Meeting Place Communications
Election Blog

30 April 2010

Affordable Homes

An interesting press release from Labour http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/8556/ tories_just_say_no_to_new_homes_healey.html warning people that the Tories and Lib Dems will threaten plans to build more affordable homes, with 70% of Tory councillors saying their areas doesn’t need more homes (70%? Is that all?...).

Given Gordon Brown’s comments last night this is rather ironic. When asked a question about housing by an audience member who couldn’t afford to buy a home, Brown said that the housing industry had indeed “let us down!” over the last few years!

On the one hand Labour seem to think they are enabling the provision of housing, and on the other the industry is slated for not doing more. Given that private developers have provided the vast majority of affordable housing in recent years, and that many people might consider that a massively complex planning system (which Labour has done little to relieve) is what delays housing provision rather than a lack of will from developers, one might think Labour would be thanking the industry, rather than finding yet more excuses to knock it....

29 April 2010

What is the “Big Society”?

When Gordon Brown opted out of calling an election in 2007 he said he wanted time to set out his vision for Britain. The 2010 Labour manifesto entitled “A Future Fair For All” contained a principle, namely fairness, but didn’t really provide an over-arching vision. The Lib Dem’s campaign is based on being different from what Nick Clegg terms the “old parties”. Perhaps the closest we’ve come to a cross-policy vision is from David Cameron and the Conservatives. It is called “The Big Society”.

The roots of the big society can be traced back to some traditional Tory ideals such as social responsibility, freedom from state control and an enhanced role for voluntary groups. The umbrella term, though, is new. David Cameron is proposing to pass responsibility from Westminster to local communities. It should be acknowledged that defining the correct level to devolve power down to is very subjective, however thinking of the principle being put forward, how would the big society work in practice? Here are a few ideas the Tories are proposing:

• A new community bank would be established to provide finance to allow neighbourhood groups and social enterprises to make improvements to their locality
• A national citizen service, as recently launched by Sir Michael Caine, would be a voluntary scheme through which 16 year olds develop skills
• Public services could be run at a more local level rather than being at the end of a tier of national government
• Parents and community groups would be able to submit proposals to run their own schools
• Parks and community amenities could be run by local co-operatives
• Concerns over policing priorities would be targeted by the introduction of an elected police chief for each area.

Of course, of most concern to the industry is the proposal to take the planning process to a far more local level. There are similar worries about a number of the ideas mentioned above. Devolving power is easy, finding a responsible body to take over the running will require more work. Clearly, there will be some safeguards in place; you are not going to be able to set up a new school on a whim. Minimum, and potentially very high, standards will need to be met, but to what extent the British public are ready to embrace the big society remains an unknown.

One of the biggest proponents of the idea is the Conservative candidate in Hammersmith, Shaun Bailey. Bailey is a co-founder of My Generation, a charity set up to address the social problems that affect young people and their families, including anti-social behaviour, drug use, crime, teen pregnancy, educational underachievement and unemployment in inner-city London. While it is fair to say that some of the likely Tory intake at this election comes from the Think Tank / political assistant route, Bailey’s background is from what is now being termed the big society.

28 April 2010

BigotGate – a lesson in alienating your core support

The Labour general election campaign broke new ground today. Confronted by an elderly voter, deep in safe Labour territory in Rochdale, Gordon Brown experienced first-hand the dangers of politics in the hi-tech media age.

Mrs Duffy, a Rochdale pensioner and lifelong Labour voter, demanded reassurance from Brown on issues such as pensions, crime and, fatally for Brown, immigration. They had a discussion after which she told Brown he still had her vote and he declared “Nice to meet you, nice to meet you”. Unfortunately for Gordon, upon returning to the perceived safety of his official Jaguar, he still had his Sky News microphone attached to his lapel as he declared to aides that the confrontation had been “a disaster” and that Mrs Duffy was “a bigoted woman”.

Showing contempt for the voters is bad enough, but when that contempt is aimed at a stereotypical core-voter in safe heartland, the repercussions can be nothing but disastrous. These comments have, in one short media hiccough, succeeded in alienating potentially millions of ordinary working class Labour voters by appearing to arrogantly dismiss the issues that concern them most.

We have already touched on this issue of the dangers of modern media and social networking for those with political ambition (Those who live by the Tweet, die by the Tweet), but compared to this, the Ellie Gellard story fades into insignificance.

22 April 2010

Sign of the times

The Labour party’s shortage of campaign cash has been well reported but surely this can’t be the answer to their lack of billboards? http://tinyurl.com/2392uku

Lifelong Labour supporter and former parish councillor decided to take the campaign into his own hands by erecting a 15ft sign on the gable of his end of terrace home reading “Feeling Suicidal Vote Tory” (be reassured, the lack of punctuation is not a typo). Explaining the wording, Mr Davis said “I always thought you would have to be pretty miserable to be a Tory supporter”.

Following questioning by community police officers, Mr Davis maintains that he had the support of his neighbours. However, a glance at the readers’ comments at the end of the article suggests that Mr Davis might want to think twice before setting up in the world of political advertising!

21 April 2010

The importance of detail

The major parties will have experts paying attention to the smallest detail. Not every candidate though has that luxury. Rod Rodgers is standing as an independent candidate in Sheffield Central. The traditionally safe Labour seat may come under threat from the Lib Dems following boundary changes.

Mr Rodgers is not going to be the next MP and nor from his car door advert is he likely to have a future as either a signwriter or a proofreader.

With thanks to Ben (www.cardiffblogger.co.uk) and Arnie (www.twitter.com/arnieetc) for highlighting this story

20 April 2010

Making sense of the Lib Dem’s election polling

The opinion polls since the first leaders’ debate have been very interesting and also rather strange. A small number have the Lib Dems leading the Conservatives but by far the majority have the Lib Dems polling above Labour. There’s no denying that Nick Clegg performed well at the leaders’ debate and exceeded expectations where as Cameron and Brown merely met the standard expected of them. In Tuesday’s Guardian, the paper asks “Is Clegg really the new Obama?” while the Western Mail suggests the Lib Dems are closing in on Labour in Wales. Recent history shows the Liberals in a distant fourth in Wales and they ended fifth in 2009. So when we drill down, what is actually going on and what impact could it have on the election results?

Nick Clegg has pitched himself as the anti-politico, yet this is an odd tag for a former lobbyist and Member of the European Parliament. He has put forward an image of an untainted Lib Dem party, but the Lib Dems did get caught up in the expenses scandal. Clegg accuses Labour of being in the pay of the Unions and the Tories of being in the pay of Lord Ashcroft, but when challenged about receiving the largest Lib Dem donation of the 2005 campaign from Michael Brown, later jailed for perjury, Clegg simply answered that it happened years ago. He refers to the “old parties” but a cursory look at the history books suggest the Liberals can track their history considerably further back than Labour. As such, surely none of this boost to the Lib Dems makes sense? Well, it isn’t quite as simple as that.

Clegg may be an unlikely champion for those who want to shake up the politics of the UK but he is very cleverly placing himself in the position to do just that. He has stepped out of the shadow of both his colleague Vince Cable and the caricature of being Cameron-lite (Cameron himself suffers from a caricature of being Blair-lite). To understand why an affinity has grown between the British public and Clegg it is worth looking at the over-arching themes of each campaign:

• The Conservatives are encouraging a vote for change
• Lib Dems are encouraging a vote for “real” change
• UKIP are encouraging a vote against the political class
• Plaid Cymru are seeking to challenge the “London consensus”

As you can see, the aim is simple, make all the parties larger than your own look like as though they offer no change from the incumbent. Actually, the Conservative “Big Society” idea with public service co-operatives, locally decided planning policy, elected police commissioners and allowing charities and parents’ groups to establish schools is very different from Labour. By the same token the Lib Dem’s stance to scrap the trident nuclear deterrent is very different to the position of Labour and the Conservatives. The harsh truth is that the suggestion that any of the parties are the same as another is lazy and inaccurate but it does resonate with voters. Plaid Cymru, UKIP and many other smaller parties were not able to put that point across during the debate, Clegg was. David Cameron has perhaps focused too much on the principle of change and not enough on the details of that change which are in the manifesto but not in the public eye.

Nick Clegg maybe an unlikely hero for the politically disaffected but he was savvy enough to spot the opportunity. The Lib Dem bump in the polls is not going to last for long, and will probably have dipped well down compared to its current highs by the time polling stations open. That is not to say they will not poll better than they were set to prior to the debates. More important is the impact that the Lib Dems improved polling rating will have on postal votes. Postal voting starts next week and this could really be the section of the contest in which the Lib Dems do much better than had been expected. On the other hand between now and next week is the second debate and while the viewing figures will be down the expectations on Clegg’s shoulders are now very high. Will the poll ratings be likewise at the end?

19 April 2010

Winning the fight and winning the war: Where are we after the first TV debate?

In an earlier blogpost reference was made to the fact that the three leaders needed to perform well, not simply against one another but also against the starting expectations facing each of them. This blogpost is about how each leader fared and also the broader impact. At its peak 9.9 million people watched the debate according to preliminary figures. It is quite possible that this debate will be the most watched of the three, after all, there is a novelty value in being the first ever and it is less of a sell to viewers to be the second or third. This could matter, as people may make their mind up on the back of just one of the three debates. However, that is unlikely because whether you watch the debate or not, the blanket media coverage of the performances of the wannabe PMs is such that it will have some influence on the election result. Let’s take a deeper look at last night’s debate.

Gordon Brown

Brown just about met the pre-debate expectations. He did well to avoid being too statistic-heavy in his responses. His lowest point was a bizarrely timed jibe at Cameron over billboard posters in the midst of answering a question on crime. One interesting note was that Brown reached across to the Lib Dems in an answer suggesting that there was cross-party agreement only to be roundly rebuffed by Clegg. There probably wasn’t a highlight as such for Brown but on the whole he put in a stable performance. He is unlikely to have boosted his chances of staying as Prime Minister, a point I’ll return to in the conclusion.

David Cameron

Expectations were high and Cameron met them but did not exceed them. The Conservative leader had a strong start and finish to the debate but was unable to consistently make an impact. It was interesting to note that he seemed to be the most polite of the three, sticking to time limits when responding and awaiting Alistair Stewart’s nod before speaking. Ironically, this quality probably worked against him yesterday. There were also moments in which Cameron’s responses felt a little too pre-rehearsed to be natural. David Cameron didn’t need to win big in debate one; he set out a strong performance yesterday, but will need to up his game for the next two debates if the Conservatives are to go into the election with real confidence of an overall majority.

Nick Clegg

If you believe any analysis other than the most partisan Tory or Labour reports then the consensus is that Nick Clegg “won the debate”. When questioned on crime, Clegg seemed to struggle a little as he essentially repeated the same point when invited to comment on three separate occasions, but once that moment was over he seemed to relax and did come across well in the rest of the debate. He also spent a lot of time with his hand in his pocket, one presumes that was pre-planned to give a less formal appearance. He made great play of the policy to scrap the trident nuclear deterrent, but much of his time was spent accusing the “old parties” of being too alike. So, Clegg won? Well, yes he did on the night, but the expectation level for him is now very high for the next two debates and the mathematics of the election on 6th May suggest that he may not have been the only winner.

Nationalist & minor parties

It must have been hard work for Plaid Cymru and SNP activists to watch the debate. It must be remembered that they will be fighting marginal constituencies against the three parties featured and yet they were only able to look on from the sidelines. The Green Party will have been disappointed by the popularity of the Lib Dem message as this is territory the two parties tend to be competing over. As for UKIP, they will have been disappointed to see Nick Clegg making a good case for his party being the anti-traditional-politics option. A position they are seeking to fill.

Conclusion

The debate was good news for Nick Clegg and especially so for the Lib Dem MPs fighting tight election races against Conservatives. It was also a boost to the Lib Dem candidates fighting close battles against Labour. For Conservative candidates involved in election battles with Labour, the story today is probably one of not much change, however for the party hierarchy much thought will need to be given to how the Conservatives can gain seats off the Lib Dems if last night does spark a revival in the third party’s fortunes. Within the target list of seats the Conservatives need to gain for an overall majority, approximately 25 are currently held by the Lib Dems. It is possible for the Conservatives to gain an overall majority by winning seats from Labour and other parties without picking up the targets from the Lib Dems, but it would require a strong consistent swing in a lot of seats some with majorities of over 6,500. There are more Conservative targets currently held by the Lib Dems, than realistic Lib Dem targets held by Labour. Earlier in this blogpost I mentioned that Gordon Brown was unlikely to have boosted his chances of staying as Prime Minister. However, if the Conservatives are less likely to win in marginal seats against the Lib Dems then Gordon Brown’s chances of staying in power are enhanced, albeit not through his doing. Clegg won the fight but in doing so Brown is a couple of steps closer to winning the war.

16 April 2010

Tory Bear v Twitter Tsar

A little earlier in the campaign, Conservative-leaning Harry Cole who blogs as Tory Bear, fronted a campaign to raise funds for Adeela Shafi. Adeela is a high profile Conservative candidate in Bristol. At face value there is little to this story; the interest, though, lies in the motivation. Adeela is seeking to become the next MP for Bristol East. This seat is currently held by Labour’s Kerry McCarthy who was appointed as Labour’s advisor on New Media matters after her use of a blog and prolific tweeting. Before the day of her appointment was out she had been nicknamed the Twitter Tsar. Kerry McCarthy is not popular amongst opposition politicians and tends to follow a particularly partisan line. The campaign to raise funds for Adeela Shafi was called “Kerry Out” and while it utilised the official Conservative party tool to raise funds, it presented itself as an anti-Kerry McCarthy campaign rather than a pro-Adeela Shafi campaign. Adeela is very aware of the “Kerry Out” website, but has wisely distanced herself from it. At the time of writing over £2,000 has been raised. The rise of Harry Cole has also been notable in recent months. If blog readership figures are to be believed, his site is amongst the most popular political commentaries and he has become a regular guest on television news channels.

15 April 2010

Those who live by the Tweet die by the Tweet

Twitter has played a high profile role in the election campaign so far. A Labour candidate, Stuart MacLellan had little choice but to resign after his twitter feed was found to be offensive to Conservatives, Lib Dems, old people, young people…. well, you get the idea! When Gordon Brown launched the Labour manifesto he was introduced by Ellie Gellard. Fiercely partisan on Twitter as @bevaniteellie, Ellie was to be the youthful forward-looking introduction the manifesto needed. However, between her blog and Twitter feed, the press found her comments from two years ago in which she called for Gordon Brown to resign. While her Brown comments were embarrassing for the PM, this is a 21 year old student and she didn’t deserve to be splashed across the front pages of the Times and Telegraph. Perhaps the moral is those who live by the tweet die by the tweet.

What wasn't in the Conservative manifesto

Sometimes you can become so caught up in what is included in a manifesto that you don't immediately notice what is not included. A closer look reveals no mention of two of the most controversial elements proposed in the earlier Conservative planning green papers. Third party right of appeals does not feature in the manifesto and nor does the idea for developers to directly reimburse neighbours to developments for the inconvenience to them, rather the focus is on the tariff to the council with a specific point included to ensure the immediate locality gains from the tariff.

14 April 2010

The Conservatives ask you to join the Government

The Conservatives have launched their manifesto today. The plain cover simply invites the reader to “join the government of Britain”. The themes of the manifesto were summed up by David Cameron as an opportunity to be your own boss; sack your MP; run your own school; own your own home; veto council tax rises; vote for your police and save your local pub or post office. The aim is to draw a dividing line between “big state” Labour and “big society” Conservatives.

However, planners and developers will be wary. While there is much talk of devolving power down to communities and local government, there are no details to ensure that there are robust and pragmatic bodies in place to ensure the necessary development occurs. Beyond the proposals to introduce referendums for directly elected mayor (covering only existing city boundaries rather than Labour’s plan for city region mayors), there is nothing to strengthen local government. Putting faith in people to run their lives is likely to be popular and broadly successful. Doubts will inevitably remain over the ability of people to come together to make decisions which will be unpopular to some but necessary for the wider community, without any attention to the decision-making structure they would use.

As we did with the Labour manifesto, here are some of the key passages:

Planning and housing in the Labour Manifesto

Labour’s manifesto did not produce any radical changes from the current planning system. Instead it continues along the path of increasingly energy efficient development, seeks to expand social housing and limit development on non-brownfield sites to 40% of the total build. Perhaps the most notable change being proposed is the facilitation of city region mayors for Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. It is proposed that where agreements among local metropolitan authorities are made, the voters will have the opportunity to trigger a referendum on a city region directly elected mayor. The trigger figure has not been announced.

Here are a few of the passages from the manifesto which will be of interest to the planning and development industry:

13 April 2010

When does a three horse race become a two horse race?

If you haven’t yet received a leaflet telling you that only so-and-so can beat the-other-lot yet with a bar chart to prove it, you probably will do soon. In the case of the Liberal Democrats it is especially rare that you will see one of their leaflets without a bar chart and a statement similar to that above. Treat all bar charts on election literature with caution. Before now there have been examples of parties ignoring the geography of the constituency up for grabs and instead using local council results, or even partial results. In short, take the bar charts with a large pinch of salt and do your own research on what the situation actually is.

Nick Clegg was recently caught out with his assertions that the election was both a two horse race and not a two horse race. As he launched the Lib Dem campaign he boasted that "This isn't the old politics of a two-horse race between Labour and the Conservative Party." Only to then produce a statement on his own constituency literature that “It’s a two horse race here. It’s between the Lib Dem of Conservative here in Hallam”.

In Parliament the Lib Dems have 63 MPs in a Parliament of 646, a percentage of 9.8%. In terms of perentage of the vote in 2005 the Lib Dems polled 22.1%. The results featured on Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam leaflet were Lib Dem 46%, Conservative 29%, Labour 19% and others 6%. So, if we give the Lib Dem Leader the benefit of the doubt and presume his “not a two horse race” comment was based on percentage of the vote then the point at which a two horse race ceases to be a three horse race is somewhere in between 19% and 22.1%!

12 April 2010

Newer Labour

There is rarely a day that passes without a political correspondent examining the future of the Labour Party. Of course, in most instances this future does not go far beyond the next General Election. However, when one looks a bit deeper there is another side to the future of the Labour Party. The General Election of 2010 will be the first in which candidates can be aged under 21 and the Labour Party have selected four candidates who are 21 or younger. While the story of Labour for much of the past twenty years has been about the evolution of the New Labour brand which has proven controversial for those members and supporters who would prefer to see a more old style socialism, the youngest of the Labour candidates at the General Election would have been 4 years old when Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party. It should be noted that the candidate in question, Emily Benn, does have a rather recognisable political surname: she is the granddaughter of Tony Benn and the niece of Hillary Benn the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

While Emily Benn may be from a family of politicians, one of the other young candidates has a very different background. Claire Hazelgrove was selected as parliamentary candidate for Skipton and Ripon constituency at 19. She quipped that the current MP had been in the post for longer than she’d been alive. While speaking to Claire, it was interesting to understand where the drive to become a Labour MP comes from at a difficult time for her party. Claire’s family were not politically active, and her first taste came through the Make Poverty History campaign. Having developed an interest in international development, Claire explained that she thought hard before deciding the Labour Party was the natural home for her views. Issues of international development and social justice remain the priorities that drive her forward.

It is, however, difficult to get away from the candidate’s age. When asked whether she gets a reaction, Claire acknowledged that initially the atmosphere was challenging but she stressed “it’s good to still be as human as possible. Parliament is supposed to be representative but it is not succeeding at the moment”. Claire commented that there had been “some success” at increasing the numbers of female MPs but that younger MPs are “not even remotely on the radar”. “I wanted to show that young people and normal people can do it”. Currently, the youngest member of the House of Commons is 27 year old Conservative, Chloe Smith. However, Claire was quick to add that while it would be good to have more young MPs, it was important that those elected did not simply represent their young constituents.

Being thrust into the political sphere does come with its draw backs and Claire did face some criticism from a couple of opposition blogs. She notes “initially this was a shock” but shrugs off the comments noting that “there will always be people who disagree”. She continued “politics is about debate and ideas but some people take it to a very personal level”.

There was no doubt about the task ahead at this General Election but Clare remains hopeful of a Labour victory. Either way she is in this for the long haul noting, when asked about future plans for both herself and the party she saw the two answers being very closely aligned.

9 April 2010

Election Wives

Quite depressing to note the ever-increasing coverage of leaders’ wives in this election.

The battle has moved on from who can wear the most fashionable-yet-accessible-to-ordinary-women clothes, to who can record the best video diary, with the Guardian reporting as follows:

“Their clothes, their hair, and even their wifely devotion have been compared. And now Samantha Cameron and Sarah Brown have made video diaries. Stupid name? Web(Sam)Cameron v Sarah Brown on the Road: one all. Fancy blouse? Samantha: very, she scores a one; Sarah: can't see much, we'll give her a ½. Glimpses of trendy home decor in the form of retro wall clocks? Samantha: 745; Sarah: 0. References to "the bump"? Sam: 1; Sarah: 0. Looking as if she's enjoying having a camera in her face? Sam: -342, Sarah: 403.
Total: Samantha 406, Sarah 404.5
It really is gonna be a close one.”

In her War of the Wives article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1264337/JAN-MOIR-War-wives-Saintly-sinister-Sarah-vs-outspoken-Miriam.html Jan Moir seems to have said something sensible for once, asserting that Miriam Clegg does more for women by sticking with the day job rather than trailing helplessly across the UK in support of her husband. Plus a little known fact: Mrs C’s not on the electoral register and thus won’t be voting for her hubby.

Sadly, Miriam undoes Jan’s good work by announcing she will be – yes – trailing around after Nick one day a week. Ah well...

8 April 2010

The Battle for Brighton Pavilion: Could the Greens be heading for Westminster?

At the forthcoming election the Green Party have been open about their targeting of three specific constituencies. In Norwich South and Lewisham, Deptford they are likely to poll comparatively well in relation to their normal performance in a constituency, but they will not win. In the third seat, Brighton Pavilion, they not only have a chance but are, at the time of writing, 5/6 favourites to win with Ladbrokes.

Ladbrokes odds for Brighton Pavilion at time of writing:

Greens 5/6
Conservatives 2/1
Labour 3/1
Lib Dems 100/1
UKIP 200/1

The seat is currently Labour held, (Nancy Platts is the new Labour candidate hoping to take over from David Lepper MP), with the Conservatives as the closest challengers. The Green Party is a close third, some 7705 votes behind Labour. The Green candidate is the party leader Caroline Lucas, currently an MEP. When one looks at local elections there is a lot of reason for optimism amongst the Greens. In every city-wide election since 2005 the Green Party have polled the most votes and the party hold more council seats within the constituency than any other party. The Greens were further boosted when high profile broadcaster Dr David Bull resigned as candidate for the Conservatives. While his replacement Charlotte Vere has been fighting hard, the change of candidate will have resulted in a loss of momentum for the Tories. The Conservatives also lead the local council which inevitably will mean there will be some voters unhappy with them. Labour look set to lose this constituency but with a healthy starting majority they should not be ruled out completely.

Overturning nearly 8,000 votes is still a big task, but it looks quite possible that the Green Party will win a seat at Westminster.

7 April 2010

The TV Debate Election

These days it seems like political parties are falling over themselves to use the latest social networking tool. With this in mind it is hard to believe we’ve made it to 2010 without a TV debate amongst the party leaders. Even once the idea was approved by Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg there was still much discussion over the format, whether smaller parties should be involved and even if the Lib Dems should be included. The end result is that the leaders of the three largest parties will be questioned by a host and members of the public in three debates.

• On the 15th April ITV will broadcast a debate from the North West of England with a primary focus on domestic affairs
• Sky will be broadcasting the next debate on the 22nd April from the South West of England, widely anticipated to be a Bristol venue, with the main theme being foreign affairs
• Finally, the BBC host the last of the debates in the Midlands with a focus on the economy

The main reason such debates have not occurred in the past is that there was deemed to be too much to lose for the incumbent. At the time the deal was struck for these debates, Gordon Brown was so far behind in the opinion polls one must presume the view taken was that there was little to lose and potentially an opportunity to gain. With the first debate taking place next week what do each of the would-be Prime Ministers have to gain and what do they have to lose from their TV appearance?

Gordon Brown:

Expectations of Gordon Brown start reasonably low. He is not perceived as being as charismatic as Cameron or Clegg and his cringe-worthy efforts on YouTube to appear so did him more harm than good. Brown has to play the role of the serious politician capable of making the big decisions. Unfortunately for Brown, David Cameron is likely to suggest that Brown is a ditherer and cite the nearly-election of 2007. On economic matters Gordon Brown has actually enjoyed a fairly smooth couple of months as the British economy sluggishly moves out of recession and the Conservatives failed to land many meaningful blows on the Government’s economic failings, despite there being plenty of opportunities to do so. The public haven’t warmed to Gordon Brown, but that is not to suggest there isn’t scope for this position to improve for the Prime Minister during the debates. Cameron and Clegg are in many ways very similar in both style and background. In an era where politicians are less popular than even their regular standing, there is a risk that Cameron and Clegg could come across as just “a little too polished”. In conclusion, Brown is unlikely to out perform his rivals, but if he were to significantly out perform the low expectations of him then that might be enough to boost his election chances.

David Cameron:

If you head into these debates with a poll lead it is inevitable that you have plenty to lose if you perform badly. Expectations are also high for Cameron as he has become noted for delivering strong speeches without the use of notes. There is however a difference between delivering a pre-prepared speech and answering questions that may be unexpected. David Cameron has been involved in 60 “Cameron Direct” town hall meetings in the run up to the election where he has been exposed to such questioning and has performed well, but no-one can pretend there will not be a lot of pressure on the shoulders of the Conservative leader during the TV debates. Not only does he need to perform well, he needs to at least match the high expectations. If it goes wrong for David Cameron then he has a lot to lose. When one looks at the forthcoming election there are only realistically two plausible outcomes. Either the Conservatives will win an overall majority or there will be a hung parliament with the Tories likely to be the largest party. The TV debates will play a bigger role than anything else in the campaign in deciding which of those outcomes we will see when the votes are counted.

Nick Clegg:

The common view is that Nick Clegg has the most to gain and the least to lose from being involved in the debate. The former is probably accurate. The Lib Dems do tend to find themselves some way down the election coverage in the press and this is a very good opportunity for Clegg to be centre stage. Furthermore the recent Channel 4 “Ask the Chancellors” debate revealed a problem that the Conservatives and Labour will have when they take part in the Leaders’ debates. During “Ask the Chancellors”, George Osborne and Alistair Darling focused on promoting their policies and critiquing one another’s but Vince Cable had a comparatively smooth ride. He was able to promote his policies but didn’t face the same scrutiny. Clegg may enjoy a similar experience. However, while the Lib Dems may gain nationwide from the broad exposure, they may find the opposite effect in the constituencies they are defending from the Conservatives. The Lib Dems build up support through local activism more than through national policy ideology. There may, as a result, be existing voters in constituencies who vote for their Lib Dem MP on the basis he or she is hard working but know little about the party’s national policy. In addition Lib Dem campaigns have very different local approaches. This is why the party has been successful in traditional centre-right leaning areas of the South West and industrial cities such as Sheffield. Clegg will have to pitch a message to resonate with voters in both. As policy comes under scrutiny, and especially if Cameron performs well in the debate, it may be that some former Lib Dem voters cast their vote differently this time around.

6 April 2010

Welcome to MPC's 2010 election blog

Welcome to MPC's 2010 election blog! For the next few weeks we are struggling to concentrate on work as our political anorak tendencies come to the fore. Not since '92 has an election outcome seemed so uncertain, and given that Ian is the only person in the office who can remember 1992, the rest of us are all particularly excited ;-)

So our blog aims to bring you election insights and news from the campaign trails, plus any emerging news about planning related issues. For those of you wondering where to find interesting campaign gossip, you would do worse than www.libdemvoice.org, www.conservativehome.com or www.labourlist.org For the especially keen, or those of you wanting to crunch some statistics, try www.ukpollingreport.co.uk or www.electoralcalculus.co.uk