m_savage

So there are lots of interesting names among the 56 new peers created today, such as Prezza, Helen Newlove and Sir Ian Blair. The names also include two major donors to the Conservative Party. But one notable name is missing. It seems, for one reason or another, Sir Anthony Bamford, another major Tory donor, has not made the cut – despite being nominated by David Cameron. Earlier reports suggested he was nailed on to get the gig.
 

Bamford, boss of JCB, has given the Tories the best part of £1m. The party confirmed he was nominated for a working peerage. So why did he not appear on the list? All peerages have to be approved by the House of Lords Appointments Committee – as Lord Ashcroft found, they can be tricky when they want to be.

So what happened? Maybe No.10 has decided to stagger the announcement of Tory donors who end up in the Lords. Sure we’ll find out in time…

m_savage

David Miliband launched his leadership bid today, triggering a serious bout of Déjà vu. Having just read his speech from this morning again, one seemingly innocuous line sticks out. He told supporters:

“This leadership election is the beginning, not the end.”

Well, is it? The sentence assumes there will be an early leadership election, perhaps in July. That would certainly help him, as the frontrunner. Less time for one of his rivals to make a David Cameron-style speech that wins the day at the eleventh hour.

But would that be best for the party? Frankly, many members and activists are asking, what’s the rush? Nothing happens in August anyway, so why not have a debate over the summer and decide the leadership at the next conference at the end of September? In other words, they would be more impressed if DMil opens his 2010 conference speech by saying:

“This leadership election is the end, not the beginning.”
 

Miliband Major also promised to put an end to off the record briefings and negative campaigning during the contest. Good luck with that, a noble sentiment. But is it a strategic error?

The likes of Alastair Campbell aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, a point proved in spectacular fashion by Sky’s Adam Boulton recently. But whatever one's opinion of his skill set, Labour’s election campaign did seem to sharpen up when he took control, along with that other maestro, Peter Mandelson. Perhaps his more mischievous supporters should urge DMil to sign ‘em up…

m_savage

As we approach the big day, some Labour big guns have changed course slightly. Led by Alastair Campbell, who spearheaded the approach in the spin room after the third leader’s debate, they have stopped pumping up Brown and have switched to pointing out how Cameron has seemingly failed to hold on to a huge poll lead. I’ve just got back from a Labour press conference during which Lord Mandelson has done the same. With everything in his favour, they say Cameron hasn’t managed to seal the deal with voters.

The problem for the Cam camp is that when you look back at recent elections, there’s something in it. A poll of polls out today puts the Tories on 35 per cent. To put that in context, it’s the same share of the vote that Neil Kinnock, with the full force of the right-wing press against him, secured in 1992. And it also calls into question the great Cameroon age of reforming the Tories. His 35 per cent is only a slight improvement on Michael Howard’s 33.2 per cent tally.

And is he really heralding in a new age for the Tories? Tony Blair increased Labour’s vote share to 44.3 per cent in 1997, up more than nine points on Kinnock’s effort. Cameron’s leadership thus far his pushed up the share of the vote by around two points since Michael Howard.

“Cameron as popular as Kinnock” isn’t a slogan Labour, and particularly Mr Campbell, could deploy. But perhaps the Lib Dems could.

With Cam doing only a bit better than Michael Howard, the question is, Is he thinking what we're thinking? That is, he should be doing much better...

 

Here are the figures. I have used the ones compiled for Great Britain by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, at Plymouth University:

1992

Tory 42.8%

Labour 35.2%

1997

Tory 31.5%

Labour 44.3%

2001
Tory 32.7%

Labour 42%

2005
Tory 33.2%

Labour 36.1%