David cameron

The latest Comres poll for the Independent indicates, as if we needed telling, that the Tories are yet to seal the deal. It’s far from panic stations – the lead remains at 9 points – but there are two figures that prove where the Tories are going wrong. The majority of respondents feel that a Conservative government would exclusively represent the interests of the rich, and the contention that the Tories represent an appealing alternative to Labour was rejected. If Cameron is merely a PR man I hope he’s cheap. Aside from Alex Salmond I can’t envisage anything worse than five more years of Gordon, and this suggests to me that Cameron is struggling to communicate with voters. Nowhere is this more palpable than the preposterous class war.

So there we have it.  There will be televised election debates between the three main party leaders during the next election campaign, after all.  The first will be on ITV, then there'll be one each on Sky and the BBC.  Talk about good TV for political anoraks. Like Tim Montgomerie and Mike Smithson, I suspect that Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg will be happiest with the news.  Both of them, particularly Brown, need potential game-changing events like this to make some progress in the polls.   As for Cameron, he'd probably be better off not giving his opponents a chance to make inroads into the Tories' poll lead.  But he could hardly have resisted live debates in the current political climate.

David Cameron’s interview with Tim Shipman suggests that the Tory leader is about to undergo a course correction. The Tories have, rightly, begun to be frank with the public about the cuts that will need to be made and have, again rightly, refused to rule out a short-term rise in VAT. But the ‘we’re all in this together’ rhetoric has only been applied to the tough measures that are needed now not the prosperity that might follow in years to come. If Cameron is to start showing the public more of his vision of where he wants to take Britain then that is to be welcomed. But he also needs the rest of his top team to communicate to the public what the consequences of carrying on spending massively more than the country earns would be.

I need a new radio for Christmas. Whilst listening to Dr. Sir Liam Donaldson tell the Today programme that parents should not offer their fifteen year old offspring alcohol, my pocket-radio had an altercation with a wall. The soon to be retiring chief medical officer said: “The more they get a taste for it, the more likely they are to be heavy drinking adults or binge drinkers later in childhood.” This latest soothsaying counts among Sir Liam’s other alcohol-related triumphs; he also gave us the inscrutable phenomenon of “passive drinking” - I don’t know about you but this guy makes me drink actively.

If PMQs today showed anything, it's just how eager the Tories' opponents are to bring up the issue of Lord Ashcroft.  Vince Cable set the ball rolling by referring to the Tory deputy chairman as a "non dom", and Harriet Harman gleefully followed up by firing questions in William Hague's direction.  She was cut off – and rightly so – by John Bercow.  But the insinuations about the Lord and his tax status had already been made. Now, you could say that this is pretty low stuff from Labour and the Lib Dems.  After all, David Cameron pledged earlier this week to legislate so that all MPs and peers are UK taxpayers.

Of all the findings from today's ICM poll for the Guardian, I imagine this one will concern the Tory leadership most: "Just two months ago, 49 percent of voters said they thought Cameron and Osborne would do better than Darling and Brown, but that figure is 38 percent today." They're still ahead of Brown and Darling – who are langushing on 31 percent – but the drop is still pretty striking.  What's more, it seems to go against conventional wisdom about fixing the fiscal mess we're in.  While they could still go further in setting out a few specifics, the fact is that the Tory pair have spent the last couple of months railing against the the twin debt and deficit burdens, and stressing the need for spending cuts.

Is it just me, or have the Tories developed a slightly harder edge in the couple of days since the Pre-Budget Report?  We had an unusually acidic address from David Cameron yesterday, in which he likened Brown 'n' Darling to "joy-riders in a car smashing up the neighbourhood," and criticised the PBR for its "irresponsibility, basic deceit and complete lack of moral principle".  There have been a couple of quite powerful attack posters from CCHQ.  And now we've got George Osborne saying that Brown may have "betrayed the responsibilities of the office he holds." "So what?" you say, "they're the Opposition – it's their job to oppose."  Well, yes, of course.  But that opposition seems to have been concentrated over the past few days.

Few columnists are read more carefully in Conservative circles than Danny Finkelstein. He is extremely well connected in the Cameron circle and enjoys something of a mind-meld with George Osborne. Danny’s column today is the argument for sticking to the modernising message. It does, though, contain one significant criticism of the party, its dependence on David Cameron.   This Cameron dependence has been a problem for a while. But the leadership itself must take most of the blame for this. They have used Cameron for almost every announcement that they view as important and that has sent a message to the media that if it doesn’t come from Cameron the party doesn’t view it as important.

There are a couple of noteworthy snippets in today's FT interview with George Osborne: the claim that the Tories may not take corporation tax as low as it is in Ireland; the outline of a "five-year road map" on business tax policy, etc.  But, I must admit, it's this passage which jumped out at me:    "[Osborne] says his Tory conference speech in October, which included plans for a public sector pay freeze and an increase in the state retirement age, 'was an important moment' that showed a mental leap to being 'an alternative government, not just an opposition'." These self-bestowed titles – "alternative government," and the like – are silly, really.  The only thing that actually matters is whom the public regards as governing material.