Tough and smug beats weak and weird. So no wonder Cameron's beating Miliband.

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

David Cameron is

• Eloquent,
• Prime Ministerial,
• Tough enough for the job of Prime Minister and
• Smart enough for the job of Prime Minister, and 

- also stands up for Britain.  However, he -

• Doesn't understand people like me, and
• Won't protect British jobs, and is
• Out of touch
• Arrogant and
• Smug.

He also doesn't listen.

Continue reading "Tough and smug beats weak and weird. So no wonder Cameron's beating Miliband." »

That Populus Times poll in a single sentence

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

For those of you who can't get behind the Times paywall, here's a single sentence summary of that Populus poll (see our newslinks for highlights):

"I'm more fed up with that budget than ever, but the defict must be tackled, and I just don't rate Ed Miliband: as for the general election, come back to me nearer the time."

I hope that helps.  Also see Tim Montgomerie's MajorityConservatism piece yesterday on how George Osborne plans to pound Miliband into a lump of jelly.

My view is as before: David Cameron won't gain a 10 or so point lead, so his best hope after the next election is to lead a minority Government or re-form this Coalition (or form a new one).

As bad borrowing figures are published, IOD members say the Government is failing on tax, jobs, regulation and infrastructure

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

The above figures are in an Institute of Directors (IOD) survey of over a thousand of its members.  The Daily Telegraph has a report this morning which understandably links the findings to yesterday's poor borrowing figures (crunch time for George Osborne will come in October, when the Office for Budget Responsibility produces a verdict on how much of the economy’s weakness is structural and whether further spending scalebacks are needed), the elusive prospect of recovery, and demands for infrastructure spending:

"The Institute of Directors (IoD) says that the Chancellor’s growth strategy is largely “ineffective” and “too little, too slowly”, as demands increase for radical action in the autumn...

...The Coalition has also been criticised for failing to invest in big infrastructure projects such as expanding Heathrow or building a new airport in the South East"...

...Business leaders are now increasingly critical Mr Osborne’s economic strategy, which is based on cutting public spending while encouraging the private sector to take on more workers and support the wider economy."

Continue reading "As bad borrowing figures are published, IOD members say the Government is failing on tax, jobs, regulation and infrastructure" »

Public blame the Conservatives for breaking Coalition Agreement

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

For Bruce Anderson in today's Telegraph there is no doubt that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are at fault for this week's very public tensions inside the Coalition:

"There was no linkage between House of Lords reform and the Commons boundary changes. The price of boundary changes was a referendum on the Alternative Vote. David Cameron paid that price. He kept his word. Nick Clegg is breaking his: pretty despicable behaviour."

That is not how the public sees it, however, according to a new poll from YouGov [PDF].

Only 30% of the public think that the Tories "have mostly kept to their side of the [Coalition Agreement]" but 45% think that the Lib Dems have mostly kept their side of the deal. 51% agree that Conservatives "have mostly not kept to their side of the deal" while only 32% think that of the Liberal Democrats. Stephen Tall at LibDemVoice has, unsurprisingly, welcomed these findings.

There are probably a number of reasons why the Tories are getting the blame for Coalition tensions. One reason is that, for many, we are still the party of ruthless self-interest. For others it's simply that we're the big party and the big party can bully the lil' ol' Lib Dems. But there's also the fact that Nick Clegg has been very vocal in attacking the Conservatives for a breach of contract. Senior Tories haven't hit back by making the point that Bruce Anderson makes; the deal was an AV referendum for boundary reform, not boundary reform for an elected Lords. Cameron and his operation are cautious because they know that there can't be any winner from public spats between the Coalition partners. Clegg's public posturing is being allowed because Cameron needs him to survive. Clegg is probably the only Lib Dem leader who would choose to be in alliance with the Conservatives rather than Labour. Without poking the Tories in the eye in a very public way Nick Clegg's leadership would be in even more trouble than it is. The Cable bandwagon would have gathered further speed.

Nonetheless Martin Kettle is largely right in today's Guardian. Recent events are pushing the Lib Dems closer to their natural allies, Labour, reinforcing what Paul Goodman has already identified. We have to win outright next time or we're likely to be out of power.

Memo to those one-in-five Conservative supporters who would prefer Vince Cable as Chancellor

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

There’s one finding that really stands out from this ComRes poll today, which is probably why the Independent has focused on it in their report. Apparently, 22 per cent of those Conservative supporters who expressed a preference would like David Cameron to sack George Osborne and replace him with Vince Cable. So, just in case some of that 22 per cent is reading, I thought I’d quickly list the three main reasons why elevating Cable to the Chancellorship isn’t such a good idea:

• It would upset the balance of the Quad and the Treasury. The most important decision-making body of Coalition is probably the Quad, that group-of-four consisting of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and Danny Alexander. At the moment, there’s a nice symmetry to it: the junior partner in government holds the junior Prime Minister and junior Chancellor roles. But if Cable were to be made Chancellor, this symmetry would be upset. Of course, Danny Alexander would be moved elsewhere, but that would also create problems. Much of the Treasury’s ministerial team would have to be shuffled on, which probably wouldn’t be perceived kindly by the markets, and all to accommodate Vince.

Continue reading "Memo to those one-in-five Conservative supporters who would prefer Vince Cable as Chancellor" »

Don't count on an Olympics bounce (or bust)

By Peter Hoskin
^{Follow Peter on Twitter}

About year ago — as I mentioned briefly in an article for The Times (£), at the time — people in government regarded these Olympics as a reprieve. Their thinking was that, even if our economic torpor hadn't ended by now, the Games would act like a shot of adrenaline. We'd come out of it blazing with a sense of national self-worth, and the Coalition would accrue the benefits. Everything would look sunnier.

As I type away on this overcast July morning, that scenario looks a ever more distant. While it's true that spirits may lift once the Olympics become more about athletics than logisitics, it's still something of a horror story right now. The security row; the impositions made on the Army; the clogged-up motorways and airport terminals; the censorship; the chips and the VIP car lanes — it goes on and on. What ought to be a two-week, all-inclusive pageant of sporting excellence has devolved into so much bureaucratic baggage. Unlike, say, the Jubliee, there are countless barriers to entry.

Continue reading "Don't count on an Olympics bounce (or bust)" »

Sunday Express reports biggest gap between Labour and the Conservatives for a decade

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

The poll is by Angus Reid, and the headline numbers are:

Labour: 43%

Conservatives: 29%

Liberal Democrats and UKIP: 9% each

The Sunday Express reports that

"The gap between Labour and the Conservatives is now wider than at any time since December 2002, when former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith faced the on-going popularity of a pre-war Tony Blair."

Angus Reid weren't polling in 2002; ICM found the Tories then at 27%.

It's worth noting that other pollsters are not necessarily telling the same story.  For example, YouGov recently also found Labour on 43% but measured Conservative support five points higher at 34%.

Continue reading "Sunday Express reports biggest gap between Labour and the Conservatives for a decade " »

Only 51% of Tories support withdrawal from the European Union - and 26% would consider voting UKIP

By Matthew Barrett
^{Follow Matthew on Twitter}

A poll for tomorrow's Sunday Mirror/Independent on Sunday, conducted by ComRes, reveals an important fact: Tory voters are not strongly united behind withdrawal from the European Union.

The poll - which puts overall voting intentions at 32% Conservative and 41% Labour - shows that, despite 46% compared to 30% of voters saying they would vote to leave the EU, if a referendum was held tomorrow, only 51% of Conservative voters said they would vote to leave. By comparison, 42% of Labour voters, and 39% of Lib Dem voters would vote to exit the EU. Overall, with "don't know" answers excluded, the ComRes poll suggests a European referendum would result in a 61-39% vote to leave. 

On a similar note, a narrow plurality of voters disagree with the statement: "Leaving the European Union would be bad for the British economy in terms of lost jobs and trade". 40% disagreed with that statement, as opposed to 36% who agreed with it. As with an in/out referendum, the Conservative vote is quite similar to the national result: indeed, 37% of Tories thought leaving the EU would be bad for jobs and trade - more than the figure for the population as a whole. 43% of Labour voters, and 56% of Lib Dem voters felt the same way. This suggests a large percentage of the Eurosceptic vote in opinion polls does not identify with the big three political parties.

But perhaps the most important fact, as a reminder of the Eurosceptic threat to a Tory majority, is that 26% of Tory voters would consider voting UKIP. The following table from ComRes shows the answer to the question "Which, if any, of these parties would you seriously consider voting for at a General Election if it were held tomorrow? Please indicate all that apply":

On the general economic direction of the country, 26% of voters trust David Cameron and George Osborne "to make the right decisions about the economy", compared to 22% feeling that way about Eds Miliband and Balls. However, if the "disagree" figures are taken into account (55% disagree Cameron and Osborne can be trusted; 51% disagree Miliband and Balls can be trusted), the two economic teams are tied on a net economic trust percentage of -29. 

A spoonful of (Conservative) sugar helps the (austerity) medicine go down

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

I hope readers have enjoyed reading The Alternative Queen's Speech over the last 48 hours. It certainly produced a surge in traffic to ConservativeHome. The Sun certainly enjoyed it. They took many of the Speech's biggest ideas and tested them against the 'real' Queen's Speech in their daily YouGov poll. It found that the Alternative Speech was more popular than the Government's. Seven of the ten most popular ideas came from the list of bills we have been publishing on ConservativeHome and only three of the most popular are Bills being proposed by the Coalition. The least popular Bills were also from the Coalition. Scroll down this page on The Sun website for more.

There are ideas in today's Queen's Speech that do win a lot of support from the public. Action against drug driving is supported by 81% of voters, for example. By 74% to 13% voters agree that the Coalition's Bill to give shareholders more power to control executive pay should be included in the Queen's Speech. By 59% to 25% there's also big support for the Coalition's new plan for a regulator that will stop supermarkets 'ripping-off' small firms. The last two measures prove that the public mood remains hostile to 'big business'.

Continue reading "A spoonful of (Conservative) sugar helps the (austerity) medicine go down" »

Cameron's ratings have collapsed, UKIP could cost the Tories 30 seats... but there is SOME good news in the opinion polls

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

I won't comment here on the biggest poll of the weekend - over at Majority Conservatism Paul Goodman provides a comprehensive review of Lord Ashcroft's mega poll on the political attitudes of ethnic minority Britons.

The more regular opinion polls are not good for the Conservative Party. I summarise them within today's newslinks (scroll down this page). In today's Sunday Times (£) Peter Kellner of YouGov makes for gloomy reading:

"The Prime Minister is no longer a clear asset to his party. Immediately before the Budget, 44% thought he was doing well, while 49% thought he was doing badly. His net rating, minus 5, was pretty good for a Prime Minister in mid-term. Now his rating is minus 31 (well 32%, badly 63%). Only Gordon Brown can match such a collapse in popularity, when he scrapped plans to hold a snap election in October 2007. It is not a happy precedent."

Here's how respondents to the latest YouGov poll rate Cameron (PDF):

• 42% see the PM as competent, 47% as incompetent (-5%);
• 41% see him as strong and 44% as weak (-3%);
• 42% as likeable and 46% as dislikeable (-4%);
• 39% say he's in control of his government and 47% say not (-8%);
• 23% see him as in touch, 69% as out-of-touch (-46%);

Continue reading "Cameron's ratings have collapsed, UKIP could cost the Tories 30 seats... but there is SOME good news in the opinion polls" »