hair done and his teeth fixed so he could smile long enough to have a quick election before everything went down the drain. Then the Tory conference, great speech by Cameron, great conference, and then, for some obscure reason, Brown decides to go to Iraq for a photocall in the middle of it and suddenly polls go berserk, Brown doesn’t dare risk losing his majority, and calls off the much expected and well-briefed election. Brown has been caught playing all the games Blair played without the finesse. I agree Mr Wells, that Brown is finished, and I strongly believe that Cameron will win the next election, simply because he intends to.

I accept that much of the turn around has been Labour’s doing rather than a great surge in desire to see a Tory Government. However I would like to make two points:

1. The tide of change.
Cameron cannot repeat the high octain optimism/enthusiasm seen in the run up to the Blair years, because of the disillusionment that followed. It does not mean he is not able to create a substantial lead. But it will not be accompanied by a similarly demonstrative wave of public feeling. Any tide will be much more suble but may still be as powerfully expressed in the ballot box [if not in song and cheering crowds].

2.Going back to the discussion on a previous thread, most people do not eat and drink politics [as we do] but get a sense of the man/the party. Is he a good guy etc? The British have had a taste for a ‘nice’ person since Margaret Thatcher but have not relinquished their desire that they be seen as strong [and in my view that still takes precidence-certainly with the Murdoch press]. Brown’s strength was his perceived strength. Cameron’s weakness, his perceived weakness. During and immediately after the Conference season, neither man performed to the script. It is hard not to conclude that the media saw a new side to both men and that has fed into public perceptions so far that the Labour now try to illicit sympathy for Brown and call Cameron a bully - something the Tories are fearful of giving credence to. It is a massive unforseen turn about…in terms of the ordinary non party political punter …and is the foundation for the change politcal mood. The delicate tight-rope walk between a nice guy and a strong leader that Blair walked before him, will not be easy for Cameron to maintain, after the cynisism brought about by fall of St Tony, but it is what needs to be done between now and the next election. The cautious British public need to get used to the idea of him being PM before the will vote for him. He became a real candidate in October. It will be a long job interview.

I always thought the Brown Bounce was phoney: William Hague’s wonderful comment seemed to me spot-on. But I think the conference showed that the Conservatives were united and that Cameron has steely courage, integrity, and good humour under fire. By bottling out of the Election Brown gave the impression of the opposite.

Anthony,

Looking at Scotland I think what has happened to the Tories reinforces your argument. in almost the past two years YouGov has had them between 15% and 19% and averaging 16%.

In effect they haven’t moved while Labour has gone from 45% to near 40%. That suggests that it’s more Labours loss than a Tory gain. It also means that the SNP, the main beneficiary of Labours fall, should like the Tories remember…… Memento Mori.

What is of real interest in Scotland is the fall of the LibDems, from near 20% at the last election to 11% now. with 12 of 59 MP’s it’s hard to see them maintaining 20% of MP’s on 11% of the vote under FPTP.

Peter.

its true that the Tories came perilously close to destruction, but the fact of the matter is that they avoided it themselves, not with the help of Labour gaffes. If they had come close to destruction only to be saved by a massive Labour blunder that the Tories played no part in, then it would be significant.

I don’t agree that the Conservatives came close to destruction.

As has been recognised here, their fortunes improved from their Conference & Cameron’s speech.

In that speech he told Brown to call “the” election.

If Brown had-that speech would still have been made, the other positives from the Conference would still have been reported by the Press-and instead of a two-year No Man’s Land , we would have had the intense activity & constant reportage of a General Election Campaign.

Who knows how that would have panned out? Why should the Conservative momentum not have increased? Why should some of the Labour gaffs still not been reported? Why should we not have seen Brown call the election only to find himself behind in the Polls?-and what would that have done to the Labour campaign-and critically to the Press reporting.

We will never know.

I think the “data loss” would certainly have been reported during the election campaign, and was possibly known about around the time of the “bottlewobble”. I also don’t think the eye-catching non-dom tax plans could have realistically been taken apart by Darling in time (though research is probably under way now to try and de-bunk the sums).

The “not flash, just Gordon” line (ie an end to “spin”) could have been a useful weapon, but is now exposed as silly. Presentation continues to matter - and realistically it is extremely stupid to eschew presentation skills - rather like a wannabe film star trying to get anywhere but deliberately choosing not to use an agent, like a party leader reading from autocue and obscuring his face from the audience with it…

The Tories never came perilously close to destruction last year they just went down to their 2005 levels and, as Sean points out above, the polls didn’t show them losing seats.

We just can’t say with any certainty what would have happened in a general election. It could have gone either way.

Firstly the market reaction could have been very different as parties reacted to the credit crunch. The focus of the election could for many people been “Will i lose my house next year”, and the choice between Brown or Cameron to guide the economy would have been a straight “Time for Change” v ” Now isn’t the time to take a risk”.

In that situation regardless of a good conference and even with data loss Brown could still have won, if enough people had still decided that like him or not Brown had the experience, and that young, likeable and dynamic as he seemed Cameron wasn’t worth the risk.

Initially the public reaction to the governments handling of NR was positive and if that had been the main theme of the election, Labour could still have won.

We just don’t know and for people to be sure that the Tories would have won on what effectively was a snapshot of opinion at the start of the election campaign is naive.

I am not saying labour would have won, but rather that we really don’t have enough information to make an accurate prediction.

Peter.

looking at some of these blogs there are labour supporters who are in total denial about the state of this country.
all good news for conservatives.

Andy Stillwell - Your comments are very interesting, and make for sensible reading. I think you may well be right, but even with a reduced level of support the Tories could still win a majority if there is sufficient apathy among Labour voters. We know that differential turnout badly affected Major in 1997, and I think a key issue will be how bothered Labour supporters are that Cameron might win - if they’re not too bothered and also not over he moon with Gordon then stay at home voters could be very significant. I think this is quite likely as I don’t believe there is a mass pro Cameron feeling, and after 2 years I don’t think there now will be.
Unlike our esteemed host however, I am very hesitant to write of Brown just yet - its far too soon for obituaries, and until we get clearer definition from both the Tories and LDs there is much still to play for.

I think that the Tory maximun level of support is indeed about 40%, and this is becuase they have lost ground permantently in places like Soctland and Northern cities, and to a lesser extent Wales. However, I think in the next election they may poll higher than they ever have in the South and East.

This means that Politics may be retruned once more to distinctly more regional swings, and governments may not be able to claim the broad base of support their predesecors were able to- their mandates may be based on clean sweeps in some regions and negligable support in others. All this is good for the SNP. If the Tories are but in power by the South, manifestly against the wishes of the Scottish people, and then go and noisily resolve the West Lothian question, perhaps indepdence may be closer than people think.

Andy Stidwell, I think we are finding that parties can win elections outright with progressively lower shares of the vote with each passing decade. If one goes back to the 1950s the two main parties needed to get somewhere between 47-49% to be sure of an overall majority.

It’s all due to the relative and inevitable rise of support for the smaller parties, which were all but negligible before the 1980s. Therefore, 40% or even less may well prove to be all Mr Cameron needs to become PM.

Alec :-

“I am very hesitant to write of Brown just yet -”

And me-he is a political bruiser I think and will do whatever it takes to win the next GE-no holds barred.
He seems to me also to be a very proud man and the spectre of emulating Callaghan must haunt him.

If he loses he will be only the second incumbent PM since 1945 who having taken power from an incumbent colleague, lost the first General Election he faced. If this happens at the latest date possible he will have lasted exactly as long as Callaghan-three years from taking over.

Since the war only three others have taken over from an incumbent PM-all three won their first GE-all three were Conservatives ( Eden, Macmillan & Major)I have no doubt that Gordon Brown intends to join this group in the History books rather than “Sunny Jim”

Colin

“And me-he is a political bruiser I think and will do whatever it takes to win the next GE-no holds barred.”

But how is he going to do it ? There is nothing but bad news economically on the horizon. Also Government Debt is so high he has no “warchest” for tax cuts or giveaways.

I agree with you that Brown is a proud man - that’s why he must really hate the regular hammerings he takes from Cameron at PMQs. I’m wondering if this alone will actually make him think, at some point, if PM is really the job for him.

KTL - A great deal will depend on the media narrative. At some point newsrooms will start to notice good news stories from areas like the NHS and elsewhere, and if Cameron gets his positioning wrong, which is at present all over the place [for example, in favour of local control but against all hospital closures, even when recommended by local medical panels, or telling us what a Tory government will make happen while stating there will be no government targets - incoherent] the Tories will come under some severe questioning. Philosophically the Tories are still totally undefined, largely as a result of being guided entirely by PR (’Heir to Blair’). With a declining economy and an unpopular government they could well get away with this. However, Neil Kinnock discovered that the closer you get to power the more pressing the media questions become, and at present the Tories are nowhere near robust enough to handle this as they themselves admit. I have doubts that they possess the idealogical mettle to ever manage this under Cameron. Blair was an exception - New Labour’s failings were largely unquestioned until well into their second term - this will simply not be the case with Cameron and things could rapidly unravel in the next 2 years. Don’t forget, the media doesn’t love Cameron like they loved Blair - Murdoch doesn’t rate him, (although that won’t stop him supporting him if he looks like he will win), but if there is any whiff that the Tories have stumbled I expect a dramatic media shift that would pose some real problems for the Tory high command. Labour knows only too well that the media can turn on a sixpence these days.

Slightly perversely, given that I am not a supporter of his, I actually think the Tories under David Davis would have been in a better long term position now. I think they would have more brand identity and a more solid platform from which to attack Labour failings and project a credible alternative. I still maintain the Tories backed the wrong man and are fighting the last election rather than the next one when more traditional Tory policies would expose Brown’s weaknesses and Labour’s lost opportunities. And this from someone who certainly doesn’t subscribe to traditional Tory values.

KTL

I think he will bring forward policy initiatives which are short term & populist.
He will try to mimic the Tory approach as much as possible.
In the past he has peddled the lie of “£20 Billion Tory Cuts to fund Tax reductions” whilst announcing a headline cut in Basic Rate himself ( which was funded by increasing tax on the lowest paid).
I heard him in The House accuse Conservatives of planning to ” Remove Benefit from people in wheelchairs”….Labour are now planning their own revised policy for Incapacity Benefit.

His Budgets were replete with sleight of hand and stealth features which the Press winkled out a couple of days after his performance at the Despatch Box.

He is a master at dissimulation-and he is in power so he has resources and levers which the Opposition cannot hope to match.

If the economic downturn becomes serious-ie significant house price falls and /or job losses then I agree -he will struggle. But short of that he can put up all sorts of smoke screens.

Re. PMQs I firmly believe that Cameron must now stop the “Bear Baiting” -he risks engendering a sympathy vote.Instead he must forensically question and expose Labour Policy outcomes-press for answers & insist on facts.Brown doesn’t cope with this at all well-he is better with the cudgel, so Cameron should use the scalpel.

No I don’t think he will ever acknowledge that the job is beyond him.Blair had that slightly theatrical air of devil may care -and I think he could happily have walked way from it all ( well he did in fact!-saying in the House “that’s it-the end”-brilliant )-but Brown has to win this next General Election or he is a pathetic footnote in the history of British Prime Ministers & that’s not what he wants at all.

Like Dracula I will not believe that this man is defeated until I see the stake through the heart.

Alec

I know we come at this from opposite directions so not much point in a line by line disagreement -but:-

“Murdoch doesn’t rate him, ( Cameron)”

If you read Irwin Stelzer
Murdoch’s “representative on earth”.in The Times or Guardian recently you will find a different view post Conference.

“Cameron …positioning wrong, which is at present all over the place ”

The example you quote -NHS-is I believe a poor one and misconstrued. The Tories have actually produced a NHS Green Paper.They have not said there will be “no targets”.There is nothing incompatible with more local bottom up clinical autonomy, and key area/in principle regulation from the Centre. The merger & closure programme has not received support from medical profesionals in every case-my own area for example. There is a question to be asked about the whole programme of “bigger is better”-be it in respect of hospitals,data bases, schools-or Government Departments-and Cameron is asking it.

Colin - you missed one out, Alec Douglas-Home.

The Tories certainly look as though they’ve lost support, for good, in Scotland, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and Sheffield. But, there are places where they’ve put on support, relative to th