Tories

Jonathan Freedland is surely right: Labour's best hope, now that the electorate appears to have decided that "change" matters* and dismissed Labour's pretensions to offer that change, is to maximise its core vote in the hope of avoiding an electoral meltdown that would, say, leave them with fewer than 200 seats in the new parliament. If Labour aren't quite the walking dead the Tories were in 1997 that's because of the current constituency boundaries, not because there's any more life in the Labour campaign.

No electoral system is perfect. First Past the Post has its advantages and it's a mistake to suppose that switching to the Alternative Vote or multi-member constituencies elected by STV solves all problems. On the contrary it probably replaces one set of difficulties with another. Nevertheless, one wonders how sustainable FPTP is. Traditionally it has done a pretty good job of corralling extremism and producing more-or-less coherent governments that can command a majority in the House of Commons (and that can be unceremoniously turfed-oot once they've outlived their usefulness). Unfortunately - and increasingly - those governments enjoy only minority support in the country-at-large.

Well this was entirely predictable. The authoritarian right insist that Dave's efforts at making the Tory party electable are in fact what has prevented the party from storming to a landslide victory. We'll be hearing a lot more of this nonsense if the Tories fail to win a majority but Melanie Phillips's most recent post is a decent enough starting place and summary of the argument. Naturally she quotes Norman Tebbit at length and, presumably, it's only a matter of time befre Simon Heffer and the others weigh-in too. Of course this analysis conveniently ignores the fact that it's the manifest, obvious, failure of the right that has left Cameron in such a difficult position.

Well, what do you guys think of it? Not bad, I think, especially for a broadcast put together at the last minute (the Tories having pulled their planned anti-Brown PEB), But, as ever, there's the problem that if people think Cameron a little too slick, a little too polished, a little too much the salesman then the slicker, more polished the Tory presentation the more it feeds into this (unfair) perception. Not that the alternative - incompetence - is any better of course...

As James says, we're going to need to wait a few days before we can be sure if the Lib Dem surge has legs but, yes, right now something is happening. The headline figures for the three polls we've seen since Clegg's coming-out party are: ComRes: Con: 31 (-4) Lab: 27 (-2) Lib: 29 (+8) ICM: Con: 34 (-3) Lab: 29 (-2) Lib: 27 (+7) YouGov: Con: 33 (-4) Lab: 28 (-3) Lib: 30 (+8) That's all striking enough but so too is this finding from the Independent on Sunday's ComRes poll: Only 53% of self-proclaimed Labour voters say their preferred election outcome is a Labour majority. By contrast 67% of Conservative voters say they want Cameron to win a majority.

Speaking at a Spectator debate last night, Tim Montgomerie laid out some of the reasons for thinking David Cameron more the heir to Thatcher than, as some of the old right think he may be, a squishy heir to Heath. I wouldn't agree with all of it but it's a good speech and a good case. This bit in particular is a fine summary of the modernisers' argument: For years there has been an unholy alliance of the Guardian Left and unreconstructed right who only want the Tories to talk about tax, crime, Europe and immigration. [...] But added to this traditional mix Cameron also wants the Tories to be the party of social justice, the natural environment. He wants the party to occupy the full stage. He wants the party to play every instrument in the orchestra.

Sunder Katwala thinks that Dave's talk of the "Great Ignored" carries echos of Nixon's "Silent Majority"; Hopi Sen doesn't much care for the phrase either and wonders why Cameron didn't go for Chesterton or Kipling instead. This seems sound advice though I wonder if eloquence and allusion can carry a message these days without being seen as hopelessly elitist or, worse, pompous and artificial. Rhetoric, I fancy, is mistrusted.  Anyway, this is part of what Cameron had to say: "We're fighting this election for the great ignored. Young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight. They start businesses, operate factories, teach our children, clean the streets, grow our food and keep us healthy – keep us safe. They work hard, pay their taxes, obey the law.