Is the Daily Telegraph changing sides?

Where do you go if you want to read a stinging rebuke of this Government? Most of us would probably automatically turn to the Guardian or the Indy, but recent months have seen a torrent of invective delivered from writers at the Daily Telegraph of all places.

The last 48 hours are a classic case in point. First Ed West, journalist and social commentator with a right leaning bent, laid into Cameron comparing him to Ted Heath no less. In Tory-land there is no lower blow than this!

Apparently, Ed, who is widely regarded as a ‘one-to-watch’ up and coming political commentator, says Cameron will lose the 2015 General Election (he’s willing to put money on it) as he refuses to come up with a coherent policy on all manner of issues from immigration through to crime.

Within minutes of Ed’s rant, James Delingpole, another up and comer, laid into Dave & Co quoting the following. “The problem is that policy is being run by two public school boys who don’t know what it’s like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can’t afford it for their children’s lunchboxes. What’s worse, they don’t care either.”

As James noted, this quote doesn’t come from Vince Cable, as you might expect, but from Nadine Dorries, Tory MP for Mid-Bedfordshire.

It gets worse for Dave. Yesterday, one of the big commentator beasts, namely Peter Oborne piled in. Whilst making a number of brilliant points (the Coalition won’t last until 2015 is the key one) he comes out in support of Vince Cable and against George Osborne.

“The fact is,” he says, “Mr Cable has a reasonably worked-out and coherent grasp of political economy, whether one agrees with it or not, and Mr Osborne does not. A large number of Tories want Mr Cable out. They are very stupid.”

So what is going on? I was fortunate to chat with Mike Foster, former Labour MP for Worcester last night and his feeling is that the Conservative Party remains furious at Cameron for not winning the last Election outright and forcing them into a coalition.

True or not (I think it is true just to get off the fence for a moment) this sort of coverage (and many of the comments posted underneath which are in broad agreement with the writers) spell trouble for Project Cameron. Not least because the latest polls show the Labour Party has a steadily widening lead in the polls.

Cameron's Veto: is this a Waterloo or an Arnhem?

Sometimes it is best to wait before blogging on events. I took this view on Friday before commenting on David Cameron's veto at the EU Summit. Better to wait and think through the implications before hitting the keyboard.

Depending on which newspaper you have read over the weekend, individual views on the veto will differ. If you are a Telegraph or Mail reader it is likely to be the greatest British victory on the Continent since Waterloo. Guardian and Independent readers will doubtless form the view that the UK is about to be thrown out into some sort of diplomatic nuclear winter. Readers of the Economist will probably conclude that the Prime Minister didn't really have a clue what was going on and hopelessly overplayed his hand!

So what is the truth of the matter? My own view, having given it much thought, is that the leaders of the UK, France and Germany are engaged in a game of high stakes poker with bluff and counter-bluff the order of the day.

Whilst this may seem like a European issue, national considerations are playing a key role. The French President, deeply unpopular at home, faces re-election on April 7th. He faces his electorate with an economy tanking, rising inflation (anybody who has been to France recently will notice how expensive it has become), a cut in his country's credit rating and his major banks all but bankrupt. Out of the fog, his election strategy is becoming clear. He intends to say: "It's not my fault, it's those Brit's and their dodgy banks who have infected all the rest. But don't worry, I've thrown them out of Europe, so vote for me!"

Chancellor Merkel does not face re-election until September 2013, but if she is to stand any hope she needs to whip the rest of Europe into shape double-quick. However, the German public is deeply unhappy with having to prop up other countries. They haven't gone through years of fiscal austerity only to go bust bailing out the Greeks and Italians.

Similarly, Frau Merkel's strategy is also becoming clear: "It's not my fault, we need much closer fiscal integration to make sure we, sorry I mean the EU, has oversight of other country's budgets so they can't do it again. Vote for me!"

Of course the irony is that European leaders still think they are in charge of events. The reality is that the bond markets will have as much, if not more, say in how events unfold. The key point of last week's summit is that it did absolutely nothing to solve the immediate liquidity crisis that is enveloping the Eurozone. The ECB still can't buy bonds, we have no Eurobond, yields are going through the roof (as I write Italian ten-year bond yields are up by 15 basis points and rising) and the ratings agencies are downgrading as fast as they can type.

So what is the PM's game? Like his European counterparts he is also looking over his shoulder at the Eurosceptics within his own party. My guess is that the PM has made the calculation to temporarily appease the Tory right in the hope that he sees the back of President Sarkozy in April. Alternatively, the whole Eurozone could go bust and break up at which point last week's veto won't make a blind bit of difference.

The nightmare scenario for the PM is that the French socialists fail to get their act together and split their vote, which last time let in Jean Marie Le Pen of the National Front. In 2007 the socialists had to swallow their pride in the second round of voting and get behind Sarkozy to keep Le Pen out.

We are therefore in the extraordinary situation that a British Conservative Prime Minister is hoping for a socialist victory in France so that he can get rid of his arch-enemy and, he hopes, break up the Merkel/Sarkozy relationship.

Today, the Prime Minister basks in the adoring headlines of the right wing media comparing his triumph to Waterloo. He must hope that the reality is not more like an Arnhem, where a flawed strategy and faulty intelligence led to annihilation.

PM Just checked in to 10 Downing St…

The Right Honourable gentleman to my right has just checked in to parliament, tweeted his #pmq and liked ‘Ed Miliband looks like Babs from Chicken run’ on Facebook (yes that page does exist; most likely administered by Dave Miliband).

All jokes aside though, politicians’ obsession with social media seems to be unprecedented in 2011 and why shouldn’t it be? 

Modern politics is a matter of branding. Political parties function as both consumer and b2b brands - the same rules of engagement apply. This is why David Cameron recently set up a ‘Linked In’ profile (Although I’m sure he’s not looking for a new challenge).

In fact all three main political parties have socialised their websites and many MPs are encouraging Facebook campaigns and real-time twitter debates. In the age of the disparate voter it all seems like a smart move to me.

No doubt politicians have seen the rewards that brands have reaped from providing consumer touch points on the social web. Social media brings you closer to your target market; the more you engage with them, the more viral you become, meaning more interest and advocacy – the latter of which being the most important factor for any political campaign.

It’s across the pond where perhaps the use of social media in politics has paved the way for others to follow. I’m sure many in Whitehall have looked at Barack Obama’s digital successes and salivated over the results – although the jury is still out on that one for 2012. 

Whilst the Lib Dems are developing a similar social database (a Voter Activation Network) to that which the Democrats used in 2008, if you're expecting Cameron to be heading up something similar for the tories I wouldn't hold your breath, this venture is no doubt all mouth and no trousers.

Quite simply though, no party can expect to win elections without knowing who their voters are and engaging with them – social media only maximises this opportunity. With social data coming in to play I’d expect a whole new type of political campaigning come the next election.

Yet, whilst David is busy checking into the United Nations HQ in New York on Foursquare, I can’t help but wonder if there is an olive branch being sent out to the ‘disengaged youth’ that make up so much of ‘Broken Britain?’ Yeah, whatever. 

Triumph of the Wets

The full implications of what David Cameron might be attempting may only now be dawning on our professional political classes. At 8pm last night John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, was sounding positively bullish, calling on Labour to mobilise for another General Election, confident in the fact that a Tory/LibDem coalition could not possibly last. By 8.30pm I suspect Labour was feeling far less sanguine when news began to leak of a fixed-term Parliament which could be a massive game changer.

Cameron and Clegg are now bound in political marriage, for better or worse. There will be no cutting and running here when times get tough or when the polls show that the Conservatives can get a majority in the House if they call another election.

It is possible that familiarity could lead to contempt, but it could also lead to a new long-standing Centrist coalition which could effectively lock the Labour Party out of power for a generation. Of course, in order to be centrist and moderate the Conservative Party will have to move to the centre which brings me to my second point.

Michael Heseltine on BBC News 24 last night used a term which I have not heard in decades, namely ‘One Nation Conservatism’. I suspect this is where Cameron has wanted to be all along, slightly right of centre, following in the footsteps of Rab Butler, Alec Douglas Home, Ian Macleod and, dare I say it, Ted Heath (pictured above) - a political position which dominated the 1950s and 60s for the Conservatives. It has taken political expediency and a lust for power to convince his party to take its first steps to follow him.

One Nation Conservatism is the left wing of the Conservative Party, standing for fairness and consensus in society which Thatcher famously denied existed (“there’s no such thing as society, only individuals”). She famously labeled them “wets”, the only Prime Minister in living memory to give such a derogatory term to members of her own party.

Cameron is now in position to banish, within his own party and crucially in the minds of the electorate the spectre of Thatcherism, confining it to its rightful place in the history of Conservatism as an aberration fuelled by circumstance and three General Election victories brought on by militant trade unionism (1979), a horrendously split Labour Party and a war (1983) and the combination of all three and an artificial economic boom for her last victory (1987).

In many ways Labour was right, the Conservative Party hasn’t changed. The nightmare for them is that Cameron is about to.

Last Night's Live Debate: My Thoughts

A quick blog with my thoughts on last night’s Leaders Debate. Determined to get in there before our Head of B2B does – though I suspect his musings will be better informed than mine!

Clegg: Last week, he went from underdog to top dog. Today, he went from “Churchill to Nazi”. It’s been some seven days for Clegg – current talk of Twitter (#cleggsfault). At the last debate, he bowled us all over on style so today, I focused on substance – and I suspect I wasn’t alone. And darn it, he was good. So good, that he broke the rules, talked over the others and still I was hooked. He remembers letters he received months ago from cold, old people godammit. I forget my own Granny’s birthday. Loved the way he reached out to non voters, “we can make change, not just complain”. Easier to get votes from the “disenfranchised” than from the other parties. Eloquent, thoughtful, stylish, witty, intelligent - Clegg was also brave with his pro-Europe/anti American stance. Could be his undoing, but I suspect not. Only time (and a general election) will tell.

Brown: Slightly disappointed that we never got the Brown car crash we were promised, to be honest. Brown clearly set out to position himself as wiser and more experienced than the other two, “really David...”. And, all was all rather going well until the boys at bathtime gag when he undid a lot of, admittedly, rather good work. I don’t especially like the man but his solid performance and “judge me on my record” stance has convinced me he means well, at the very least – and that isn’t to be sniffed at.

Cameron: Poor night last week; slightly better night this week. Low light coming when he told an 84 year old what he would be doing in 2016. However, he did pick up towards the end and there were some sparky moments that we have come to associate with Cameron. Why, though, didn’t he pick Brown off this week and Clegg the next? That’s the strategy I’d have recommended. Instead, he focused too much (in my view) on why a hung parliament would be a bad thing “look at the bickering already”. I agree but there must be a better reason to vote Tory than the fact it is the lesser of two evils? Anyway, tonight I had expected a Cameron triumph but got a Cameron improvement. He did go running I recall – with a soldier from Afghanistan who was quicker than him. At this rate, not hard. Yes Cameron, the race is on - but you’ve got to be quicker than this if you’re going to win it.

Cameron is fighting yesterday's battle

One of the more dubious pleasures of working from home with a broken ankle is being able to watch the Leader of the Opposition speak while I'm having my lunch.

Yesterday, Dave's lunchtime lecture from the University of East London consisted of a harangue about MP's expenses (yes, he's still banging on about that).

According to him, the Prime Minister has been remiss in not withdrawing the whip from his three MPs who have been charged by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Now I know this is a serious matter and people are angry, but three months before a General Election is that really what the Leader of the Opposition should be concentrating on?

Firstly, withdrawal of the whip at this stage is one of great political pointless gestures (thank you Prime Minister). All three have been de-selected by their constituencies and will be consigned to history in the next three months. Furthermore, there is no practically no legislation to vote on going through the House of Commons anyway. Finally, as the Speaker of the House pointed out yesterday, withdrawal of the whip encourages more discussion of the individual cases which prejudices any criminal trial.

My own opinion is that the debate and the public has moved on. The issue now is reform of the Electoral system which did so much to foster the Boys Club atmosphere of 'anything goes' at Westminster. We've made a start with the creation of the independent authority to oversee MP salaries, but the real issue is whether we should get rid of our First Past The Post electoral system.

Today's opportunistic Parliamentary debate on Electoral Reform should have been Cameron's cue for a reasoned argument yesterday pointing out the pluses and minuses of changing the system, instead we got political posturing and a personal attack on the Prime Minister.

Of course, the cynics would say that Dave is just trying to distract attention from his shrinking poll lead. More likely is that Cameron is deliberately using slight of hand to keep his options open. In other words, talk about MP's expenses to position yourself as a reformer, in fact talk about anything as long as you don't sign up for Electoral Reform. Then, if he does get a whopping great majority, which would effectively give him two terms, he can quietly ditch the referendum in 2011 which he never signed up for anyway.

The problem is that this sort of transparent posturing is what is shrinking his poll lead in the first place. The British public is not stupid, it wants answers to the problems we are grappling with not soundbites and righteous indignation about six month old stories. Frankly, he's going to have to do a lot better over the next three months.

Crude politicking will hurt Cameron

Just got back from a visit to a client during which the conversation turned briefly towards David Cameron’s fact checking issue. As my client eloquently put it. “What a c#ck up. I bet he got back to his office and tore a strip off somebody.”

The facts of the case are almost immaterial but, for those not in the know, Dave accused the Prime Minister at PMQs of state funding two schools with links to Islamic extremism. The BBC this morning ran with the fact that the Conservatives had been forced to concede they had got some facts wrong.

Couple of points. Firstly, what beggars belief is why the Tory party chose this line of questioning yesterday. There are plenty of vulnerable areas to attack this Government on, domestic terrorism is not one of them.

Secondly, Cameron has now given a Brown a wonderful put down for PMQs. Expect Gordon to be asking “has the Leader of the Opposition got his facts right this time?” every time he gets to his feet.

These are dangerous times for the Conservatives. As many commentators have rightly pointed out there is no groundswell of popular support for them. In many ways they are the least worst option. And, as the Prime Minister himself has found out over the last two years, seemingly small issues can grow disproportionately in the public’s mind to become issues of leadership and credibility.

Cameron has benefited in the last year from the fact that the media spotlight has not been trained upon him. Any more c#ck ups like this and that spotlight may begin to turn.