Tories down to 34% in Populus survey

A Populus poll for this morning's Times gives the Tories a narrow 1% lead over Labour.  As noted by UK Polling Report the slightly disappointing change for the Tories is that the party's share of the vote is down to 34% after being at 36% for the previous four Populus polls.  Whatever the exact Tory lead might be it is clear that the Tory position is not strengthening.  The overall Tory lead in ConservativeHome's poll of polls is now just 3%.

A majority of Tory members will accept David Cameron’s modernisation project so long as it keeps the party ahead in the polls.  His period of maximum danger will arise in the period after Gordon Brown’s near certain election as Labour leader.  If Brown enjoys a sustained honeymoon effect there must be a real risk that members will decide that the sacrifices of traditional Conservatism won’t have been worthwhile.  The comfort for David Cameron in The Times' poll is that the Tory lead appears to grow to 7% if Gordon Brown became leader but we've previously discussed the unreliability of such 'what it?' polling.

* The ConservativeHome poll of polls has been adjusted slightly to take account of revised ICM data from their last poll for the News of the World.

Comments

[ToMTom]

Any election is more likely when the polls read like this one than any that show the Conservatives ahead...........

[tapestry]

Toynbee talk has upset trad conservatives. They're threatening Cameron with UKIP, and UKIP's number on intended voters has soared.

It's better to get Cameron into office first, then fight the europhiles to death within the party. Meanwhile deselection and selection of candidates are the most powerful political weapons that are in the hands of Conservative voters/members. Why don't they use these powers? Buggering off to UKIP merely prolongs the agony.

Cameron's a winner. Brown's a loser. UKIP's a way to blow off steam nothing more. The way to get Britain out of Europe is to make sure your Conservative MP or PPC is a hardened eurosceptic. deselect all others, and win the next election. Anything else is hot air.

[HF]

Q: Biggest Reason?
A: Greg Clarke and Polly Toynbee.

[Jonathan Mackie]

Tapestry - I'm no lover of Gordon Brown far from it, but where is the empirical evidence that he is a "loser"?

We are in great danger of believing that he will be a push over. As much as I hope he is, I don't think we should underestimate this man.

[Jonathan]

We're trying to get Cameron into office despite all his most recent efforts to prevent it. When we give up in disgust and failure, there is only UKIP.
36% on the poll of polls, down 3% since I started bloggin here, isnt even enough for a hung parliament.
Yes I know this is a rogue poll and yes the feeling on the ground is much more positive etc etc etc etc
But "in the bowels of Christ I beseech thee, think thee that thou may be wrong?".

[Right wingery]

I totally agree with the comments of others. This poll has got me really mad. Labour are possibly as unpopular with the country as the Tories were before they got totally hammered 10 years ago and here we have a poll which shows just a 1 point Tory lead! It is clear that the 2% we have lost has gone straight to the 'others', possibly UKIP.

Greg Clarke may have totaly ruined my dream of seeing the back of Labour with his totally crass statements. He is as much of a fool as some of the crackpots in UKIP who are benefitting from his shocking judgement.

Why hasn't Cameron sacked him? If he can sack a parliamentary candidate for forwarding on an email which has zero impact on our opinion poll rating why hasn't he shifted someone who could cost us the election if he opens his mouth nearer the date?

[changetowin]

Your comments on Greg Clarke are totally over the top. I would like to register my support for his comments (and not for the spin put on his comments by the papers!!!).

The notion that this poll has been so affected by Greg Clarke's comments about a Guardian journalist seems ridiculous to me. But even if what you say is true do you think these people are really going to stay away at the General Election. I would wager that they would prefer a Conservative government (even a progressive one) to a Labour one led by Browne...

Much more likely that this poll is showing the impact of a few months in which Labour infighting has dropped off our tv screens and newspapers. Brown remains a serious threat. All those who want to beat Brown need to unite and get behind the project - changing our party so we can improve Britain.

[Right wingery]

changetowin - we are NOT going to win a majority in the Commons with 34% of the vote. We won't even get there with the 39% quoted in the Cameron v Brown figures.

We are NOT going to win by actively trying to turn away conservatives from the Conservative Party!

Why do you hold conservatives with such raw contempt?

[changetowin]

I don't! I just think we need to appeal beyond our own support base to win an election. We tried core votes and have rejected it for a reason. Just because you recognise the need to appeal to a broad audience doesn't mean your attitude to your base is one of "raw contempt".

[Michael McGowan]

No you don't believe that, Changetowin. You and your kind do NOT believe in a broad church. You adhere to the bankrupt Portillo theory that you can alienate your core vote (who will still vote for you out of deference) and win a General Election by picking up floating Lib Dem-leaning votes in a few constituencies in Greater London and the South-East. This strategy has always struck me as utterly bonkers, even from a purely tactical perspective. If Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell do a deal to foist some variant of PR on the Tories. it will look even more bonkers....and cynical too.

[The Orator]

Tory share down 2% + Lib Dems down 1% + Labour unchanged = 3% boost for voter apathy.

[ToMTom]

NHS

Why not focus on this issue and ACT LOCAL

[DavidDPB]

The Government is about as unpopular as it was at the time of the last election, where the Conservative Party, appealing only to its core vote, polled below Labour.

It's rather difficult to conclude therefore that if only we went for the core vote strategy, the Conservatives would somehow magically reverse what happened previously and emerge with an even greater lead. To do so rather assumes that it is the job of the electorate to change, rather than a party. That's not leadership, that's blind stupidity.

[changetowin]

No you don't believe that, Changetowin. You and your kind do NOT believe in a broad church.

Such nice types you meet on here, aren't they?!

Please, Mr McGowan, don't presume to tell me what I believe.

[Michael McGowan]

I don't need to presume to tell you what to believe. I merely observe your comments.

[changetowin]

You should try being a bit more civil, expecially to fellow Conservatives. I've found that when you respect others they in turn have much more respect for you. We're a broad church (not that the comments on here always show that) and I think, barring hate speech, we should welcome debate and difference of opinion. Diversity is a good, not an evil.

[HF]

Changetowin said "Your comments on Greg Clarke are totally over the top. I would like to register my support for his comments (and not for the spin put on his comments by the papers!!!)."

You may support his comments, I do not. You may agree with him that Toynbee should be allowed to attack Thatcher on Newsnight while he chose not to rebut in front of her.

What you have not denied is that the Toynbee saga shifted 2% away to the "others". Something/s did.

[EML]

Disappointing. But at least Labour are stagnant.

[changetowin]

HF,

I was referring to Greg Clarke's use of Polly Toynbee's desert analogy NOT some interview on Newsnight which I didn't see!!!

And if you actually read my comments you'll see that I said that the slight shift in this poll probably has much less to do with this and more to do with a respite from Labour infighting.

We do face a serious challenge from Labour and to convince the public that we've really changed. Putting the brake on change is the last thing we need now. We need to go faster.

[Yet Another Anon]

we are NOT going to win a majority in the Commons with 34% of the vote
Barring a major collapse in the Labour vote with Labour support mainly going to smaller parties and not to the Liberal Democrats it would be improbable.

Opinion Polls on voting intention are normally very unreliable - even by the margin of error they admit they allow for the fact that the Conservatives could be actually on 37% and Labour actually on 31%. Labour are still on course to win the next General Election but I think the Conservatives are still on course for exceeding the total number of votes they got in 1997 and their biggest advance in percentage votes since 1979 and in terms of seats being up to around 225 seats or so primarily at the expense of the Liberal Democrats who I think will lose out both to Labour and the Conservatives.

[Sean Fear]

"Putting the brake on change is the last thing we need now. We need to go faster."

That presupposes that the "change" message is one that appeals to much of the electorate. I don't think it does, and may even be demoralising our supporters.

To give Cameron credit where it's due, I've liked what he's had to say about crime, Trident, and this report, in the past couple of weeks, but for me, the months preceding the past fortnight have been pretty grim.

[DavidDPB]

"That presupposes that the "change" message is one that appeals to much of the electorate. I don't think it does, and may even be demoralising our supporters."

The alternative is to continue as we did in the last election and the one before that. That didn't exactly bring home the bacon, which I personally found even more demoralising.

[Julian Williams]

Reading this blog over the last few months there have been few who can justify Cameron other than as a vote winner. He is moving to the "centre" where all the votes are.

Issues like the EU are off the agenda because they make the Tories look like a group of "rightwingers" (who Cameron calls fruitcakes and racists anyway, and thinks the Tories can do without their type).

This is the strategy. The 1% lead is the justification for this strategy?

I am neither a fruitcake or rightwing, I quite like more attention being given to "green" issues. But I cannot live with this "leader" who seems so shallow and uninterested in real issues facing this country. Brown is more attractive to me than Cameron, and I am a small business who cannot bear the damage Brwon has done to the economy and my business prospects.

I went to a Conservative meeting last week, the MP gave speech telling us not to worry, they are still Conservatives, there is a grand strategy and it is working. Speaking to others I found very few who believed this messageand quite a few who are saying they, like me, will not vote for the Conservative at the next election.

[Richard Weatherill]

Whilst political anoraks (such as me) might get quite excitable about us donning the Toynbee frock in preference to Winston's siren suit, I find it hard to believe that such issues (even as interpreted by the tabloids) have more than the most marginal effect on the voting intentions of the electorate at large.

As The Orator has pointed out, the main beneficiary from this latest swing has been the Apathy Party. Unfortunately (although we might find it hard to believe) there is still a large number of people who aren't all that dissatisfied with the Labour government and who certainly don't (yet) regard the Conservatives as offering an attractive voting alternative.

"It's the economy, stupid!" The credit-fuelled boom train is accelerating out of control, but hasn't yet hit the buffers. Meanwhile, the "dour, grim cove" (DC's words) seeks to make the ride more comfortable by means of his Byzantine state-benefits system.

On a separate topic, I must say how well I felt David Cameron came across on ITN last night in his response to IDS's interim report.

[Sean Fear]

"The alternative is to continue as we did in the last election and the one before that. "

The alternative is to win *additional* support, without alienating *existing* support.

[Michael McGowan]

Sean, I agree....comme toujours. Changetowin, apologies if I was rude: it was not intentional even if we disagree.....as we often do. I agree with you on Greg Clark: while the whole episode was very maladroit, Greg thankfully didn't in fact say anything with which Polly Toynbee agreed!! Where I have a bigger problems is that the belligerent tone of the modernising message has been very much at odds with the essential broad church concept. I am not a social Conservative really but there has to be a place in the Conservative family for such people. However, you would get the impression listening to a lot of modernisers that such people should be driven out as lepers. The "Tory Taliban" to quote Alan Duncan. Not clever when the Tory Party needs their votes.

[Peter Coe]

Michael McGowan wrote:

"You adhere to the bankrupt Portillo theory that you can alienate your core vote (who will still vote for you out of deference) and win a General Election by picking up floating Lib Dem-leaning votes in a few constituencies in Greater London and the South-East."

Not wishing to intrude into the row between the traditionalists and the modernisers but Michael, could you tell me why you think it is a "bonkers" strategy - it is, after all the strategy that won Labour two record majorities and seats that had never before elected Conservatives.

For what its worth, I share your view that the strategy is bonkers but not for your reasons: I think the leadership has studied the new Labour manual and tried to replicate the spin and image side (and done so reasonably well), but I just don't believe that the modernisation project is anything more than a set dressing, behind which very little has actually changed.

It's unconvincing, simply because the party Michael Howard presented to the world just a year and a half ago is unrecognisable to the one David Cameron now proclaims. With Labour, the process of change started after the 1983 election and new Labour didn't emerge until after John Smith's death in 1994 - that's eleven years of gradual change away from unelectability.

I'm not arguing that this is how long it will take for the Tories: my point, linking back to your critique of the "Portillo wing" is just that there seems to be some expectation that you change a logo and talk about the environment and you become electable.

And that's where the leadership has simply misunderstood the new Labour project - it was much more than just spin and it didn't just happen overnight.

[simon coote]

Well, the next general election will be an interesting one. Why? I believe that the turnout will be one of the lowest in modern times. The main question to be answered by Cameron and the party is 'what will we do for people'? Provide housing (people financially kebabbing themselves is the only way to get a house in their own communities nowadays is wrong)? Provide a referendum on the country's future in Europe (fat chance)? Provide a rigid but fair immigration/asylum policy(forced removal for any illegal with no provision for appeal and therefore not handing the legal eagles any more of our cash)? Unless we (the electorate) have clear answers to these, and many more,questions the masses will just walk past the polling stations on election day.

[Sean Fear]

Thanks, Michael.

Portillo, and the more excitable modernisers regularly urge a showdown with socially conservative Conservatives. Some posters here revile them in quite extreme terms.

The problem is that in a democracy the vote of a social conservative counts for as much as the vote of a moderniser.

I can think of no centre right party worldwide that wins elections without the backing of a high proportion of social conservatives.

[Peter Coe]

Sean Fear wrote:

"The alternative is to win *additional* support, without alienating *existing* support."

But what are the next few words after that Sean: the "how you do it" sentence? I don't have a completely convincing argument there myself - the new Labour coalition worked because there was no credible place for the left to go (other than abstention): now there increasingly is and their vote has collapsed - not to the Tories but to the Greens, the Lib Dems and others.

I just don't think you can say we need to run the same campaign we did the last three times - just tack on some "trendy", "luvvie" policies to pull over some new voters. If it were that easy, don't you think the Tories would have done it already?

[Given Up]

Portaloo and Co are doing real well, their strategy is working wonders.

Againsta gu'mint that redifines ineptitude upwards on a daily basis, they can't even produce a meaningfull lead.

Even Kinnock had leads of 20 pts and Blair got 30's.

[Jon Gale]

Whilst I agree that the Toynbee/relative poverty fiasco angered many (inc. me) and lost us support, this poll gives us a strange picture:

Our lead goes down on the "if the election was tommorow" question ... but up on the 'if it was held in 3 years time with Brown, Cameron, and Ming as leaders' question.

So, is this:
A) because when reminded that Brown will be leader next time, Tories who were angered by the Toynbee Incident come back to Cameron.
B) due to Tony Blair's support for Trident gaining him some votes from us, but being offset by him losing lefty votes. And when reminded about Brown being future leader our voters come back.
C) A blip, an oddity/something else/dont know
D) the power of David Cameron's name recognition

[Michael McGowan]

Peter, I do not believe that New Labour did pursue the same strategy as the Tory modernisers. Portillo and Co have never understood their New Labour enemy....if indeed it is their enemy. Tony Blair abandoned Clause 4 and replaced it with meaningless gibberish. Big deal: it was moribund anyway. Ditto unilateram nuclear disarmament. What was always clear was that Labour were going to put up taxes - substantially - and that in 1997, we were going to move towards a markedly more dirigiste social democrat-style of government. Labour successfully sold the public the idea that they could keep the best of the market economy but temper it. Of course Labour have gone even further but the idea that Labour tacked to the right in substance has always struck me as nonsense. Their own supporters boast that they talk right and act left. Also Labour never ever turned its back on its core vote: vast quantities of cash have been funnelled into Labour's heartlands and its core constituencies to keep the voters sweet. When Labour tried Portilloite tactics in their heartlands (e.g. Blaenau Gwent) they got a bloody nose and beat a retreat.

[Jonathan Mackie]

I think the electorate has changed. It is much more sceptical of spin and style and is looking for real substance.

This sort of trend is apparent in the states where Bush was elected largely because he said what he believed and was an antedote to the Clinton spin.

The Labour Party has identified this and is rejecting the Blair spin. Whatever we say about Brown he is recognised as being a serious politican.

Our danger is that we are potentially going to fight the next election using the tatics Labour used in 97 and to an extent 2001. Whilst the electorate is actually wanting a party of substance, that does what it says on the tin.

The most interesting undercurrent of recent polls has been the suggestion that Cameron is one stunt away from disaster and people are now questionning his credibility. The next few months will determine whether DC is a winner or just someone who benefited from the end of Blair.

[Ted]

Struck me when reading the comments above that at heart there is a trust issue. When I read Cameron's speeches (ignoring spin) I pick out quite a bit of comfort on crime, family, Europe, immigration etc but expressed in a form that looks very different. I trust that DC, advisors & Shadow Cabinet will produce a conservative set of policies. I believe that the Conservative Party hd been displaced from the centre right ground of politics and had lost its way. I therefore trust his strategy. I could be disappointed.

Sean F and James Maskell as examples don't have this trust. DC has done somethings that strike at the heart of our activist base - A List prime example - and dropped cherished policies such as in areas of selective education, vouchers and NHS without presenting any strong replacement policies. He has given them little reason to trust his strategy. Now he's lifting the veil a bit I hope these Camsceptics will be comforted.

[frank aylesford]

The issue here is, in my opinion, not that Cameron is socially liberal but rather that he is a politically correct Liberal (big L - in the American sense) and that he has actually abandoned economic liberalism.

In other words, Thatcher was economically liberal and socially authoritarian and the party could have modernised by becoming consistent and being socially liberal as well. Cameron has instead gone for politically correct Liberalism and reduced economic liberalism. He didn't need to throw the baby out with the bath water for the party to become more socially liberal. This is, however, what he has done in two ways - first by embracing political correctness and secondly by giving up on economic liberalism

[Tory Loyalist]

I've expecting for months that the wheels would come off the Cameron bandwagon. This poll seems to indicate that the public are finally suffering the long-predicted effects of Cameron fatigue.

Once Cameron starts to lag in the polls he will soon be easy meat in the water, just as IDS was before him. Then the predators can move in for the kill.

I voted for Davis in the election last year but I'm moving to favour a comeback by Hague. It's a viewpoint shared by a growing number of disillusioned Tories.

Then we really can all get behind the leader, except that I suspect several of the "trendies" will no longer be travelling riding the camels of our caravan, if I may coin a Toynbeeism.

[Jorgen]

I pick out quite a bit of comfort on crime, family, Europe, immigration etc

But cameron is not really saying anything new in the speeches he has done so far. However, he implies that he is going to introduce liberal policies. If he does that, he loses the traditional Conservatives. If he doesn't, he loses credibility with everyone (left, middle and right) plus loses the votes has he stolen so far from labour and LibDem.

What is needed is someone who through his/her enthusiasm can convince people that the country needs to be boosted through Thatcherite policies, possibly with a bit more emphasis on the social aspects (but forget "relative poverty" and like nonsense) and no green policies. DC has lost his chance for that. Davis is unlikely to be able to do so. Hague might if he wants to.

[esbonio]

Nine years on and the country should be crying out for a change from New Labour. The fact it is not can be attributed to Gordon Brown's mismanagement (sic) of the economy, the inherent devil you know advantage of being in power as well as nine years of pusillanimous Tory opposition.

On the evidence to date I cannot see the Cameron makeover putting the Tories back into power. Cameron's attempts to woo the electorate are analagous to a younger sister plastering herself in make-up to draw the attention of an older sister's boyfriend. The overall effect is shallow, embarrassing, and ultimately self-defeating.

[Jorgen]

Nine years on and the country should be crying out for a change from New Labour.

I think the country is crying out for a change from Labour. But it is apparently not crying out for a change to DC despite his best efforts.

[Serf]

frank aylesford

I agree with your analysis and your proposed direction. It would have had the benefit of keeping the broad church happy, by offering something to everyone.

[Peter Coe]

Michael, thanks for the reply. I have to say I think your analysis is of new Labour's record is blinkered; if this had been tax and spend Labour of old they'd have been out in 2001, the economy would have been in collapse, unemployment would have soared etc. etc.

You argue that Labour hasn't abandoned their core, and you say this is "talking right but acting left". There's some truth in that, but if you're seriously arguing that Blair is in fact red in tooth and claw and that he doesn't believe in a more moderate Labourism then I think you'll find few who agree with you.

Labour's core believes it's been abandoned (Labour's core is also more diffuse, I'd suggest, than the Tories') even though as you point out they've supposedly received a lot and its this that is costing it shedloads of votes (and because Labour was never going to be able to fulfil expectations of how much change the public wanted after 1997).

You dismiss the policies and clauses that Labour jetisoned far too flippantly - as a Conservative, understandable, but I don't think you appreciate either the resonance such issues had within the party or the signal it sent to the public that Labour was now at least fit for consideration for office.

There is nothing that David Cameron has done or could do to send such a signal for the Conservatives; perhaps you would argue he doesn't have to - but we return to the underlying message of the polls (and see the 'political betting' website for more on this): people like Cameron - but they still don't like/trust the Conservatives.

So we're back to the dilemma I posed to Sean earlier: fine to say let's reach out to new voters without alienating existing ones - now tell us how.

[Aghast]

Well, as the saying goes, you get to reap what you sow.

Having prostituted the Party against the wishes of a large minority (at least)of the membership with his reckless and needless gamble at the altar of touchy feely Political correctness, it's landed butter side down.

What price Ming being the only current leader still in situ at the next GE ?

[Andy Stidwill]

I was talking to some people in an extremely safe Tory seat yesterday - all of them were utterly fed up with both Blair and Cameron. It sounded like they were going to vote either UKIP or BNP in future.

[Epping Forest Constituent]

It will be interesting on Thursday with the Epping Forest DC Grange Hill BY-ELECTION.The sitting LIBDIM councillor resigned ahead of next May's election and if Tories win they'll gain overall control.Public are angry at what is deemed unnecessary costs to hold election and BNP are the wild card with no UKIP candidate.The vacancy was poorly publicised and only sitting parties were aware.There is already a significant BNP presence (at Labour's expense)in this strong Tory seat(Eleanor Laing).

[Yet Another Anon]

Once Cameron starts to lag in the polls he will soon be easy meat in the water, just as IDS was before him. Then the predators can move in for the kill.

I voted for Davis in the election last year but I'm moving to favour a comeback by Hague. It's a viewpoint shared by a growing number of disillusioned Tories.

Then we really can all get behind the leader
In such a situation there would reluctance to succeed David Cameron - after all they would be going into the 2009 General Election having since the 1997 General Election even excluding John Major they were onto their 5th leader with the average length of tenure under 3 years. The public would see the Conservatives as merely being opportunistic and unprincipled, if David Cameron is removed by some kind of motion of confidence as IDS was then the Conservatives really would have abandoned any hope of progressing in the next General Election and would be looking really towards the election after that because the public would think that whatever new leader was in place could then easily be removed after the election and replaced by someone from a very different mould - the Conservatives need a long term strategy, whatever it is, the argument needs to be on matters of policy, if it's simply a matter of replacing the leader every 2 years simply because there is no or little progress in terms of results then the Conservatives will never get anywhere and the Liberal Democrats and UKIP will end up vying to replace Labour as the government with the Conservatives in long term decline.

[Jonathan]

@Peter Coe

I shall assume a genuine spirit of enquiry - so here goes Jonathanism. (The programme is numbered by airtime, not all items have equal weight.)

1) Reform the public services
a) Education vouchers giving parents real choice over their schools. All schools foundation status but schools only to have a rent-free lease on their premises so that bad schools can close and the premises be offered to expanding schools nearby. Capital repair costs to be managed by LEA. Abolish Dept of Education. Exams to be set by a single education board and past papers and specimen answers/mark sheets kept for 20 yrs so that grade inflation/dumbing down can be checked. Abolish grades at A level and move to a centile score. Add in American SATs for university entrance to pick up bright kids schooled badly
b) Extend PBR to all hospitals, each having foundation status. Set up a Royal Commission into Health Vouchers. Abolish the NHS Executive.
C) Guarantee to match Labour funding to 2011

2) Low taxes
Abolish inheritance tax
Replace income tax and NI with three flat rate income taxes hypothecated to pay for (or for a fixed % of) social security, health and local government. So that voters can directly correlate the price of generosity in these areas.
A Citizen's Wage (50% more for the over 65s and double for the over 75s) to replace all benefits and pensions - run via PAYE by the Customs and Revenue. Universal provision, no means testing. Abolish the DSS. Privatise the job centres.

3)England
A federal UK Parliament paid for by levy on four tax setting national parliaments. Abolition of the Barnett formula. Abolish the House of Lords

4)Local Government
Directly elect individual Cabinet members and 20 councillors per borough to be a planning and licensing authority only (and to provide a Mayor)
Local income tax
NNDR to be set nationally but retained locally and to be based on turnover not property value to support councils who promote business and to support small shops over out of town supermarkets
With education funded by vouchers and benefits via a Citizens Wage this should pay for all expenditure. No government grant to Local govt.

5)Crime
Directly elect the Chief Commissioner of each police force. Police forces to set a local income tax.

6)Let the People Speak
Offer referendums on and guarntee to enact
1) Withdrawing from the EU
2) Withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights and substituting a Bill of rights guaranteeing specific rights in specific situations reducing judicial interpretation
3) Reintroduction of Capital Punishment
4) Any social cause which can attract a Parliamentary petition of 500000 names eg GM foods, Abortion, Embryo experimentation, hunting, gay marriage etc. etc.

7)Environment
Any currently fashionable nostra of Dave's choosing.
Abolish the Appeal to Bristol against local planning refusal.
Farmers funding to be based on countryside support and preservation
Abolish DEFRA

8) Foreign Policy & Defence
Don't be America's poodle
Cut up rough in the EU parliament
Subsume the FCO into the Department of Trade.

In short, low tax, small government, offshore economy (Switzerland with culture).
The country is crying out for reform and by abolishing so much it will not be possible to compare old against new or frighten people with talk of cuts as the promise is there to spend the same (in health and education anyway) but to spend it better.

[Jorgen]

The public would see the Conservatives as merely being opportunistic and unprincipled, if David Cameron is removed

The reason we discuss this at all is that DC in the Conservative (with big C) Conservatives opinion makes the Tories look unprincipled.

[Geeoffrey G Brooking]

Asked how the respondents would vote if Gordon Brown was Labour Leader, 39% said that they would vote Conservative compared to 32% who said that they would vote Labour.

Still well in front!

[David Belchamber]

One of the most important tenets of Jonathanism @ 17.03 is:

"C) Guarantee to match Labour funding to 2011".

Just as Gordon Brown remained very conservative for his first few years, so too must we get the public to believe that we will not cut (we might not increase) expenditure on the vital public services for several years.
Only in this context can we safely discuss tax cuts.