BBC1's Six'o'clock news on the speech (and other reports)

David Cameron's speech was the main story.  A very fair and factual five minutes was dedicated to clips of the speech.  There was then a two/ three minute report on whether electoral offices were ready for an election.  BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson then gave a sixty second summary to camera.  He told BBC1 viewers that, two years ago, the public first took to David Cameron but then fell out of love with him.  Has David Cameron mended the relationship today?  Do they think David Cameron is strong enough to be Prime Minister?  Serious enough?  Sincere enough?  A clutch of polls over the next few days will help us to know the answer to those questions.  If they show real improvement for the Tories, Nick Robinson concluded, the election might be off and the Tories will secretly be pleased with that.

More summary reports throughout the evening...

10.15pm: BBC1's Ten'o'clock news also led with the Cameron speech.  After the five minutes of straight reporting the BBC held a focus group in Dartford.  Cameron came off worst.  People liked his charisma but accused him of being slimy and not ready to govern.  In his closing two-way Nick Robinson said that Gordon Brown had quite a nice choice.  If his polling returns showed a strong position he could go to the country with confidence.  If the returns were unclear he could happily continue as PM.  I don't think we can allow Gordon Brown to get off that lightly and nor should Nick Robinson.  If Brown doesn't go to the country he must be seen to be a diminished figure.  He will have played politics with all of us.  He'll be shown to be much more of a calculating politician than a visionary statesman.  The BBC must hit him hard if he decides to duck.

10.45pm: Michael Howard on Radio 4's The World Tonight.  Ken Clarke went batting for Cameron on Newsnight.  Both did good jobs.

Comments

[Richard Calhoun]

No way will he hold an election this year.

In 2008 either interest rates will be up or the £ down, or both!

The economy will bomb led by house price falls, so definitely no Election.

2009 will be the earliest but I suspect Gordon the Wonk will stay on as long as possible, 2010.

He has after all waited 10 years, however I suspect that by 2010 he will wonder if it was worth it having been exposed as probably the most profligate chancellor since the WW2 and a complete failure as PM

[Alex Swanson]

On the other hand, although I didn't time it with a stopwatch, News 24 seemed to me tonight (5pm to 6pm) to give rather more time to the architecture of Dresden Railway Station.

[John Leonard]

ITN Coverage also fair. Appealing shots of Samantha Cameron as well. Conclusion David Cameron under fire, stayed calm , performed well, came out fighting. If Labour go to the country they could lose seats.

At this stage that is a good result. Lots of polls due supposedly over the next few days so we will see.

Did anyone know about the party conference on broadcast on ITV?

[new tory voter]

A great performance by Cameron was reported on very fairly and accurately by the BBC this evening which will, I suspect, drive Brown into a furious tantrum.

It's all to play for now!

[Dominic Harvey]

Personally I'm looking forward to Newsnight's take on the speech, if of course they give it any attention in the first place.

[Nick Young]

So where was the (in my view, half-expected) Gordon Brown publicity stunt upstage coverage of DC's speech?

[Oscar Miller]

Did we see the same 6 o'clock news Tim? I really don't think you can call the report fair or factual - it compared very badly with C4s coverage which gave a much better sense of what the speech was about as was ITVs coverage. I thought the clips were taken out of context so that the narrative of the speech was lost - and the main emphasis was on Cameron calling for an election as just a bit of bravado - without giving a sense of the real substance that led up to it. I couldn't understand why the report then switched to discussing ballot boxes and whether or not there should be an election, instead of focusing on the speech. Five minutes out of a 30 minute bulletin was very little, considering the enormous importance that the BBC had repeatedly attached to this occasion. I had the impression that the BBC gave it the absolute bare minimum coverage they could get away with. Certainly much more time was devoted to covering Brown's speech last week.

[MrB]

Quite fair reporting from the BBC, for a change. I'll be interested in seeing some post-conference Frank Luntz focus groups being done by them on Newsnight...Anyone know if they're on the cards?

The thing I'm finding most surprising though is the reception given to David's speech on the threads of this site! I've not seen so many positive postings in ages. How refreshing! It feels good to be someone who stuck by Cameron during the difficult time this summer. But more importantly, it feels good to be a Conservative!

[anthony scholefield]

So Cameron says the contribution of immigration is 'immeasurable'. Just like the benefits of the EU. Can't measure, won't measure-damn any measurement just listen to what I say.

[Andy Stidwill]

The speech was brilliant, but the problem is that most ordinary people are not interested in speeches; in fact, the whole concept of a speech is something alien to a lot of people these days. That's why it's unlikely there will be a big turnaround in the polls. I think there's still a high chance of Brown calling an election on Tuesday.

[Rob]

Yes, Ken did a good job on Newsnight.

Unfortunately it was followed later on by a shocking slip of the tongue by Paxman in the discussion with Peter Kellner and a Psephologist (whose name I don't know).

Kellner: If Labour were to lose...
Paxman: (Incredulously) Well they won't lose....

Followed by a pause whilst his brain worked out how partisan it sounded and then attributed the notion to the psesphologist instead.

[Londoner]

"So where was the (in my view, half-expected) Gordon Brown publicity stunt upstage coverage of DC's speech?"

Well, at least one London freebie evening paper was leading on the go-ahead of Crossrail - a positive thing for the Government in London (albeit Boris called for it a fortnight ago), if that counts.

Rob, I think you're being a bit over-sensitive about Paxman's remark. It was only about one minute before that the psesphologist was pointing out, very reasonably, that an overall majority for us requires a lead in the popular vote of about 8% and that whilst it was very possible that they could be pinned back to a 2% lead, and land up with losing their majority or close to it, this would be an impossible mountain to climb. But it was also pointed out that a slashed (or lost) majority would be an unmitigated disaster for Brown when the calling of an election was unnecessary. What Brown would do, if he does call an election, is hugely lower the hurdle by which the Tories' success would be judged. My forecast is 50/50 between little change and a Labour overall majority of between nil and 20. Whilst I would much prefer to win outright in 2009, the latter result would be a very good one and would be the precursor of a long and painful political death for Brown. If Brown calls an election next week, I will be off to the bookmakers to put money on Cameron becoming PM within 5 years.

[Teck Khong]

I returned from Blackpool later in the evening and caught up with the news coverage on Sky and BBC 24.

There is a big difference between watching and hearing something live for yourself, and gleaning it second-hand in snippets from the television influenced by reporter input.

So while those of us who were at the speech absorbed it in context and in totality, most viewers seeing it only on television did not have that benefit and could form different and less favourable opinions. Thankfully, the simplicity of the message, directness of address and the relaxed but consummate style aroused more positive than negative responses from the greater numbers of younger voters.

David Cameron was also disadvantaged compared with Gordon Brown, who enjoys the privileges of being in office, so it would require floating voters to at least recognise a few significant failings of Gordon Brown to encourage them to move away from "the devil they know", so to speak! And you will always find detractors, no matter how flawlessly David Cameron performed.

Overall, it cannot be denied that the conference was a success, the Party was solidly united, the Shadow Cabinet members acquitted themselves extremely well and all delivered a coherent and consistent message, but above all, David Cameron was simply fantastic!

Yes, on that note I'll sleep easier tonight!

[Teck Khong]

Nick Robinson is lucky he was standing behind me in the Imperial Hotel queue on Monday night and not tonight, for I would have... (OVERWITTEN MYSELF, to save you the bother, Ed!)

David Cameron has done himself and all Conservatives proud with a most magnificent speech - the epitome of politically relevant modernity!

[Anatole]

But Newsnight really hit the spot with its analysis of Baldwin's impetuous decision to go to the country in 1923. Of course Baldwin did go on to win the so-called 'Red Letter' election the following year but I don't think that, even with a leader as wet as Cameron, Brown could make accusations of supposed links with Comintern stick ...

[Martin W]

I was somewhat surprised by Ken Clarke's contribution on Newsnight. Unlike your previous corrspondant, I felt there was a tinge of sourness there, and less than wholehearted support.

[Mike Thomas (215cu)]

I think it's worthwhile to remember that even the greatest of speeches have a resonance at the time but are really most powerful years after they were given.

The beauty of Cameron's speech was the way it was delivered and what was said, it has raised a conscientiousness amongst voters to start to take an interest in Tory ideas. It was brave, friendly and kept the whole ethos of our policy accessible.

Even Churchill magnificent 'Battle for France' speech only gained real potency after the Battle of Britain, I feel Cameron's speech will only resonate once the 'how' of the our policies are filled out. The meat to the bones offered up this week has to be forthcoming, consistently given.

To paraphrase Churchill "This isn't the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning..."

I thought the coverage was lacklustre but there are some good signs. Nick Robinson signalled it was a conversation and implied it had a cosseted feel of inclusiveness, bringing all the themes of the last week together.

And that is a real strength of Cameron's speech, we have a team of some really strong individuals. Labour has the cult of Gordon and little else.

If inroads are to be made, the entire frontbench has to keep to its brief and keep plugging away on these themes.

You can bet that Labour think they have the ammunition now to attack Tory policies. Cameron's courageous speech demonstrates that he is not the caricature Labour have painted him. That in voter's minds is a real plus, it's the opening up of getting the benefit of the doubt to give us the chance to govern.

Labour now have to focus on the policies they set out and they are a dead-end, some of them are impossible to deliver. This is perfect political knockabout, voters are suspicious that it is all spin, we have make sure that 'New' Gordon is 'Old' Gordon.

Us on the other hand have plenty in the tank to focus on and pull away from the 'me too' again painted on us by the press.

Cameron's speech was a great start but how these policies will happen has to be the next stage. Cameron is right, voter's aren't fools and if we can convince them in the weeks and months ahead we mean business, then it's all over for Gordon.

[James Maskell]

I agreed with Ken Clarke last night, so I feel very dirty today...

Paxman had a point, though I dont think he quite meant for that to be said out loud. We would need a swing of monumental proportions. Theres no way we can win the election, but as was said on Newsnight and other posters here have pointed out, the pressure is really on Brown to ensure there was a point to it. He needs to be picking up a fair few seats. If he comes out with the same majority, then his authority will be undermined. I reckon he will pick up a good couple of dozen seats.