Buses: the overlooked option

Certain stories tend to follow a familiar pattern. Take the yearly hike in rail fares. Yet another ticket price increase just above, or way above, inflation is announced. Government trots out the usual reasons: necessary to pay for upgrades, expanding existing fleet, cope with passenger numbers. Rail bosses corroborate this line, whilst feeling pretty chuffed at the thought of another bumper bonus on its way. Rail passenger groups respond in kind, expressing outrage: travellers being priced off the network, particularly during a severe economic downturn. BBC selects weary commuter from a busy train station in London who gives a shrug of the shoulders and probably wants to say: “same *insert a word of your choosing,* different day.”

In fact, they could all save themselves a lot of time by simply copying and pasting this story from previous years. Labour’s policy review has vowed to look again at the current structure with all options on the table, although all those hoping for renationalisation will be sorely disappointed.

It’s time to accept that the cost of rail travel will never be a priority for any party. Certainly not an election issue at any rate.

Instead we should put our energies into public transport’s less glamorous and overlooked constituent: buses. Greener Journeys is a campaign group which is working towards getting more people out of their cars and onto buses. Set up in 2009, and backed by a number of prominent bus companies, it aims to demonstrate the wider economic benefits of bus travel.

Their website reveals that over two-thirds of journeys on public transport are made on the bus. This results in about 5 billion bus journeys a year in Great Britain. Bus commuters contribute some £45 billion of economic output. One in five full time workers and 30% part time workers are frequent bus users. For 11% of workers, buses are an essential part of their lives. Without them they’d be forced to find work elsewhere. Crucially, over two-thirds of Jobseekers Allowance claimants either don’t own a car or cannot drive.

Back in March, Greener Journeys and The Daily Telegraph joined forces and co-hosted a debate looking into how investing in the bus network can help mobilise the UK workforce and economy. This came ahead of a report, “Buses and Economic Growth,” due to be published next month, commissioned by Greener Journeys, and carried out by the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds.

One of the speakers at the debate, Gillian Merron, chair of Bus Users UK, says that buses represent great value for money:

“The very reason to invest in buses is because you get such a tremendous return. For a relatively low investment, you can make a huge change. A bus network doesn’t need five to seven years to get the project off the ground – they’re ready to roll out capacity immediately to get people to work, to the shops.”  

With 40% of trips to the high street made by bus, they can play a vital role in rejuvenating our struggling town centres.

Naturally, buses aren’t immune from the spending cuts. There will be a 20% drop in the Bus Service Operators’ Grant and £54m lost used to compensate bus companies for those benefiting from concessionary fares. In evidence given to the Transport Select Committee, unions expressed their concern that cuts would have a disproportionate effect on the unemployed and cited the then Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond, who once commented that:

"Social mobility and, in particular, moving people off welfare and into work, often depends on transport infrastructure. If people on isolated and deprived estates cannot get a bus or a train to the nearest city or town, they may be stranded without work and without hope."

Disabled people are also likely to be badly affected with 60% not having access to a car and using buses 20% more frequently than non disabled people.

Whilst rising train fares hog the headlines on a yearly basis, spare a thought for those bus users. It is great to see a concerted campaign under way aimed at increasing usage. And yet I return to my earlier comment on priorities. Public transport will always cede ground to the economy, health, education and crime. If investing in the rail network and widening capacity means stiffer fares, we can surely expect the same thing to happen on buses. But first this requires someone to believe they are worth investing in in the first place.


This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 21st August 2012

London 2012: "Brand Boris" marches on

As Britain returns to normality after two and a bit weeks of the best escapism one could wish for, one man must be purring with delight at how well things have gone. Not just for ‘Team GB,’ or London 2012 as a whole, but for his own brand. London Mayor Boris Johnson will surely be reflecting on a “rather jolly good fortnight”, as he’d probably put it. It’s quite good being me at the moment, he’d no doubt mutter.

And who can blame him. His stock has risen further. The world came, they loved what they saw, and Boris even managed to pull out a few party tricks to keep us all entertained. What struck me at the sight of one of the most powerful men in Europe dangling from a zip wire, legs flapping in mid air, twirling mini Union Flags, was not actually the episode itself. It was the fact that only a politician as high-profile as Boris Johnson would even dare attempt such a stunt. He did, he got stuck, he got laughed at, he came away with it smelling of roses. His team of advisers have now probably realised that trying to rein him in is pointless. Boris being Boris is a vote winner, a crowd pleaser, let him get on with it.

Us seasoned political anoraks know the dishevelled wild hair, ruffled just before he appears on camera, the bumbling fool act, is all part of a carefully crafted persona. And on Sunday, caught bopping away to the Spice Girls at the Olympics closing ceremony, like the proverbial embarrassing uncle at a wedding.

The clamour by the Tory grassroots for him to succeed David Cameron grows louder by the opinion poll. The PM is still way ahead of Boris as the preferred choice to lead the Tories into the next general election: 49% versus 18%. When he departs, only William Hague, who constantly reminds us of his desire not to take his old job back, stands in his way of the Tory leadership, if the party faithful have their way.

He’s still very much part of the anti-politics mood in vogue right now, is Boris. He’s the exception that proves the rule as far as the perennial politician bashers are concerned. The engaging, watchable, effervescent, Mayor. Jonathan Freedland humorously sums up the power of his brand as:

“The one person in British politics who passes both the Madonna test – no surname necessary – and The Simpsons test, a character recognisable by his silhouette alone.”

Say the name Boris to the most apathetic voter and more often than not he/she will know you’re talking about the Mayor of London. Say David, Ed, or Nick to the same person and they’ll think you’re talking about one of their mates.

In some respects, a Boris takeover at the top of the Tory Party before 2015 would be Ed Miliband’s worst nightmare. How to take on someone like him would be a real challenge. The leadership debates would certainly make compulsive viewing. Boris isn’t easy to pin down, as Labour found out to its cost in May. Trying to make the London Mayoral election about policies and Ken Livingstone’s record failed. London became all about the Ken v Boris soap opera, more dominated by their contrasting personalities, than policies. It would be easy to say Ken never had a chance, but a 3 point win for Boris suggests that his popularity only carries him so far.

The Economist’s “Bagehot” columnist believes he seems:

“Too chaotic to be at the centre of power. The people who want to have their pictures taken with him may not want him in charge of the NHS.”

The ‘Boris Bounce’ currently only gives the Tories a modest poll boost. Not yet a ‘game-changer,’ but something for us to chew on for a while, or until Cameron’s ratings nudge upwards again. If by the end of the year the PM is unable to get himself out of this rut, the speculation will grow and grow.

Some pundits claim that Boris’s appeal doesn’t stretch beyond London and the Home Counties, but a Sun/YouGov poll found:

“One in ten Labour voters admits they would be more likely to back the Tories if [Boris] was at the helm. This compares with just one in 100 who think David Cameron could persuade them to switch.”  

Admittedly, these are still small numbers, but could make all the difference in an election that produces another hung parliament. Irrespective of several months of good polling news for Labour, the party needs to scrap for every vote it can get. It can’t afford to have even a handful of potential voters turning blue and falling for Boris’s charm.

The always worth reading Tim Montgomerie, sums up his popularity:

“He is a Eurosceptic who doesn’t just love his country but loves its people too, whatever their politics, colour, religion or sexuality. David Cameron is comfortable with modern Britain too, but, to adapt one of Mr Johnson’s own expressions, Boris zoinks off the Geiger counter of positivity. He hugs the nation and smothers it with rhetorical kisses."

Despite his reservations on seeing him ever become PM, “Bagehot” notes that Boris has been ‘broadly brilliant at shaping how people think of him.’

‘An ability to persuade a party that you belong to its tribe while saying things it disagrees,’ as he has skillfully managed with fawning Tories on the right, means Boris Johnson has to be taken seriously, because you can bet that behind all the bluster and buffoonery, he has his eye on the number one job in British politics.  

 

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 14th August 2012

London 2012 understands what it means to be British

It’s taken years of debate, controversy, misunderstanding, the rise of the far right, and more debate, yet at last it feels as if there is a Britain and a Britishness in which we can all identify and feel comfortable with. Step forward London 2012, with surely the best answer yet in the “what it means to be British” saga. And all achieved without a politician in sight. Another reminder that sometimes it’s best to leave sport to grapple with the unanswerables, which it seems to be able to do, almost without trying.

The Olympics opening ceremony, over a week ago, provided a fitting tribute to the multi-ethnic, all-inclusive island, we have become. There was something for everyone. Sunder Katwala, director of the excellent, non-partisan, British Future think tank, in his terrific summary, said it delivered a message to the outside world, as well as one to ourselves:

"The need to project a story to the world offered a catalyst for a conversation that we have needed to have here, about how we want to think about who we are, how we live together, and what we share as modern Britons.

“What the show captured is that national pride also resides in our shared cultural experiences.”

Katwala went on to point out that a ‘show, don’t tell’ principle ran through the entire ceremony. Articulating Britishness is one thing but, ‘any authentic version depends on feeling it first:’

“Yet we should now see that the answer to the question ‘what makes you British?’ was staring us in the face all of the time.

“It is Britain that makes you British.”

And so we come to our heroic athletes. If that last statement applies to anyone, it’s to the so-called “Plastic Brits,” that now notorious, grubby, jibe. On being asked by one insensitive journalist if he would have preferred to have represented Somalia, moments after his extraordinary 10,000m win, Mo Farah gave the perfect riposte:

“Look mate, this is my country.

"This is where I grew up, this is where I started life. This is my country and when I put on my Great Britain vest I'm proud. I'm very proud.”

Only the most unfeeling, stingy, commentator could quibble with that. Britain’s Olympic team is enriched with talent, some of whose families hail from all corners of the globe. Some of the athletes were indeed born abroad. All have chosen to win medals for Great Britain.

The view that you have to be born and bred on these shores in order to count in the eyes of some as ‘100% pure Brit’ seems as outdated as it is preposterous. The interesting thing about Aidan Burley MP’s description of the opening ceremony as ‘leftie multi-cultural crap,’ (didn’t he really just mean ‘too many black faces?’) was how isolated it left him and how foolish it made him look. No doubt he’ll be disgusted at the sight of multicultural Britons gobbling up gold medals.

For decades now we’ve got used to the sight of sportsmen and women, from all backgrounds, representing Britain or its nations. Find me the last time an England starting XI was made up of just white footballers? Sport has adapted and moved with the times. England’s cricket team includes a sprinkling of South African born players who now reside in England and are as proud and as committed as any.

Some believe our Olympians are a triumph for British multiculturalism, an often confused and distorted term.  It would be more accurate to say it is a victory for diversity and immigration. The highly-respected social commentator Kenan Malik would have us believe this has been a victory for the ‘lived experience of diversity:’

“The experience of living in a society that is less insular, more vibrant and more cosmopolitan is something to welcome and cherish. It is a case for cultural diversity, mass immigration, open borders and open minds.”

Rather than multiculturalism as a political process or ideology, which has sought to ‘manage diversity,’ by putting people into rigid cultural and ethnic boxes, without room for manoeuvre.  The Great Britain team is the coming together of multiple cultures under one unifying banner.

As many observers have already said, hopefully it is also a crushing blow to Scottish independence. I can’t imagine there would have been too many SNP members thrilled at the sights of Sir Chris Hoy and Andy Murray draped in the Union Flag. Powerful images indeed.

The Olympics is an excuse for a very British patriotism: one that isn’t jingoistic or vulgar, but proud yet equally humble. The interviews with our victorious, and near victorious, rowers, cyclists, swimmers and athletes, shows a group of the most delightful and unassuming people you could ever hope to hear, basking in the glory of having achieved greatness, or apologising needlessly for having let their country down.

What “Euro ’96” did for Englishness, London 2012 has done for Britishness. Once again sport has led the way. What it means to be British is being brilliantly played out before our eyes. 

 

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Wednesday 8th August 2012

End the speculation: Cameron won't sack Osborne

When the media, old and new, sink their teeth into a story, it’s hard to prize it away. All it takes is a scent, a glimmer of hope that they may be proved right, for momentum to take over. As is the scenario with Chancellor George Osborne. Speculation over his position has been rife since the Budget: the brilliant, shrewd, future leader in waiting, reduced to a laughing stock, in a matter of months. As long as the economy continues to tank, the questions will keep on coming, with the comment pieces piling up.

But, we can all calm down. Because, like the British economy, George Osborne ain’t budging. The ramifications for David Cameron would be enormous. The most important member of the Cabinet after the PM failing to last a full parliament. It just won’t happen. Ironically, on this occasion, Cameron’s judgement – were he to sideline his Chancellor - would probably be hailed rather than derided.

Whilst the country has everything to gain, Cameron has too much to lose. Osborne is a vital ally, a friend, and founding member of the Notting Hill set. Dumping him would provide the right wingers with a martyr. He would quickly become the go-to man for any grievances.  Why? For starters I can’t see him accepting another role in the Cabinet, bar possibly Foreign Secretary. Anything else would be a humiliating step down. Once you’ve been Chancellor, the only way is up, or out.

William Hague is spoken of as a possible successor, but would he really want the job and the microscopic scrutiny that goes with it? For someone of his experience, Foreign Secretary is as good as it gets. He seems to relish his current role. Why trade diplomacy, where many of the big decisions follow an expected path, for the suffocating spotlight that accompanies the top person at the Treasury?

Vince Cable’s name keeps cropping up, but can you imagine the barrage of abuse unleashed by the already gobby Tory backbench? A Lib Dem Chancellor would be enough to see them apoplectic with rage and foaming at the mouth. Vince would be a popular choice amongst the centre-left, his chance to redeem himself, re-unveil his progressive feathers, but he may also pose a threat to his own leader’s position. Cameron seems too close to Clegg to so publically challenge his authority.

All this reminds me of the endless speculation over whether Tony Blair would sack Gordon Brown – something his wife Cherie had urged, if Andrew Rawnsley’s political tome is to be believed - although for very different reasons.

Osborne is Cameron’s economic mouthpiece. They have jointly mapped out our decade of austerity. Ideological certainly binds them together. A permanent dwarfing of the state is their co-authored project.

The Independent’s Steve Richards believes that:

“Osborne [has become] trapped by a narrative that had been adopted for electorally partisan reasons.”

This was a strategy that pinpointed blame on Labour for the state of the economy. Clearing up its mess is going to take a lot longer than two and a half years. We’re in it for the long haul, so the cry goes.

As Richards correctly points out, Osborne is also protected by the coalition agreement. Neither party is prepared to back down now:

“From the beginning, the Liberal Democrats have described the main purpose of the Coalition as "rescuing the economy". As a result it is almost as hard for them to accept that the economic basis of their original partnership is causing more harm than good.

"We have reached the strangest point yet in the Coalition's bizarre life. Its political survival depends on a very big leap away from Plan A – yet its origins make it almost impossible for such a leap to be made.”

And this is why we’re lumbered with him. To give Cameron some credit, he’s been extremely loyal to his team. Enough to make LabourList editor, Mark Ferguson, speak of his ‘begrudging admiration,’ for him. A settled group of ministers is usually preferable to:

“The hyperactive reshuffle fever that used to come over Labour periodically during our time in government.”

“Whether it’s loyalty or weakness, on balance it’s a positive thing. Stable, knowledgeable government is always preferable to that of a government that is desperate to show that it is doing “something” (anything).”

The first government reshuffle, expected in the autumn, may be the most anticipated in years, but to turn the conservative maxim on its head, it’ll probably be a case of: ‘if it’s broke, don’t fix it.’


This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 31st July 2012

The opening ceremony: spectacular and triumphant

I’ve woken up feeling extremely proud. That was the first time I’ve ever sat through an entire opening ceremony from start to finish, and boy was I rewarded. As the countdown got nearer, I could feel myself getting butterflies, hoping that everything would pass off smoothly, hoping that there’d be no major, obvious, glitches, and most of all, just hoping we wouldn’t embarrass ourselves in front of a worldwide audience of FOUR BILLION!

I needn’t have worried. It was simply spectacular. A four hour British triumph. Danny Boyle has pulled off a masterstroke. I think we all know who’ll be heading up the New Year Honours List.

I had a strange feeling before it all began. Armed with a bottle of plonk and a tub of Pringles, I thought to myself: “right, this is it. It’s been a long seven years. So much has happened since we won the right to host the Games.” That awful day after still firmly fixed in my mind. What a cruel turn of fate.

And then the wait was finally over. The opening scene, that quintessentially British one, the countryside, giving way to the industrial revolution, war, the swinging sixties, an homage to the NHS (bet the coalition loved this sequence!) modern day Britain, accompanied by music from some of our greatest ever artists. Boyle pulled out all the stops. Some of the biggest names in British culture made an appearance, from Kenneth Branagh, to J.K. Rowling to Sir Paul McCartney, to...the Queen!

Possibly the highlight of the night for me: Daniel Craig, as James Bond, pays a visit to Buckingham Palace, and meets her Majesty. Well, at first you see the back of a Queen. None of us really believing it would be the Queen. Oh, bet it’s Helen Mirren, my wife said to me. That would be great if it was, I replied.  And then she turns round with a “Good evening, Mr Bond.” Hilarious!  Off they both go to catch a helicopter where they are then (this is where the stunts take over) “parachuted” into the Olympic stadium.

My overriding view was that this ceremony was a lot of fun. It was deliciously quirky. It had the all important self-deprecating sense of humour. At times it was slightly bizarre, and I wasn’t always sure what was going on, but that didn’t really matter. Most importantly, it was a celebration of all things British. Not English, but British. I defy anyone across all corners of the island not to have been bowled over by at least a section of it. The organisers have always maintained that whilst London is naturally the focal point, the Games will take in all of Britain.  Everyone is to feel included.

I realise that much of last night’s ceremony was probably (okay, definitely) lost on the rest of the world, or those not au fait with the ins and outs of our culture, but that didn’t matter. The spotlight was on us. The world came to London. This was the best four hour ‘Visit Britain’ video anyone could ever make. Labour Councillor and New Statesman columnist Rowenna Davis summed up the mood perfectly for me when she tweeted:

“Danny is having one giant in-joke with the whole of the UK. Awesome.”

Never before I have felt so patriotic, so proud to be British. I’ll admit, I’m not the Royal Family’s biggest fan, so whilst I still enjoyed the Jubilee, and Kate and William’s wedding more so (don’t ask why!), this was on another scale. This really was a monumental coming together, with the whole world invited. We don’t do patriotism well. It makes many of us cringe and feel slightly uneasy, a most British reaction. But last night, the stirrings of patriotism came to the surface like never before. What a night. What a triumph. Now, can we please win lots of medals.

 

This comment piece was first published by Speaker's Chair on Saturday 28th July 2012

Immigration, identity and the ‘culturally threatened’ DEs

An outbreak of psephology has infected the Labour ranks since May 2010. There are few of us left who will hear the words ‘five million votes,’ and not offer up our own interpretation as to why Labour lost them. But converging on a single explanation has proved fraught, almost tortuous at times. Partly due to voter volatility, and partly nowadays because more of us unite around single issues rather than be bowled over by one party’s over-arching vision for governing. It’s getting harder to pin voters down. Hence, the myriad of reasons proffered, with many more on their way, no doubt.

It’s the DEs (22% of the electorate), the semi and unskilled workers, and those dependant on state benefits, who I’d like to concentrate on.  With the C2s (skilled workers, 19% of the electorate), at the last election, they switched to the Tories on a 7% swing. Together, they make up the working class, or Labour’s supposedly ‘core vote.’ Put another way, they are now the minority.

Labour has seen a 20 point drop in DE support: 60% in 1997, down to just 40% in 2010. A similar 20 (50-30%) point drop occurred amongst C2s. As Paul Hunter, from The Smith Institute notes:

“Indeed, in 2010 for the first time ever, more middle class than working class people voted for Labour.”

Turnout amongst DEs was a massive 20 points adrift of the ABs (managerial and professionals, 29% of the electorate). And yet their support remains key:

“Of the four socio-economic classifications, Labour still retains its biggest support amongst DEs. And it is those lower earners who saw their relative wages stagnate during the New Labour years.”

So, where did the DEs go? In its excellent dissection of Labour’s missing five million, The Smith Institute, found that:

“For men, the biggest drop was for DE voters, with Labour’s lead just three percentage points over the Conservatives. Further to this it is worth highlighting that one fifth of male DEs voted for ‘other’...this is probably only explained by the rise in support for the BNP.”

Similarly, a 2009 study by Channel 4, following on from the BNP’s success in the European elections that year, found that it was mainly men (61%) who backed the far right, despite only making up 48% of the electorate. In total, 36% of the BNP’s votes came from those classified as manual workers.

Whilst Paul Hunter cautions against the prospect of the BNP winning any seats from Labour, he notes their increasing impact on elections:

“In 1997 the BNP’s vote stood at just 35,000 representing a meagre 0.1% of the national vote. Today its vote is well over half a million and has almost 2% of the vote. In 2010 it put up 339 candidates, 216 of these candidates were in Labour held seats and 70% of the BNP vote came in seats where Labour won.

“In 2010 if the BNP vote went straight to Labour it would have kept 14 seats that went to the Conservatives and taken three seats that went to the Lib Dems.

“If Labour had won those 17 seats it would have had a total 275 seats and would have been in a much stronger position to form a coalition.”

We can thank our disproportionate voting system for keeping the far right out of parliament, but that doesn’t mean the trends of a core constituency normally sympathetic to Labour won’t play havoc with the electoral arithmetic, denting its chance of winning potentially crucial seats and suppressing its vote elsewhere.

It’s stating the obvious that worries (exaggerated or not) over immigration are behind the BNP being able to cherry-pick disenchanted Labour voters. The seemingly accepted view within leftist circles is to pinpoint the blame on the economy. Struggling to find work, levels of pay (in real terms) decreasing, shortages in social housing, have sometimes produced a highly-charged and scapegoat-inducing backdrop. Immigrants are convenient fodder for those fed on a diet of right wing propaganda and distortions on a mass scale. 

However, according to Matthew Goodwin, a lecturer at the University of Nottingham, this ignores the reality pre the crash of 2008:

“You have long argued that – ultimately – anxieties about immigration and identity can be resolved by tackling economic grievances...The fact that the far right was rallying immigration and identity concerns during periods of economic stability and growth is conveniently ignored.”

It also fails to acknowledge what Channel 4 found which was that the average household income of the BNP voter (in 2009) was £27,000, only just below the national medium of £29,000. 

In an open letter to the Labour Party, published by the Policy Network think tank, Goodwin takes up the theme of the ‘culturally threatened:’

“Decades of research in the social sciences deliver a clear message: it is a perceived sense of threat to the cultural unity of the nation – rather than economic threat – that is the strongest driver of prejudice, and also the desire for more restrictive immigration and asylum policies.”

Rather than just playing the economy card, the left needs to be more adept in facing up to questions of cultural disunity. As I’ve argued elsewhere, these are the ‘non-quantifiables’ that the right comprehends and the left ties itself up in knots over. Ed Miliband’s speech on Englishness was a good start and showed he’s prepared to tackle the contentious issues head on. Not that addressing notions of Englishness should be contentious. You can see where the endless knots come in.

Addressing the ‘culturally threatened’ would help solidify the welfare state. Bringing disparate groups together, united around a common theme (Englishness, or something similar) benefits society as a whole.

“Research in the U.S. has shown that – as a result of perceptions of cultural differences between groups - citizens become less favourable toward using the institutions of the state to reduce poverty and provide welfare.”

Goodwin notes that across Europe the far right have been so effective:

“Not because it has pitched to concerns about resources but because it has spoken to fears about a loss of cultural unity, national identity and ways of life. These concerns are not rooted in individual experience: they are concerned mainly with the impact of diversity on the wider national community.”

Labour needs to ensure that it speaks directly to the DEs, such as the 59% of BNP voters who believed the party "used to care about the concerns of people like me but doesn’t nowadays". Doing so won’t guarantee Labour victory, but it’ll be a start. The days of agonising about not wanting to give oxygen to the far right should be over. A debate on immigration and its impact on cultural unity and identity should begin. There are some things that just can’t be put down to economics.   
 

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Wednesday 25th July 2012

Latest mega Tory poll: Cameron still their best asset

When Lord Ashcroft speaks, the political right listens. The last few years have seen the release of three meaty publications. In 2010 he gave us his Minority Verdict, a look into the reasons why the Conservatives had failed to secure an outright majority. In it, he gives his blessing to the coalition and argues that the party had put the country first in agreeing to govern with the Lib Dems. At the time, the country needed stability. He also asked Tories to consider the context:

“The elections of 2005, 2001 and 1997 produced, in descending order, the Conservative Party’s three worst ever results. The Conservatives had never before managed to return to government from a position as weak as the one they faced in 2010.”

The gist was that rather than just seeking to discredit Labour’s record, failing to make immigration and crime key electoral issues, the Tories lost (or failed to win outright) because the public never truly grasped what they were about. They wanted change, but were confused as to what type of change the Tories were offering.

In Project Blueprint: Winning a Conservative majority in 2015, out last May, he gave his now infamous warning that:

“...while the Conservatives struggle to piece together two fifths of the electorate, Labour’s core support plus left-leaning former Lib Dems could theoretically give Ed Miliband close to 40 per cent of the vote without needing to get out of bed.”

With Labour now regularly polling above 40% this is becoming more of a distinct possibility. The verdict of the 10,000 people he sought provided some worrying news for the Conservatives.  Whilst nine of ten of those who voted Tory in 2010 were largely satisfied with how things were going, believing the right decisions being made, recognising the need for compromise in a coalition, it was the first time Tory voters who were most likely to grumble. Almost half said their view of the party had changed for the worse, with a large number not too keen to see a Conservative majority at the next election, with only a small majority pledging the party their support in 2015.

Last week saw Project Blueprint Phase 3: The quest for a Conservative majority. As with his previous publications, its findings will provide food for thought for the strategists at Tory HQ. The size of the samples, 8,000 on this occasion, mean these reports need to be taken seriously.

Lord Ashcroft identifies those whom he calls the ‘Conservative Universe’ (terrifying thought, I know): the Loyalists (the over 65s disproportionately fall into this category), Joiners (most voted Lib Dems in 2010, but have been impressed by Cameron and Osborne’s handling of the economy, many would vote Tory at the next election), Defectors and Considerers (more likely to vote Lib Dem, favour a coalition over a Tory majority). Winning the support of all four groups may well win David Cameron his much prized overall majority. In theory at least.

It’s the ‘Defectors’ who should be giving the Tories most concern:

“One third of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say they would not do so again tomorrow. Two fifths of these say they do not know how they would vote in an election tomorrow, and most of this group feel the Conservative Party is not on the side of people like them. Around three in ten say they would vote UKIP. “

The one thing that unites all four groups is their view that Cameron/Obsorne are better trusted to run the economy than Miliband/Balls. Most support the austerity programme but are sceptical as to what it has achieved in practice.

The government’s propensity for u-turning has been greeted with some suspicion:

“For a government to change its mind was not a bad thing in principle, and could be a sign that it was listening. However, the number of reversals suggested to people that policies were not being thought through properly”

As he has been since he took over, David Cameron is still the reason Tories and Tory considerers have stuck by the party. Despite George Osborne’s reputation taking a nosedive in recent months, Cameron is the glue that binds the loyalists and waverers together.

When asked whom they thought would make the best Prime Minister, all four groups plumped for Cameron by some distance. It’s hardly surprising to read 97% of ‘Loyalists’ and 91% of ‘Joiners,’ saying this, but the 69% figure from both ‘Considerers’ and ‘Defectors’ should trouble Ed Miliband. Only 21% of ‘Defectors’ and 12% of ‘Considerers’ – the kind of people Labour should be targeting – opted for Ed.

If David Cameron is still seen as an asset to his party, according to Lord Ashcroft’s poll, the same can’t be said for Ed Miliband. When asked whether they were more favourable towards David Cameron or the Conservative Party, and to either Ed Miliband or the Labour Party, the results are quite stark. Amongst all responders (i.e. excluding the ‘Conservative Universe’), the results are close: 19% are more favourable towards the PM than his party, 21% the other way round. Damningly, only 9% are more favourable towards Ed than the Labour Party, but this rises to 41% when the question is reversed.

For ‘Considerers’ the figures read: 39% versus 23%, and 15% versus 47% for the ‘Defectors.’ When applied to Ed and Labour, only 5% of ‘Considerers’ prefer him to his party, with 47% the reverse. For ‘Defectors,’ 8% and 29%, respectively. As previous polls have shown, and continue to show, the Labour Party remains far more popular than its leader.

Even though this study aims to look at the viability of a Conservative majority in three years time, there is plenty for Labour to ponder. The knocks the Tories have taken in recent months haven’t done too much damage to David Cameron’s standing. Whilst he seems to be on the attack from the right on issues such as Europe and House of Lords reform, he can take comfort from the fact that on the Tory frontbench only William Hague, who maintains he wouldn’t want to be party leader again, comes close to matching his popularity. Overall, Boris Johnson remains, head and shoulders, the most popular Tory. For now, he is safely ensconced in London. For now.  


This article was first published by Speaker's Chair on Monday 23rd July 2012