ICM for The Guardian

From ConHome:

'Another good poll - but unfortunately it's not enough to confirm a new trend in our favour. We need to poll consistently above 40%, and Labour likewise 30% and below. Labour's ratings in this poll and the Yougov poll are very encouraging for us.

What is not consistent about the two polls is the support for the Lib Dems - 5% is a considerable discrepancy. In truth, we need the Lib Dems to poll closer to 16% to maximize our chances of winning. But with Labour polling under 30% anyway, 41% would actually be enough to win a general election, even with the Lib Dems at 2005 levels. But with so long to go until a GE (2010 surely), Labour cannot be written off and could quite easily regain support IF economic conditions have improved by then.'

The poll figures are:

Con 42
Lab 29
LD 21

UKE projections:

Con 352
Lab 223
LD 43

Con Maj 56

Two polls: one more excellent than the other

Some fabulous news for the Party today - a Yougov poll for the Sunday Times has the Conservatives 16% ahead of Labour. The figures are:

Con 43
Lab 27
LD 16

The other poll is for ICM:

Con 40
Lab 31
LD 20

Both polls are going in the right direction - it's a 4.5% swing with Yougov (Con +3, Lab -6) and 3% with ICM (Con +3, Lab -3, LD -1).

Such an enormous lead is quite out of the blue, what with Labour seeming to have closed the gap in recent weeks. It is, of course, entirely possible that the results of this poll might prove to be anomolous, but nevertheless - we might as well celebrate whilst we can!

The 16% story appears here on Times Online.

My ConHome post reads:

'The Yougov lead is astonishing, especially given Labour appear to have been making some sort of recovery over the last few weeks. 43/27/16 yields a majority of 118, according to UK Elect. I suspect that Labour's six-point shift may prove to be an exaggeration, but nevertheless, this is great news.

This sort of lead is reminiscent of leads shown in some Cameron/Brown polls taken before Tony Blair's departure. Maybe they weren't so fanciful after all...'

The point about the old Cameron/Brown polls is an important one - if Cameron can successfully show (subliminally) that Blair was a better PM than Brown is, the Tories might be on to a winner.

Latest Yougov Poll

Normally I wouldn't post on polls which I don't consider to be of great significance - and this Yougov poll is fairly unremarkable:

Con 40
Lab 33
LD 16

Forced choice (now):

Con 44
Lab 36

Forced choice (2005 election):

Lab 52
Con 35

The 'forced choice' figures are very encouraging, and show what enormous progress the Party has made since David became leader.

The telegraph's headline is 'Tories fail to profit from Brown misery'. This frustrates me. For 8 years we recorded poll ratings between the high twenties and low thirties. We failed to prove that we could change as a Party. David Cameron has been ahead for most of the time since December 2005 - and yes, consistent election-winning margins are not yet in the bag, but we must be patient.

I remember, during the IDS years, scouring the details of a poll to salvage anything remotely positive. Even a two-point defecit inspired a small nugget of hope: but realistically, the Party was going nowhere and was not going to even come close to winning.

Brown has, of course, had immense difficulties over the last few months. Northern Rock, lost data, PMQs performances, tax change flip-flops and the Peter Hain saga have all contributed to making this government look weak, inert and incompetent. The trouble is, to a large extent, politicians are now all tarred with the same brush. 'They're all incompetent' or 'they're all liars' are common complaints made by the general public with references to all politicians. Hence, the incompetence of the government does not necessarily lead to renewed faith in the Conservatives to show that they are a more capable alternative. It merely entrenches the feeling of doom in the current climate, and problems like party funding turn voters off even more. Indeed, New Labour is probably to blame for most of this disenchantment, but I don't believe the Tories can inspire people to vote on policies alone.

Cameron has recently sought to side with the public on the issue of confidence in the political system. At PMQs on Wednesday, he surprised Gordon Brown by asking him about televised debates, and public trust in the government on the issue of the Lisbon Treaty. Many commentators were puzzled by this line of questioning, but Guido's excellent blog on the subject may have hit the nail on the head. Read for yourself.

People should stop grumbling about the fact that we're not far enough ahead. I KNOW a margin of 7% won't win us the election but it WILL remove Labour's majority and it WOULD make us the largest single party in a hung parliament. I make no secret of the fact that I am in favour of a coalition with the Lib Dems if it ensures our return to power. Vince Cable, David Laws, Ed Davey and Clegg himself could all prove worthy proponents of Liberal Conservatism, which, after all, is Cameron's (and indeed my) brand of choice.

As for the electoral maths, the Tories have to be 9-10% ahead to be sure of an overall majority. According to UK Elect, the Conservatives would be 16 seats short of an overall majority with today's Yougov figures:

Con 308
Lab 282
LD 29
Oth 31

From the 'others' we should be able to count on the support of the DUP and the UUP, but that's only 11. The most significant remainders are Sinn Fein (5), SNP (5), and Plaid Cymru (4). We would have a majority of 8 with figures of 42/33/29 - WE ARE NOT FAR AWAY.

So I say to the Cameron doubters in the Telegraph: grow up! These polls must be put in context. To charge ahead with radical proposals now would be folly - it would simply be drowned out by the public's despair in the political system, and, moreover, the public's despair of the political classes. I am in favour of cutting tax, controls on immigration, tough policing and all the rest of it but the public will not accept our message until Westminster gets its act together on procedure, funding, declarations, and Mr. Speaker himself.

No single particular Party is out of touch: they all are, and it is their duty to show that MPs represent the entire electorate by becoming relevant to them.

Polls

ComRes - 41/30/17

An excellent poll at a critical time, when it looked like we were dipping below 40% and Labour was recovering. The Lib Dems are also not making very much progress.

London Mayor: Boris 44/Ken 39

This is truly excellent, and as posters on ComHome have pointed out, the London Mayoral Election result is hugely significant for the Party. I would even go as far to say that if Boris loses, it may ruin David Cameron's reputation - although electing Ken would obviously be far more calamitous for London than for the Party.

Also, Michael Portillo's television programme 'The Lady's Not for Spurning' is the best piece of political television I've seen for some time (although perhaps he needs to polish his MT impression a bit) - look out for classic Thatcher quotes like 'Take me to the battle!' at the 1976 Cambridge by-election.

Watch it on BBC iPlayer here

Cherry picking.....

Does anyone honestly believe that these twelve quotes accurately represent Cuban public opinion after half a century of one party rule? HMM. You decide.

New Zealand ODI Series Review

Right, cricket.

Shane Warne is right. England must stop making excuses if they're going to become a serious force in one-day international cricket. Peter Moores cannot stand there and sensibly say that, 'We've played on funny shaped rugby grounds with short edges where it has been difficult to play a spinner'. England seem to find it impossible to select a successful combination of bowlers in ODIs. Jimmy Anderson is all over the place at the moment, and doesn't seem to be able to acquire any consistency. Stuart Broad promises, but bangs it in short all too often. Ryan Sidebottom is the only consistent performer and his inclusion in the England setup is probably Peter Moores' most commendable achievement so far.

England did not learn enough this series - McCullum and Ryder continued on their merry way whilst England persisted in banging it in short. Anderson is the main problem, and as a Lancastrian, I take no pleasure in reprimanding him. His economy rate in the final game was 11.25, which, for a opening bowler (even in Twenty/20) is completely unacceptable. He looked clueless as to how to combat the aggressive batting of New Zealand's openers. Anderson, therefore, should be dropped. Broad's place in the side is also questionable.

Off-spinner Swann impressed in New Zealand but hasn't really been given the chance to bowl ten overs since - he should be a fixture in the side no matter what the pitch or overhead conditions are. A spinner is necessary to maintain control in overs 20-40, along with Collingwood's medium pace, and perhaps some overs from Owais Shah and/or Luke Wright. Dimitri Mascarenhas should be bowling ten overs, and why Paul Collingwood hasn't been allowing him to do so is a mystery.

The batting has shown occasional brilliance, but again, England are unable to learn lessons. It seems that when faced with a slow pitch, English batsmen still cannot adapt their strokeplay to the conditions. One might have thought that we have endured enough humiliation on the subcontinent to know about this. As for the opening partnership, Alastair Cook has to go. He is an excellent test prospect, but he is no one-day player, and, perhaps similarly to Michael Vaughan, he doesn't look like he has the power or ingenuity to post large scores. Phil Mustard has only made one substantial score, but England cannot afford to discard him so soon and re-open the travelling circus which is the debate over English wicket-keeping. We will have to make do with what we have. We do not have an Adam Gilchrist or a Kumar Sangakarra.

So, it now comes down to selection. Who should be kept in the ODI squad?

Mustard - low scores but shows promise
Bell - how shown ability to adapt but needs to convert more 50s
Pietersen - not in the best of form, perhaps, but it would be madness to drop him
Collingwood - is best in the team at adapting to conditions, and is the captain
Shah - too good a batsmen for no. 6 and isn't given enough of a chance to score
Wright - has scored useful big-hitting runs down the order and should bowl more
Mascarenhas - big hitter and canny bowler, he must stay and bowl more
Broad - strike rate is good but he's expensive. Should probably stay for now.
Sidebottom - England's best bowler and should be a permanent fixture

Dropped: Cook, Anderson

Others:
Bopara - not included this series and as looked all at sea recently
Tredwell - should have been given a game, otherwise, what's the point?
Ambrose - an excellent keeper, but seen as the test selection
Tremlett - he isn't Steve Harmison. Friendly bounce, expensive.

Suggested batting order:

Wright
Mustard
Bell
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Mascarenhas
Swann
Broad
Sidebottom
[mystery fast bowler]

Bowling:

Sidebottom: 10
[mystery fast bowler]: 10
Broad: be prepared for only 5, but it should be 10
Swann: 10
Mascarenhas: 10 if Broad's wayward
Collingwood/Wright/Shah/Pietersen: 5

Hegemony and Economic Consensus

In postwar British politics, there existed one long period of consensus, and there currently exists another - the former being the 'Butskellite' consensus, and, currently, the market economy consensus, created by Margaret Thatcher.

Butskellism involved agreement between Labour and the Conservatives that governments should employ Keynesian economic policies, maintain full employment, increase public service spending and spend its way out of inflation. After the assembly of the welfare state by Labour between 1945 and 1951, Conservatives, under Churchill, were forced to accept the new order and reject the old laissez-faire attitudes of the 1930s. It appeared that post-war conditions required a larger and more interventionist state, to help reconstruct the nation after the Second World War. This idea persisted, largely unchallenged, until 1979, although some on the right (Enoch Powell, Arthur Seldon, etc) knew that this approach could not last forever, without dangerous consequences. The toxic combination of trade union power and poor control of public spending caused devaluation of the pound, rampant inflation and unemployment.

The Thatcher Years caused the Labour Party to think differently. Failures at the ballot box on four successive occasions forced those on the centre-left to revise their obselete economic policy, and accept what the Conservative Party had created: a dynamic, lower-taxing, lower-spending market economy with democratic trade unions and widespread ownership of shares.

Under Blair, Labour rescinded its commitment to public ownership and its 1997 manifesto declared that they would stick to Conservative spending plans for the first three years of its government, to attempt to prove to the public that its stewardship of the economy would be sound.

Labour has increased taxes at least 100 times since 1997. It has poured billions into the NHS, education, the New Deal and countless failed IT projects and bureaucracies. It has transformed the UK's 1997 budget surplus into a defecit; a defecit which now gives the Chancellor no room for manouevre in the current climate. Taxpayers' money has been treated with a reprehensible arrogance, which is synominous with New Labour's attitude across the board.

Labour seeks to create another consensus. It is, in essence, a market economy shackled by high and wasteful government spending and interference, one that is uncompetitive, and completely unsuitable for the twenty-first century. The political power afforded to New Labour at the ballot box has come at a high price, both figuratively and literally. Their politics has been cynical throughout, attempting to portray the Conservative Party as an irrelevance, our policies as incoherent and, worst of all, paradoxically, attempting to simultaneously demolish the record of the 1979-97 governments and yet claim their legacy for themselves.

The Conservatives must not accept Labour's spending plans at the next election, when we are elected to government. I would rather we endured another 11 years in opposition than were prepared to abide by such thriftless and reckless policy. We are not a Party of big government and not even a century in opposition should change our minds. After all, we were right in 1979 and we are still right now. Labour must not succeed in binding the hands of future generations when it comes to formulating policy for a successful UK economy. Conservatives must cut tax, and spend effeciently. Whilst I appreciate that the electorate must be convinced of our economic competence, in the same way that Labour had to make the case before the 1997 election, there is now a growing appetite for tax cuts and deregulation. Brown's cavalier spending is beginning to cause damage. Those who need to renew fixed-rate mortgages this year may discover this, to their cost.

We must be bold and united in putting forward the case for lower tax and smaller government. We must not succumb to the idea that public spending is somehow untouchable. It would be a betrayal of Conservatism, Thatcherism, and most importantly, the British people. If government has to tax at all, it has to spend the proceeds wisely and fairly. Labour have failed to do this and have squandered their years of economic and political plenty, and will be punished at the next election.