The real election story

29th April, 2010


Alastair Campbell argues in his blog post today that the real story of the election so far, untold by the media, is that after months of leading the polls, Cameron’s support is only the same as Michael Howard’s was five years ago.


How did it happen?


The reason for Cameron’s decline is that his support was bolstered by voter disaffection, which inevitably harms the long-term incumbents more than their rivals. But this was never solid pro-Tory support, merely folk wanting change.


42% of respondents to a Populus Poll for the Times on April 12 – before the first debate – said “it seems like ‘time for a change’ FROM Labour, but I am not sure it seems ‘time for a change’  TO the Conservatives.”   The nation has not actually swallowed Tory values.


Clegg is now the focus for that big chunk of disaffected electorate.  The tragedy is that the nation hasn’t swallowed LibDem values either – they don’t really know what their policies are.  Even the pundits had to re-read the LibDem manifesto after the first debate to remind themselves what the LibDems stood for.


So the real election story is not just that Cameron has squandered his lead.  It is that if Labour doesn’t pull something out of the bag, we run the real risk of ending up with Tory values the nation doesn’t actually share, or LibDem values the nation doesn’t really understand.


Big Society? It’s not big, and it’s not clever.

Gordon Brown has recalled the Cabinet and, literally, marshalled the troops (or at least the ships) to start bringing our people home.


It’s, er, convenient that this mini crisis is happening now. No denying that. And I think there was some glee in Gordon’s voice when he mentioned Ark Royal was on its way.


But ask yourself these questions:

  • is the guy at the car rental desk in Malaga or Paris or Rome who smirks as he quotes you 3000 euros for a hire-car the kind of guy who, in the UK, would vote Labour, or the kind of guy who’d vote Tory?
  • is the guy who texted Radio 5 Live this morning and said people who travel should be prepared for contingency – and if they’re stuck they have only themselves to blame – the kind of guy who’d vote Labour, or the kind of guy who’d vote Tory?
  • is the prime minister who would marshall the resources of our country to bring home ordinary people likely to be a Labour PM or a Tory one?


Come on people, it’s not hard.


When governments intervene, they set themselves up for all kinds of criticism.  They make mistakes.  They waste money.  Doubtless they succumb to a little hubris from time to time.


But do we want someone to take action or not?  Do we want someone to take responsibility for the big stuff or not?  Do we want a society or not?


The Tories, cleverly, have hijacked the word ‘society’ with their ‘big idea’ of big society, small government.  It’s a mind-game.   Society and government are not two different things, in tension with each other.  Government is just the organisation of decision-making by a mature society.


The ‘modern Conservative party’ (again, very clever use of words) is as clueless about what society means as Thatcher.  She revelled in the notion that there was ‘no such thing.’  Now Cameron wants to repackage  ‘every man for himself’ (or, let’s say, every bunch of disgruntled parents for themselves) as society.


It is, I’m afraid, the opposite.