Cameron's lead would grow if Blair went

Another new day.  Another opinion poll.  Another Tory lead.

Today's ICM poll for the Guardian gives the Conservatives a 37% to 36% lead over Labour with the LibDems on 21%.  More interestingly, perhaps, is ICM's finding that the Tory lead would grow to 41% over 36% if Gordon Brown was in charge of Labour.  Populus found something similar just last week for The Times.

The survey also finds that 66% of people regard David Cameron as a potential Prime Minister (this figure includes a majority of supporters of all the main parties).  Nearly as many - 62% - think that "David Cameron seems like someone who could change the way they think about the Conservative Party".

The leader writers at The Guardian clearly see the poll as significant.  Under a "The Tories are back" headline, they warn against Labour hoping for the polls to turn once Tony Blair fulfils his promise to step down:

"But surely it will all be different when Tony Blair goes? Do not count on it. There is little comfort for this view in a second part of today's poll. Labour and Lib Dem voters continue to rate Gordon Brown - Mr Blair's likeliest successor - as a good chancellor of the exchequer. Yet, faced with the possibility of Mr Brown as Labour leader, things change dramatically. Asked which way they would vote in a three-party general election contest under Mr Cameron, Mr Brown and Charles Kennedy, the Tory lead stretches from the current 1% (with Mr Blair as Labour leader) to 5% over Mr Brown. Under Mr Brown, the Labour vote holds steady, but the much more volatile Lib Dem vote fragments powerfully in favour of the Tories. On the basis of this poll, therefore, Mr Brown may prove to be a polarising figure who will frighten floating voters back into the arms of the Tories."

Gordon Brown remains the bookies' overwhelming favourite to succeed Tony Blair but a run of similar polls - perhaps coinciding with bad economic news - may yet cause panic in Labour ranks and the touting of alternative leadership candidates...

Comments

[petersmith]

I was a strong sceptic about Cameron. But there's no question about it - he's had an amazing start. And it's not just because he's been given it by the media - he and his team have made a lot of it by their own ingenuity, speed and determination.

I thought before - and still think - he'll either be very very good and be the next Prime Minister, or the whole thing will go horribly wrong. I don't think there's an in-between - a good effort that sees him coming a good second. The chances of it all going wrong look ever smaller.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Poor old Prudence - is his chance of getting the top job slipping away I wonder!

[John Hustings]

"I thought before - and still think - he'll either be very very good and be the next Prime Minister,"

But if he does win the next election, will he be a *good* Prime Minister? Or is getting our boys into office all that matters?

[petersmith]

"Or is getting our boys into office all that matters?"

Yes, John, that is my misgivings as well. Is he a Tory who's using modern techniques to win an election, or is he just someone who wants the job and really doesn't care one way or another about Tory values? Or, a third option, that he is indeed unprincipled in himself, but realises Tory principles are the most likely to keep him in power in the long run.

[Wat Tyler]

But if not Gordo, then who? The punters now rate Milliband second fav at 14/1. Miles behind, but Milliband?

And behind him, Milburn. Milburn!

And behind him Reid!

No stop- I can't breath.

A decade of Blair dominance has left Labour with a gratifyingly nightmarish succession problem.

[RobC]

I've always thought that New Labour under Tory Blair was far more attractive to floating voters than an old Labour styled Gordon Brown. Despite Blair's recent poor performance it appears that he is still more popular than Brown.

The longer Brown has in power before the next election the more likely that he is to be found out as a tax and spend arrogant bully. Couple that with a ecenomic down-turn (although I don't want one), - the economy is currrently Browns trump card - then I think Brown will suffer even worse in the polls.

If this veiw is shared with a significant proportion of the Labour party, then we may enjoy a leadership contest rather than a coronation.

[Coxy]

That's not very generous Peter! I'm sure all of Cameron's instincts are Tory through-and-through (what else could they be in an Old Etonian??).

But I'm equally sure now that getting into power is more important to his than any of that.

Much like TB - he's naturally left-of-centre, but he was prepared to go to any lengths to win an election; even abandoning socialism if necessary. And he did win.

I guess the lesson should be learned by looking at Blair's 8 years in power. Watering down your principles will win you an election; but it makes for a thoroughly meaningless and unproductive term in government.... Cameron take note!

[malcolm]

Milburn is really 3rd favourite,Wat? That's great news!We should be talking him up at every opportunity and encourage our friends in the media to do the same.
I look forward to the dear old Telegraph spouting stories on 'Labours got to change etc etc'and the 'future is ....Milburn'!

[a-tracy]

"Brown: A good chancellor of the exchequer"

To me he is like those people you know who earn a similar amount to you but seem to go on three times as many holidays, replace one expensive car for another every year, wear the best designer gear and have the trendiest black christmas tree with co-ordinating baubles this year.

You look on admiringly from the side wondering how they're doing it whilst you're paying off your mortgage, paying into your life and home insurances, putting more and more into your pension fund each year and enjoying your cold week away in Torquay (not Turkey - Torquay).

Then you hear he's declaring himself bankrupt, writing off his debts at our expense, having bought another house in his mother's name first. He's down on his luck for a year but next year he's buying the trendy pink christmas tree with silver baubles - just who has the best attitude nowadays?

We will pay for Brown's "pay tomorrow - live today" largesse. For the Tories to allow his spending pledges to slide by out of sight isn't being an effective opposition.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Anybody wishing to see a thorough evaluation of Brown's rivals for the succession should read the comments on this thread, particularly the discussion started by Malcolm in the second comment on the thread.

[James Hellyer]

It has to be Patricia Hewitt. You know it makes sense.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

It almost makes me feel sorry for Labour. Oops - got over it already.

[Editor]

Well remembered Daniel. That thread was hilarious.

[Alexander Drake]

I think that Blair's years will potentially have lasting benefit for his party, putting aside what they will mean in the long term to the country. I'm not sure the Labour Party realise this yet though, and they may squander this legacy when he goes.

His electoral legacy may be tarnished by the public's (misguided) disapproval of Iraq, but he has unquestionably improved the electorate's attitude towards Labour's ability to run the economy well. The days of the Conservative Party being able to rely on AB social progressives not to vote Labour for economic/class reasons is long gone.

That, I think, will be his big legacy to the Labour Party.

[Editor]

I agree with you Alexander. I personally will always admire Blair for taking Britain into Iraq (although not for the implementation of the policy). I wonder how much support for such future pre-emptive action exists in the Labour Party that he will leave behind? Not much, I fear.

[James Hellyer]

"I wonder how much support for such future pre-emptive action exists in the Labour Party that he will leave behind? Not much, I fear."

One might say the same about the Conservative Party. After all, we're all Liberal Democrats now. Or something.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Well remembered Daniel. That thread was hilarious."

Ah yes, I remember it well - the first time I dipped my toe in the water of the leadership blog. I meant to post the link the other day, but I didn't have time to go trawling through the threads on the leadership blog to find it (I don't have time now either, but that's beside the point!).

[Alexander Drake]

Quite so Tim. National security is of course the other 'biggie' Blair has sort-of neutralised as an area of concern for Labour.

You're right - the world needs a major power (UK) to "partner" the US when the tough work has to be done, and to help muster other countries to join in the work (such as my own). One wonders whether one of the two major parties in the UK has lost its ability to sign up for that hard work in the future. If it has, then that has much bigger implications for things than just domestic UK politics.

[a-tracy]

"he has unquestionably improved the electorate's attitude towards Labour's ability to run the economy well."

Yes but merely allowing people to obtain false happiness through spending beyond their means is putting off the problem until tomorrow. My concern is with increased public spending and EU costs and an extended war in Iraq coupled with an ever increasing pensions burden on taxpayers how are we all to cover these debts in the future?

We've seen an example of Labour's solution in the pensions safety net, which forces good scheme holders to bail out the spend today, forget about tomorrow brigade.

[Nuala]

I agree with Mr Peter Smith that Cameron is showing worrying signs of being just like Blair in his rush to embrace the trendy. It smacks of power for power's sake, and he seems to be tossing away bedrock policies with gay abandon.

[Alexander Drake]

Don't disagree with you a-tracy, it's just that my comment was directed more towards what Blair's (potential) legacy would be for the perception of the Labour Party in the electorate, rather than the (bad) consequences of Labour's approach to mnany big policy issues.

[wasp]

Still sticking with Hilary Benn as next Labour PM

[Kevin Davis]

I think the fascinating aspect of this poll is the Lib Dem collapse. Given the split if Brown was PM on a uniform swing the Lib Dems would collapse back to 13 seats and have only two in the south; Cambridge and Southwark. No wonder the Lib Dems are panicking!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Alan Johnson seen as being liked by both the Brownites, Blairites and Unions.

How will the make up of the electoral college favour the candidates? Sorry I'm no expert on Labours method of leadership election since I last looked at it in an A level question!

[Elena]

These polls are pretty significant - not because of the Tory lead (let's see where we are in the polls this time next year before we start dreaming of government in 2009/10) but because of Brown's figures.

Brown has been trumpeted for years now as the successor to Blair. For year his poll figures have towered over Blair's, especially against Howard and IDS. But with the arrival of Cameron on the scene, his votes seem to be seeping away.

I think people have misjudged why people have voted for Labour in the past few elections. In 2005, Blair wasn't a popular leader, but he could present and dress up the Labour package with charisma. The same goes for 2001 and 1997. Yes, the electorate may have preferred some of Labour's policies to those of the Tories, but the face that presented them was also much more attractive. It was this key factor that won over many of the swing voters, I believe.

And look what happens when Cameron arrives on the scene - those same voters who backed Blair in 3 elections decide that it's now time to start listening to the Tories. Why? Because Cameron has, like Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005, shown his commitment to policies that might appeal to the electorate, but - perhaps more importantly - he has the skills and the charisma to present these ideas to the electorate in a way that wins over voters.

This is something that Brown lacks. He has a good name for himself as a Chancellor, but it looks increasingly likely that, given the choice between Brown as PM or Cameron as PM, those key swing voters will opt for Cameron. Brown doesn't have the flair. He's an intellegent and astute politician, but he doesn't have that (forgive me) "X-factor" that appeals to the voters. I think most people would rather keep him as Chancellor, in a position where it's not important to have these qualities.

So, there we have it. All along the swing voters that have kept Blair in power have not been longing for a swift succession to Brown as so many have predicted. They've been looking for a right-of-centre politician who has the ability to dress up their policies and sell them to the electorate. I sincerely hope that Cameron is that man.

[Sean Fear]

Perhaps so Bena. However, I'll put Rory Bremner's question to you. Can you think of any major problem that has been solved by charisma?

[Elena]

Well, Sean, I agree that charisma isn't everything. But it looks like it's a sure-fire way of getting those swing voters sat up and listening to you.

We need sensible policies with which to keep them in the Tory column, now.

[Matt K]

I think Elena articulates what a lot of people have been saying (and which has been largely ignored by the media) - that Blair's electoral success has been significantly because he has convinced traditionally non-Labour voters to vote for him, as an "acceptable face of Labour" if you like. Brown is very different (or is certainly perceived as being very different), and would scare off many of those who flocked to Blair. This at a time when Cameron comes along to appeal not only to Tories but to use the Blair trick of appealing to those who wouldn't normally vote Conservative (and who, in effect, decide the election) spells trouble for Labour and Brown.

I actually thought it remarkably naive of many anti-Blair commentators (in the media and the Labour Party) saying on election night how much better they would have done with Brown. If anything, the reverse would probably have been true, and is something this poll indicates for the future...

[Sean Fear]

I think that a Labour party lead by Brown (or for that matter John Smith) would have won pretty convincingly in 1997 and 2001 (though I agree that Blair has a special appeal to leftish former Conservatives). Brown has been just as much the architect of New Labour as Blair has been.

Brilliant though Blair is as a politician, he is pretty mediocre as a Prime Minister. So that's why I'd warn against seeing charisma as the be all and end all. I'd rather be ruled by someone who's dull but efficient (such as John Howard) than by someone who's charismatic but ineffectual (like Blair).

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"That's not very generous Peter! I'm sure all of Cameron's instincts are Tory through-and-through (what else could they be in an Old Etonian??)".
Someone else previously stated that Cameron must be a Rightish Conservative (or words to that effect) because he was from a long line of aristocrats and now, it appears, also because he was educated at Eton - so was Orwell. He was a fervent anti-communist,
fought on he side of the socialists in the Spanish Civil War and was described as a democratic socialist. Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax could be described as aristocrats. Fortunately, they were made redundant by another different type of aristocrat.
The jury judging Mr Cameron will be out for some time to come. It would be disappointing to find that he has much in common with Chamberlain and Halifax.

[Henry Cook]

The Conservative Party's odds on betfair are shortening all the time: to win the next election they are now just 1.14/1 compared to 0.82/1 for Labour. A few more polls like this and we could soon be favourites with the bookies for the general election.

[Coxy]

OK, ignore my big generalisation about links between education and political beliefs.... The main point was, I believe DC genuinely holds Tory principles close to his heart(much as Blair is genuinely a Leftie), but I fear that he might begin to put electability before those principles.

Want an example? How about accepting the Blair-Brown mantra that tax cuts mean spending cuts.

[Goldie]

Problem is that even a 4% lead isn't nearly enough to give us a parliamentary majority. With the electoral system designed against us, we'll need more like an 8% lead to get a tiny majority.

This may end up as a hung Parliament--and then the Lib Dems are in charge!

[Matt K]

And if Goldie is right: "This may end up as a hung Parliament--and then the Lib Dems are in charge!" and we'd have to cosy up to the Lib Dems to make a government, the outcome of the Lib Dem's leadership struggle would become very important to us. Under those circumstances, would we rather have "someone we could do business with" then someone who would march them to electoral disaster, but keep then firmly on Brown's side in coalition talks?

23-1 on Nick Clegg, at that price he's a good bet...

[Coxy]

Anything but a coalition, please!!

If Davy is really going to turn out to be the saviour of the Tory party, then he will *have* to win, outright and decisively.

If his strategy is basically to emulate Blair's (and so far it appears to be), then he needs to keep up the momentum for a long time, lead his new movement, the next generation, time for change etc etc, and march all the way to Downing Street.

Even to come a close second (like Kinnock in '92) would be a failure. So I hope he's got it in him.

[Jaz]

A coalition may be the only way to remove labour in 2009, some Tory MP's/Former MPs say it might be impossible to get a majority. Portillo is one of them and hinted that Cameron should stay till 2013? election.

The conservatives need a surplus of about 125 new seats. This is how labour overturned the tories in 1997...(145 IIRC)

I'm afraid...That this was after 4 terms of conservative government, economic collapse in 1992, sleeze and a vast array of problems for the party.

The LiBdems may have a role to play, if the tories have enough seats in a hung parliament to get labour out.

[Goldie]

The redistricting should give us another 30 seats, just off the bat.

Then they were about 20, 25 seats that we lost to Lab/Lib the last time where their majority was smaller than the combined votes of UKIP/Veritas/etc.

A modest swing should produce yet another 30 seats, easily.

So in terms of low-hanging fruit, there is perhaps something like 60-90 seats.

That would give the Conservatives about 280 seats, Labour 300 and LibDms 30.

For a decisive victory for the Conservatives, with a workable majority, however, the swing would have to be so pronounced as to beggar belief. It would especially require previously unheard of advances in the inner cities and Scotland. This will require something like a 10% lead in the polls, maybe more.

[Sean Fear]

The general view is that we'll get another 11 seats from the boundary changes, not 30.

Also, there's no reason to believe that all UKIP votes came from former Conservatives, though a plurality will have done.

[Coxy]

Plus, UKIP haven't gone away. And I'm sure they'll leap on Cameron's comments about engaging positively with the EU - more in common with the Lib Dems and all that.

[John Hustings]

I think UKIP will be pleased that Cameron has won, because it will enhance their chances of getting the votes of the disgruntled right.

[Sean Fear]

But, they will need to plug issues other than the EU to do so.

[James Hellyer]

They were doing that with EU migration at the last election. Howard's much derided immigration policy was an important factor in stopping the loss of support to them.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Roger Helmer (or Helm as BBC News would have it) has just been on the news. I'm surprised we haven't been inundated with celebratory trumpetting from Henry Curteis/Malcolm Thomas/R UK/The Rushcliffe Liberation Front or whatever it is the one-man Roger Helmer Fan Club is calling itself these days.

Speaking of UKIP, the same newsclip featured Nigel Farage aiming the following interesting accusation at Tony Blair: "...Jacques Chirac, no cheese-eating surrender monkey he, he stands up for the French national interest, you don't..."

Actually Nige, I think you'll find that Tony Blair does stand up for the French national interest! It's the British national interest he doesn't stand up for...

[Goldie]

Sean:

Where did you get that 11 seat figure from? I can't seem to find my source, but I read somewhere that the new boundary changes should net us 30.

[James Maskell]

All the way down here in Thanet, people are worried about merging police forces. I completely agree, the local forces know what the local landscape are like and that they should be held accountable. Sadly, knowing this government as well as anyone else, itll be shoved through anyway. With any luck, we will only have to put up with this farce of so-called representation till the next General Election.

[James Maskell]

Ignore the above message. Its irrelevant and I cocked up posting it here... Man, its been a long past day or so...time catching up with me :)

[Sean Fear]

"Actually Nige, I think you'll find that Tony Blair does stand up for the French national interest! It's the British national interest he doesn't stand up for"

Nice one.

Goldie, Anthony Wells did a post on his website about 3 months ago, outlining the impact of boundary changes. His arguments are accepted by Dr. Robert Waller. The effect ought to be to give us 11 net extra seats, and Labour 7 net fewer - but the impact of the results is unpredictable in some ways.

For example, a new safe Tory seat is being created in South Northamptonshire, to add to Daventry. But, some rural territory is taken from Kettering and Northampton South, both of which were narrow gains from Labour. In theory, both of those seats revert to Labour by narrow margins. However, if the sitting Conservative MPs stand in both seats next time, they should derive some benefit from incumbency, which may be enough to hold those seats, even if there is no increase in our national vote share.

[Adrian Owens]

Goldie

Don't know where Sean got his 11-seat figure from, but it accords closley with an Electoral Reform Society figure of a reduced Labour majority from 66 to 50, with Labour reducing by 6 seats and conservatives gaining 7.

No weblink, but I've just e-mailed you with it.

[Sean Fear]

With all due respect to the ERS, I think they're slightly overpessimistic for us on this question.

[Andrew Hickling]

Th leads in the poll's are a good start for cameron and i think that as the public get to know cameron more and the conservatives become more electable over the next few years with good,well thought out policy than the lead will grow.Underneath our nasty party image of the last few years was a party that was electable,some of our policy's were good.The problem was that people did not trust us and liked the more freindly approach of the labour party.Cameron has set out to change the image and perception of us,and that will make us far more electable.

[Anthony]

My figures did actually predict a greater change than the ERS's calculations. I'm still working on a final version, which might change it a bit, but my original draft figures are in Peter Kellner's paper below:-

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/peter-kellner.pdf

Labour down 10, Conservatives up 14, Lib Dems up 1. Labour majority of 40.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Speaking of UKIP, the same newsclip featured Nigel Farage aiming the following interesting accusation at Tony Blair: "...Jacques Chirac, no cheese-eating surrender monkey he, he stands up for the French national interest, you don't...""

Sorry that's slightly wrong. It should read: "...Jacques Chirac, no cheese-eating surrender monkey he, unlike you, stands up for the French national interest..."

In any case, the subsequent point I made - "Actually Nige, I think you'll find that Tony Blair does stand up for the French national interest! It's the British national interest he doesn't stand up for..." - still stands.

[Alexander Drake]

Anthony's paper is powerful stuff. I like the "Tory World" vs. "the rest" thesis. It shows how far the Conservative Party has to travel on the road to electoral success, but more importantly how Cameron is well equipped to do it.

Reading the paper, I felt that it had almost served as Cameron's script so far!

Great stuff.

[John Hustings]

The survey also finds that most people think the Tories chop and change, are inconsistent, and tell people what they think they want to hear.

This seems to conflict with the theory that they need to move to the left to get elected.

All in all these detailed surveys are of limited value, because alot of the time those surveyed are pretty confused about what they think.

[Alexander Drake]

I would have thought the 'chop and change' would have had something to do with the number of leadership changes in recent years... a problem we are more likely than not to escape for quite a while...

John are you sure you think the poll (and the Populus poll with similar findings on the Today show website) are of limited value because people surveyed are 'confused', or because the Conservative Party would be less in line with where you would like it to be?

I think these sort of research findings, when we see them again, and again, and again, spell the task at hand out very, very clearly.

Time to get out for a stroll outside "Tory World", I think, so we can get ideas on how to make it more appealing to those outside it.

[John Hustings]

I don't think when people are surveyed they have a clear idea what "right-wing" means or what "left-wing" means.

I don't think they always have a clear idea about what policies are good and what policies they would like.

I don't think they make their judgements on anything much other than superficial perception. Now this is very important to winning elections, without a doubt, and the Tories *do* have image problems. But I don't interpret that as a huge public demand for us to move leftwards.

If you interpret it that way, perhaps *you* are reading surveys in such a way as to fit your views.

As for your "Tory World" notion, I think you need to get outside what I'd call "Political Buff's World" where you seem to think that everyone votes according to policies. Which they don't.

Most people are neither consciously left-wing or right-wing; they *are* small c conservatives without necessarily realising which party best represents their views, and so the notion that there is an enormous public demand for, say, positive discrimination for ethnic minorities, higher taxes, or softer drugs policy is pretty damn ludicrous.

[Sean Fear]

People tend to confuse "right wing" with "strident". A centrist Conservative programme, advocated stridently, will be perceived as right wing. A more right wing programme, advocated calmly, will be seen as centrist.

[Alexander Drake]

John, the "Tory World" thesis wasn't my idea - it was the chairman of YouGov's:

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/peter-kellner.pdf

- on page 5 of this paper.

I'm acutely conscious of the very wide range of reasons that influences why people vote they way they do (or don't). And you're right in saying that policy is only one of a number of influences on voting behaviour.

So popular perception is key in politics. And the perception of us as a party, as David Cameron knows, and as this polling by YouGov shows, is that the community think we're not sufficiently responsive to the views of the centre of British politics.

Check out the poll on the bottom of page 4 to see how far to the Right the punters thought Michael Howard was! Now, I don't think that's fair, or accurate - but the punters thought it, so it became the electoral reality.

So - if reconnecting with the Centre means tacking to the left for a bit, then maybe there is an expectation that we have to do some of that if we are going to make progress. Why is aligning our values more with the punters we seek to represent such a terrible thought?

I might add that I'm not sure anyone in the Conservative Party is arguing for things such higher taxes, so I'm not sure that point is necessarily relevant here.

I'm not sure there's too much evidence here to suggest that the "Stick to the status quo to avoid losing votes to UKIP" thesis is a winning way ahead for us ...

[Wat Tyler]

I think I'd read Anthony/Kellner's piece before somewhere, but it is an extremely helpful overview. As Alexander says, it's almost DC's script so far.

With respect to parties, like it or not, we really are in the era of image-led politics. DC's main job is to make the Tories electable, and his policy pronouncements will all be shaped with that in mind.

So those of us who are interested in policy substance must focus our energies instead on influencing public opinion. Trying to influence DC directly will be pretty much a waste of time- virtually his sole driver, as we've already seen, will be shaping our brand to match consumer demand. Which we can all understand.

Of course, once we're back in power we may hope to exert some more direct influence in terms of things like tax and spend etc. But as Mr Boles recently told those wonks, DC will win as DC's Conservatives, and that's how he'll aim to rule.

Have we got our own Gordon Brown?

[John Hustings]

My point is that tacking to the left isn't necessary (and I'm sure most of us agree it isn't desirable).

I agree completely with what Sean Fear says, and what you say about Michael Howard proves the point.

Michael Howard didn't really have that many "right-wing" policies. In fact, he was extremely timid and had Oliver Letwin as his chancellor. The perception that he was "extreme right-wing" came largely through media caricature (the Dracula comparison) and the way he looked and spoke.

So, yes, by all means allow David Cameron to craft a newer, younger, softer image. But does that really have to involve adopting left-wing policies and dumping right-wing ones?

It seems to me that David Cameron is the ideal person to sell right-wing policies because he'd never look extremist (not that right-wing policies ever were extremist).

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"It seems to me that David Cameron is the ideal person to sell right-wing policies because he'd never look extremist (not that right-wing policies ever were extremist)."

Surely in a democracy, politicians have a duty to make it clear what political standpoint they represent rather than deceiving people into voting for them by allowing people to believe (incorrectly) they share their political standpoint?

[Anthony]

"Anthony/Kellner's piece"

The paper is all Peter's work! He just used my projections for the effect of the boundary changes.

[John Hustings]

"Surely in a democracy, politicians have a duty to make it clear what political standpoint they represent rather than deceiving people into voting for them by allowing people to believe (incorrectly) they share their political standpoint?"

Yes? Did I suggest otherwise?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Yes? Did I suggest otherwise?"

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Alexander Drake]

Not sure anyone's suggesting we adopt left wing policies, John - just emphasising policies that show we are in tune with the Centre...

[Yet another Anon]

>>>>>And if Goldie is right: "This may end up as a hung Parliament--and then the Lib Dems are in charge!" and we'd have to cosy up to the Lib Dems to make a government, the outcome of the Lib Dem's leadership struggle would become very important to us. Under those circumstances, would we rather have "someone we could do business with" then someone who would march them to electoral disaster, but keep then firmly on Brown's side in coalition talks?<<<<<
If the Liberal Democrats collapse or refuse to play ball, and the SNP\Plaid Cymru also refuse to play ball then it might be that to form a government might involve forming a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party - if they can further crush the Ulster Unionist Party then they could get easily 13 seats.

I think the Liberal Democrats will get about 15% of the vote next time but if there is a leadership wrangle it could easily be half that leaving them with just a few seats, UKIP could even become the Third National Party at the next General Election.