Christmas cheer in the polls for Dave

After a long period in which the polls have been in a 'holding pattern', they have delivered a Christmas present for Dave Cameron in terms of a jump in the ratings: Polls

As the experts at Nottingham University point out, this is undoubtedly related to the exercise of the European 'veto' and probably involves an erosion of UKIP support. However, they also doubt whether the boost will be an enduring one, given the low salience of the EU in British politics and the fact that UKIP voters have other concerns.

Nevertheless, it does once again raise the issue of why the Labour Party is not doing better given the overall economic and political situation. One reason is that the polling evidence suggests that the electorate have no confidence in their economic competence, a reasonable given view given the way in which they spent what would have been a substantial budget surplus after 2001.

The other factor is Ed Miliband who continues to fail to impress. There are situations in which he could made more off. For example, the 'We are the 99 per cent' claim of the Occupy movement does resonate, even though it is ultimately spurious given that it assumes that the 99 per cent have a homogeneous set of interests and values which is clearly not the case. Nevertheless, Miliband could have recognised that they had an emotional case which required some intellectual development.

What instead we get is a lot of dithering and sitting on the fence as he tries to steer a course, for example, between the public sector unions and those who work in the private sector. In the dispute over public sector pensions, the Government has had to make some concessions but has largely got what it wanted in terms of higher contributions, later retirement ages and smaller entitlements.

Labour loyalists seem determined to stick with Ed to the last, however.

Do English cities want elected mayors?

Next May voters in eleven English cities will be asked if they want elected mayors - which already exist in fourteen locations ranging from the rather special case of London to smaller towns such as Bedford and Mansfield.

The Warwick Commission on Elected Mayors which I am chairing has been set up to provide an evidence base for considering the case for and against elected mayors. We are interested in whether they make a real difference compared with more traditional forms of local government. Some people think that the idea is an important democratic innovation, others that it is just a gimmick.

If voters in one or more cities do choose to have them, we need to think about how they can be effective and this will be one of the Commission's tasks. Read more here: Elected mayors

I have also written a longer post about this topic on the LSE Politics and Policy blog: Elected mayors

Church militant?

Leamington Parish Church

Not for the first time the Church of England has made a fool of itself over handling the demonstration outside St.Paul's. The Church's response has been weak and inconsistent, revealing once again internal divisions. Given its overall weakness, these events could do it permanent damage.

The Church stands accused of being more concerned with temples of stone than a community of people and failing to preach the social gospel of the Sermon on the Mount. The placard held aloft by one demonstrator, 'What would Jesus have done?' was rather telling.

However, I do have some sympathy with the Church in terms of its positon as a custodian of what are in effect national monuments which cost a great deal of money to run but for which it receives no public money (unlike a number of European countries that have 'church taxes' such as Germany and Finland). No wonder that it relies on 'suggested donations' for admissions and is worried about the income from its gift shops.

St.Paul's is the ultimate cathedral icon because of the pictures of it standing proud among the smoke and devastation of the blitz, a symbol of the country's stand against the Nazis. But the problem is replicated on a smaller scale across the country.

In Leamington we have a Victorian parish church. It is a large building, too large for the congregation in a town that has several Anglican churches. It's pleasant on the eye not particularly outstanding architecturally and it costs a lot of money to maintain. But it's an important and familiar part of the townscape, as important as the town hall with the statue of Queen Victoria outside and if someone suggested knocking it down there would be a furore.

No doubt all these problems will raise the issue of Disestablishment again. Many outside and inside the Church of England would like to see it hapen and the arguments in favour are convincing. Probably the main counter argument is that an Estabished church has to offer its services to all its citizens.

I would be personally sorry to see the Church of England disappear, but large parts of it have failed to move with the times or not quickly enough. It still has too many echoes of the 1950s which was not a glorious age whatever historian Dominic Sandbrook (now writing daft articles in the Daily Mail) might tell us. It recalls an era of a stuffy, repressed and repressing Establishment whose worst sin was to be boring.

As a Londoner born and bred, I have never been in St. Paul's and I must do sowhen these troubles end. Incidentally, as far as the demonstration is concerned, it is become a story about the Church rather than the banks.

Not a game changer

Valencia: Reuters rang me up yesterday evening to ask for comment on Liam Fox's resignation. My view was and is that it is not a game changer for the Coalition Government.

It is clearly an embarrassing episode, but Dave has handled it as well as he could in the circumstances. It is not indicative of the kind of sleaze which haunted the last years of the Major Government. Indeed, these days to get away with two Cabinet resignations in eighteen months is not bad going given the rapacity of the media pack.

Of course, one potential future problem is that Dr Fox could act as a focus on the backbenches for discontented right-wingers.

The Government would also have preferred stability in the defence ministry given that it has been critical of the turnover of ministers there under Labour. This made it more difficult to get a grip on the cost effectiveness of defence spending.

Phillip Hammond has been an effective transport minister, facing down opposition to the high speed train proposal. He is also on the right of the party so the balance of the Cabinet has not been changed. His replacement, Justine Greening, is also a rising talent.

So there has been some reputational damage, but it is relatively limited, certainly in terms of any lasting effect.

President Dave offers leadership

Leadership was a central theme of David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference this afternoon: leadership provided by him in difficult times. Apparently even the podium looked presidential.

It's a reasonable enough strategy given that the prime minister is the most popular of the political leaders (well in England anyway), not a very tough barrier to surmount. And he does run ahead of the party.

David Cameron also paraded his own liberal credentials, supporting gay marriage and emphasising the importance of overseas development aid even in tough times, something not many Conservatives - or voters - are keen on.

As I drove up to Yorkshire listening to the speech I passed a pub offering 'credit crunch lunches'. It is not easy to offer a positive message in such perilous times. But the prime minister emphasised the need for a 'can do' spirit to overcome excessive pessimism.

The speech was a bit short on content, but what was needed was to provide as rousing a message as was possible in the circumstances and that was largely achieved.

Ed's conference speech

I have to say that I am a bit underwhelmed. It often seemed that he was addressing the conference hall rather than the country. The speech went down well in Liverpool, especially the barbs against the Tories and Nick Clegg. But for me it didn't deliver a coherent strategy for government. It had the feeling of a speech that had been worked on a bit too much and hence sometimes came across as pedestrian when it aspired to be inspirational.

There was a theme there: I lost count of how many times values was mentioned. Ed was trying to say: these are my values and I think they are your values and the country's values as well. And Ed tried to sell himself as someone with an outsider's background who could deliver real change. He declared that he was his own man who would do things his way, making a real break with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Much was made of the new bargain. This would create a society in which one got something for something, in which effort would be rewarded. A distinction between good and bad companies had been trailed beforehand, but how does one decide which company is a good one?

Ed thinks the system is flawed, and it may well be, but how does one make the link between this and the everyday concerns that people have, even though Ed tried to give concrete examples in his speech?

Labour's search for credibility

What Labour really needs out of its conference is the development of a view among voters that it is a credible alternative government. Of course, the first obstacle there is Ed Miliband. Voters do not see him as a credible prime minister in waiting. They think he lacks that indefinable but essential quality, charisma.

The answer of the Labour image makers is to portray Ed Miliband as 'one of us', cue photo opportunities with his children. Apart from the fact that the photos were rather trumped by one of Villa supporting Dave Cameron at the match at Loftus Road with his son, voters do not want prime ministers to be 'one of us'.

They expect them to have an understanding of their problems, but they also expect the prime minister to have qualities that separate him or her from the crowd, a sense of command and authority. Dave Cameron's confidence can shade into the appearance of arrogance and complacency, but he does look as if he is in charge.

When it comes to policy, there is something of a vacuum, reflecting Labour's overly complex policy review. Unfortunately, the first major announcement, capping student fees at £6,000 does not stand up to close scrutinty.

First, it is not clear what its status is. Certainly it is not a manifesto commitment (and what happened to the graduate tax anyway?) Apparently that is still on the agenda.

Second, the cut will only be of benefit to those who earn enough to repay their loans. So better off graduates could find their fees cut. Graduates earning more than £65k a year would have to pay a higher rate of interest on their loans, but in order to raise the required amount, these rates of interest would have to be prohibitively high.

This might seem to be a way of enticing students disllusioned with the Liberal Democrats, but students (and their parents) are going to look at this proposal long and hard.