Can Cameron now go on to win outright?

I was very impressed by DC in last night’s debate. He finally took the opportunity to be clear and concise about policy, whilst making the audience aware of the inadequacies of the Lib Dems’ proposals. He shone most on immigration.

There was the feeling, I think, that DC didn’t need to attack Gordon – Gordon is attacking himself just fine. He didn’t need help, and, who knows, maybe there is further mayhem to come for the Prime Minister on the streets of Britain.

The media narrative is incredibly important. Everyone (even the Guardian) appears to acknowledge that David Cameron won the debate convincingly. YouGov’s final poll was especially encouraging.

Can DC now go on to win? Let’s take a gander at some numbers:

CON 33-36%

LD 26-31%

LAB 25-29%

These are rough guides to the parties’ current poll numbers. There’s no way the Tories can win a majority if those figures were translated into seats. But what about taking the extremes from those figures, say Con 36 LD 26 Lab 35? UK Elect (with tactical unwind) says:

Con Short by 1

Very close to an overall majority, then. Now, that’s all very well, but these figures assume several things:

• Quite a few converted Lib Dems don’t turn up to vote
• Labour do worse than predicted
• Tories spread their vote more effectively
• The Lib Dems gain seats predominantly from Labour – Tories lose a couple in the South West
• The Lab->Con swing is larger in the marginals, especially in the Midlands and North.

Will these things happen on election night? Who knows – but, if the Tories can increase their share of the vote by 2-3% in the aftermath of the debate, Cameron can be more certain of gaining power without having to ask the Lib Dems for help. It should be noted that the Lib Dems can stay on 30% and the Tories can win only 6-7 points ahead. Figures such as Con 37 LD 30 Lab 25 do yield a Conservative majority, albeit a slim one.

I strongly feel that Labour is likely to do worse than suggested – don’t forget that most pollsters have still not accounted for so-called ‘tactical unwind’ – the electorate is no longer voting tactically in Labour’s favour: quite the reverse. The question is, will voters vote tactically in the Conservatives’ favour, or vote Lib Dem as a protest because they believe they can win. If people vote Lib Dem en masse across the country in this way, quite a few Labour and Conservative seats could fall.

STV: A Study

As a Conservative supporter, I am deeply worried about the consequences of a coalition government and the inevitable ensuing clamour for a change in the electoral system.

Make no mistake: First Past the Post (FPtP from now on) is by no means perfect, but it allows the electorate to send a strong message to the government but simultaneously does not offer fringe parties support, which, in my view, they simply do not warrant. In Britain, it has produced an exceptionally stable conveyor belt of governments since 1945, all of which, with the exception of the February 1974 government (and eventually the October ‘74 and the 1992 governments), had overall majorities. One can argue the merits of these governments’ policies at length, but one surely cannot dispute that each of these governments was the preferred choice of the majority of those who cast their vote; and, in all probability, the choice of the majority of those who chose not to.

With the Lib Dems flying (dangerously) high in the polls, hovering around 30%, all bets are off as far as projections are concerned. Using a Uniform National Swing (UNS) to calculate changes in seats is a complete waste of time. It is exceptionally difficult to know if the Lib Dems’ support is evenly spread: if their new support originated primarily from young voters, there is a good chance that much of it is concentrated in university seats, for example.

If, on the other hand, their vote is increasing across the country, they stand a greater chance of doing more damage to the two main parties’ prospects. Labour will fear that the Lib Dems will make progress in their heartlands – the most recent PoliticsHome/YouGov regional poll indicates that the Lib Dems are polling 35% in the North East of England, up 12 points on the 2005 election. The Tories will fear that the Lib Dems will poll well in suburban and small town seats in the North and East Midlands, which is where the election will be won and lost.

It is simply not good enough for the Tories to think that if there is a Lab->Lib Dem swing, they will ‘slide through the middle’. The Lib Dems may be in third place in many seats which the Tories need to win, but their vote is nowhere near as derisory as it was in the past. A Labour->Lib Dem swing starves the Conservatives of the extra votes they need and may allow the Lib Dems to win swathes of seats, some of them from third place.

So, in the event of a hung parliament, which now looks extremely likely, barring exceptional events, the Lib Dems’ demand for a more proportional voting system may be irresistible. It is my task to explore the outcome of an election conducted under the Single Transferable Vote system: the least popular candidates’ votes are transferred, round by round, to the candidates placed higher. The candidates who claims the most accumulated votes wins.

My forecasting software, UK Elect 6.4, will only allow me to forecast an election using a ‘Two Round’ system. This means that parties polling less than the party placed 3rd will have their vote transferred without any detail. Whilst imperfect, this system does allow us to gain a rough idea of what might happen under STV.

Let’s take the 2005 election first:

Original result (old boundaries):

Lab  35.0%, 355 seats, 55.0% of total seats

Con 32.4%, 198 seats, 30.7% of total seats

LD 22.0%, 62 seats , 9.6% of total seats

Result: Lab Maj 66

Result using STV (old boundaries):

Lab 35.0%, 356 seats, 55.1% of total seats

Con 32.4%, 171 seats, 26.5% of total seats

LD 22.0%, 86 seats, 13.3% of total seats

Result: Lab Maj 68

From these figures we can see that the Lib Dems might have won 26 more seats under STV than FPtP in a 2005 election scenario. But what about the latest voting intention?

Possible 2010 result based on PoliticsHome/YouGov regional data (data entered on a regional basis, not UNS)

Con 33%, 276 seats, 42.5% of total seats

LD 30%, 106 seats, 16.3% of total seats

Lab 28%, 235 seats, 36.2% of total seats

Result: Con Short by 48

Same data using STV (final round):

Con 33%, 196 seats, 30.2% of total seats

LD 30%, 161 seats, 24.8% of total seats

Lab 28%, 260 seats, 40.2% of total seats

Result: Lab Short by 64

As we can see from this STV projection, Labour gain a very large number of seats because it is assumed that most Lib Dem voters would have Labour as a second preference. Whether or this is the case or not in this election remains to be seen – Labour look set to have their number of seats reduced dramatically, perhaps to under 200 under FPtP.

As a Conservative, I am horrified that Labour might continue to govern with the support of the Lib Dems. If Lib Dem voters are voting on an anti-politics basis, I doubt very much that they would choose Labour to be their second choice in an STV scenario. In a different climate, I have no doubt that such a system would make it extremely difficult for the Tories to win outright.

It’s interesting to explore how far ahead the Tories would need to be under an STV system to win outright. Let’s take the figures from the 1992 general election: Con 41.9%, Lab 34.4%, LD 17.8%.

Result:

Con 275 (42.3% of total seats)

Lab 282 (43.4% of total seats)

LD 60 (9.2% of total seats)

Result: Lab Short by 42 (1992 FPtP Result: Con Maj 21)

Once again, the Tories are punished in seats where they do not outpoll the sum of Labour and Lib Dem votes.

What about the 1983 general election figures? Con 42.4%, Lab 27.6%, LD 25.4%.

Result:

Con 309 (47.5% of total seats)

Lab 212 (32.6% of total seats)

LD 95 (14.6% of total seats)

Result: Con Short by 15 (1983 FPtP Result: Con Maj 144)

As we can see, even with 14.8 point lead, the Tories still cannot win outright under STV, starting from their current base. With figures of Con 44%, Lab 27%, LD 25%, they would scrape home with a majority of 8 with a 17-point lead. As I have shown, Labour can be only 3 points ahead and win an outright majority with STV because of assumed Lib Dem second choice votes.

And what of the Lib Dem position? Well, they certainly do an awful lot better under STV, because they take a lot of Conservative second choice votes in places where Labour can’t win, but this is by no means a perfectly proportional system, and it still under-represents their vote. It does, however, retain the constituency MP, which, if removed under pure PR, would surely not be a popular choice in the current climate.

Labour – United in Defeat?

Many months ago, I raised the prospect that, in the event of a large Conservative majority after the next election, Labour might struggle to continue as a unified political entity.

These thoughts have been speculatively confirmed by Paddy Ashdown, who, in an interview with the Telegraph (not available online it seems), indicates that up to a dozen Labour MPs are unhappy with the direction of the Party and want to jump ship to the Liberal Democrats.

This would come as little surprise. In 1994, New Labour distanced itself from the left – the abolition of Clause 4, promotion of a market economy, and the seduction of big business, to name but three methods by which it achieved this. It appears, that after the 2009 Budget (perhaps even before) that New Labour is well and truly dead. No political party which is serious about wealth creation can think that to take over half the income of a successful businessman or entrepreneur is a viable policy. No government which swore by fiscal prudence could allow debt to spiral so inexorably upwards that its repayment would burden future taxpayers for over 20 years.

Yet that is precisely what New Labour allowed to happen. New Labour was a lie, an illogical collision of contradictory political doctrines, and now it is seen to have failed, Labour has nowhere else left to turn – for they know, and it was proved on three occasions, that they cannot persuade a fundamentally market-driven electorate that socialism is a viable alternative. ‘Ah yes’, some left-inclined commentators might say, ‘but the game has fundamentally changed. Gone is the greed and arrogance of market capitalism. The state must now step in to guard against the reckless excess of the market.’ Nonsense. The game has not changed. The British people are not about to perform a swift U-turn in the direction of Attlee and Wilson. People will still want things, people will still want more money and want to make more money. Socialists believe that much of an individual's income is best spent by the state on the greater good. The British public have not agreed with this principle for some time.

This is why Labour could face a much more uncertain future than the Conservatives did in 1997. Conservatism has shown it can adapt, through Churchill, to Macmillan, then Thatcher and now Cameron. It had appeared as if New Labour had moved the goalposts for the Conservatives. Now the economy is in ruins, it appears that David Cameron will now have to emulate the 1979 victor, not the former member for Sedgefield.

New Labour diehards like Charles Clarke, Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers have no future in this Labour Party. The more marginal seats which were won for the first time in 1997 will be lost, and those MPs who owed Tony Blair their jobs in parliament will receive their P45s. New Labour-minded MPs will be in the minority in a 2010-2014/5 Labour opposition. They will have no place in a Party dominated by those MPs whose seats were too safe to fall to the Tories – mainly the left.

There are two main options: firstly, a SDP-style split of the Labour Party, which risks leaving a Labour rump completely unelectable for the foreseeable future, and a fourth-place political party in a FPTP system which has no chance of gaining any influence; alternatively, some New Labour MPs may hold their noses and cross the floor to join the Liberal Democrats. This could leave the two main opposition parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, with similar representation in parliament, and, psephologically at least, it would be a more logical move. It would probably also cause a substantial increase in the Lib Dem vote. Look at where Labour are now – 26-27% – and you realise quite how little support is commanded by the left of the Party in the country.

Both scenarios may hand the Conservatives the keys to Downing Street for a considerable period of time. It is critical that we do what we believe is right for the country, not what we believe will win us the next election. That is real politics – not New Labour’s shameless opportunism. We will need courage, leadership and a great deal of luck; and we will, as we did in the 1980s, prove to the electorate that our approach is the right one, not the profligacy and incompetence of Labour.

Why Labour can still win – but not how

Many commentators have chosen this moment to sound the death knell for the Labour Party’s electoral prospects. A dismal budget, a smears scandal inside Number Ten, expenses scandals, a truly dire economic situation have all combined to create a truly hellish few weeks for the government.

Luckily for the Tories, and ICM poll which showed them only 10 points ahead has probably been proved to have been a rogue. YouGov’s poll for the Telegraph this morning shows a very healthy 18-point lead – confirming similar data from BPIX (methodology aside) and Marketing Sciences (sister to ICM). Anthony Wells’ UK Polling Report General Election Projection (AWUKPRGEP if you prefer) now stands at a Conservative majority of 102.

Despite these poll leads and the seemingly unstoppable torrent of awful headlines, many Conservative supporters like me will only believe the victory is in the bag on election night itself – likely to be June 4th, 2010. We could be 50 points ahead at the moment and I would still not deny that Labour have the ability to surge once again. The 1992 election proves that an incumbent government can win with 3 million unemployed. The major difference on this occasion, I feel, is that it appears that the public have more faith in David Cameron and George Osborne to sort the economy out than they did in Neil Kinnock and John Smith. I am hopeful, however, that the next election has more in common with 1979 than 1992.

There are a few reasons why it’s still possible Labour will win:

• The FPTP system is biased towards parties whose vote is more evenly spread across constituencies. The Tories rack up huge majorities in safe seats where they are effectively ‘wasted’
• Hence, in connection with the last point, the Tories still need to be around 9 or 10 points ahead to enjoy an overall majority, and need to achieve a very large swing across the country
• The Tories need to deal effectively with the Lib Dems, in particular weaker LD incumbents, otherwise safer Labour seats need to fall in order to provide an overall majority – an expanding Lib Dem parliamentary Party has greatly assisted Labour
• The expenses row will reach a peak in the summer, when all MPs’ claims are published. We do not yet know if this will take an equal toll on the Tories and Labour. Could the Lib Dems benefit?
• Will the economy be as dire as we think it is? Well, to be honest, probably, yes. But who knows? A few encouraging figures here and there and maybe, just maybe, Brown and Darling can emerge as architects of a recovery.
• I don’t believe voters in suburban seats are yet convinced that the Conservatives are a better alternative to Labour. There are countless seats in the north of England which the Tories simply must win to form an overall majority.

However, as I allude to in the title, the above are all reasons why Labour can win the next election. I am at a total loss as to how they can win.

Lib Dems back down to earth with ICM

Con 42 (+2)

Lab 30 (+2)

LD 18 (-4)

Not a lot to say here, other than the Tory number is heading in the right direction, Labour appear not to be crashing into the twenties as they did last year, and the Lib Dems’ 22% appears to have been anomalous. We’ll have to wait for March’s poll selection to see if the Tories increase their lead. I doubt any further Ashcroft coverage would do them any favours.

The Polls – Running Average

This is a test I’m doing using Google Docs to see if I can satisfactorily embed my Polls spreadsheet into the blog. It’s certainly a better result than Scribd, which refuses to publish it in landscape mode. I am not, however, satisfied by the lack of dates on the x axis – it starts in May 2005 and runs to Feb 2009.

Polls Latest

A quick update, taking all February polls so far into account. Word from Anthony Wells is that we’ll be hearing from ICM this evening. It will be interesting to see if they confirm their previous Lib Dem increase of six points, and how far ahead the Tories are. At the moment, there is a large margin of eight points between the best poll for the Tories (MORI) and this one. Will the Tory number increase?

Welcome back to a 20-point lead (and other boasts)

MORI suggested earlier this week that the Tories might be returning to the sort of poll leads they enjoyed in the Summer of 2008, although one poll on its own is, of course, not enough.

Con 48 (+4)
Lab 28 (-2)
LD 17 (-)

CON MAJ >150 (silly nonsense, utmost conjecture and very unlikely to happen - 'CON GAIN BOLSOVER', etc)

It doesn't appear that MORI's respondents agree that the LibDems' position is improving either.

It also appears that Labour may be entering another hilarious phase of internal mucking about, as several newspapers are reporting that Harriet Harman might be positioning herself to become the next leader of the Labour Party, with further chatter than she might team up with John Cruddas to form a so-called 'dream ticket' for the lefties, silly lefties, ultra sillies and completely deluded neo-Marxist ultra statist 1983ites, oh, and the unions. Such a team would only be a dream for the Tories. It's inevitable that an internal debate must ensue in the Labour Party after New Labour has, in the eyes of most, been shown to fail - but as Charles Clarke has often warned, Labour must debate how to take votes off the Tories, not how best (or indeed worst) retreat into idealistic and prejudiced leftwingdom, which so dogged its electoral performance in the 1980s.

Many see James Purnell and Alan Johnson as a future Labour leaders. I would suggest that a pairing of those two might save Labour from its most potent threat - a return to its core beliefs. Such a duo may, however, threaten Labour with terrible factionalism, or worse still, a complete split. This scenario would probably consign them to electoral oblivion. So - excellent.

It may be that Labour will do as badly in 2010 as they did in 1983. If they do, however, it will not be because voters wanted a left wing alternative. It will be because they are sick and tired of a government that thought it could do everything, and suddenly found out everything that it thought it had done, had amounted to nothing.

Lib Dems up to 22% with ICM?

Don’t forget one of Mike Smithson’s golden rules – a rogue poll is one where you don’t agree with the numbers!

Con 40 –4

Lab 28 –4

LD 22 +6

I certainly don’t agree with these. What have the Lib Dems done to deserve an extra six points? With the exception of The Cable, they’ve been largely out of the media spotlight since economic woe took over last autumn, crushed by the might of the other two parties. We shall see if other polls confirm this odd trend, not forgetting, of course, that ICM is the pollster which tends to give the best Lib Dem scores. YouGov, MORI, Populus and Comres would have to show 4-6 point jump in the Lib Dem score for this not to be a rogue in my opinion.

Ukelect yields:

Con 329 +116

Lab 235 -112

LD 55 –5

Con maj 10

The Tory figure of just 40% is quite disappointing, but seeing Labour return to the twenties is a pleasure indeed.

This Age of Offense

I’ve been brewing a post on this topic for a day or two now, after the recent mini-scandals involving Thatch junior and Clarkson.

It seems to me that the centre-left consensus of the past decade has conspired to create a nation of hypersensitive types, who feel unable to accommodate any sort of offense, either in seriousness or in jest. It’s part of the culture of the apology, of compensation, political correctness, of fault assignment and blame management. I’m sure the leftist bureaucracy can fully approve those terms, and there are probably about 10,000 people employed in such positions in the NHS - ‘blame management consultant’, or ‘fault assignment coordinator’.

Some might know that I possess a fairly offensive sense of humour myself, and I don’t shy away from joking about supposedly taboo subject matter – race, religion, terrorism, etc. What infuriates me most is that supposedly near-the-knuckle comedienne Jo Brand was present during the Thatch junior ‘golliwogate’ (that’s g******gate for the lily-livered) and is rumoured to have found Thatch’s quip unacceptably offensive. What wholesale hypocrisy from this woman. I have seen plenty of Brand on television, both on stage and on shows such as QI and Have I Got News For You, and she is capable of causing far more offense to a much wider audience than Carol Thatcher.

Now, had Carol Thatcher not been joking about golliwogs, and had actually been systematically banding about colonial-era racist terminology in an effort to offend, then I might have sympathy with the BBC’s actions. But it was a joke, for fuck’s sake! Is there now a BBC humour code which excludes sensitive subject matter? Because if that were the case, we’d still be watching The Good Life, early episodes of The Goodies, and similarly inoffensive and tepid material. I’m not saying these comedies aren’t funny because they’re not offensive – that would be very childish. I’m just observing that near-the-knuckle humour makes people laugh. That includes jokes about race – because it’s risqué, precisely because it appears to risk offending people. Whether it’s the old pun about ‘entering a horse at the Grand National’ or the late Humphrey Lyttelton’s frequent, outrageous, and pre-watershed observations about Samantha’s lifestyle on I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue, this sort of humour has a long established tradition on the BBC, and its recent actions suggest it’s following a very dangerous path indeed.

Now, on to Clarkson. I am an enormous Top Gear fan – I am counting down the days to a new series, and watching the old ones again and again on Dave. Sure, I often find Jeremy’s surprisingly childish and dismissive attitude a little frustrating, but that’s always counterbalanced by the tremendous amusement caused by him consistently buying the worst car in a Cheap Cars Challenge. I would like to take this opportunity to examine Jeremy’s comments about Gordon Brown during his time in Australia doing Top Gear Live. He referred to the Prime Minister as:

‘a one-eyed Scottish idiot’

So, let’s examine those words one by one:

a: the indefinite article

one-eyed: well this could mean that the Prime Minister has literally only one eye, in the middle of this face. According to recent television footage, this clearly isn’t the case. The Prime Minister is, however, blind in one eye. Is this wildly offensive? Not really – it’s crass and insensitive – and I’m sure Gordon is thick-skinned enough to take it.

Scottish: it is unarguably the case that Gordon Brown is indeed Scottish. Why is this more insulting than if he were British? Surely ‘British idiot’ bears the same insult value as ‘Scottish idiot’? What about ‘Welsh idiot’? No sniggering at the back. How about ‘golliwog idiot’? Smarting yet, lefties?

idiot: well this is obviously down to one’s own opinion, but taking into account Gordon’s track record as Shadow Chancellor, Chancellor, and Prime Minister, I come to the conclusion that yes, he probably is. If your name’s Derek and you spend your time adding all of Iain Dale’s followers to your Twitter feed, recent emails and deluded rants provide evidence that you might disagree with this view.

Taken as one phrase then, one-eyed Scottish idiot doesn’t appear to cause enormous offense – it’s a combination of unavoidable fact (one-eyed, Scottish) and opinion (idiot). If you find this hugely offensive, you’re a c**t of the highest order. 

In other news: 9/11 – yes or no? Diana: was the car made of marzipan? Religion – is it all a load of old bollocks? Race – was Hitler right?

Christmas Tories (courtesy of Smamms)

Send your own ElfYourself eCards

The Polls. Uh oh…

There’s not a whole lot of good polling news for the Tories at the moment. Comres, Populus, and, as of today, ICM put us below 40%. As I have pointed out before, the Tories are very unlikely to win an overall majority with less than 40% of the popular vote, due to the inherent bias in favour of Labour, whose vote is more evenly spread in the FPTP system.

My uniquely biased Conservative polling average currently stands at Con 39.5/Lab 35.5/LD 14.25 and using UK Elect, this yields:

Lab 311 (-36)

Con 285 (+72)

LD 25 (-35)

Others 29 (-1)

Lab short by 13

We must constantly be reminded of how far ahead we must be in order to win, and also how quickly a 20-point lead can disappear.

I am still unsure, based on better Labour polling figures, whether or not Gordon will go to the country in early to mid-2009. I am also unclear as to if we would be able to win such an election. We have not yet been able to convince the electorate of the government’s fiscal recklessness – nor, do I believe, are people convinced that Gordon Brown’s chancellorship is one of the major causes of the current crisis. It is highly likely that the electorate would vote substantially against Labour in the latter stages of the recession, and when the inevitable tax rises come along. As we now enter (probably) the worst phase of the downturn, however, many people feel obliged to trust Labour to sort things out. The Conservatives are at a natural disadvantage anyway, as they are not able to be seen to be doing things. Gordon can stalk around claiming to have saved the world, and that everybody agrees with his approach – bar a carefully selected German few – whilst good old David Cameron is pretty much stuck with motherhood and apple pie along with a bit of anti-borrowing rhetoric. Unfortunately, credible though the cause is, such an approach is inadequate at this stage.

In January, it is highly likely that DC will carry out a fairly extensive shadow cabinet reshuffle, with Ken Clarke strongly tipped to return to frontline politics. I am a Clarke fan, and no matter what Tim Montgomerie says, I believe that he is a popular figure who can provide immense gravitas and experience, especially with such a poor economic backdrop. The favourites to leave are Duncan, Villiers, and Ainsworth – Peter has had enough chances in the shadow cabinet now, and should return to the backbenches. Villiers has been weak at transport, despite her bold opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. Alan Duncan seems to me not to be serious enough about high office, and lacks the necessary firepower to deal with Lord M. Clarke for Shadow Business? I hope so. I would also like to see Michael Fallon and David Davis return. We shall see. Apparently Dominic Grieve is safe where he is, but of his two current jobs, there may be a vacancy at Shadow Attorney General which could be ably occupied by a senior figure in the Party. This could provide David Davis with a stepping stone to higher things. He deserves another opportunity to become Home Secretary in a Conservative government.

On India’s Victory (Cricket)

Nobody can deny that India’s performance in the last four sessions of this test match was exceptional. Their batsmen batted with great style and confidence. They were not, however, put under nearly enough pressure. This was mainly down to two things: Pietersen’s field placings appeared to be somewhat wooden in the circumstances. Off-spinner Swann was constantly worked through the leg-side for easy singles and twos; secondly, Anderson and Harmison bowled too wide and too short. It is critical that bowlers land the ball on a fuller length in India, and bowl consistently at or slightly outside off stump. Sehwag’s astonishingly innings was allowed to get underway quickly due to the bowling being deficient in this way.

It is a great shame that the margin of India’s victory shows little of what character England displayed for the majority of the match. Strauss played excellently in both innings. Collingwood showed us, once again, that he’s able to put a patch of dire form behind him and battle his way to a commendable hundred. Flintoff’s bowling was consistently of a high standard, always challenging the batsmen outside the off stump. Graeme Swann’s debut was certainly distinguished – and had he had better luck in India’s final innings, he might have picked up more wickets. The trouble is, England constantly failed to create pressure by bowling maidens. The pressure applied by a good 4 or 5-over spell from Flintoff or Swann was always squandered by the bowler at the other end, be that Anderson, Harmison, or Panesar, whose bowling appeared to be seriously off-colour.

Panesar appears to struggle to change his bowling speed and flight – he has been mechanical and utterly predictable in this test, with Swann getting far more turn that he did. He must learn that these Indian wickets will respond far more favourably to cannier deliveries which are tossed up and delivered above the batsman’s eyeline. Monty seems to be unable to drop below 55 mph, and his bowling trajectory is, all too often, far too flat.

It might seem a ludicrous suggestion, but I’d be tempted to drop Panesar for the final test in favour of Adil Rashid. Rashid brings better batting and fielding, and the mystery of a wrist spinner. His googly is far better than once it was. In combination with Swann, they should prove a greater threat to India. Of course, one has to allow for the leg spinner’s occasional bad deliveries, but this is to be expected of a debutant. Rashid is highly talented and is a great prospect for the future, and if Panesar isn’t careful, his lack of variation may prove his downfall. Quality English wrist spinners are few and far between, and I have no doubt that Rashid will prove to be a far better pick than wrist spinners of the past – Salisbury, Schofield, et al.

So, in summary:

Strauss – 9/10. An excellent game and more performances like this will make him a permanent fixture in the England team.

Cook – 4/10. No scores in this game, but got a devil of a delivery from Ishant in the second innings.

Bell – 3/10. Looks a bit out of sorts at the minute. His fluent style of batting may not be suited to these conditions.

Pietersen – 3/10, captaincy 5/10. He suffers from a bizarre inability to play Yuvraj’s tepid left-arm spin. His captaincy is fine when things are going well, but he lacked imagination in the final innings, which, perhaps might have been better handled by his predecessor.

Collingwood – 8/10. He was unlucky to be dismissed without hitting the ball in the first innings, but his second innings was a triumph of grit and substance.

Flintoff – 7/10. His bowling is still excellent, but, as ever, his batting lacks finesse and concentration.

Prior – 8/10. An excellent game for Prior, both with the gloves and with the bat. Unbeaten fifties such as that in the first innings will go a long way to convincing England’s selectors that he’s the long-term option for the team.

Swann – 7/10. Well played. He constantly posed a threat, and possessed more guile than Panesar by a country mile. A fine debut.

Harmison – 4/10. The pitch was not suited to him, and he seems to find bowling a more consistently full length difficult. If his length is lacking however, his line is much improved.

Anderson – 5/10. Bowled a couple of good spells in India’s second innings but lacks consistency.

Panesar – 2/10. Bowling was mostly poor and uninspired. His failure went a long way to handing India victory. Rashid, anyone? 

‘Saving the World’… oh no

A truly horrifying (and yet delightful) gaffe from Crashy at PMQs today – the Tory benches couldn’t quite believe their luck. It appeared to cause Gordon to lose complete momentum during his exchanges with DC, where DC continually berated the Prime Minister about the inadequacy of his £1bn plan to help small business lending, which is not working. The ‘do nothing Party’ line will not wash with the public for much longer, as Labour’s own measures are seen to not be working. The VAT cut will look completely ridiculous when we look back on this episode in a few months’ time – not that it doesn’t already, of course. An easy win for DC.

Clegg also managed to make himself look silly with a classic ‘single mothers have visited me’ line. He failed to recover from that. Lots of playground banter, as the substance of PMQs is overshadowed once again. Purnell’s stolen welfare reform plans will probably obliterate any coverage of the exchanges in tomorrow’s papers anyway.

Cameron 7, Brown 4, Clegg 4.

From ConHome - ‘Do we need a ‘no cuts here’ list?’

There is no theoretical reason why there shouldn't be cuts across the board, where it is deemed that public money is being wasted. It may be politically expedient to ring-fence 'sensitive' public servants, and Labour might find it more difficult to attack us for targeting our savings on management, however, political parties should not exist to provide somehow 'acceptable' policies. They should be the right policies.

All Conservatives should be agreed that the public sector should not grow indefinitely - the recession has now given us the stage upon which we can more confidently assert this. It is not yet clear whether or not a policy of 'cuts during recession' is good politics or not. The polls show that the electorate remains bewildered about the causes of this downturn, and there is no clear vote of confidence in either Labour's approach or the Conservatives' approach.

The question is, is David Cameron prepared to do what he believes is right, and risk losing the election? Unless the electorate agrees with us, we will not win. It is our job to persuade the voters that our economic policy is the best one. It should not be our role, in dire economic circumstances such as these, to fashion specifically an economic policy that is protected from Labour's attacks, or the give the electorate what it thinks it wants. The greatest achievement of any opposition party should be that it is able to change the electorate's mind in order to gain power. Hence, the next election may well have to be one that the Conservative Party has to win, not that the Labour Party has to lose.

Is Cameron preparing for a New Year clearout?

A couple of days ago, over at the Telegraph, Andrew Porter suggested that Cameron might be planning a return for some Tory Party 'big beasts'. I sincerely hope that this is true, because at the moment, the Tory frontbench is in need of some bigger hitters, and bruisers such as Michael Fallon and Ken Clarke would be hugely welcome in the team.

However, now that Osborne appears to be an much firmer ground, Ken Clarke won't become Shadow Chancellor, but perhaps Shadow BERR Sec - he would be more than a match for Lord M. I've always liked Ken Clarke - he was, in my view, the best leader after the 2001 election, and I briefly backed him in the 2005 race, before changing to David Davis, and then to David Cameron.

He has a tremendous record, having, rescued the country from a very poor economic position in the early nineties, and had left Labour a golden economic legacy by 1997. He is the ideal straight-talking candidate to take on Mandelson, who, at the moment, looks intent on destroying the electoral platform the Conservative Party has ventured to create for itself, be it by stealth or by dastardly spin.

A return for Iain Duncan Smith is also a possibility. He has done terrific work at the Centre for Social Justice, and despite the difficulties he faced as leader, he deserves a post in a future Cameron Cabinet, possibly at a re-hashed Work and Pensions department.

The Polls

The link above provides access to my unique Tory-biased poll collection, which carefully selects only the finest (and freshest, etc) Tory results every month from the various polling entities. The worst results are not included in the data table, including, for example, ComRes' latest poll which showed the Tories only one point ahead.

I can, however, claim there to be reason in this blatent bias. Mike Smithson on Political Betting has long proclaimed that the most accurate poll at any time is the one that shows Labour polling worst; although, admittedly, that is not necessarily the same as the poll showing the Conservatives doing best. Never mind.

From ConHome, 'One-third (sic) of Tory members expect election within six months'

If there is to be an election within the next 12 months or so, which I doubt, we should not already be giving up trying to win it!

Yes, we've squandered the large leads over the summer and Labour appear to be gaining significant ground, but it is worth bearing in mind that the recession has not hit home with the electorate just yet. The PM is still basking in the supposed glory of being master of the financial bailout universe. There is a strong possibility that Brown will suffer once unemployment mounts up and the economy contracts more.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the bank bailout is not having its desired affect - the government may have to implement some sort of ultra-socialist lending approval mechanism if the situation doesn't improve. That could prove politically disastrous.

On the other side of the argument, however, is the 1992 election. Labour enjoyed considerable poll leads during the 87-92 parliament, but mostly because Labour was not trusted with the economy (and appeared triumphalist and complacent), they lost the election during a Tory recession.

If we are not bold, and choose not to formulate straightforward policies which the electorate understand and whose benefits are appreciable, we will lose. At the moment, it appears as if we are unwilling to help people through the recession because there is 'no money left' with which to do so. This is nonsense. There's plenty of money to be saved. The electorate understands that Labour has squandered millions of hard-earned taxpayers' money, so now is the time to put that right.

During a downturn such as this one, sacrifices have to be made. If that sacrifice is public spending, so be it. We must not allow the absurd statist consensus of the bloated public sector to prevail over the coming years.

Words of recession

'Fixing the roof when the sun is shining'

'This is a serious time for serious people'

'Boom to bust'

'Borrowing bombshell'

'Tax cuts are not just for Christmas'

I'm FED UP of hearing these phrases. We are completely failing to land any blows on Brown at the moment. He's getting away with everything - a devaluation of the pound, massive borrowing, enormous waste, bureaucracy, complacency, lies, smugness, incompetence - I could go on - and yet we, the Conservative Party, persist in using these lame soundbites to persuade a recession-doomed electorate that we are the best Party to deal with the current climate.

It appears that leading politicians have no faith that what might be considered economic 'jargon' is comprehensible by the public at large. Instead, we prefer to regurgitate weak and ineffective soundbites which best befit the language of the playground.

This is no time for weasel words.

Oh, there's another one.

I'm continually irked by Dave and George's approach on the economy. Until yesterday, DC looked ridiculous by continuing to abide by the pretence that the Tories would match Labour's future spending plans. We must be able to offer considerable tax cuts now, but not by borrowing - but by CUTTING. The electorate cannot continue to have it both ways. In times like these, if they want more money in their pockets, they should have to sacrifice something else. There is no doubt that there is money to be saved in the NHS, and we should not shirk from our responsibility to say so. The NHS is not sacred. The NHS is not the ONLY welfare solution. The NHS is wasteful, bloated and unaccountable.

We have, frankly, looked silly throughout the duration of this crisis. And the longer it goes on, the more opportunity we have to look more silly. Where are the big guns? Where is Ken Clarke? If we were so confident Labour would destroy the economy then why is the Shadow Chancellorship lumbered with such a lightweight? George Osborne comes across as an amateur, with little clue of how to handle events, and appears to suffer complete lack of nouse, lack of judgement and inability to attack the government properly. He still sounds shrill and is open to complete ridicule, allegedly considerable intellect notwithstanding.

I am in a state of utter despair. Our 'motherhood and apple pie' policies have been completely overtaken by events. The latest poll indicates that Labour would be the largest party in the House of Commons in the event of a general election. This is a disaster. If they win a fourth term, the consequences are unthinkably grave for the country and our Party. We need to get back to scoring consistent double-digit leads, given that, with the possibility of a 2009 election around the corner, Labour lies about 'cuts' will probably gain favour with some of the electorate. We therefore need a big lead going into any campaign in order to protect it.

We must also remember the lessons of 1992. Before that election, it was unprecedented for a Party which was behind in the polls at the beginning of a campaign to emerge victorious on polling day. That precedent has been set. We must never let the attack die down.

I have never despised Gordon Brown more than I do at this very moment - trouble is, I have never doubted the opposition's ability to win more than I do now.

Tomorrow's probable Shadow Shuffly Stuff

It's being mooted that DC will carry out a limited shadow cabinet reshuffle tomorrow. If this is so, what are the likely moves?

Tipped for demotion:

Ainsworth - it is being said that he's had little or no media presence during his three-year tenure at Environment. If this is the only complaint, he should be replaced by a younger, more thrusting Cameronite. However, due to the scaling down of the Environment brief and the creation of the new Woodland Folk department, Ainsworth may keep his role anyway. I fail to see how his replacement by 'sidewards step' of, say, a Willetts or May would remedy the current situation.

Villiers - has apparently been poor at Transport and will probably more somewhere slightly more junior rather than leave the shadow cabinet altogether. New slimmed-down environment, perhaps? She would also have a far harder job shadowing Geoff Hoon rather than the easily massacrable Ruth Kelly.

May - I've never been much of a Theresa May fan, but I doubt Cameron will get rid of her - I do, however, wish he would. Her media performances are consistently unconvincing. She languishes in the backwaters of the shadow Commons Leader position, a position more usefully held by someone more senior, such as Clarke, Sir Malcolm, or even Michael Howard.

Willetts - he lost control of the most important half of the Education brief in the last reshuffle. I would rather he returned to the backbenches. I have always said I feel slightly sorry for May and Willetts - they have served the Party pretty well over the last 10 years or so, but their skills are now being eclipsed by MPs from the 2005 intake, some of whom are destined for very high office indeed.

Gillan/Mundell - one wonders if these two would make into a Conservative cabinet: personally, I doubt it. They'll do for now, and these shadow positions are such utter backwaters that they could be occupied by common household objects and neither the press nor public would notice. Watch out for Sir Malcolm in a 'Nations Sec' role in the future. I'm determined that his talents shouldn't be wasted on the backbenches.

Mitchell - many said that David Davis had secured his shadow cabinet position in 2005. My opinion of Andrew Mitchell has grown over recent months, having seen the excellent work he's been doing in Rwanda. Perversely, this has earned him absolutely no mainstream media coverage. He should remain in place. He's not just David Davis' former campaign manager, he's an good Shadow International Development Sec too.

Spelman - Cameron shouldn't and probably won't move her away at his stage. If she's found guilty by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, she'll obviously have to go: but to shuffle her away now would be in poor taste. I thought Cameron should have moved her away right at the beginning, when the media interest in her misfortune was at its peak, but the investigation has taken longer than I thought. And on that note: what's happening to Peter Hain?

Promotions:

Justine Greening - ever since her excellent victory in Putney I thought she looked like cabinet material - possibly even Chancellor one day. She's been doing well in the treasury team, and may well be given a more senior post. I think she'd suit Schools and Families if Willetts went elsewhere.

Greg Clark - this junior MP has been widely touted to enter the shadow cabinet at some point - he's extremely talented and, like Greening, I imagine him to occupy a very senior post at some point in the future.

Ed Vaizey - I would have been happy to see Ed occupy a shadow cabinet role at the previous reshuffle. He's an extremely affable chap and an excellent media performer. He must, surely, be brought in.

Also:

Maria Miller
Greg Barker
Chris Grayling (possible Chairman)
Eric Pickles (possible Chairman)

Now it's time for an 'expect in Government' list. These are the faces which I am almost positive will occupy Cabinet positions in the next Conservative government, unless they are eliminated through scandal or death:

Cameron
Osborne
Hague
Grieve
Gove
Pickles
Grayling
Lansley
Hunt
Herbert
Letwin

Note that there aren't any women in this list. This poses a problem for DC.

Probably to go:

Willetts
May
Ainsworth
Spelman

Borderline:

Fox
Duncan
Maude
Hammond

Those I haven't mentioned (shadow 'nations' etc) are pretty much unknowns.

The LordM Guest List:

Clarke (Leader of House or Cabinet Office)
Rifkind (Either of the above or 'Nations')
Redwood (Either of the above, but only once we're in government)

I would be delighted to see any or all these three back on the front line of politics. I'm sure most Tories would be.

It's difficult to predict what Cameron's going to do tomorrow. I doubt there'll be a direct 'response' to the Mandelson appointment. Cameron's known to dislike reshuffles, so I don't think he'll risk a gesture like the appointment of Sir Nick Winterton to the new Dept for Energy and Climate Change, for example. I think that sort of decision would match the idiocy shown by Brown in appointing Mandelson.