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.

GQ taught us rather a lot last week.  Nick Clegg is incapable of answering a potentially damaging question with grace.  The later excuse that he is “straight-talking” is made even more feeble because the exchange was nothing but straight-talking.  It wasn’t just car-crash: it was swerving for miles before it came to an abrupt halt.

Not being a GQ reader, I missed the full interview.  Danny Finkelstein featues a truly shocking exchange on Iraq.

For what it’s worth, we also learned last week that had late ballots been counted Chris Huhne would have won the leadership.  Countless LibDems will be wishing the result had been different.  Of course, some of us were more impressed with Huhne from the beginning, but we don’t like to boast.

The anatomy of a LibDem brain (via).  Classic.

With just over a month until the London mayoral elections, I am caught in a bit of a quandary. I have the opportunity to vote for the first time, but I do not know who to vote for. I don’t want to waste it.

Current estimations show Boris Johnson ahead by 10 points in the first preference vote, and at 54/46 against Ken Livingstone after the second preference votes are counted. It should be noted that I resent being asked to vote for someone who I do not wish to win, but in a democracy one must accept the electoral system dictated from above. With two votes to cast, I do not know who to cast them for. My logic (so far) amounts to the following:

Ken Livingstone is nasty and authoritarian and ought to be kicked out of office. His gross manipulation of the office of Mayor (mainly though using taxpayers’ money for shameless self-publicity) is simply wrong. And I cannot get over his Routemaster betrayal and subsequent bendy-bus nonsense. The only decent response is via the ballot box.

Boris Johnson is perfect for London in so many ways. He talks like a commuter, rants like a cab driver, and puts his foot in it like his heel tastes of strawberries. He would shrink the office, which can only be a good thing. When he says something outlandishly offensive, he will apologise instead of engaging in a costly legal and PR battle over whether telling a Jewish reporter that his behaviour was tantamount to that of a concentration camp guard was a breach of office or not. On the other hand, he is a Tory and I am not.

The media is responding to polls showing just how much of a two-horse-race this is, based on first-name personalities instead of politics. Brian Paddick is a nonentity within the LibDems, having just joined them, so he is going to struggle to win any support. Reading his manifesto pledges, it appears that he has less grasp of London than my humble self: most of the proposals are either in place already, in the pipeline, or completely nonsensical. Even if I agreed with the proposals, the simple fact that he hasn’t done his homework leads me to question his suitability for the job. Plus, photos of him pompously wearing his police uniform are rather counter-productive in making his crime policy look good: if he was such a good policeman why does he need to go into politics because crime is so bad?

The minor parties and fringe nutter groups are also in plentiful supply. Alan Craig, of the Christian Choice, is clearly a little divorced from reality. He seems to think that protecting marriage is part of the Mayor of London’s brief, and argues that we should oppose the apocalyptically-named “Olympics Mega Mosque” because he predicts that it will foster extremism. As far as I see it, if London gets lumbered with this crackpot reactionary who nestles somewhere to the right of UKIP apparently speaking on behalf of Christians, don’t Muslims deserve a mosque in return? After all, his “aggressive stop and search” policy will probably inconvenience them more than most. Come to think of it, Alan, just build the mosque and then station your gun-toting pseudo-military police force at the doors.

Gerard Batten is the UKIP candidate. He is every bit as loathsome as your average UKIP candidate, but a good deal less intelligent. He doesn’t seem to understand that helicopters are, by their nature, airborne, and that children’s toys are not the best method of tackling teenage yobs: “Get the Police back on the streets – I don’t care if they drive cars, fly helicopters, or go on pogo sticks, but get them back on the streets fighting crime.” Even giving him the benefit of the doubt on this attempt at humour, the man wants to elect police chiefs because Sir Ian Blair has “politicised” his position. With joined-up thinking like that, it’s a wonder he is only a humble MEP (a position which, it should be noted, he gained from a closed list system).

Lindsey German shows just how weird and radical and nasty the Respect Party is.

Richard Barnbrook of the BNP aptly demonstrates just how illogical one can get when so blinded by prejudice and hatred.

Matt O’Connor is a bit of a red-herring in the race. He was involved in Fathers for Justice, but is now focusing on non-racist rightist principles. The last election in which the English Democrats stood saw them gain fewer votes than the Monster Raving Looney Party. I know who I would prefer in office.

Sian Berry’s Green gang have a sensible little set of policies, but they are decidedly narrow-minded. I want a mayor who wants to run London, not just its airspace and green fields.

Winston McKenzie is standing as an independent (with a £10,000 deposit to lose) and his manifesto is a self-penned rap. I’ll confidently place £10,000 on him never seeing that deposit again.

Allow me to be very clear upfront.  I do not believe that state funding should ever be sourced for political parties.  Parties should be funded by their supporters: if they choose not to be generous, their party will collapse.  It’s got something to do with a free market, but we shall not dwell on that idea.

Politicians seem very keen to get state handouts that they have not earned, by some giant conspiracy to thieve from the public pocket.  The average guy on the street is not party political, so does not join a party or fund one.  More to the point, a growing number of average guys on the street do not vote.  I do not believe it is just for these people to be taxed so that politicians can publicise themselves.  It is bad enough that non-voters reject the opportunity to participate in democracy, but something quite different to charge them for a process they are not interested in.

There are several logistical issues with state funding of parties, too.  First, that if funding is sourced according to success at the previous election, it will favour the government.  Also, small parties, new parties, and independent candidates will be punished for being new to the whole charade.  Thus political accountability is diminished.  Second, that some QUANGO will decide how and where the money can be spent.  The Tories have used inter-election campaigns to boost their support, most recently with their advertising on Facebook.  This kind of innovative targeting would be curbed, and that’s a huge concern for those who genuinely seek political debate in this country.

It was with some concern, then, that I approached Nick Clegg’s latest public musings.  He has suggested that a box is made available on voters’ ballot paper to invite them to donate £3 of state money to the party they voted for.  (For what it’s worth, this would only work in General Elections because of STV and other voting systems.  The LibDems advocate an electoral system that would render this policy useless, but one no longer expects coherence from Clegg.)  This issue is a fairly simple idea, and it sounds rather good on the face of it.  It would allow party funding to be linked to both electoral performance and popular desire to donate.

However, at least two issues are present in this policy.  First, that tactical voters would not be able to register their financial support for a party they would have liked to have voted for.  I disagree with the principle of tactical voting, but one must accept it as a fact of collective ignorance at the polling booth.  Secondly, some party supporters may oppose the idea of state funding outright.  I do not believe that a party should receive any taxpayers’ money to squander, so I would not tick a box signing away public cash to the cause.  Voters with such scruples would, by default, be disadvantaging their party of choice.  Do they bow to the desire to see further electoral success or do they stick to their principles and oppose the idea of state funding?  Ergo, Clegg’s idea would benefit parties with unscrupulous supporters.  Any funds raised would have the spectre of guilt about them.

Political parties should survive or fail at the willingness of their membership to support them.  I respect the fact that the BNP receives donations enough to keep it ticking over: I would hate for my tax pennies to boost its campaigning capabilities.  I disagree with Tory policy, with LibDem policy, with Labour policy, with UKIP policy, with Green policy, with Christian Democrat policy, with English Democrat policy, with SNP policy, with Plaid policy, etc, etc, etc.  I resent the idea that I should fund the publicity of any one of these parties.  If I wanted to see one of them thrive, I would donate to them.  The Labour party might be smarting a little from a lack of support, but using a parliamentary majority to plunder the public pocket for money is an absolute disgrace.

Apologies for my not posting yesterday. Life overtook me for a moment.

Now, to the subject at hand: the Lib Dem conference. Ali’s already covered Clegg’s speech today, so I’ll cover Cable’s speech yesterday. It marked his continued superiority over any of his colleagues. He made one completely naff point - but beyond that, was on thumping form.

So, first, the naff. Cable called today for tax on juices and smoothies to drop to 5% while raising taxes on certain alcoholic drinks massively to pay for it. This is all hailed as a major move to encourage, rather than force, the public to drink healthily. Cable called it a policy which would change the party from, “one of beards and sandles to one of smoothies.”

The opposite is true. The image this presents is one of a party concerned with little measures conducted half-heartedly against problems the public only vaguely cares about, but with the best intentions at heard. Oh, wait - that’s the current Lib Dem image. The Socks & Sandles one.

Never mind that this looks too much like an attempt to go one-up on Osborne’s proposals on taxing alchopops for comfort - or that most fruit juices contain enough sugar to pass for strangely flavoured coke.

Aside from this though, Cable’s form was excellent.  His attacks hit home on both sides, and his policy showed more promise than anything Clegg came up with today.

First, the policy: his attack on Brown over non-dom tax payers.   To quote Cable’s position from the speech:

“After 10 years of dithering Gordon Brown has decided to act.

As a veteran of the struggle against Mrs Thatcher’s poll tax, he has decided - you’ve guessed already - to introduce a poll tax.

Billionaire Lakshmi Mittal is to pay the same tax as a non-dom shopkeeper.

Not surprisingly, the Tories agree that this is fair, indeed, they claim to have thought of it first.

Yet there has been an almost hysterical reaction from the City. How dare British politicians query the tax privileges of the rich?

If we are not careful, they say, Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs living in 80m houses will no longer feel welcome and go somewhere else. ‘Pay up or pack up’

That’s tough. Let them go. We say that foreign expatriates are welcome to live and work in Britain.

But when they have been here seven years, they pay British tax like the rest of us. Pay up or pack up.”

So, in short, he’s proposing that expats who live and work in Britain for most of the time pay the same taxes as everyone else - and in the same fashion.  A moderate and sensible position, you might think, given that, by living and working in the UK for so long, they are in effect a part of the UK.

And yet Cable is able to outflank Brown on it - from the left.  This occured again with his call for a “radical” approach to taxation:

 “I would like to see a much tougher approach to the windfalls on property and land values enjoyed by the super rich”

He’s not attacking the middle classes.  He’s not attacking the simply well off.  He’s not even attacking the moderately rich.  He’s attacking the super-rich - those who really, really have more money than anyone could ever need.  Again, he’s only proposing the introduction of progressive taxation to council tax, so that those who own homes worth millions pay more for them than those who live in homes worth hundreds of thousands.

That’s not radical, really - it’s merely making taxation practically fair.  And yet, again, Cable is able to outflank Brown from the left.  That doesn’t bode well for Brown, just as it strengthens the Lib Dems position as a party for Labour defectors to safely run to. Moves like this leave the party open to civil libertarians and anti-war defectors from Labour, and keep it open for the assorted social liberals and Orange-Bookers that form its core.

It’s the best strategy.  Clegg might want to pick up votes from the Tories with his bumph about the free market and classical liberalism, but they won’t get of those.  Too many Tories perceive the Lib Dems as the Socks & Sandles brigade - Guardian reading hippies they wouldn’t touch with a barnpole.  Some of them wanted to ban fox-hunting…

That, and the Thatcherites were Thatcherites for reasons other than ideological fervour for the market.  The getting richer/making Britain great part was what attracted them - not freedom.

Meanwhile, disaffected Labour supporters trickle in.  They’re not hard to find.

Outflanking Brown from the left also allowed this sweeping attack:

“I don’t want to overdo my Stalin joke. But I think I captured the pathos of Gordon Brown’s sad decline: from ruthless to rudderless: from bully to bumbler and, perhaps as variation on a theme, from Brezhnev to Blackadder.

He does genuinely sadden me, because Blair was obsessed by image and positioning and I think we all hoped Brown would be a serious man with serious ideas and a serious commitment to social justice. No chance.

Within weeks he was dressing up in a Penguin suit to grovel to a Saudi king who presides over the execution of women for immorality and corruption which makes the late President Mobutu look like a small time pick pocket.

The nuclear power lobby, the airport expansion lobby, the arms dealers all know they have a true friend in Downing Street.

And, as for social justice, he stands ready to copy whatever regressive, badly thought out wheeze the Tories dream up on a boozy night out at the Bullingdon Club.”

It’s a potent attack - and potent because it’s largely so true.  There was a sincere hope that Brown would be different to Blair.  There was none.  Unsurprisingly for an architect of New Labour, Brown is still committed to image, to triangulation (”British Jobs for British Workers,” sounded as if Michael Howard had lent a hand there) and to business.  It’s why Cable can outflank him with relatively moderate policies - and why he can’t do anything about it.

The attack on the Tories was just as true, and just as potent:

Mr Cable accused Tory leader David Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne of pursuing an “Alzheimer’s strategy: a fervent hope that the country will lose its collective memory of Conservative governments”.

And he said Mr Osborne’s inheritance tax cut plans showed “dead millionaires are clearly at the heart of the Tory core vote strategy”. [From the BBC]

It’s not going to help win any votes from the Tories.  What it is going to help is present the Lib Dems as a credible alternative to Labour as an anti-Tory party.  A portion of Labour’s support recently - possibly a large portion - has without doubt been as much about keeping the Tories out of office as keeping Labour in.  By setting out in such brutal language his opposition to the Conservatives, Cable opens the Lib Dems to receive those votes.  He’s aiming at Labour’s vote, and on both counts he’s doing it effectively.

All in all, a much better speech than Clegg’s.  Why can’t Cable just take over now?