Its always interesting to compare the opinions of different commentators from different papers on the same story.

Today we get to compare and contrast responses to the Government's current difficulties.  The writers are Bruce Anderson - a Tory writing in The Independent, Jackie Ashley an old lefty in The Guardian and Time Hames, who is quite keen on the Lib Dems.

Bruce Anderson is also clear that the Government is in trouble and things are likely to get worse before they get better.  He wonders why the Tories are therefore not doing much better.

The voters do not know enough about [Cameron's] beliefs and his philosophy of government. It will not be enough for Mr Cameron to assert that his administration will be much more competent than Gordon Brown's. Unless he gives disillusioned voters grounds to believe in him, they might just wish a plague on both your parties.

Cameron must do more to get his message across, even as the Government flounders - Bruce Anderson - The Independent

The depth of Labour's current problems is put most eloquently by Jackie Ashley:

Once utterly loyal Brownite backbenchers, senior ones, tell me they don't expect him to fight the next election. Blairites who kept their mouths zipped through the first months are plotting again to replace him. I have almost lost count of the number of non-political friends who say: "Sorry, I just don't like him."

Summon the courage to be the man you promised us - Jackie Ashley - The Guardian

Her prescription is for Gordo to go back to his magisterial demeanour that he successfully deployed over the summer - ie presenting himself as above politics.

A market exists for an antipolitics politician if someone is slick enough to claim it. There is a chance, therefore, that if Mr Clegg were to wager everything, as he should, on relentless, even reckless, candour – introducing a frankness into public life on every topic, including his party's failings – he could secure an audience. Honesty in politics is the principle that should be his watchword. It also chimes with his personality and his policy instincts.

And on lead guitar and vocals, welcome Nicky Clegg - Tim Hames - The Times

The contrast between the suggestions proffered are interesting.  Labour and the Conservatives are both urged to play the politics game more seriously - the Lib Dems urged to play it more recklessly. An interesting proposition for both Lib Dem candidates to bear in mind over the next few weeks as they both plot out their first 100 days in office.

The sketch writers love it when a political party feels really brave and decides to head for Blackpool.  Today its Matthew Engel's turn to rubbish the ailing resort ('Star turns fail to dispel general air of tat and decline').  There will no doubt be others in the week ahead.

However, If you read the Telegraph today things are going gloriously.

The leader column is full of positive statements - "There is ammunition a-plenty to campaign with here, whenever the election is called" it says.  "[David Cameron] is emerging as a strong leader under pressure." Followed up by the understatement of the year - "The prospect of an early election is clearly concentrating Tory minds wonderfully." ('A welcome flash of fire from the Conservatives')

However, for those less convinced that Cameron is on his way to Downing Street,  Tim Hames seems to be more on the money.  He writes today

"it is not as bad as it looks for the Tories. It is substantially worse." ('The road to Blackpool, via Punxsutawney')

Hames' diagnosis is convincing and worth reading in detail.

Time will tell whether it is he, or The Telegraph give a more accurate picture of Tory fortunes in the weeks ahead.

However, the most intriguing piece of the day is the John Bercow in The Independent ('A retreat to old comfort zones would spell failure').  In it he sets out his vision of what the Tories need to do over the next week .  He urges Cameron to go further and faster. 

Specifically, he says he is looking for Cameron to :

• reject tax cuts;
• continue to reject Grammar schools
• reject id cards
• invest in rehabilitation, rather than longer sentences for prisoners and (amazingly)
• raise the minimum wage.

This is quite a tall order - especially when he adds near the end "At our best, Conservatives are internationalists".

In today's big tent politics it would not be surprising if Bercow's piece was actually a prelude to the much vaunted Bercow defection. 

Brown's ideal start to his first General Election as PM is surely another Tory defector joining his ranks.

David Cameron looks increasingly desperate as he turns to an old Tory favourite - immigration - to try to win ground back in the polls. Only, according to Iain Dale in the Telegraph, it's not a lurch to the right a la the 2001 and 2005 campaigns; it's simply a moderate, sensible position ("David Cameron wobbled, but didn't fall"). But the Tories can't have it both ways, and once again the policy implications of Cameron's statement are unclear. To simply say that immigration needs to be "controlled" is a non-policy, as we do not currently operate an open border policy. On the other hand, if the Tories are going to propose stricter controls than we have at present, they have to be prepared to defend the (right-wing) political logic behind that policy.

Unfortunately, the case for it is poor. Cameron's repeated comment that there are "too many" immigrants for us to deal with belies the fact that the numbers have not increased significantly over recent years. But even if they had, immigration brings far more economic benefits than problems, as argued eloquently by Philippe Legrain in a chapter of a forthcoming CentreForum publication on globalisation. And even there were economic problems - even if our resources were a pie being cut up between everyone in the country - the underlying logic of the Tory argument is that British citizens deserve rights and opportunities more than those from overseas. This is why many people do see a current of xenophobia or even racism in even the moderate Tory rhetoric, and why implicitly to make such an argument is to 'lurch to the right'.

Which leaves Cameron with only one potential argument. The Times reports that the newest prong of the attack, launched by Damian Green, is the claim that immigration harms social cohesion ("Tories step up campaign for immigration controls"). Admittedly, this touches on a genuine political issue, unlike the economic argument. But given that we unavoidably do have a multicultural society, and this isn't going to change any time soon, any solution to community tensions has to involve engaging and reconciling the existing groups within our society, not preventing new immigrants from arriving. The argument that " the perception is as important as the reality", or that we need to reduce immigration to prevent the really racist parties from making the issue their own, is a cover for appeasing and making concessions to racist sentiment. And that certainly isn't going to improve community relations.

Also in the news:

• Tory election hopes look bleak, with a YouGov poll announcing that the Tories are 8 points behind Labour, and Cameron a whopping 24 points behind Gordon Brown (Telegraph, "Tory blow in polls fuels election speculation")
• An autumn election may be looking more likely, with it being considered as a strategy to prevent a divise row over Europe within the Labour party (Independent, "Brown urged to call autumn poll to quell referendum calls")

Daily Mail-type paranoia seems to be something of a theme this week, with David Cameron's ill-judged assaults on the Human Rights Act and on British youth in general featuring prominently.  The Conservative leader tried to use the deportation of Learco Chindamo to make a case for scrapping the Human Rights Act - but as the Economist pointed out ('A flawed fight-back'), his reasoning was pretty dubious:

The right to a family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the act was indeed interpreted in Mr Chindamo's favour (his mother and siblings are in Britain, where he has lived since he was six). Yet the act was a secondary factor in the tribunal's decision. More important was a directive in 2004 from the European Union (EU) on free movement, which prevents the deportation of EU citizens except on “imperative grounds of public security”.

Given that Chindamo himself only lived in Italy for three or four years and speaks no Italian, the logic which considers him purely 'foreign' and thus capable of being deported as a matter of course is indeed questionable.

Cameron's wider 'zero-tolerance' assault on youth crime was given a frosty reception by the Independent ('Moral panic and a return to gesture politics'):

David Cameron, in new zero-tolerance mode, proposed harsher minimum sentences for juvenile offenders and a ban – or delay – on driving. Given that the lack of a licence deters few teenagers from driving and that custody often provides a crime school for young offenders, both solutions look sadly like our old friend, gesture politics.

Giving more juvenile offenders criminal records and thus making it harder for them to find work is also a less than obvious way of encouraging their integration into society.  But Cameron wasn't finished:

His actual words were still less convincing. "With young people," he said, "you need to hit them where it hurts, in their lifestyle and their aspirations." If there is one point of agreement, it is that poverty of lifestyle and aspiration underlies much offending.

His comments certainly don't say much for Cameron's claim to be a 'liberal Conservative' on law and order, and they wouldn't do much for Britain's overcrowded jails either.

Today's newspapers provide an interesting studies of two ways to take on Labour.

In the blue corner - back from its short-lived incarnation as the blue-green corner - stands David Cameron, and, not for the first time in recent weeks, the commentators are unimpressed. In the Telegraph, former Tory MP George Walden suggests that today's Conservatives regard opposition as "a bit of a wheeze", which is much more fun than all the dreary work that would follow an election victory ('The Conservatives don't want power, it seems'). Ironically, Walden is guest-writing for the Telegraph because "Boris Johnson is away". It's hard to imagine the MP for Henley penning a piece like this.

Walden's argument that Cameron lacks the seriousness to govern is backed up by another Tory, Michael Brown, in his Independent column ('I am a Tory, but I must admit I find myself seduced by the cut of Gordon Brown's jib'). At times Brown is almost fulsome in his praise for his namesake:

Middle aged, dark suited, (occasionally crumpled) crisp white shirt, always wearing a tie - Brown appears every inch a politician from the Tory era of the 1950s. By cancelling his holiday and striding around deepest "true blue" Tory Surrey with farmers on Monday, he subconsciously reached the very parts of the Tory Party Mr Cameron seems determined to reject or insult...

And then come the critique of the Tory leader:

So first, Mr Cameron, ditch the Lycra shorts and the cycling nonsense. Put the tie and jacket back on. Since image is supposed to be your thing it shouldn't be too difficult to start at least looking like a Prime Minister.

Ouch!

In the tartan corner, Alex Salmond shows another way of taking on the Labour government. Mr Salmond has advantages over Mr Cameron, of course, not least the pulpit of the first ministership, from which he can harangue Labour one minute for selling out Scotland and assume his most statesmanlike pose the next. Yesterday, Mr Salmond's target was the broadcast media, which he accused of neglecting Scottish society and demanded more powers (from Westminster) to regulate in Scotland's interest; Alan Cochrane of the Telegraph gives an entertaining account of what he seems to have regarded as a consummate performance ('Men With No Ties are putty in Salmond's hands'). What surely impresses most is the way that Salmond combines ease of manner with seriousness of purpose in a way that either Mr Brown or Mr Cameron would give anything for.

Also in today's news

The Times reports that tackling a "culture of low aspiration" among black boys and teenagers could boost the British economy by £24 billion over the next forty years ('Helping black youths to achieve may bring £24bn boost').

If you're the kind of person that is deeply suspicious of David Cameron, today's papers make entertaining reading. 

Three commentators in The Times argue very different viewpoints:

• Danny Finkelstein outlines a highly convoluted argument to prove that Quentin Davies' defection is nothing to worry about ('Advice from a chimp')
  
• More convincing is Alice Miles expresses her incredulity that, given his record, QD can find a home in the Labour party. However, she tries a little too hard and her suggestion that this is a spectacular own goal by Brown is over the top ('First day, first humiliation for Mr Brown')
• Peter Riddell hits the nail right on the head when he says:

"Quentin Davies will be lucky to have as much as 24 hours of fame. But what a 24 hours!"

The Independent is in agreement ('A twist of the knife') whilst The Guardian pushes too far the other way ('A devastating defection')

The Telegraph does its best to ignore the story altogether - it's not mentioned on their websites home page (though it is bulleted on the front page of the print edition), nor is it a big enough story to warrant any mentions in its leaders.  However, like many other papers, it prints the correspondence between Davies and Cameron in full.  The comparisons with Douglas Howe are a little far fetched, but there are many good lines that one can imagine hitting the streets in Ealing, Sedgefield and other potential by-elections over the next few weeks (Hull East, Streatham, Hamilton North and any other by election rumours doing the rounds at the moment)

The Brown vs Cameron match has certainly started.

Also in today's news

• If the advance of celebrity politics worries you, you won't be pleased about yesterday's meeting of Tony Blair and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Both are feeding off the characteristics that one personifies and the other lacks.  Simon Hoggart identifies the important characteristics of the meeting ('Hasta la vista, Tony')
• Ming Campbell gives an interview to The Times ('My age is a benefit, not a problem')
  

The piece in today's papers that attracted most discussion in the office this morning was Johann Hari's piece in the Independent, Now we know where Cameron really stands.

In it, he says that the Cameron's handling of the grammar schools debacle demonstrates that he doesn't have the strength or will to resist the right-wingers in his party.

He concludes:

The Tory leader... has given in to his right-wing instincts and the foaming fringes of his party. David Cameron half-heartedly picked his symbolic Clause Four fight this fortnight, and lost. His liberal language is now exposed as the tinsel and baubles on a big Redwood tree.

The piece is entertaining enough.  Many liberals are suspicious of the depth of Cameron's Liberal Conservatism and he has certainly fluffed the grammar schools issue. 

However, I doubt that this moment will long be regarded as the seminal moment in Cameron's conversion to the dark side, that Hari implies.  His piece is entertaining and appeals to those already hostile to Cameron - but there will need to be another two or three major fumbles before the general public share Hari's analysis.

It seems David Cameron only has to open his mouth these days for the press to gather round, pens in hand, like expectant children.

The Times brings us the "news" that:

"David Cameron has called for a revolution in personal responsibility to halt social decline and promised that a Conservative government would not treat people like children" (We will not treat you like children, says Crusader Cameron)

Cameron continues to treat us like adults by chastising society for its lack of responsibility. He goes on to attack the media for its endless depictions of "violence, aggression, sex, vulgarity and shallowness" - adding "and they'll jolly well have to sit in the corner and think about what they've done". Nick Clegg responds by accusing Cameron of "wittering on":

"Actions speak louder than words. Until David Cameron is prepared to put flesh on his soft-soap rhetoric about trusting communities it will be difficult to take him seriously"

Continuing in his quest to promote a more mature political discourse, Cameron can be found in the Telegraph urging us to "be nicer to each other":

"Swearing in public or being rude to shop workers should be as "unacceptable as racism", David Cameron said yesterday as he began a campaign to create a more civilised society." (Cameron: people must be nicer to each other)

In addition to this exclusive, the Telegraph yesterday also broke the story that this incivility is, obviously, Labour's fault (Cameron: Labour to blame for rude Britain). Says Mr Cameron:

"My worry is that after a decade of a Labour Government that said 'the state is always the answer, more government is always the answer', they actually created the irresponsible society."

using that age-old political defence "well they started it".

Maybe Cameron could do with taking some of his own advice - start treating people like adults, grown-ups who can take a bit of serious policy discussion - don't patronise people by sticking to childish political point-scoring and candyfloss catchphrases like "social responsibility". Otherwise I'll tell my mum.

Also in today's news:

• The Government underestimates the rise in poverty by 100,000 (Guardian)
• Labour slump to lowest poll rating since 1983: Conservatives up 1 on 36%, Labour down 4 on 27%, Lib Dems up 2 to 22% according to the notoriously accurate CommunicateResearch (Independent)
  

A pretty decisive result in the first round of the French elections. A whopping 84.5% turnout voted to put Ségo & Sarko - the candidates of the left and right respectively - through to the second round. The centrist candidate, Francois Bayrou, managed only 18%. While British parties are falling over themselves in the fight to occupy the centreground, has France opted for a more polarising election?

The Times certainly think so (Run-off for President turns into classic Right-Left duel), describing Mr Bayrou's result as:

"a blow for his attempt to forge a "third-way" revolution in French politics"

However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Bayrou still has a very important role to play in the election. Jonathan Fenby in the Guardian explains (Meeting in the Middle):

"It all hangs on whether the centrist voters who backed Bayrou in the first round will decide to vote against Sarkozy whatever their reservations about Royal"

Assuming that most of Le Pen's 11% of the vote goes to Sarkozy, it will be Bayrou's 18% that ultimately proves decisive. It seems the centreground is as important as ever in French politics.

Also in today's news:

• The Guardian is still interested in the Greg Dyke story - with columns by Dyke himself in yesterday's Observer (My Week) and David Cameron this morning (I was right about Dyke). Dyke also talks about the issue of the centreground:

"There are now three political parties battling over the centre ground and the ideological differences between them are small. The future debate in politics will not be about policy, but about delivery."

    David Cameron, in his column, defends his decision and goes on to emphasise the importance of risk-taking in politics. He also calls for "a more mature political debate" in Westminster - advice which Bruce Anderson in the Independent (Mr Cameron had a difficult week and now he turns to a reinvigorated Chancellor) could take on board as he describes Frank Dobson (perhaps accurately) as a "dunderhead".

The battle to become Britain's greenest party reached fever pitch this morning, and gosh wasn't it exhilarating? The Guardian gets particularly overexcited (Miliband launches landmark climate change bill), telling us that:

"Britain's first ever climate change bill is published today, setting legally binding targets on the reduction of carbon emissions for the first time."

And just to prove how young and hip he is, David Miliband even launched the bill on YouTube.

This follows yesterday's twin announcements from Gordon Brown and David Cameron on how best to preserve our planet, whether it be through carbon limits or increasing air passenger duty.

We also found out, in the Times (Two rival visions that put the planet at the heart of policy), that Gordon Brown turns his TV off standby in the evening and Cameron's new home will have both wind turbines and solar panels, so I for one feel in safe hands.

However, wasn't there something missing from all this? It seems the green battle is only two-sided. As Liberal Democrats, we are used to the right-wing media prioritising certain political parties over others, but it's particularly needling when both camps seem to be following policies originally set out by the Lib Dems. Chris Huhne makes a rather feeble attempt to redress the balance in the Indy (We must monitor carbon targets annually), broadly supporting the Bill, but trying to distinguish himself by supporting annual targets (over 5 year ones) and suggesting that we may have to increase the 60% target. The environment used to be a Lib Dem stalwart, but increasingly this position is faltering.

If, as looks likely, the next election is fought largely over environmental policy, the Lib Dems need to prove their credentials, and quickly.

Also in today's news:

• Trident revolt grows as minister resigns (Independent)
• Compulsory language lessons to return (Telegraph)
  

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that coverage and comment on the Lib Dems has almost entirely petered out today, but the one piece that there is (Steve Richards in The Independent) refreshingly grasps the correct end of the stick.

Worryingly, it seemed the media had collectively managed to look without seeing at conference. That or they had all promised to be friends with the new boy if he let them copy his conference homework. Either way, everyone wrote the same PR-confusion story.

However, Richards focuses on the real substance of Ming's speech. Challenges to Gordon Brown need to cover the all-but-guaranteed two years of his premiership and electoral reform will not feature on that agenda; the point of the five tests is that -

"They give Sir Ming ample wriggle room to keep his distance from Labour's next prime minister if he chooses to do so ... but if Sir Ming decides that he wants to move closer to Labour Mr Brown will not be a million miles away from meeting the five challenges."

The positioning with regard to Labour is subtle enough here, which makes the overt rejection of the Tories all the more telling. The politic position, given the possibility of having to co-operate with one or the other after the next general election, would have been to extend that subtlety to David Cameron, but the grass roots reaction to the Tories is so vehement and the threat from the Tory invasion of Lib Dem territory so disquieting that one must suppose no relationship is possible. And at least Ming got to address some strong words to someone...

Also in the news;

• Frank Field, Labour minister for welfare reform 97-98, accuses the government of missing its big opportunity for radical welfare reform in The Telegraph (Less carrot, more stick).

• And David Cameron treads that fine line along the fence over the EU, trying not to offend anyone and offending everyone in the process, according to the FT (Cameron comes under fire over pledge to seek EU reforms).

Its the start of a new month, so time to check on the polls.

Anthony King provides some interesting analysis of the Telegraph's latest poll.  The headline figures show that the Conservatives are at 37% (-2) Labour are at 32 (no change) and the Lib Dems are on 16 (also no change).

The main spin the Telegraph puts on it is Cameron marooned; must do better.  This is certainly true if he is to have a hope of winning an overall majority.  But King delves deeper into the figures and pulls out some worrying news for the Lib Dems.

"...the Tories' new concern for the environment may be having a positive effect. It may be helping to change and improve the party's overall image and it may also be helping to woo wavering Liberal Democrats. YouGov at the moment is not only finding that fewer voters now back the Lib Dems than in the past but that an increasing proportion of those who do still back it are in general more favourably disposed towards the Tories than they
used to be."

The Telegraph 1st December 2006

This is particularly worrying for the many Lib Dem MPs with small majorities against the Tories.  It may well be that although the 'vote blue to go green' message has had little effect on Tory voters it has resonated with the more environmentally conscious Lib Dem voters.  If you ask the same voters that divide 37,32, 16 how they would vote given only the two larger parties to choose between, you get 43-34 split in favour of Cameron.

The key to Cameron's parliamentary majority seems buried in the liberal centre ground.  Can Menzies Campbell defend it or will the prospects of backing a determindely centrist David Cameron prove too much?

Regular readers will know that we're very excited about the Britain and the Broader Middle East conference for which six speakers are jetting in from the region to address key issues about how Middle East issues affect UK policy.
The Spectator today poses some interesting questions about how divisions in Cameron's Conservatives might be re-born by Middle East issues in general and Iran in particular.

Cameron is surrounded by hawkish neo-cons (Osbourne, Gove, Hague and Fox). But the Spectator suggests, with some justification, that Cameron is more open minded.  Therefore having to pick sides as new Foreign Policy situations arise could prove more tricky...

"If Blair and Brown were both to start declaring that the military option was definitely on the table when it came to dealing with Iran, the press would pepper Cameron with questions about whether he agreed or not. Sir Menzies Campbell would challenge Cameron to join him in ruling out a strike. If the Conservatives refused to do so, it would allow the Liberal Democrats to win back many of the affluent, southern voters whom Cameron has wooed so assiduously since becoming leader. Yet, equally, if Cameron were to set himself against the possibility of military action against Iran, it would place his closest lieutenant, George Osborne, in an extremely awkward position. Osborne is an unapologetic hawk and Bush supporter. A book review he wrote for The Spectator in 2003 stressed the ‘powerful lesson’ Bush had to offer British Conservatives. Read with the benefit of hindsight, it can be seen as laying out the road map that the Cameroons have followed these past 12 months."

James Forsyth - The Spectator (Full article requires logging on but subscription is free)

At the CentreForum conference Professor Karma Nabulsi, a member of the PLO from 1977-90 and a Palestinian advisor to the peace talks in Washington from 1991-1993 will debate how Palestine and Israel will look in 5 years time with Ha'aretz commentator, Daniel Ben Simon. 

If the UK Conservative Party is prone to being buffeted by outside pressures - one can only imagine how such pressures will play in the region itself.

   Widely reported today was the formal unveiling of the Conservative party’s proposal of an independent board for the National Health Service. Mr Cameron, speaking alongside his health spokesman Andrew Lansley, insisted it was time to “move away from the idea that the Government's role is to micro-manage the delivery of health care and moving towards greater professional responsibility for those who work in the NHS."

   The reception for Cameron’s first concrete policy proposal since promising to make the NHS his priority at the party conference has been encouraging. Rosie Winterton, minister of state for health, said that the idea was "worth looking at". The Telegraph noticed it “sounded uncannily like the plan put forward by Gordon Brown only a few weeks before.”

   However, Steve Webb the Liberal Democrat Health spokesman has joined other experts in questioning the wisdom of introducing an extra level of bureaucracy that is devoid of accountability. He is quoted in the Financial Times: "We should not be handing power over to an unelected quango - independent of politicians, but accountable to no one,"

     Many people would agree with the sentiment that politicians should be less involved with the day to day running of NHS, which is best left up to the health professionals who understand these challenges, through a lifetime of working within the system. Yet Steve Webb is absolutely correct to question whether Cameron’s proposal (or Brown’s before it)  is the best means to facilitate this administrative shift.

Mary Dejevsky offers some disturbing conclusions about recent European election results in the Independent. Close scrutiny of polls in Belgium, Sweden and Austria suggest that far right movements are gaining traction at the expense of those  political parties rooted in the prevailing consensus of centre ground appeal.

            Dejevsky asks if Cameron’s efforts to reposition the Conservatives on the terrain mapped out by Blair may be an example of "generals planning for the battle they have just fought rather than the real battle that lies ahead?"

            Austria’s election ten days ago resulted in a defeat for the Centre-Right government of Wolfgang Schussell and is likely to produce a grand coalition of the main parties led by the Social Democrats. Surely an encouraging result for all European liberals who remember the rise of Jorg Haider’s Neo-Fascist Freedom party to a power sharing  coalition with Schussell in 2000. Unfortunately, Dejevsky points out that the greatest winners in percentage terms were in fact Haider’s heirs.

            “The reason that Mr Schussell is no longer Chancellor is that his centre–right government was not far enough right for many of its former supporters… And - lest there be any confusion – their electoral appeal resided on one thing: hostility to immigration… The combined message is disturbing. It is that the issues clustered around immigration, Islam and cultural difference are issues on which people are voting.

            By hewing with such determination to the centre ground, Mr Cameron may be missing the evidence from Europe that shows the political centre ground is moving.”

Mary Dejevsky - The Independent

            It is important to recognise these alarming trends in the mood of European voters reflected in the governments or more commonly the local councillors that they choose. But Dejevsky is also correct to emphasise that the far right remains on the fringe of political power. To do otherwise is to contribute  to the scaremongering favoured by the very movements we deplore and perpetuate the myth of an impending clash of civilisations. Michael Howard’s tactics at the last General Election revealed that in the most part “We are not thinking what right-wing politicians are thinking” on issues such as  immigration. The focus of sections of the media and in recent weeks from senior politicians such as Jack Straw and John Reid upon the issues of immigration, Islam and community divisions, risks whipping up a cultural and potentially an electoral crisis which is in no way inevitable. In this respect, Cameron’s arrival in the centre ground is wholly welcomed.

People who talk about the north/south divide generally irritate me - mostly because I grew up in the Midlands.  Positioning yourself in the north/south axis for a midlander is similar to being a second generation immigrant - caught between two communities - neither of whom accept you as a true member of their community.

This is the second time this week I've picked out the north/south divide from the newspapers.  The Tories after all have a big north/south divide of their own.

The FT try giving their take on how Cameron's message is playing with the voters of Cheadle Hulme today.  Cheadle is hardly typical of many places north of Watford Gap.  Indeed, the houses, streets and incomes would fit many a southern county.  However, Cameron seems to be struggling with the same demographic that he is succeeding with further south.  Maybe you need more regular acquaintance with the sunshine to get him.

"If the Tories are to put down fresh roots in the Conservative desert that is the metropolitan north of England David Cameron will have to win back well-heeled towns such as Cheadle Hulme on Manchester's affluent fringes.

The Liberal Democrats have cemented their hold since they took the constituency by just 33 votes in 2001, and the views expressed by local voters before yesterday's speech gave a measure of the ground Mr Cameron still has to make up - despite a campaign aimed at presenting him as the energetic and environmentally friendly new face of a venerable party."

James Wilson - Financial Times

Should we be suprised that the Tories have hopped aboard the personality bandwagon.  But if the zeitgeist is for celebrity more than substance - at least the Tories are playing it.

The 20th century is over. People vote, if they vote at all, not for wallets or Europe or schools and hospitals. They are too comfortable for that. They vote for a person they feel they know, whose response to events and the world they recognise and trust. Policies are for nerds and activists, the ectoplasm of the conference season. Cameron and his shadow chancellor, George Osborne, need to keep their cool, survive the week and get back to the business of promoting Mister Nice. A bit of help from Lord Nasty was a bonus.The strategy is sound. Cameron has been criticised for following too slavishly the Tony Blair project. His reply, that the project never did Blair any harm, is cogent, however much it upsets the Westminster village (which adores style but disgusts itself in doing so).

Simon Jenkins - The Guardian

Its a key question - and one that those predisposed to the Conservatives answer yes to - whilst those who never cared for them automatically say no to.  Alice Miles in today's Times lets us know that she senses genuine change.

The problem for the other parties is about tactics... If you say "They're so fickle they are happy to ditch anything for power" you are accepting that they are shifting ground.  If you say "They haven't really changed - the grassroots are still the same" you endorse Cameron.  Both arguments are problematic and both emphasise the cult of the leader in a media age that loves personality more than anything else.

Labour and the Lib Dems need a better line.

"The one thing that has been obvious in Bournemouth is how far distant the party is from its shiny new leadership, from tax to high tech to the value of optimism. The “webcameron” — the new leader talking meaningless twaddle like “all of these things need to be dealt with in a calm, compassionate way” as he washed up the breakfast things — was dismissed as patronising, unprofessional and underestimating the intelligence of voters.

Yet the more subtle thing, and I hope the more important one, that has struck me, is the realisation that the Cameroonians actually do mean it. You can’t tell it from listening to Mr Cameron’s “bring me sunshine” speeches, or by watching him clean the dishes. You can’t tell it from talking to many of his advisers either because they make it all sound like a clever marketing strategy."

Alice Miles - The Times

An interesting congruence today of topic, if not opinion, from Max Hastings and Tim Montgomerie lament the Tory's lack of appeal outside the South East.  But one blames the "sour right" and the other says Cameron's line isn't tough enough.  No prizes for guessing which is which...

"The Tory sceptics - the "sour right", as Douglas Hurd aptly calls them - refuse to recognise that no amount of activism will solve their biggest problem, the health of the British economy. What is most remarkable about British politics today is not how much real anger the public feels towards the Labour government, but how little...  Up north, especially, visceral dislike for the Conservatives persists. If the British economy turns sharply downwards in the next three years, Cameron has a real chance of forming a government around 2009. If it does not, however, then Labour seems likely to cling on to power, with or without Lib Dem support."

Max Hastings - The Guardian

"In the failure to talk about crime, immigration and tax - alongside the gentler, greener messages - Team Cameron is not reaching the "Morrisons voter". Morrisons voters are largely Midlands and northern-based. Their wage packets are the main victims of uncontrolled immigration. They can least afford Gordon Brown's stealthy taxes. They are more vulnerable to crime and less able to opt-out of failing public services.   In America, Australia and Canada lower income families like Morrisons voters have become central members of the coalitions that have underpinned the recent electoral success of those countries' conservative parties. While many voters have moved leftwards as they have become richer, Bush, Howard and Harper have more than replaced them with appeals to cultural and socially conservative "strivers"."

Tim Montgomerie - The Independent

Several papers are picking up on Senator Jon McCain's interview with the Spectator ahead of his appearence at Tory party conference next week.  When asked about whether Cameron has the qualities to become PM, McCain responds:-

"Oh, sure. Probably the most respected - can I say beloved - leader of my time was Jack Kennedy, who brought youth, incredible youth, the Camelot era,to the American public."

One can't help thinking about Lloyd Bentson's comment to Dan Quayle - "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"

"For years, the Tory party and the Tory press have been infiltrated by our own neoconservatives, more determined even than Blair to serve the national interest of another country. Under William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard - egged on by Charles Moore, Matthew d'Ancona and Michael Gove - the Tories came close to being what the socialist leader Leon Blum called the French Communists, "a foreign nationalist party"."

Interesting analysis of Cameron's positioning on foreign policy.  Wheatcroft praises Cameron for shifting the Tory's position - but can he carry his party with him?

Geoffrey Wheatcroft - The Guardian