Chris Dillow estimates that there are more heroin users in Glasgow North East than Tory voters*. For that matter, there are probably four heroin users in Springburn for every plucky citizen prepared to vote Liberal Democrat. I suspect Labour won't want to use this factoid for fear it foster the impression that heroin use is much more widespread than it really is. *In, admittedly, a by-election with a 33% turnout.
I don't think that government ministers should necessarily listen to the advice they're given by independent, expert authorities. That is, the government is and should be free to decide that, whatever the merits of any given piece of independent analysis the larger, more general, interest is best served by rejecting that advice. So there's nothing wrong with Alan Johnson sacking Professor David Nutt. That's his prerogative. But we have our own views and interests too. And we may fairly say that Johnson is a fool and that Nutt's recommendation, shared by his colleagues at Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, that Cannabis should be reclassified at a Class C, not Class B, drug is eminently sensible.
And so the strangeness continues: the latest Ipsos MORI poll has the Tories leaping a hefty 7 points to 43 percent, while Labour climb 2 to 26 percent, and the Lib Dems fall 6 points to 19 percent. It's most likely a correction from their last poll – which had the Lib Dems above Labour for the first time since the 1980s – but the Tories' 17-point lead is still at odds with some of the other polls we've seen recently. I'm sure CCHQ will be pleased, but, as I said yesterday, it's worth waiting a few weeks until the polls settle before drawing judgement. UPDATE: Guardian/ICM also gives the Tories a 17-point lead.
So what's the deal with the opinion polls we've been seeing in the newspapers recently? There was some hubbub in Tory circles yesterday over the fact that two weekend polls – YouGov for the Sunday Times and ComRes for the Indy on Sunday – had Labour either gaining ground on the Tories or a maintaining boosted level of support around the 30 percent mark. What had happened to the 19 percent lead that the Tories enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of their conference? Had the Labour conference really been more successful than the Tory one, despite all appearances? I've heard these, and similar questions, doing the rounds over the past couple of days. I rather suspect that there's some volatility involved in all this.
One strange side-effect of the car crash that was the Liberal Democrat conference is that no one dares say the word “cuts” anymore. Since Nick Clegg promised “savage cuts” – alarming his base in the process – we’re back to the normal euphemism of “efficiencies”. This, like so much in life, will have Gordon Brown hopping mad. He didn’t want to say “cuts” in the first place, and the whole farrago will prove (in his head) that he should stop taking advice from people outside his coterie. The next stage in the debate is to focus on growth. As James revealed in his political column for the current edition of the magazine, the Tory plan to do this is an aggressive cut in corporation tax.
So expenses are back - and in a fairly big way. Not that they ever really went away, of course. But you'd be forgiven for thinking that the parties had pretty much forgotten about them during conference season, so little was said about the issue. But today it's back on the front pages and, you suspect, back to the top of MPs' priority lists. According to the Sunday Telegraph, "more than half" of the Commons will be either told to repay dubious claims, or provide extra information about those claims, during the next part of Sir Thomas Legg's investigation into expenses this week. Gordon Brown is said to be among the former group.
So how radical is David Cameron? I was on a Radio Four panel yesterday for “Beyond Westminster” (now online) where, for once, I was not the only token right-winger. It was presented by Iain Martin and had Bruce Anderson, who wrote this week’s cover piece about Cameron, and Jackie Ashley. I was begging Iain to introduce her as being from “the left-wing Guardian” to repeat the intro that the BBC so often gives the “right-wing” Spectator (“Warning: the views you are about to hear are not from the consensus”). Iain asked me if I thought Cameron had the courage and the character needed to transform Britain. I concluded with words of endorsement that had TGF UKIP choking (on another thread). In spades, I said.
Paul Waugh has the scoop that all eight Labour councils in London will freeze council tax from next April. The councils worked with Communities Secretary John Denham, who emphasised that 2010-2011’s increase in the central grant means that tax rises are unacceptable. As Waugh puts it, the “low-tax era seems finally to have begun”. This is very early to announce rate levels and represents a pre-election skirmish, suggesting that Labour will campaign on the issue of maintaining low council taxes nationwide. Labour face annihilation in the capital, so freezing unpopular rises whilst not embracing equally unpopular cuts is politically smart.
Nick Clegg started the Lib Dem conference with an interview calling for ‘savage cuts’ in public spending and ended it with a speech trying to position the Lib Dems as the main party of the left in Britain. That pretty much sums up the strategic incoherence of this conference which has left the Lib Dems worse off than they were before. The Lib Dems have had an awful week for several reasons. First, they haven’t done the basics well—putting Clegg up against Obama was hardly clever programming and not informing every spokesperson of policy announcements before the media was told was bound to cause trouble. (How no one thought to tell Julia Goldsworthy of a change that so dramatically impacted on her brief is beyond me).
What a week for the LibDems. The conference began, as always, with the sound newspapers being arranged across sleeping faces as the mass snore-in started. A few hopeful souls wondered if the LibDems might finally tell us exactly what their party is for. And LibDems went about their usual business of behaving like some cuddly cult for Terribly Nice People. Then everything changed. Out came their true colours and they started scrapping in the sand-pit like a pack of ruthless cockerels. It began with Nick Clegg’s misuse of the word ‘savage’ in reference to cuts. It got worse when Vince ‘Capability’ Cable announced a muddled new levy on million-pound houses. At a stroke the Mansion-Muncher had jeopardised every Liberal Democrat vote in Greater London.
In his interview with the FT, Nick Clegg says that the Lib Dems have been too “reticent” about making Europe a dividing line with the Tories. There’s little doubt that Clegg, a former MEP is an ideological pro-European. But if he starts banging on about Europe he’ll cause his party problems. The Lib Dems have several seats in the South West, one of the most Euro-sceptic regions of the county. As the European elections results there showed, when Europe is the issue the Lib Dems do badly. If Clegg really does intend to make Europe a key campaign dividing line, then the Tories will fancy their chance of picking up a fair few of these South Western marginals.
After an awful conference so far, the last thing the Lib Dems needed was for another internal row to threaten to overshadow the leader’s speech. But that is what has happened. 18 of the 29 member Federal Policy Committee, which produces the Lib Dem manifesto, have written to The Guardian saying that they will include in it a commitment to scrap tuition fees regardless of what the leadership wants. This is not the only open defiance of Nick Clegg’s authority.
Every Tory I have spoken to this week has said the same thing, ‘aren’t the Lib Dems having a terrible time.’ The Tories are particularly happy because they see the Lib Dems’ credibility on economics taking a battering thanks to the total confusion over Cable’s proposed new tax on million-pound homes. They also think that the new Lib Dem policy will hurt the Lib Dems in a lot of the Southern seats the Tories are trying to win—Richmond, Winchester, Meon Valley and Taunton—as well as in three way marginals like Hampstead and Kilburn. The other thing that is putting a smile on Tory faces is the Lib Dems downgrading their pledge on tuition fees.
The Liberal Democrat's party conference is the one occasion when they are guaranteed what they need most: publicity. This year has seen them dominate the headlines, albeit negatively. Unashamedly public in-fighting followed Nick Clegg’s extraordinary pronouncement about “savage cuts”. Steve Webb’s rejection of Clegg’s plans to tighten up ‘middle-class benefits’ and Charles Kennedy’s thinly veiled call to arms against the proposed abolition of the pledge to abolish tuition fees were minor squabbles compared to the Mansions tax debacle. Yesterday, I suggested the proposal was sensible; it isn't.
The other thing to be borne in mind about the Liberal Democrats - apart, that is, from the fact that they betray proper liberalism every day - is that they're hopeless at politics. Vince Cable's proposals on freezing public sector pay, reforming pensions and increasing the personal allowance are actually all very sensible. Good policies in fact! Worth talking about! So what does he do? Only ruin everything by proposing an absurd, back-of-a-napkin plan to tax large houses still further. (That the Lib Dems are, or used to be becauses, really, who can tell these days, in favour of replacing property taxes with a local income tax merely adds to the absurdity of the situation.) So, guess what gets the headlines? Surprisingly it's not the sensible ideas. This is elementary.
This morning it emerged that Julia Goldsworth, the Lib Dems’ communities’ spokesman, who nominally supervises local taxation, knew nothing of the mansion tax until hearing it announced over the radio. The Guardian’s Allegra Stratton writes that Goldsworthy’s disclosure proves that Clegg and Cable run a ‘duopoly on leadership’. Cable is not as popular within his party and resentment is building on the frontbenches. Andrew Neil reports that a private meeting of Lib Dem MPs rounded on Cable and his “suicidal” mansion tax. Also, Stratton was informed by one frontbencher that “Clegg will have to sack Vince” after the election. Cable has begun to resemble the court’s jester rather than its grand vizier.
The Conservatives’ unrequited love for the Liberal Democrats receives attention this morning. The Times' Rachel Sylvetser points out that in reality, away from dreams of government and official opposition, the Lib Dems have everything to gain by giving in to David Cameron’s and Eric Pickles’ serenades: ‘They set themselves up as the party of honesty, who will tell the truth about fiscal restraint, but on the issue over which they have most control — the role they would play in a hung Parliament — they offer only obfuscation. They define themselves constantly in terms of the other two parties, then when it comes to the crunch they refuse to say what demands they would make in return for their co-operation.
The new ICM poll for The Guardian shows the Tories in an extremely strong position heading into conference season. They are on 43 percent, 17 points ahead of Labour. The extent of Labour’s fall since the last election is illustrated by the fact that only 47 percent of those who voted for the party then intend to do so again. Indeed, even 40 percent of those who have remained loyal to Labour now expect a Tory victory at the next election. The poll also shows that Labour is not seen as credible on the state of the public finances by the electorate. Only 14 percent of voters believe that Labour is “telling the voters the truth about the size of the problem facing government finances.
Vince Cable’s caricature of Tory economic policy was so disingenuous that it failed to hit its target. He said: “The Tories propose cuts, carried out in secret behind closed doors after the election, if they win.” The Conservatives have pioneered the cuts debate and the other parties have followed. Although I’d like to see more detailed plans of Tory cuts, the party has been upfront about the necessity for and extent of cuts and where they might be made. Then, Cable contrasted Tory secrecy and centralisation with Liberal openness and localism: “We want an open, democratic debate about priorities. They want to control everything from Whitehall – just like Labour. We believe in local government.
You may not agree with the specifics, but one of the successes of the Lib Dem conference so far has been to shift the debate about our fiscal recovery from one wholly about spending cuts to one about tax changes too. This is a necessary step. For reasons which have been delved into by Danny Finkelstein, spending restraint alone won't be enough to tackle Brown's debt mountain. There will have to be tax rises. And, what's more, they will have to be efficient and - as far as possible - fair. These points are made by Jackie Ashley in today's Guardian, who argues that Labour should move as quickly as possible onto the issue of taxes, because they're getting routed when it comes to spending cuts.