politicalbetting.com

What do we think of their new £500k campaign?

In almost all the national papers this morning there are large ads from the Conservatives which are aimed, it seems. at building up a supporter base rather than winning votes.

There’s a different theme in every newspaper but the objective appears to be the same - “Join us at Conservatives.com”. The message in the Times is about economic competence, green issues get singled out for special attention in the Independent while the emphasis is on jobs in the Express.

It looks as though the Tories have watched how Barack Obama’s campaign has evolved in the US and concluded that it is vital for a political party to have a large supporter base all of whom are contactable online. Certainly the front-runner for the Dems has done some remarkable things with the internet and this is giving him a real edge both for fundraising and mobilising an activist base.

In the UK we don’t yet have the strict fundraising controls that exist in the US - there is no maximum donation level here unlike across the pond where the most you can give to a campaign is $2300.

My guess is that this Tory campaign is about much more than money. Like all the other parties there has been a big decline in membership and to run effective elections you need to be able to resource big ground operations in key target seats.

Will it work? It will be interesting to watch.

US election online delegate calculator: this from Forbes is fun to play with.

Mike Smithson

How big a risk is Nick Clegg taking?

You don’t have to spend much time ploughing through the comments on PBC to work out that the most ferocious attacks on the Tories are not from Labour supporters but from Lib Dems. Those who work for the party in areas where the Conservatives are their main opponents are usually the most vocal - and this is reciprocated.

So how are these Lib Dem supporters going to view the statements today by their new leader, Nick Clegg, in the Financial Times saying his party “could” support a minority Conservative government after the next election.

This is getting onto tricky territory and, clearly, Clegg is using his honeymoon period to get controversial ideas out early. It’s much harder to oppose a leader in his first six months than later. Certainly his predecessor, Ming Campbell, ran into serious trouble eleven months ago when at a conference in Harrogate he gave the strong impression that there could be no deals with the Tories.

Of course Clegg attaches conditions to his comments but as the FT notes, these are fairly similar to what Cameron was saying on the weekend before Clegg’s election.

The real problem is on the ground in both opposition parties. The most highly contested seats at the next election, bearing in mind what happened last time, will be CON>LD and LD>CON marginals. Turnout will be much higher than where Labour is in contention or defending and there will be a lot more activity.

The crazy thing from both Cameron’s and Clegg’s point of view is that such fights will have zero impact on whether Labour retains its majority or not. It’s Labour seats where the battle-ground will be not the side-show of LD-Tory contests.

My sense is that Clegg is being quite smart politically. The sentiments he has expressed might make it easier to defend Lib Dem incumbents who are facing a strong Tory challenge.

Mike Smithson

Will there be few tears shed for David Davis’s rounder-upper?

This lunchtime’s news that Tory MP Derek Conway faces a 10-day Commons suspension after the standards watchdog said he paid his son too much from parliamentary allowances. Freddie Conway, received a salary as a researcher while he was studying at Newcastle University.

The only problem was, according to the report “.. no records appear to exist of either actual work that Freddie did for his father, or of the work he was required to undertake”.

So while all the focus has been on Labour, Peter Hain and the donations issues Conway has given Labour a rod to beat the Tories with. Not good particularly at this time.

We last discussed Derek Conway during the Tory leadership battle in October 2005 when his job was to try to ensure that those MPs who had gone public in their support for David Davis stuck with their decision.

At the time I wrote: “He (Conway) built a fearsome reputation as a whip for the final three years of the 1992-1997 Tory government stopping a seepage of votes following the Maastricht treaty. Now his style of “charm” is at the disposal of David Davis and all those on the list are going to be under enormous pressure to stick by their man. Their phones are not going to stop ringing until the first ballot is over.”

At the time someone who had experienced Conway first hand called me to say how fearsome he was and suggested that all those had had gone public for Davis would stick with him. It didn’t quite work out that way but most stayed on board.

Mike Smithson

Could such an approach backfire on Cameron?

Yesterday’s characterisation by David Cameron of the Prime Minster as being “that strange man in Downing Street” has prompted a number of Labour-leaning bloggers, including Paul Linford, to suggest that this is part of a Tory plan.

This is what Linford wrote:“it’s clear….that portraying his opponent as somehow not one of us is a key part of the Tory leader’s political strategy..Mr Cameron clearly wants to portray himself as This Charming Man, and Brown as (to quote) This Strange Man, but if the public has any sense it will backfire. What on earth gives Cameron the right to describe another man as “strange” and by what measure of “normality” does he seek to judge the Prime Minister?”

In a comment on another website Linford suggested that there’s “..a deadly serious attempt by the right to fix the idea of Gordon as a “weirdo” in the public mind.”.

Certainly there have been one or two recent instances of such descriptions being linked to the Tories and rightward-leaning blogs but is this all planned or is it just a coincidence? Are they seeing conspiracy, which implies people getting together to agree a particular course, when that does not exist?

Looking at the context of Cameron’s description it is hard to judge either way. It came up when he was pressed on the Tory plan to stick to Labour spending plans and replied - “I am being very careful because if you say anything else that strange man in Downing Street will cook up an enormous package of Tory spending cuts. It is complete and utter fiction. I have seen it done before and I have learnt a thing or two in the last few years.”

I think that this all started in an interview two years ago that the leading novelist and close colleague of a number at the top of the NuLab project, Robert Harris, gave to the Sunday Times. In it he compared Gordon with Richard Nixon and said: “Brown, like Nixon, suffers from a kind of political Asperger’s syndrome. Intellectually brilliant, he sometimes seems socially barely functional: a little bit . . . odd.”

Is there a Tory plot or are Brown’s defenders being a bit precious? I don’t know but the character of a party leader is a key part of a general election battle - hence the efforts by some Labour people to characterise Cameron as “a public school toff” or the “Bullingdon bully”. And, of course, look at what both the Tories and Labour did to Ming Campbell - not pretty but effective.

Mike Smithson

Are they both more popular outside their parties than within?

Just reading what some US right wing commentators are saying about John McCain it struck me that he is his party’s Ken Clarke.

Both McCain and Clarke have sought and failed to be party leader/presidential nominee in the past

Both McCain and Clarke have been seen by outsider observers as being highly electable

Both McCain and Clarke are probably more popular outside their parties than within

Both McCain and Clarke have views which are alien to large sections of the Tory/GOP mainstream

Both McCain and Clarke are getting on in years and were born well before the baby boomer generation

Just compare the following piece by right-wing commentator Robert Tracinski with the things traditional Tories have said about some of Ken Clarke stances.

“..Many voters seem to be attracted to McCain because of his strong stance on the War on Terrorism, reinforced by his war-hero biography. This is part of the reason, for example, that Rudy Giuliani’s poll numbers have declined precisely as McCain’s have risen: both candidates are competing for the support of pro-war voters..But that raises another, far more important question: if John McCain saves Republicans, who will save Republicans from John McCain? The voters who support McCain over Giuliani are making a dangerously short-sighted trade. McCain is a suicidal choice for Republicans, because on every issue other than the war, he stands for capitulation to the left..”

It is the age factor and the notion that McCain is the GOP’s Ken Clarke that have made me reluctant to join the rush by UK gamblers to back the Arizona senator for the nomination. When you are so detached from core opinion on a range of issues something is likely to give as Ken Clarke has seen on a number of occasions.

At the start of the Tory leadership race in 2005 I backed Clarke heavily when the French turned down the EU constitution in their referendum. To me, an outsider, the main sticking point to a Clarke leadership had been removed and he was the obvious person. Over the next few days it was the reaction of Tories on this site that convinced me that I was wrong - so I closed down the bet at a profit.

I get the same feeling now with McCain.

Mike Smithson

Has Dave dumped his “nuclear a last resort” commitment?

Watching Andrew Marr interviewing David Cameron this morning I was struck at the ease in which the Tory leader has been able to change the party’s stance on nuclear power. From a position when he became leader of regarding this as a last resort he’s managed to move it so that the only issue is whether or not there is a taxpayer subsidy. Marr pressed him a couple of times but Cameron came out of this easily.

Looking at the polling numbers from today’s YouGov poll and it’s easy to see why. Tory supporters by quite a big margin are the biggest enthusiasts for nuclear power with a split of about 70-22 on the main issue. This compares with 63-25 for Labour supporters and 48-39 for Lib Dems.

Tony Blair used to single out Cameron’s hesitation to back nuclear power as a demonstration of the Tory leader’s inability to make the big decisions. My guess is that Brown was hoping to do the same following last week’s announcement.

An interesting question in the coming weeks will be whether what has been a big change in emphasis will do the Tories damage. Certainly if Brown has anything about him he should be able to exploit the Cameron’s move.

Mike Smithson

Politicalbetting - The Political Website of the Year