Cameron's tweeting of the G8's luxury menu shows his blind spot

The Prime Minister's decision to advertise the lavish dinner enjoyed by the leaders is the quickest way of reminding everyone that we're not "all in this together".

As polls regularly attest, one of the biggest obstacles to a Conservative victory at the next election is the perception that the party is both of the rich and for the rich. One recent survey found that 64 per cent believe that "the Conservative Party looks after the interests of the rich, not ordinary people", while Labour enjoys a 17-point lead over the Tories as the party most likely to treat people fairly.

So it is unclear why David Cameron thought it wise to tweet the luxury menu enjoyed by the G8 leaders last night. No one would expect the leaders to dine on gruel and water, but Cameron's decision to advertise their lavish reception, before breezily remarking, "I'll chair a discussion on tax, trade, transparency and Syria", shows a remarkable lack of tact. It reminds everyone, in just eight words, that "we're not all in this together" and provokes exactly the kind of questions he should seek to avoid: "how many food banks have you visited recently?" Neither Tony Blair, with his finely-honed political antennae, nor Gordon Brown, with his hairshirt Presbyterianism, would ever have committed such a faux pas. 

Cameron's tweet is a good example of what Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston recently described to me as "a kind of blindness". Referring to the social narrowness of his inner circle, she said: "it's a kind of blindness to how this looks to other people and why it matters to other people . . . It’s not just the message, it’s the messenger. This is something that they obviously don’t see; they don’t see something that, to me, seems pretty obvious."

Similarly, Cameron, having enjoyed a fine (and taxpayer-funded?) meal, sees nothing wrong with sharing this fact with an austerity-scarred public. If the Tories are ever to win again, their next leader will need to be someone who does. 

David Cameron welcomes Barack Obama during the official arrivals for the start of the G8 Summit at the Lough Erne resort near Enniskillen in Northern Ireland. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496