Labour party

It's just a single poll, sure — but Ipsos MORI's latest is still fairly eye-catching stuff. And this is why: it has the Tories level with Labour for the first time since October. Anthony Wells serves up a pinch of salt over at UK Polling Report, saying that this "unusual" result is most likely down to the weightings that are used. But, technicalities aside, any poll that puts the Tories close to Labour, at this stage in the political cycle, is going to be greeted cheerily by Cameron & Co. – and less so by Team Miliband. It's not all bad news for Ed Miliband, though. His personal ratings have improved since last month; a fact which deepens one of the conundrums of his reign.

It must be Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau season at the Commons' film club. A string of odd political couples has stalked stages across the land this morning, supposedly pronouncing the merits or demerits of the alternative vote. David Cameron and John Reid were the oddest: the Prime Minister’s well-heeled insouciance contrasting with his lordship’s winking Glaswegian charm. It’s good fun, without being hugely constructive. Cameron and Reid joked that they agreed on nothing beyond FPTP, before embarking on a distended muse about party politics and that old canard 'Britishness'. Things were little better for Ed Miliband, who spent a large portion of his conference listening to Vince Cable explain why he wasn’t resigning from the government.

The Labour Party is still ambling in the wilderness – sure of its destination, but uncertain of the route. Its response to last year’s general election defeat has been silence, publicly at least. In the privacy of debating chambers however, the party is charting its potential renewal. These circles murmur that ‘the state has reached its limits’; or, in other words, that Fabianism, the dominant force in the post-war Labour movement, has been tested to destruction.

There is no rest for the Prime Minster. After delivering his speech on immigration in Romsey this morning, there was another to deliver, 62 miles away in Woking, this afternoon. This second CamSpeech of the day was billed as a scene-setter for the local elections — and so it proved. Rather than dwelling on a single policy area, the main purpose was to rattle through 101 reasons to vote Tory on 5 May. If there is anything to be taken from the text, it is just how upfront and unapologetic it is. There is little room for nuance, but plenty of room for sweeping, and forceful attacks, on Labour. This passage stood out: "I think we should remember how far we’ve come.

Back in July 2003, Bruce Anderson wrote a piece on David Cameron for The Spectator. Its tone was summed up by its headline — "My hero" — and that tone has suffused through much of Bruce's writing about the Tory leader since. Which is why his piece for the FT today is striking by virtue of its differentness. Its headline is that, "Cameron is losing touch with core Tories." Its argument is that the Tory party is ignoring the hopes, fears and aspirations of the white middle classes. Admittedly, Bruce doesn't put all this down to Cameron. On his account, there are demographic factors at play — not least that the growth of the middle classes, who are now "more numerous and more prosperous than ever before," has also made them more insecure.

There's an interesting post by Éoin Clarke on debt interest doing the rounds. It originally appeared on his blog, but was soon commandeered by LabourList — and little wonder why. Dr Clarke's point is a perceptive and striking one. Debt interest, he says, is lower now than it was under John Major. The implication is that when George Osborne rattles on about the money blown on just "servicing our debt," we should take it with an almighty heap of salt. It's not, perhaps, as bad as all that. Or, rather, that's one way of looking at it. There are other ways, which I would list thus:   1) Going beyond 2011.

The birds chirruping in the sunlight clearly didn't get Ed Balls's memo. Otherwise they'd know that today is "Black Wednesday," the day when the coalition's tax and benefit policies swoop in to leave the average household some £200 a year worse off. This is the message that the shadow chancellor is broadcasting this morning, be it on Radio 4 or in a post for Labour Uncut. His claim is that the coalition is — by going "too far, too fast" on the deficit — merely squeezing the "squeezed middle" even more. Only that's not quite the full picture. The Treasury, for one, is pointing out that today's measures will actually leave 80 per cent of households better off. So who's got it right?

Ed Miliband's hand of friendship has to be one of the shakiest body parts in British politics. Sometimes it's extended to the Lib Dems, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's extended to Nick Clegg, sometimes it's not. Sure, the Labour leader does appear to have finally settled on a position: that he will only shake the hands of a Cleggless Liberal party. But that has come after constant wavering on his part, and could well be subject to change. I mention this now because of a claim in Rachel Sylvester's column (£) today. I'm not sure whether it has been made before — but it neatly encapsulates how Miliband has lurched one way and then t'other, and deserves pasting into the scrapbook.