Isabel Oakeshott: Why the May election is not simply about the economy, stupid

This time last week, David Cameron found himself at the top of a slippery river bank facing two choices. He could either jump straight into the water — a risky and uncomfortable option — or make use of a rope to lower himself in. The occasion was the Great Brook Run, a mile-long race through a shallow stretch of the Evenlode river in west Oxfordshire. It is an annual sporting tradition in the Prime Minister’s constituency, and he is a veteran participant, fully aware of the potential for public humiliation or injury.

Weighing up the options, Cameron made a swift decision.

“There’s only one way to do this,” he announced and plunged straight into the freezing water, drenching himself and his security detail in the process.

Standing just behind him with other competitors (I am local and was also taking part), I was rather impressed. In that instant the Conservative Party leader was decisive, bold, crystal clear and willing to take a risk — exactly the sort of qualities he needs to win the next election.

As MPs return to Westminster, Cameron has adopted a similar approach to the political campaign. He has launched himself into the fray with energy and enthusiasm, setting the agenda with a blizzard of New Year television and newspaper interviews. He knows he has to give it everything he’s got.

At Westminster the received wisdom is that Britain is heading for another hung Parliament. In the final Ashcroft poll of 2014, Labour led by a single point. A more recent YouGov poll gives Ed Miliband’s party a four-point lead, enough for a decent majority, yet there is a sense among many MPs, including a significant number on the opposition benches, that Miliband does not have what it takes to pull it off. Throw in an unprecedented question mark over the fate of 41 Scottish Labour seats and the performance of Ukip (currently on 16 per cent in the polls, almost treble the Liberal Democrat position) and almost anything could happen.

This time five years ago, the Conservative position was both better and worse. In January 2010 the party was well ahead of Labour and was up against a party that had presided over economic catastrophe. After more than 12 years of Blair and Brown, voters were receptive to the argument that it was time for change.

Yet Cameron’s party had no clear message. Those involved in the campaign still shudder at the memory of the chaos behind the scenes as different people pressed for different approaches. The party did not even know what to put on its first election poster, a vacuum which led to the widely lampooned airbrushed image of Cameron pledging to “cut the deficit, not the NHS”. There were far too many cooks spoiling the broth, a situation that arose partially from Cameron’s leadership style: he likes to listen to a range of voices before making decisions, which can be a strength but was a recipe for disaster in an election campaign.

This time he is determined not to repeat those mistakes. The Tory campaign has a clear hierarchy, with Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne and chief strategist Lynton Crosby at the top. Only a handful of others are involved in key planning meetings, and nobody questions, or competes with, Crosby’s authority.

Most importantly, nobody involved in the campaign is in any doubt about the key message. There is just one sales pitch to voters — the economy. The Conservatives do not want to debate anything else. In a BBC interview with Andrew Marr yesterday, the Prime Minister showcased the planned approach. His response to questions on every issue, from the NHS to child poverty and immigration, was to revert to the same mantra: that unless the economic recovery is secured, nothing else will improve.

On the face of it, economic indicators favour the Tory cause. Unemployment has fallen to a five-year low, Britain is the fastest-growing economy in Europe and the deficit has halved (as a proportion of GDP). Cheaper fuel pushed the rate of inflation to a 12-year low in November, undermining Ed Miliband’s “cost of living crisis” argument.

Yet many people, especially those outside London, feel no better off. Equally, voters are not one-dimensional. Life for all but the most desperate and disadvantaged is about more than the bottom line. Going about their daily business — on cars, buses, trains; to the doctor, to the school gate, to visit a lonely elderly relative — people are constantly reminded of what else is at stake when it comes to who runs the country. Most understand that when they choose between parties they are not just selecting an economic approach.