By William Rees-Mogg (THE TIMES, 01/05/06):
TEN DAYS ago, Conservatives canvassing in the London borough elections were still receiving mixed responses. There were some favourable signs; middle-class voters, who had almost abandoned the Conservatives in recent general elections, were beginning to come back; on the housing estates Labour was suffering from widespread apathy. But disillusioned Labour voters seemed far more likely to abstain than to swing to the Conservatives.
Then came Labour’s Black Wednesday. By the weekend Conservative canvassers were getting a much more positive response from voters. Disillusioned London Labour voters were beginning to switch to the Tories. This impression, which can be only an impression, has been confirmed by the weekend polls. YouGov in The Sunday Times yesterday put the Conservatives three points ahead of Labour, by 35 per cent to 32, with the Liberal Democrats on 18.
The Mail on Sunday carried a BPIX poll that was even better for the Tories. Voters who were certain to vote on Thursday were split 35 per cent Conservative, 26 per cent Labour and 23 per cent Lib Dem. Even in local elections, a 9 per cent lead is formidable.
David Cameron is a lucky leader. All parties have their bad weeks, though Labour’s last week was a real horror story, more like a script for the new Doctor Who series than normal political life. It is almost unprecedented for such a week to come immediately before an important election. The news had not got any better over the weekend. Short of the announcement that Tony Blair had resigned, it is hard to see what good news for Labour could now change the pattern of voting on May 4. The Conservatives may or may not do as well as the polls now suggest; it is probable that Labour will do as badly.
Lucky leaders make their own good fortune. Mr Cameron did nothing to contribute to the Labour disasters. He did not slip a Mickey Finn into John Prescott’s drink at an office party, or suggest to Patricia Hewitt that she should get herself booed by the nurses, or to Charles Clarke that he should let asylum-seeking rapists out of prison. When it comes to shooting themselves in the foot, members of the Cabinet need no assistance; they have the guns, they have the feet, they have the bullets too.
Mr Cameron has done something more important; he has got his strategy right and has presented a personality the public finds attractive. Before 1997 Mr Blair got comparable approval ratings but one can search postwar history to find a Conservative leader with as big a lead in popularity; it is the lead that counts.
The same YouGov poll reports that 51 per cent of voters think Mr Cameron is doing well to the 31 per cent who think he is doing badly. His opponents are far behind; Menzies Campbell has a net negative, though only of 1 per cent.
Mr Blair has 33 per cent approval but 64 per cent think he is doing a bad job, a net negative of 31. That puts Mr Cameron’s net approval rating 51 per cent ahead of Mr Blair’s. Even if Labour shifts to Gordon Brown, Mr Cameron would still have a lead of 16 points.
Mr Blair has been excessively presidential as Prime Minister and has fought three presidential-style general elections. He was far more popular than John Major in 1997, than William Hague in 2001 or than Michael Howard in 2005. He is now far less popular than Mr Cameron in 2006; if Mr Cameron were fighting Mr Blair in another presidential style election, Cameron would win it, even though the Conservative Party is not yet as popular as its leader.
Such an election will not happen. But Mr Cameron has advantages over Mr Brown that may show up in this Thursday’s elections in London. Mr Cameron is the best candidate for London voters that the Conservatives have had since the 1950s. Alec Douglas-Home, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Mr Major (who was born in London), Mr Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Mr Howard had very different political skills but none had a particular appeal to the London audience.
Specifically, they did not appeal to the BBC., which is the most powerful media influence on elections. To BBC types they all seemed very provincial.
Mr Cameron is a Conservative, though he sometimes worries Lord Tebbit because he is a liberal Conservative. London is a liberal-minded city, as most great cities are; like New York, London is a state of mind but a powerful state of mind. It is not so much that London voters represent about 13 per cent of the United Kingdom electorate but that the London-based media probably represent more than 90 per cent of all media output. It is very hard for a politician to overcome the prejudices of London; it can be fatal to overlook London’s fashionable concerns.
Mr Cameron has campaigned on the liberal themes that Londoners tend to worry about. He has played down, sometimes too much, genuine causes of Conservative concern. He fought an election campaign in the London boroughs by trotting behind huskies across the snows of northern Norway. That was either insane or it was brilliant.
It proved to be brilliant; it reinforced his green image and it would be reinforced, in its turn, by Labour’s chameleon broadcast — which was genuinely insane. Londoners worry about the environment, if only because London’s environment is so bad.
Mr Cameron’s reward was full screens of bumper publicity; he would not have got any news coverage for canvassing the back streets of Hammersmith, with or without huskies.
As London goes, so goes the nation. There have been eleven London borough elections since 1964; in nine of them the party that won London went on to win the general election. If the Conservatives win the leading share of the London vote on Thursday, Mr Cameron could be on his way to Downing Street in 2009 or shortly after.