That was the only thing I found noteworthy from the latest Metro poll. That the Tories are thrashing Labour soundly is hardly news by now. As ever the more interesting points revealed are missed, both the one Ali made yesterday (although here the Greens are not even mentioned, so perhaps their share was not notable) and the fact that according to this poll the supposed “Third Party” of British politics has overtaken the one which was, not so long ago, digging in to become the New Party of Power is also not noted upon. As far as I can tell a Liberal Democrat spokesperson was not asked to tell their view, despite the fact that if these figures hold up then they will become Her Majesty’s Opposition.

It may will be that the sample size and nature (solely professionals beneath the age of fifty) of the poll has skewed it strangely and left it disproportionate. But the malaise that is eating our party of power, the rot setting into Labour, is now unmistakable and undeniable. Whether the Liberal Democrats are capable of pressing home upon this remains to be seen, as I am becoming sick of typing, but if this poll is to be believed they are at least doing a reasonable job of coming second.

More important than the Metro’s poor presentation and questionable legitimacy, however, are the implications: first and foremost it is madness for Brown to continue his reluctance to introduce Proportional Representation or a hybrid system. With this a Lib-Lab coalition, something that would almost certainly be formed, would require only a mild rise to reach power. With the additional support of the Greens (perhaps at the cost of Heathrow Expansion) a slightly unstable but pleasingly survivalist union could be formed to ensure that Brown remained in power and the LibDems would, finally, get a chance to fill cabinet positions without feeling like traitors.

As it is Labour faces political annihilation. Clinging to the absurd First Past The Post, constituency based system is a tendency which will drag Gordon Brown into his political grave.

It also means that Labour has a new target: not only should they give beating the Tories a go but, as a starting act, are going to need to overtake the LibDems.

Certainly a distinct political landscape from the one that we are accustomed to.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of article that Nick Clegg should be writing.

Emphasising both the total collapse of the increasing failed New Labour project and the unacceptability of the primary alternative {albeit not to my satisfaction with the latter, but to be fair this wasn’t meant to be a rant} Clegg does his best to set out why the Liberal Democrats are the only viable party for the disenchanted leftists of which there are so many. And what language! “A home for progressives”, why, we clearly have here a man atuned to his audience. Homelessness is unquestionably the sensation overcoming British left-wingers who see their intuitive party of choice demanding six weeks of imprisonment for the potentially without a charge or trial. Who read of alarmingly blatant references to “coercion” in internal government documents. Who plunged us into a pointless war that left our forces mangled and fingers blood-drenched then refused to apologise or retreat. Who seemed to pluck the very worst of statism and harness none of the best.

And that fidgeting, incessant longing for change that wafts across the Atlantic, where it seems that earnest leftism of some sort has become unstoppable. While here that momentum is perversely ridden upon by an institution that bears the word Conservative in its very name. That seems delightful if listened to absently but upon closer inspection reveals itself to be almost as foul as it has always been. Just as reactionary, if not more so. Serving the affluent instead of those with any real needs not provided for by the family estates. Threatening to set about fining those that live in family arrangements which displease it. Eying what little good their opponents have done while fingering an ill-concealed blade.

Yes, Clegg has us pinned down far better than even Cameron and judging by this display his ability to make the correct noises is even more skilled at making the right noises to coax our ear. The extent to which he is actually saying anything different to the Conservatives is questionable (see especially the references to the “Top-down NHS” he wishes to reform and cries for further localism) but there is the advantage that Clegg actually seems to be a man in possession of an earnest bone and thus we can expect these to be his genuine views, rather than merely what is expedient.

However if the Tories talking like him can be forgiven, him talking like a Tory can not be. Any politician who uses the phrase “ordinary families” runs the immediate risk of me slapping down the paper in disgust. There is no such structure and has never been. To exacerbate matters he brings tax cuts into it and thus begins basing his economic policy upon fantasy. Hardly a novel criticism to level at the Liberal Democrats, I am well aware, but when considering them as a viable party of power such matters must come under consideration.

Worse still he has bought into the rather peculiar notion of “Choice” being what the state should aim for above all in public services, rather than doing its utmost to ensure that it offers that service well. For instance in the example Clegg uses of emphasising the parental role in deciding schooling the value of assigning further “choice” is surely highly limited: a parent will wish their child to achieve and to be happy. If educational establishments provided by the state allow for as much then there will be nothing to choose. It is only the failures of the system which parents will attempt to swerve around and unless it can be outlined exactly how this will help resolve them this is in no way a solution.

But besides these irksome raw notes {which are what you get when dealing with even the most charming of liberals} there is salvation: Clegg had this reader almost salivating at his utterly unexpected ressurection of the term “Ethical foreign policy”. I once was posted on a parlimentary placement with a member of the Labour Party who, when I questioned him upon the dissappearance of this promise, curtly replied “Robin Cook is dead.” But in Clegg, it seems, his spirit lives on. A glorious piece of knowledge to possess, if not something we can be certain would become manifest were he to take power.

The pledge alone, though, gives me hope and pleasure. I had imagined the concept lost in an ocean of Saudi oil and the cash-for-firearms dollars of a thousand tyrants.

Clegg described it in the print edition as

lost on the road to Mesopatania

but that he at least has found it gives me some spark of desire for once not entirely futile that Cook’s vision be realised.

Something, then, for everyone here. From the easing of the tax burden (as the cutters would have it) on certain families to the statistical ruminations upon the poor to please poverty warriors to the anti-central talk that pleasures localisers to the aforementioned glee it brought about in me concerning matters abroad. It seems that he has gathered the foundation stones for an electoral coalition, here. Certainly enough for a studier structure than the rapidly crumbling edifice of the Labour Party.

Let us see what he builds.

The Tories have (predictably) won in Henley, increasing their share of the vote.  Labour lost their deposit.

I am going to be controversial here, but here goes: it was a brilliant result.  Labour is in disarray, and they deserved the beating they suffered, albeit in very un-Labour territory.  The LibDems should stand to benefit from a seat in which they poll second, and where the predecessor ran away mid-term to get a better job.  But their campaign was disgusting (genuinely, not just reflecting the usual Tory complaints about LibDem tactics…) and should be seen as the real cause for their failure to make ground.

The party has a few good ideas, and is clearly preferable to the Tories, but I cannot say that I would vote for a campaign that behaved in the way the LibDems did.  It is a shame that they have so utterly failed to grow up and debate, not slander.  I sincerely the party learns from this, and Crewe, to play positive politics in the future.  They might actually gain votes that way!

There is also the matter of Nick Clegg’s reaction. Ali suggested that this was simply another example of his inadequacy, another botched response to bad circumstance. However I consider Davis not to be the only one who comes out favourably from a comparison with Jacqui Smith, consider this:

David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned.

where she seemingly fails to even acknowledge the possibility of acting out of principle to this:

I think it is right from time to time to signal as a party leader that we are capable of setting aside the pursuit of narrow party-political advantage in the name of that wider principle.

where Clegg realises that this is what has occurred and follows suit. I was expecting the standard opportunism from the Liberal Democrats over this matter, as they delight in by-elections, but instead I witness a non-partisan response that will let the debate Davis requested be carried out with total clarity. The Liberal Democrats were unlikely to win anyway and the minor chance of acquiring another MP {much as they deserve one, having been entirely unfairly disadvantaged by First Past The Post} would not have outweighed the damage done to the public interest by the distraction of the Liberal Democrat candidate.

Perhaps I’ve under-estimated Clegg’s political skills. The media swallowed his line on the results with barely a murmur of dissent. “Thursday night was a success for the Lib Dems,” comes the chorus. “They gained 31 seats nationally, and beat Labour to 2nd place.”

That’s not a success. The Lib Dems dropped from 26% of the national vote in the 2007 local elections to 25% this year. They did not rise to second place. Labour fell to third. If an election were to be carried out now under their beloved PR, the Liberal Democrats would lose out.

Yet the narrative is one of moderate success. And perhaps the reality is too - for Clegg’s spin.

That the party’s poor performance can, in part, be attributed to him, is not. It’s easy to see how the death in the water of his overblown plans to rebrand the Lib Dems, his awkward positioning over Europe and unfortunate personal admissions could have affected performance. Add to this the structural weaknesses of a party neither sure whether it is one thing, the other, or somewhere in between, and I do wonder how they ever hope to move beyond third-party politics…

Ali is absolutely right to say that the Lib Dems need a complete rebrand if they’re to get anywhere. If not, they’ll simply remain Westminster’s resident repository for protest votes - or worse.

The local election results have put Labour into third place, giving them their worst election result for 40 years.  The Tories are riding high on 44%, and the LibDems are more or less stagnant.  So, where next for the three major parties?

Labour

Labour has taken a thorough beating.  There is no escaping the fact that voters have turned away from Labour in their droves, leaving hung councils all over the country.  Labour’s losses have been biggest in south Wales and the Northern industrial towns.  The mood of the South has already shifted.  Labour needs to act dramatically to prevent a Tory government: the cabinet needs refreshing and a whole raft of new policies need airing.  The only way to meet a desire for a breath of fresh air is to provide one: Labour needs an “interim manifesto” and needs charismatic leaders to implement it, acting like a party newly elected from a decade on the opposite side of the House.  Only with this kind of radical thinking can they stave off a general election pounding in 2010.  There are three concessions if this plan fails: first, that the coming disaster will not be quite so catastrophic; second, that a solid Labour legacy would be left; and third, that the (relatively speedy?) return to government will see skilled young ministers with experience and vision in equal measure.

Liberal Democrats

With Labour’s fast sinking, the LibDems needed to capitalise on the best chance they will get for perhaps a decade.  I have long argued that the LibDems can and should be in second place: Thursday’s results have achieved that.  But the LibDems have not earned their victories here, and Labour could manage to reclaim ground against them.  If Nick Clegg and his party is to begin actively earning such leads, he must forge an identity as one of the three parties - not the third party.  They must behave like a front-runner, producing full manifestos and speaking of a real belief that they can win.  Clegg has failed to make any news with policy changes or party identification.  A complete package laying out what the party believes in, a run of top ten policies, a logo change, and a ditching of that gaudy yellow corporate image, combined with an advertising campaign, would begin to set them apart.  If this sounds a bit like what the Tories have recently done, it should: Cameron’s use of PR has been brilliantly effective, and the LibDems should shamelessly follow their lead.  Providing, of course, that a genuine serarate identity is forged.  The party needs reform, but I firmly believe it could be in second place nationally before too long, and mounting an effective opposition to the Tories.  As the Tory slogan now runs, “you can get it if you really want”!

Conservatives

These elections have been something of a “go to your local elections and prepare us for government” moment for the Tories.  I believe Brown has reached his tipping point - the point at which regaining a poll lead is implausible, although not impossible.  The Tories are getting the vote out, but these new voters are by definition volatile.  Also, there are still more than enough apathetic voters to put a spanner in any party’s works.  The Tories must therefore fight to retain their share of the vote.  Their victories here will be seen as a test: if they perform poorly (factoring out further Brown failures), they will be heading for some hostility two years down the line.  In short, they may have peaked too soon.  Given the Westminster electoral system’s propensity to lift Labour artificially, the Tory majority may well be slim, and therefore volatile.  The Tories cannot be complacent.  I do not expect the public image to slide, but, behind closed doors, a creeping complacency may take them by surprise.  Nonetheless, one must be quite clear that the weather looks very rosy indeed for the Conservative party.

“I think we’re holding our own, we are coming in around about 15% by the look of things, if we do manage 15% that will be the best performance for a Lib Dem candidate to date.”

Brian Paddick

Political polling is notoriously unreliable.  The ever brilliant politicalbetting.com keeps us novice commentators in check, and a healthy degree of scepticism prevents and rash judgements being made - but polls are nonetheless an invaluable tool to judge what the country is thinking.  This evening sees news about two polls for tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph and News of the World, both bringing bad news for Labour.

The News of the World poll is very similar to that conducted just before the Autumn election was cancelled.  It looks at 145 key Tory/Labour marginal seats, calculating how many of them would change hands.  Six months ago, Labour would have come away with a reduced majority.  Today, the Tories would win a majority of 64.  The poll is flawed in several respects - not least its narrow-minded focus on key marginals.  But the fact remains that 131 of the 145 closest seats would be lost to the Conservatives.  Idiot-proof analysis follows on the News of the World website:

In October, Gordon Brown called off an early General Election after a similar News of the World poll revealed he would lose over 49 seats.

In just six months those losses have more than DOUBLED, and David Cameron is now establishing clear blue water between the Tories and the embattled Labour Party.

It is a devastating blow to Gordon Brown just days before the local and London elections, when Labour are expected to suffer heavy losses.

In words particularly humiliating for Brown, it is argued that he is losing the debate to the party that is not debating:

Despite the fact that the Tories have not unveiled detailed policies in most areas, they are crucially winning the debate about who has the best ideas to run the country.

After taking over as Prime Minister Gordon Brown won widespread praise and respect for his handling of attempted car bombs in Glasgow on London.

But David Cameron now has a six point lead over Brown on the War on Terror.

The poll is particularly useful in telling seat-by-seat results, only otherwise possible upon extrapolation through systems like Electoral Calculus:

Today’s poll shows Chancellor Alistair Darling (majority 7,242), Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (2,716), Business Secretary John Hutton (6,037) and Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly (2,064) would all lose their seats.

And Labour now face a desperate battle to hold the formerly safe seat of Crewe and Nantwich in next month’s by-election caused by the death of MP Gwyneth Dunwoody .

Her 7,078 majority would disappear, giving the Tories a huge morale boost.

One final note for those sceptical about the role of next Thursday’s local elections in determining the national party standings:

In the wake of Thursday’s elections Labour Cabinet Ministers will say the local elections do not reflect the national picture.

But today’s poll shows just 19% say they will vote according to local issues.

A similar poll caused Brown to cancel an election.  Now things are so much worse for him, I wonder whether he regrets not going to the people for a mandate.  A 9-point swing to the Tories matches that gained by Labour in 1997: a humiliating end to the New Labour project.  Brown must really be regretting not calling an election in the Autumn.  That fortnight six months ago really changed the course of events for the next few years: the Tory party conference was a spectacular demonstration of how unity can be kept in times of crisis, and Brown’s indecision over the election demonstrated why the least worst option is often the only option.

The second poll out tomorrow is the latest from ICM in the Sunday Telegraph.  The poll shows a 10 point lead for the Tories.  But compared to ICM’s Guardian poll of a few days ago, the gap has widened by 5% because Labour has lost 5%.  In other words, the Tories have not won voters over with the wranglings over the 10p tax rate; Labour have lost them.  The obvious qualification is that the Tory share of the vote is much higher than it was a few months and years ago.

In all of this the LibDems are holding steady on 18% - a result that would more or less halve the number of MPs returned to Westminster.  As I highlighted the other day, it looks as if Clegg might struggle to hold his seat.  The inevitable crisis of leadership in the Labour party may well be matched in the LibDems.

Having explored the irrelevant tangent, one must consider just how permanent these poll leads are.  This has been a very bad few weeks for Labour, but voters have short memories and the polls might yet turn again.  At the very least, the Tories will have to work to convince voters to support them in order to consolidate any lead.  It is clear, however, that too many bad weeks leaves voters simply unprepared to consider giving a party the benefit of the doubt.  We are not there yet, but I think Labour will struggle very hard to stave off what now looks almost inevitable.

The last week has seen three national papers endorsing Boris Johnson for Mayor: the Sun, Telegraph and Times.  The Tories can now count on Murdoch support in 2010 - he doesn’t tend to back losers.  If Johnson wins on Thurday and the Tories sweep the board in the local elections, the press will look to the Tories as the deliverer of good things.  The public eye will be on the only governing Conservative in Boris Johnson - any major mistakes could be lethal, but if he delivers it will be to Tory benefit.  Like the SNP in Scotland, Labour have played the expectations game: if, like the SNP, Johnson performs well, Labour’s ratings will fall through the floor, like in Scotland.

So, the tide is turning, but has not turned just yet.  As I have said, though, the change is almost inevitable.

A YouGov/Telegraph poll tomorrow will put the Tories ahead by 18% - the highest rating since Thatcher’s 1987 peak.  The full breakdown is as follows:

Conservative: 44
Labour: 26
LibDem: 17

The arguments over this poll could run and run - and I suspect they will.  But to add fuel to the fire, allow me to pontificate over the potential results a return like this at the next General Election would give.  By using the Electoral Calculus website, one can instantly get a picture of how the makeup of the House of Commons would be, including a list of seat changes.  This will make for very unhappy reading.

Among those Labour MPs losing their seats are Jack Straw, John Denham, Ruth Kelly, etc.  No wonder Labour MPs are revolting.  Brown is a liability.

Also of note is the halving of LibDem seats: Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne both stand to lose their seats with this kind of result.  Turmoil in both parties is not out of the question.

This, of course, would all be worthless pontificating in most circumstances.  Usually, errant polls like this give rise to a few extra column inches but do not arouse interest beyond the Westminster village.  A minor blip, one might suggest.  But the sampling took place before Wednesday’s humiliating events, and Brown is set to face two further rebellions in the next few weeks.  Factor in the prospect of a Tory Mayor of London by this time next week and a Conservative sweeping of council seats in the local elections.  Those who derided the prospect of Brown being ousted may well be forced to eat some humble pie - albeit a rather more slender portion than Brown might have coming to him.

The Labour party has two options.  Either they boot their loser leader quickly and call a snap election (which, for the record, I believe they would lose) or they keep Brown on and hope the electorate learn to hate the Tories more.  Any Labour MP who honestly believes the latter option is a better policy ought to be looking for a padded cell, not re-election.

This is the time a third party could become a second party.  The SDP nearly managed it in 1983.  Trust the LibDems to have missed their chance once again.  A drunk Charlie Kennedy would have been polling higher than 17%, and standing a really good chance of squeezing Labour.  Clegg has missed the boat.  He’s a loser, too.

Brian Paddick gave a wincingly poor interview in the Evening Standard today.  Observe:

“I am really trying to get my head around this. Do you want somebody who is a really nasty little man in the shape of Ken Livingstone, very unpleasant and rather nasty, or somebody who just appears to be somewhat eccentric but otherwise really harmless as an individual - except I wouldn’t trust him to run anything for me?”

This appears to be his most substantive attack on Ken; that he is a “really nasty little man.”  That’s more than weak.  It’s vacuous.  Ken may well be a deeply odious man on a personal level.  So what?  His personality in itself does not matter. What matters is how he’s run the City, and, if you must drag it in, how his personality has affected that. That’s what matters to London, and that’s what’ll make a difference to their lives.

If Paddick attacked that record, then it might be worth at least listening to him. But really, when the best he can do is to call Ken nasty, then I can only assume he has nothing more damaging to say.

Oh, and if he thinks Boris is “harmless as an individual”; does giving away the number of a man he knows is going to be beaten as a result not make Paddick’s sharp, policeman’s nose twitch, just a little bit?

Moving on:

“I didn’t say I was equidistant between the two of them [Boris et Ken]. It is very difficult to gauge where I am between the other two candidates because it is like comparing chalk and cheese.”

Surely that would make it easier to place Paddick between them?  The greater the contrast, the more room there is for you to play around with on the spectrum.  Perhaps his difficulty in placing himself has more to do with his (and his party’s) uncertainty over what precisely he stands for…

“I seriously considered, for a few hours, the approach from the Conservatives. But on principle I couldn’t stand for what the Conservatives stand for. I am a Liberal Democrat, that’s where my heart lies.”

Brian Paddick’s heart lies with the Lib Dems - which presumably explains why he’s been a member for less than a year.

And now, onto Paddick’ other big assault, on Iain Blair:

“I spent 30 years in the police and it became increasingly Stalinist in the restrictions that the Commissioner and Dick Fedorcio [director of public affairs] placed on senior officers and what they could say. This is what happens in times of trouble, you batten down the hatches, and Ian Blair was in a lot of trouble.”

Now, Paddick could be making a good point here.  Perhaps Ian Blair does act like a tyrant within his own organisation; and perhaps public trust in the police has diminished. But when he mixes that with ysterical language about “Stalinism” he rather undermines his credibility. It almost seems that he’s introducing that simply to discredit Blair - as there’s no way it can be anything but a rhetorical phrase, given the death-camps Stalinism implies - and excaggerate his point.  Which makes us question the point a little…

That seems to be Paddick’s problem much of the time here.  He has the potential to make a good point, but ruins it with ill-supported personal attacks.  Perhaps the ES cut large chunks out - it wouldn’t be surprising. Here, though, it comes across very negatively.  Paddick’s very exclamation that he can’t understand why anyone would want to vote for Ken and Boris suggests that he knows most of his votes are anti-Ken-and-Boris votes. There’s not even an attempt to explain why people should vote for him positively. Just attack after attack.

So, either a very distorting piece of editting - or another indicator that Paddick’s campaign lacks any real content beyond a, “not Ken, not Boris” platform.