Dr Andrew Lilico: Why we lost in 2001 and 2005

Dr Andrew Lilico, Managing Director of Europe Economics, asks you to consider the following three accounts of why we lost in 2001 and 2005 and what the implications are...

Account 1:

In 2001 and 2005 we were perceived by the public as far too right wing.  People believed that we were overly ideological, wanting to privatize everything, and were obsessed with economic and financial issues - wanting to cut taxes and slash spending.  This meant that our policies on issues like health and education and tax rendered us totally unelectable (i.e. it was certain important policies that made us "right wing") .  Because the Party leadership understood that our policies on public services and the economy were impossible to sell, it rightly focused on more popular policy areas such as immigration and Europe.  Unfortunately our strength in these areas was insufficient to overcome our basic weakness in public services and economy-related issues, and Labour was able to leverage off its lead in these issues to underpin its own authority and undermine our credibility.

Although, in principle, Labour might eventually make itself so unpopular that a "one more push" strategy could one day work, we cannot afford to rely on this happening soon, and so must address our weakness on these core questions.  The way to do this is to adopt policies that the public can understand are close enough to Blair's to be credible, but then impose on those policies our own Conservative spin - so that we will carry Blair's agenda to a Conservative conclusion.  With credibility on public services and economic issues, we can then take proper advantage of our lead on other issues - moving the debate onto new and radical ground such as the environment, on which Conservatives have something unique and interesting to say that the public has no heard before.

Account 2:

In 2001 and 2005 we were perceived by the public as far too right wing.  This was manifest in our obsession with issues such as immigration and Europe that were of only transitory concern to mainstream voters (i.e. it was our choice of topics that made us "right-wing").  We seemed to have very little to say on the main issues of interest such as the economy or health and education - was this because we didn't care about public services, or was it that we secretly just wanted to privatize them so we wouldn't have to pay taxes to fund them any more?  Our Party leadership, far too obsessed with survival issues, was ashamed to engage in proper debate with its adversaries on health and education reforms - instead, foolishly focusing on more popular policy areas such as immigration and Europe - with the consequence that our (rarely-mentioned and ill-understood) policies on health and education were, at best, half-baked.  Because we were irrelevant on the key issues of the day, we were unelectable and Labour won by default.

Although in principle the Party might eventually stumble upon non-core issues that would animate the public sufficiently to build a winning coalition of interests (perhaps environmental issues?), surely the most straightforward policy would be to recognise our strategic error of the past ten years, and instead attempt to engage with the debate on the core issues - the economy, public services (and now, international affairs) - offering our distinctly Conservative approach to these matters and attempting to win the debate instead of giving it up to Labour by default.

Account 3:

In 2001 and 2005 our policies and our political positioning were essentially correct.  Unfortunately we lacked the right personalities amongst our leaders to give proper voice to our Conservative point of view.  Also, we perhaps sometimes lacked confidence and unity and we bore the legacy of our splits over Europe from the past and in general the fatigue of a long period in office.  Also, because the economy was doing well, people just weren't ready to give up on the Labour Party yet.  It's very difficult to get the government out when it isn't perceived as having screwed up on domestic affairs.

Now, with renewed and impressive leaders, not tainted by the errors of the past, if we hold our nerve and push truly Conservative policies - perhaps making them a little simpler, so that we talk about low taxes, the family, a strong nation and so on - then with Blair broken and gone the voters will now be ready to give us a try.  We just need to make sure that we don't end up doing anything stupid to alienate our core supporters and force them to defect to UKIP or stay at home.

**************

Now, although there are obviously all kinds of nuances and combinations of view that I am ignoring, I am interested in which of the three accounts above ConservativeHome supporters believe is closest to correct.  For it seems to me that Cameron's team believes Account 1, and that they assume that their opponents must believe Account 3, but that Account 2 is closest to the truth.  But what do other bloggers think...?

Comments

[Bradford]

In 2001 and 2005 we were perceived by the public as far too right wing.

That may be your perception, but frankly here you were simply invisible. It was hard to believe there was an election - all we saw were a couple of leaflets printed in Hertfordshire with no mention of the local candidate but lots pics to William Hague which frankly turned everyone off.

It was as if this marginal seat was an afterthought and noone really cared. Hague going on about Saving The Pound was rabid lunacy; and the way the 2005 election suddenly buried Tory proposals to abolish tuition fees was suspicious.

2005 was a Soviet style election - only the Government-party was campaigning. It was as if the Conservatives made no effort - they did not seem to care.

Labour won by default. The Conservatives are remarkably complacent, they don't work very hard to get votes, and they are more like a direct-marketing organisation than a political party

[Foch]

This article is naive in the extreme and I'm sorry if I sound very rude - it isn't worth discussing.

Elections are fought on a complex battleground dictated by relative strengths, events, public opinion, opposition strategy and to some extent luck.

Frankly the above ia simplistic Ladybird guide to political posturing and bears no relation to political strategy.

I hope and pray that team Cameron are operating a much more multi faceted and complex strategy than any of the supposed options above.

[malcolm]

Account 2 is probably the closest in my opinion.

[Andrew Lilico]

Foch,

I explicitly stated that there were many complexities that I was ignoring. I have deliberately simplified these away, so as to focus on a core question: Have we previously taken too much account of the policy ideas of Conservative thinkers on health and education and the economy, such that we now need to distance ourselves from them; or have we previously taken too little account, such that we need to engage with those ideas (and their radical implications) and debate them more?

The impression the Cameroons have offered for the past eighteen months is that Conservative thinkers on health and education are an embarrassment, and that debate in these areas is to be closed down to a tiny area around Blair's own position. Is that right?

[simon]

Well, i have to go with Account 3 though i have to qualify that with blatent anti-conservative propoganda in certain sections of the media which did not help the cause. Added to that- certain Conservative MP's did not 'pull their weight' during successive Parliaments since 2001 (and appeared more content being 'media' figures).

[richard]

We lost in 2001 and 2005 because we had the wrong leaderand the wrong policies, just as surely as we will lose the next election.

[Oberon Houston]

Account 2 is closest for me, although I suspect 3 will be most populat on CH. Cameron will want the public to believe version 1 as admitting to 2 would upset too many people in the party.

[Adam]

I'd agree with Andrew - Account 2 seems the most plausible scenario. However, I would add to it the problem that we have with education and health is that Blair advocates policies that are heavily influenced by conservative thought. How do we combat and object to policies which are the internal market, grant-maintained schools, and GP fundholding by another name?

[Yet Another Anon]

In 2001 especially, but also 2005 there was a certain amount of incoherence notably over public spending - when senior figures in the Conservative Party suggested that there might be further efficency savings that were not obvious at that time and this could result in a greater possibility of tax cuts. Obviously government has to be prepared for the possibility that there will be unforseen circumstances either positive or negative, and that when such things come up they have to make the most of them in the national interest.

Additionally in 2001, William Hague seemed to lose his nerve towards the end of the election campaign and pretty much shifted into the background and Margaret Thatcher was encouraged to do the campaigning including her notorious "The Mummy returns" statement - all this made William Hague look to the general public as unable to cope in difficult circumstances.

Then in 2003, just at the point that carefully planned policy reviews based on sound moral principles were being completed and just as it seemed that IDS was starting to make progress as Conservative leader - he was removed from office and Michael Howard installed in his place, in itself this showed the parliamentary Conservative Party to be seriously divided and also divorced from it's own membership. This done, Michael Howard then proceeded to rip up the policy review's decisions and put in place of them a serious of slogans, his new immigration policy was totally incoherent - if you decide to cap immigration levels then you cap them, when it was pointed out that this could result in people who had skills of great benefit to the British economy and society being not allowed in, and that this possibly compromised the continuing commitment to accept people considered to be genuine asylum seekers, it became obvious that the policy had not been thought out when he then said that figures could be carried over to the next year which really makes a nonsense of the concept of a cap - whatever someone's opinion regarding immigration they are left with a feeling that such a policy actually will result in a chaos with a possible migration equivalent of the EU butter and fridge mountains and the like.

In the end the 2005 General Election was probably the best opportunity that the opposition had of ending Labour's majority, and the Conservatives in 2001 and 2005 have only been saved by a collapse in the Labour vote and the equal failure of the Liberal Democrats to capitalise on this - the total Conservative vote in 2001 was lower than that of Labour in 1983 and only higher percentagewise because of a fall in turnout. The gain in seats by the Conservative Party were down to the collapse of the Labour vote and some focusing of the Conservative vote, the Conservative vote in terms of a percentage and absolutely hardly shifted and in fact UKIP increased it's vote by more than the Conservative Party.

In addition the confused strategy of the Conservative Party of being in Europe but not run by Europe while year on year, further integration goes on and the UK is further restricted in the extent of policy options at a Westminster level.

[Foch]

ok Andrew I think you have substatially edited this contribution since I first read it.

[Andrew Lilico]

Adam,

This is an area in which I think that Osborne and his team are not quite right. Conservative thought dominates the policy-making world in health, in particular. A well-known tale illustrating this was the Internal Market. Dobson came in and abolished the Internal Market. As far as I can see, Labour then said to their civil servants: "So, we've abolished the Internal Market. Now what?" And the civil servants spoke to their consultants and so on, and came back along the lines "Well...we could re-introduce the Internal Market. Or we could introduce top-up vouchers for within-NHS use. Or we could introduce top-up vouchers that people could take to the private sector. Or we could privatize the whole thing. I'm guessing you're going for re-introducing the Internal Market? Shall I start on the paperwork?"

The things that Blair has done do indeed reflect Conservative thought - the left-wing end of Conservative thought. But there's plenty of other Conservative ideas that might at least have got their moment in the sun, before we decided to reject them...

[Andrew Lilico]

Foch@11:55

Not I. I suspect that you were quick-off-the mark, and read the material pasted up first thing, which wasn't the version I'd submitted for publication...

Sorry about that.

[Og]

We lost in 2001 and 2005 because of the performance of the Tories between 1989 and 1997.

And we very nearly lost in 1992 as a result of the previous three years of poor governance. Lots of Tories still believe we "should" have lost in 92, for the sake of the party and the country.

The fact is, the tide goes in and out on political parties' popularity, and the evidence of 2005, where our party polled more English votes than any other party, confirms that the tide was turning well before Cameron was elected leader. The evidence is that Howard did a decent job and that his manifesto was credible.

Competent Conservative leadership from Cameron will deliver victory at the next election. Mucking around with soft-left consensus politics will confuse the electorate, infuriate the Tory Right, and risk defeat.

The electorate does not want the Tories to be NuLabour or LibDem - they've got one of each of those already.

[Sean Fear]

I can see elements of truth in all three accounts, although to be honest, 2001 was always going to be a suicide mission, whoever was in charge, and whatever our policies and presentation.

I suppose I'd split the difference between 2 and 3 (annoyingly). You're quite right we had nothing important to say on economics, or the public services, but I also believe our stance on Europe and immigration has been the correct one. On Europe, certainly, and immigration possibly, we have pushed the government into positions it probably would rather not take.

[TomTom]

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | June 15, 2007 at 11:54

Very good posting !

[Yet Another Anon]

The fact is, the tide goes in and out on political parties' popularity, and the evidence of 2005, where our party polled more English votes than any other party, confirms that the tide was turning well before Cameron was elected leader. The evidence is that Howard did a decent job and that his manifesto was credible.
The Conservatives performance, even in England in 2005 was not all that impressive, the fact is that Labour's vote collapsed throughout England in 2005, the Conservative vote improved in the South of England & Wales, but even slipped back in some other areas of England - such a rate of progress even in terms of vote if continued would take decades to give the Conservative Party an overall majority even if Labour's vote remained low.

In some countries a party has become entrenched in power and governed for decades, it's even happened in this country if you go back to the 19th century when there were long spells of both Liberal and Conservative government; if Labour had lost in 1997 it would have started to become more difficult for them to win and for the Conservatives to lose because people can end up getting used to the party of government and find it difficult to comprehend or cope with the concept of a government comprising something else.

The media like to talk of these things as if some change is always imminent, but that's only because people will get bored of the news being that the same party has won again.

If the Conservatives had won in 1997 then John Major might still have been Prime Minister now, Tony Blair would have been pushed out in 1997 and who knows? Maybe John McDonnell or Michael Meacher would have lead the party deeper into oblivion.

I don't think David Cameron will ever be Prime Minister, although I think there is a high probability that he and George Osborne will both be cabinet ministers in the next Conservative government.

[Paul Oakley]

Excluding the second and third sentences of the first paragraph: Account 3.

[Michael McGowan]

I agree with Sean. But the above narative overlooks a couple of key issues:

1. Much more so than Labour, the Tory Party is increasingly non-ideological and just a mechanism for getting career-minded politicians into office. That means that starved of office, as it has been for over a decade, it does not know how to function effectively and lacks both energy, organisation and resilience. Like them or loathe them, you cannot say that about Labour which was in opposition for nearly 20 years, nor about the US Republicans.

2. Successful parties constantly seek out new constituencies while (and this is the tricky bit) doing enough to keep their core on board and motivated. Labour have done this at all times, whatever their anti-Clause 4 rhetoric. Post-Goldwater, the Republicans went out of their way to build new constituencies. The Tories' performance in this regard has been woeful and much of the modernising project has been a deluded campaign of abuse against the Party's own supporters.

[Jon Gale]

1 and 2

[Iain]

Probably account 3, but the whole thing is too simplistic, for starters the situation between 2001 and 2005 are very different but if you want my analysis of the situation.

1/ the position on the EU and immigration was correct, but the language used was crass, more problematic was the strategy which was inept. E.g. immigration, this should have been developed through the environmental and sustainability debate, this would have engaged rather than scared away voters, and in linking these subjects, as they should be, it would have shown up the contradiction of Labour and Libdem policies , who are for both. Unfortunately someone named Cameron, employed an Australian pollster to pursue the dog whistle strategy, and now Cameron won’t mention the ‘i’ word, when he should be linking it to his green policies.

2/ there was a failure to engage in other areas, like health, some of the policies were sound and should have been promoted, but others just shot the Conservative party in the foot, like the patients passports, which enabled Labour to paint the Conservatives as hostile to public services.

As for any hope things will change, this I am sorry to say hope is receding fast, for Cameron rather than using his communication skills to introduce Conservative policies using more inclusive language, he instead sees his role to mimic new Labour policies and a discredited Prime Minister Blair.

[Ken Stevens]

I plump for Account 3 as being the nearest to the actuality.

In 2001, the memory of the previous care-worn Tory government was too recent.

In 2005, you didn't give the appearance of having anything stunningly different to offer - and serial leadership didn't enhance credibility! - so it was a case of why not stick with the devil you know, for all his faults.

To avoid repeat of 2005 syndrome, you need to develop tangible policies of mass appeal that retain existing voters, regain previous voters and gain new ones. The regain/gain aspect includes those who no longer see any point in voting at all.

Simply shifting your arc of fire further round the landscape risks leaving you with same number of voters, just a different batch thereof.

I'm tempted at this juncture to bang on about Europe and fragmented UK , but I'll resist the temptation even to hint at it ;-)

[Andrew Lilico]

I would like to note that one does not have to believe that our policies on immigration or Europe were *wrong*, in order to agree with Account 2. Account 2's diagnosis is that it is the choice of topics, not the policies adopted, that gave us the "far too right wing" image.

FWIW, I thought that our 2001 policies on asylum and the euro were correct, and our 2005 immigration policy was potty. But that is really neither here nor there, according to Account 2. Taking a different example, I believe in duty-driven pro-active military intervention abroad in a broad range of settings. But if we made the conditions under which it was a good idea to invade other countries into the centrepiece of our General Election offering, we would correctly be considered right-wing nutters. One's choice of topics is absolutely central to one's political positioning.

[Happy Tory]

Account 2 looks right to me. And I think that it's incorrect to say that Cameron and team would choose Account 1. The Cameron agenda is about a real re-think, not about putting a Conservative spin on Blair policies. These policy reviews are not a shallow exercise. The policy conclusions may not always be right, yet, but they're definitely not shallow, either in intent or content.

[Andrew Lilico]

Happy Tory,

The point of Account 1 is that the aim is to have policies that the *public* can be convinced are close to Blair's. In my view you are correct, in that the policies proposed by the Policy Groups, and indeed any plausible policies that a Cameron government might enact in practice, would be very different indeed from anything Blair would want to do. The question here is about the spin (do we want to spin ourselves as the "heirs to Blair", even though we are manifestly not going to be), not the substance.

[Sean Fear]

While I don't think we should concentrate on immigration to the exclusion of all else, I think it has to be up there, as one of our top five priorities, in line with the voters' priorities.

My own view is that our immigration policy in 2005 was a step in the right direction, but no more than that.

[david]

And there's me thinking that after Black Wednesday the voters just thought the Tories were rubbish, how wrong can you be!!

[Rachel Joyce]

Adam
Practice based commissioning is not GP fundholding - wish that it were. It has lots of real problems and will not sort out the NHS as fundholding was helping to. It is more likely to contribute to a less cost-effective and more dumbed down service.
I'll go into detail at some point either here or in my blog.

[Matt Wright]

65% Account 2 and 35% Account 3.

Plus in addition, we have not been projecting a clear enough overall practical message about what modern Conservatism stands for and how it draws together the therads of policy and positioning,

Matt

[dongbong99]

Does anyone else think like myself that the statement "we put forward a right wing conservative message from 1997 until Cameron" not accord with the facts?

I seem to remember the media calling William Hague and in particular his leadership team "lib-dem conservatives" at the time.
I also remember IDS taking us onto unusually
centre-left territory with an emphasis on Labour style social issues.
Michael Howard in my opinion was the only leader leading from the right but he did also make concessions to the centre-left (on Iraq : "If I knew then what I know now...) on a number of issues that labour did not bother to.

So how is it that it is Thatcherite policies that are supposedly at fault for our lack of political success? This is what puzzles me the most.

[Why don't you use your own name instead of hiding behind an anonymous one?]

Why did the Conservatives lose in 2009?

[Andrew Lilico]

Matt@16:22

I think you're absolutely correct about the lack of a clear and coherent positive account of what Conservatives were *for* (as opposed to against). My focus is on the status of our policy positions on the big questions - on public services and the economy. Did we need to abandon our positions as a Party seeking significant reform in these areas and instead position ourselves as close to Blair (whether we, in fact, were or not)?

[Observer]

, I believe in duty-driven pro-active military intervention abroad in a broad range of settings

I don't. Moreover noone is prepared to pay for it, and increasingly the manpower isn't there or don't demographics enter into consciousness ?

[Mr Honk]

Following the landslide of 1997, there was still no way Labour were going to lose in 2001. The Conservatives were still hated then though probably not quite as much by an electorate that by 1997 had got tired of ideology and wanted a rest with some touchy-feely non-Tory party that could simply run the country.

By 2001 there was nothing that had really impinged on the general popularity Mr Blair had, and nothing that had really alienated the public from Labour. That may have started to set in a little bit before 2005, but disillusionment with Labour only really kicked in post-2005.

Basically Labour had an enormous level of popular goodwill - people willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, if you like - which has only manifestly run out in the period from 2005 onwards. It is against this backdrop that the Conservatives must assess things.

Now, the Conservatives are in a position where post-2005 the electorate that chucked them out in 1997 are standing to look around for an alternative to Labour. At this point in time the current Conservative leadership seems to offer (a) silence on anything the BBC would consider controversial, notably the European issue, Islamic terrorism and immigration (b) a break from traditional Conservatives values - witness the desire to court gay votes at the expense of traditionalists, e.g. the N Ireland Conseravtives' recent quotes about Ian Paisley junior (c) generally coming across as nice in the form of Mr Cameron.

The question though is what is appropriate for the times in which we find ourselves. Just as defence perished as an issue after the 1980s, we cannot fight the 2009/2010 election based on what happened in 2001 and 2005. The issues of our time funnily enough now call for some serious political backbone and a stance on real issues, following the managerial Blair era when it went out of fashion.

[Simon Newman]

3 seems closest to the truth, but it's more 'none of the above'.

2001: A popular Prime Minister, a Labour government that had, for the first time in history, not trashed the economy, lingering memories of the ERM, Alastair Campbell, a massive Labour majority and a rabidly pro-Labour BBC. There was no realistic prospect of a Conservative win.

2005: Post the Iraq war, a Labour government beginning to decay, the economy suffering under huge tax rises - though no economic collapse. This was a tough but winnable election for the Conservatives. But the campaign was a disaster, far worse than in 2001. Conservatives were banned from promising tax relief!

A stupid campaign - "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?" has to be among the worst electoral slogans in history. "It's not racist to set limits on immigration" implies it *is* racist, or at least someone legitimately thinks so! Correct slogan is "**We will** limit immigration".

[Simon Newman]

"The question though is what is appropriate for the times in which we find ourselves. Just as defence perished as an issue after the 1980s, we cannot fight the 2009/2010 election based on what happened in 2001 and 2005. The issues of our time funnily enough now call for some serious political backbone and a stance on real issues, following the managerial Blair era when it went out of fashion.
"

I agree with this - I worry that the Conservative leadership is stuck in a vanished world. Immigration, terrorism, global security, even the EU, post the Constitution referenda, are far more important to the public than they were 10 years ago, yet these are issues where the Tories are weak or silent. Listening to Cameron often feels like reading The Economist these days - like I'm still in 1997.

[Denis Cooper]

Nobody expected the Tories to win in 2001, or even make significant progress. The shine had already begun to come off the Blair government, but memories of the last years of Thatcher and even more so the appalling Major years were still too fresh. If Labour had brought about their own economic catastrophe that might have been a different matter, but they didn't. In 2005 I got the impression that Tory morale was still low and too few members really wanted to put in the huge amount of well-organised hard work which would have been needed to have a chance of winning.

[Matt Wright]

Andrew. I think us saying we are close to Blair so explicitly is a mistake but we do need to show we understand the mainstream and why. By this I mean that Blair realised the direction of history after Thatcher and appeared to copy us, but Labour never quite understood our approach and the grassroots of his party watered it all down. There is mileage in our centre ground strategy, to show we do understand sensible centre-right reform and are equiped to make it happen as a party, unlike Blair who tended to just talk about it. However conveying that message requires a delicate balance, and after all the spin of the Blair years we need to find practical ways of showing people what we mean. The degree to which we can pull that off will dictate our success. I feel we need to focus relentlessly on 2 or 3 main issues of interest to the public and develop a theme that represents what we stand for (the most likely idea so far has been social responsibility). We will need to repeatedly demonstrate practical ways in which the theme we stand for will address those 3 main issues. Also the party needs to be encouraged to advance together rather than succumb to notions of creative division. We also need to channel our energies into good local structures and campaigning across the UK as this will win ecah seat we need to form a Govt. Put these bits of the jigsaw together and we can do it,

Matt

[TomTom]

By this I mean that Blair realised the direction of history after Thatcher and appeared to copy us, but Labour never quite understood our approach and the grassroots of his party watered it all down. There is mileage in our centre ground strategy, to show we do understand sensible centre-right reform and are equiped to make it happen as a party, unlike Blair who tended to just talk about it.

Claptrap. Woolly rubbish. Party without purpose. Noone takes you seriously. This is the kind of inane marketing rubbish that is getting people tired of amateur politicians. It is all tactical positioning talk.

People want problems dealt with not this trimming and dodging and weaving. The simple fact is that the Conservatives are currently unfit for office - I am listening to WATO as they ask Is the Conservative Party turning into a Labour Party copycat ?

The fact is the Conservatives are without a prayer in the North of England, and not even taken as credible. They are posturing and tiptoeing away from real issues

[Yet Another Anon]

Just as defence perished as an issue after the 1980s
It didn't, rather the Conservative Party especially under John Major desperate to find savings in public spending and actually increasing social spending resorted to slashing defence spending as a means of finding money for tax cuts and in fact in the 1990's as a result the Liberal Democrats and Labour were actually able to condemn the Conservatives for slashing Defence Spending and take a lead for example in getting the government to bomb the Bosnian Serbs (something which should have been done a lot earlier and a lot harder), so diffusing it as an issue, and now of course the world is waking up to the fact that economic system is not the only potential source for argument and that competing religious philosophies and competition between nations for natural resources even if they have similar socio-economic systems is still a major problem; China and Russia are still major potential military threats - whose side will the US be on in the future? Who knows?

[Matt Wright]

Oh dear...I bow to TomToms superior knowledge...what do I know about campaigning...silly me

Matt

[Philip]

My instincts seem to opt for 3, but with a dose of 1 & 2 sprinkled in!

I think we failed to get across a true Conservative message that could have been attractive to many who have conservative instincts:
• crime and law & order polices that protect the law-abiding and are tough on the criminal rather than the law-abiding (i.e. no ID cards!),
• fair immigration that allow in real need of shelter and takes account of the needs of the existing population,
• policies to promote marriage and the traditional family (which is most young peoples’ aspiration) rather than the metropolitan obsession with alternative lifestyle choices,
• restoring local power,
• efficiently-run public services where tax-payers money is spent on improvements to front-line services.

I recall IDS saying when he was standing for the leadership that we need to tap into the natural conservatism of voters. There may be various reasons why we failed to do this. One might be the power of lobby groups, as well as institutions of influence like the BBC, who are fiercely opposed to such ideals.

Another I think is that voters over the years seem to have accepted the lie that the only way to help the poor and improve public services was State support with huge amounts of taxpayers’ money. Therefore Labour were able to convince the electorate (I think this might be true of the 2005 election in particular) that any talk of tax cuts would mean we would slash public services. Now all that spending of taxpayers’ money by Labour has led to threats of A&E closures, redundancies among medical staff, and so on, might voters be more receptive to a message that we can improve services while even cutting taxes?

However (to nod to 1 & 2) I think it is right to widen our concerns to more ‘centrist’ things like public services, and global warming (although concern for the environment has to include protection of our countryside, open spaces in towns and gardens from development). We need to demonstrate we value more than just financial gain, that is, quality of life is important too. I recall Mr Cameron making the point that if damaged families are the price of economic progress, then it’s a price not worth paying.

I would add that restoring our freedom and sovereignty as a nation state, even if this means withdrawing from the EU, is an issue that, with new attempts to force through the Constitution, cannot now be avoided. I can sympathise with Mr Honk at 1841 when he says “At this point in time the current Conservative leadership seems to offer (a) silence on anything the BBC would consider controversial, notably the European issue, Islamic terrorism and immigration…”. But surely Mr Cameron has the charisma and leadership qualities to be able to lead on these matters. Don’t voters respect and follow strong and principled leadership, even if into directions not previously favoured?

[William MacDougall]

Andrew, very interesting analysis (as always when you are not beating an Old Whig drum). I'm inclined to believe a mixture of 2 and 3.

Re leaders, no one outside the Tory party believed IDS was a credible Prime Minister, while we easily forget how hated Howard was by ordinary Britons - he carried a lot of "nasty Tory"/"bit of the night" baggage. Hague was brilliant, but ten or twenty years too young; politics is unfair, and he was not going to be accepted by the public (but could we try him again now?)

Re issues, how right you are with point 2. Hague's education policy was the most exciting and solid development in at least 50 years, yet a majority of the public (perhaps even of the party) appear to have thought we had no education policy at all. Howard's immigration policy, as presented by Cameron, was incoherent. I found it impossible to defend as a candidate, even in an area where immigration was a prime concern. At once appearing racist yet not credible; would we really have sent Morgan Tsvangirai back to Mugabe’s torture chambers saying our asylum quota had been reached?

The leadership now seems intent on winning the votes of wealthy left-wing journalists, but of losing those of everyone else. "Heir to Blair" at the peak of his unpopularity. All spin, when the public is fed up with spin. Dropping popular policies in the rush to win unwinnable left wing votes. Risking defections to UKIP that would threaten at least 100 seats. It will only work if Brown gives us the election on a platter.

[TomTom]

Oh dear...I bow to TomToms superior knowledge...what do I know about campaigning...silly me

Matt

Posted by: Matt Wright | June 16, 2007 at 00:29

Supercilious fools wearing funny hats try to sell me their product, when I explain why I don't buy they get sniffy and say their role is so important and if you haven't done it, you should not criticise their amateurish incompetence.

Fine Matt Wright - continue working for Labour Victory -

[Michael Hewlett]

Firstly, very thoughtful article. Shame the above postings have resorted to the habitual mud throwing and personal insults.

Account 2 is probably the closest for me in explaining the two defeats. The policies were indeed unpopular and the Tory brand was unmarketable. The public stopped listening and even common sense arguments were ignored.

Team Cameron has recognised this and has decontaminated the brand before cementing the next manifesto. The new policies will indeed be seen as 'centre ground' and will be berated by the far right. I hope this is the case and the public can see that we have changed and are listening to them rather than merely each other.

[Victor, NW Kent]

I am sorry but our party shows no real sign of learning either from its disasters or its triumphs.

Voters want to see coherent and credible policies on education, health and security. Satisfy those and you have a landslide. Banning imported timbers, rescuing Africa, saving the polar bear, playing musical chairs in Europe, will come in low in the average voter's consciousness. Voters have seen Red Ken at work again and they [apart from special interest groups] will hardly be attracted by the idea of more tinpot politicians boarding the gravy train.

I do not see that Cameron's Fops have coherent and constructive ideas on the three big issues and they have been transparently manufacturing other issues or trying to elevate lesser matters.

Dreadful though the Blair/Brown leadership is we will not succeed them in 2009 unless Brown hands it to us on a plate. I hope he doesn't because we are unfit to govern. I agree our party Labour?

[malcolm]

Still waiting for the first positive idea to come from you Tomtom. It's so easy to criticise everyone else (supercillious Tomtom with his reputation?) and so difficult for you to say a single postive thing.

[TomTom]

Still waiting for the first positive idea to come from you Tomtom. It's so easy to criticise everyone else (supercillious Tomtom with his reputation?) and so difficult for you to say a single postive thing.

Posted by: malcolm | June 16, 2007 at 13:18

I have a feeling Malcolm that if you opened your eyes and unblocked your ears you might learn a great deal, however it seems that you are going to learn that repeated error leads to repeated failure. It is good that you live in Essex because in Yorkshire or Tyneside you would be ridiculed....get out of your Tory heartlands and go and meet real voters who have no interest in your party.......that is where your next defeat lies.

[Matt Wright]

I got the bigest swing from Labour to Conservative in North Wales (7.4%)....but I was all wrong really and will now change to TomToms theory as obviously I was really helping Labour and didn't know it...silly me again

Matt

[David Sergeant]

"It is good that you live in Essex because in Yorkshire or Tyneside you would be ridiculed....get out of your Tory heartlands and go and meet real voters who have no interest in your party......"

Tom Tom when will you come up with anything but anti-Cameron insults? Since you obviously don't know much about "the north" I would draw your attention to the fact that of Lancashire's (you know Lancashire, definitely north of Watford Gap and noted for industry) 14 Districts, 9 are now Conservative controlled, one is Lib/Dem and Labour control none. Oh yes, and the Tories are now running Preston for the first time since 1981. This is mostly down to Cameron who obviously is getting through to northern industrial voters. Tom Tom I suggest you look about you before bitching at the Tories, presumably to help Labour.

Editor, I trust this will be printed and not cut out like my last post.

[Andrew Lilico]

One thing I hope has come out from this discussion: One form of (hopefully usually constructive) opposition to the Cameron team's attempts to rule out debate of things like top-up vouchers in education or health - and in general the attempt to offer the (false) message: "We really don't intend to do any important reforms of health and education", exemplified by things like the grammar schools debacle - comes not from people that were in *favour* of the approaches taken in 2001 and 2005, but from those that were against.

It is us - the disenfranchised of the past ten years - that in many ways feel most disappointed. The "core vote right", who argued that we could win by emphasizing Europe and immigration, have had their theory tested to destruction. But those of us that wanted to argue for Conservative ideas in health and education haven't ever got to have our go. We have no reason whatever to believe that a platform based on arguing for Conservative ideas in these areas is unelectable. It is extremely disappointing to find that, even after being crushed three times with other platforms, the Party leadership still appears to believe that.