Why aren't the Conservatives doing better?

That seems to be a question on the minds of many commentators at the moment.  Peter Riddell noted yesterday that the Tories were still seeking the knockout blow.  The topic is also on David Cameron's mind.  In a briefing to frontbenchers on Tuesday he said that he was working towards a 45% poll rating for the Conservatives.  He noted underlying improvements in the party's position - especially on economic competence.  After years of being 20% or more behind on measures of economic trust, the Tories are now level-pegging with Labour or slightly ahead.  At the frontbenchers meeting David Cameron joked that when the Tories are well ahead on measures of economic competence, that will be the time that George Osborne challenges him for the leadership.  George smiled broadly at this point!

So, why are the Tories at about 40% (40.2% in ConservativeHome's latest poll of polls) rather than 45%?

Steve Richards, in today's Independent, thinks it may be policy "fuzziness": "The fuzziness is reflected in some contradictory policy announcements. Cameron calls for schools to be set free and yet is prescriptive about what should be taught, most recently grabbing headlines about the methods required to ensure kids can read by the time they are six. More widely at yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time, Cameron asked two questions that implied support for rises in public spending on defence and prison-building yet his overall policy is to spend the proceeds of growth on tax cuts as well as expenditure."

Janet Daley, Telegraph, worried that Cameron's devastation of Brown at PMQs (watch this as an example) may be endangering Cameron's nice guy image: "Mr Cameron has traded heavily - and successfully - on being a nice guy. Looking like the sadist of the lower sixth egging on a baying gang of henchmen is not consistent with his engaging New Conservative image and particularly not with the year and a half that was devoted to a Not-The-Nasty-Party-Any-More public relations campaign."

Fraser Nelson has warned the Tories to be on the alert at charges of elitism: "When Cameron first threw his hat into the ring as leader, many Tories asked aloud if an Etonian could really be party leader. Not from a sense of inverted snobbery, but because they feared the left would caricature the Tories as being of the rich for the rich. The Daily Mirror has indeed done this remorselessly, hunting for stories that play to this theme. And on Monday, they found one."

My own opinion... Things are going well for the Conservatives but there's been too much tactics and too little strategy of late.  This should be a time for deepening the Conservative agenda and for anticipating the 'Clegg effect'.  Have we, for example, been studying the Orange Book?  That book may provide many clues to the likely new LibDem leader's approach and we should be preparing attack lines and plundering it for the best ideas.

Instead we've been playing too much politics.  Tuesday's decision by our party to debate party funding was a mistake and not just because Quentin Letts was horrified by the spectacle of MPs throwing mud at each other - although that was predictable.  Voters are more interested in competence.  Unfortunately they think most politicians are sleazy but they hope, as Libby Purves has argued, that they're capable of "keep[ing] the trains (and the taxmen) on the rails." 

We should be allowing the Daily Mail and Guido Fawkes etc to take the lead in exposing Labour sleaze; we should be getting on with presenting the positive Conservative alternative.  Before the Brown takeover, David Cameron wasted too many PMQs on the Brown-Blair rivalry.  It was, as the Americans say, all inside-the-Beltway stuff.  Those PMQs - and PMQs now - should nearly always be used to reinforce David Cameron's image as a statesman with a broad interest in the challenges facing Britain.

There's no need for worry but no Conservative should underestimate the task still ahead.

Comments

[John Moss]

We anoraks need to remember that the vast majority of the population has absolutely no interest in politics and absords things almost by osmosis, hence the old adage, "when you get fed up of saying it, they are just starting to hear it".

Brown's woes started with the cancelled election and have got worse and they've been big enough news to sink in. Our policy announcements, timed to build on Conference success and the non-election have been drowned out. Swedish style schools and divesified energy haven't even registered with "the people" yet. Our immigration proposals have sunk because we have stopped repeating them, I think.

We have benefitted from the Labour Party's troubles, we are yet to benefit from our policies being understood. Interestingly, Clegg's similarity on some issues may help - if he wins. Unfortunately, IMHO, he won't, because LD members are almost all lefties, so they won't vote for a "yellow tory".

[David Sergeant]

One difficulty that Brits always seem to find themselves in is looking for simple answers to questions which are complicated.

If getting to 45% was easy, Hague, IDS and Howard would have found it. Not to mention Major!

I saw the Blair big idea in 1997 was to say that the economic problems are over so we are the best party to run public services. (Their basic electoral points could have been blown apart, but never mind,) The rhetoric of Tory right wingers over cuts played into his hands and Labour have been able to win three elections with their main message that the Tories did, and will, cut public services. Services were expanded but I suspect few voters realise, in the mean time Brown scores points.

Finally a point about public workers. I don't see this. Public workers are fed up with constant reorganisations and silly economy drives and targets. An offer that changes will be slow, redundancies small and stability important would probably pull in loads of public sector votes. Look interested in the services but muzzle the head bangers though.

Am finishing but above is just a sample.

[Goldie]

For crying out loud! This is a pretty easy answer.

Just remember....before Brown called off the planned Autumn Election, he was walking on water, Cameron's leadership was under threat and the Conservatives were widely seen as flailing and failing -- even the die-hard Cameroons on this website started to recognize it.

So: the reason Labour is faring so badly is a) because Brown made a spectacular error in first encouraging speculation that an Autumn Election was in the works and then calling it off, b) a streak of bad luck that followed immediately after and c) Brown's own limitations as a communicator and a leader.

It has nothing to do with the Conservatives. Cameron isn't at 45% because Cameron has been, thus far, a decent opposition leader not a brilliant opposition leader, of a decent Conservative shadow cabinet, far from a brilliant shadow cabinet.

If you want to be at 45% you got to improve your game. By quite a bit.

[Yet Another Anon]

The leader isn't completely unelectable like the last three.
IDS had built up a large amount of policy developed on principle that also was strongly pragmatic. Michael Howard quickly abandoned this and went for a few slogans and an immigration policy that appeared to have been drawn up on the back of an envelope, and soon got boggeddown in arguments over whether the immigration quota was realy a fixed figure or not with the suggestion that figures for asylum seekers could be carried into following years.

Then there was the dismissal of Howard Flight for merely suggesting that if more efficiency savings were found that there might be more money for tax cuts and other spending priorities - this is a matter of sense, whether they favour high or low spending or whatever economic system anyone with any sense will impliment reforms where either spending turns out to useless, worse than useless or can be done more cheaply in a different manner with similar benefits.

Easily in 2005 under IDS the Conservatives could have got 35% of the Popular Vote, the Liberal Democrats would not have gained seats and Labour might have ended up with a wafer thin majority, IDS might have ended up as PM in 2009, however the MPs having given the party members 2 choices to choose from were determined to blame the members for this - it amounted to the fact that supporters of Ken Clarke could not accept that he lost and the Portillistas felt cheated that Michael Portillo had not been one of the final 2, the whole Betsygate thing was an excuse and later IDS and his wife were found by a parliamentary investigation to have done nothing wrong.

Now it is mid-term, Labour in 1989 got 42% in the EU Elections and went on to get 34.4% in the 1992 General Election. In the 1983 Local Elections Labour got 35% and yet only got 27.5% in the General Election - coparisons between different types of elections and also opinion polls and elections are not very reliable, how would you vote if there was a General Election tommorrow? Even this ignores the campaign itself - The Attlee government, the Conservatives under Alec Douglas-Home, Labour under Harold Wilson in 1970, Labour under Jim Callaghan after the Winter of Discontent, the Conservatives in 4 successive terms all made a substantial recovery from mid-term difficulties and did far better than espetially "the polls" suggested. And Labour had difficulties in 2000 and yet won a large majority the following year, in 2004 the EU and Local Elections were dire for Labour and the following year they won an overall majority.

There is an electoral cycle just as there is an economic cycle, and there is a media political reporting cycle to generate "stories" in order to make it appear that there are massive upheavals going on all the time, because the notion that having been up someone might suddenly be down sells newspapers and makes it seem like journalists are actually doing something, doesn't matter who is up or down, they get fitted to the story.

[Yet Another Anon]

If getting to 45% was easy, Hague, IDS and Howard would have found it. Not to mention Major!
The Conservatives got 46% of the Popular Vote in the 1992 Local Elections. IDS was removed after only a couple of years, who knows what vote the Conservatives would have got in the 2004 Local and EU Elections if he hadn't been, people remembered Michael Howard handling Water Privatisation and being a prominent figure in the failing Major administration. IDS kept true to his beliefs on Maastricht, he had no part in the removal of Mrs T and was not associated with the failings of the Major administration.

[Vernon]

IDS kept true to his beliefs on Maastricht, he had no part in the removal of Mrs T and was not associated with the failings of the Major administration.

True, but he was associated with the rebels who undermined Major from 1992 onwards. As leader, IDS could not command loyalty from his backbenchers because he had not shown loyalty when a backbencher himself.

He was also a poor public speaker and his Commons performances were an embarrassment.

A nice man on a personal level no doubt. So was Michael Foot by all accounts (and incidentally, Foot was a genuinely impressive platform orator, and not bad in parliament either). But both were elected for negative reasons - because they were not their main rival for the party leadership - and neither were ever likely to come within a mile of winning a general election.

[Yet Another Anon]

So was Michael Foot by all accounts
He is and always has been well meaning, he was notoriously impatient and quick tempered though.

and neither were ever likely to come within a mile of winning a general election.
The Conservatives election results improved during IDS's time as leader, as for being a Maasricht Rebel, most of the Conservative Party, indeed most of the country were and still are opposed to the Maastricht Treaty.

On the other hand Michael Foot saw Labour support nosedive 2 years into his leadership, there was no SDP type split under IDS - IDS stood for actually fairly One Nation policies mostly, not the nationalise almost everything and spending wishlist and screw the rich, not to mention unilateral nuclear disarmament that Michael Foot stood for, not only this but Michael Foot tried to pretend that he was prepared to hold onto Polaris in the short term - there was an obvious sharp division between Michael Foot and Dennis Healey on a large number of issues.

[Yet Another Anon]

As leader, IDS could not command loyalty from his backbenchers because he had not shown loyalty when a backbencher himself.
Neither did Winston Churchill, how loyal was John Major to Margaret Thatcher? Hestletine, Hurd and Major all pulled the ladder out from under Margaret Thatcher.

Harold Wilson rebelled against the Labour government over Prescription Charges and yet went on to be PM.

John Smith rebelled against the Labour position on Europe - indeed he was the leader of the rebel Labour MPs during Heath's administration without whom the accession to The Treaty of Rome by the UK would have fallen, and Edward Heath would have seen such a defeat as neccessitating an imediate General Election, didn't seem to harm John Smith's political prospects, he was a cabinet minister from late on in 1978 and Labour leader in the 2 years before his death.

[Alex Swanson]

'As leader, IDS could not command loyalty from his backbenchers because he had not shown loyalty when a backbencher himself.'

Major could have solved the whole Maastricht problem by holding a referendum. He refused. IDS and others were correct to rebel over a single point which was of importance to the country and over which the government was riding rough over public opinion.

By contrast, the undermining of IDS when he was leader was conducted simply out of personal malice and was across the board, simply because some individuals, the same section of the party which had called so strenuously for blind loyalty when they were on top, didn't want to accept the membership's verdict on the leadership contest.

[Vernon]

The Conservatives election results improved during IDS's time as leader

This really isn't saying that much - they could hardly have got any worse.

As for the examples of rebels who went on to great things: there's a difference between standing up for a principle you believe in, even if it means going against your party line - and both major parties have honourable traditions of people who have taken such action - and systematically working to bring down your own government or prime minister. Churchill never did that to MacDonald, Baldwin or Chamberlain, even though he opposed them bitterly on first India and later appeasement. Major certainly seems to believe that IDS and the other Euroseptics crossed that line.

the undermining of IDS when he was leader was conducted simply out of personal malice and was across the board, simply because some individuals... didn't want to accept the membership's verdict on the leadership contest.

That may have been A factor, but surely the main problem was his embarassingly poor performances at PMQs and when giving set-piece speeches. He made Major, who was a pretty dull public speaker himself, look like Cicero. Leaders just can't get away with that in this day and age.

As IDS has proved since leaving the leadership, he is genuine and can come across very well in a TV interview, and is perfectly capable of delivering a powerful speech on occasion. But he just couldn't do the big set-piece things. Some people are born leaders, and IDS sadly was not.

[Simon R.]

Yet Another Anon, I don't think this is really the time to be chuntering on about Iain Duncan Smith being a better leader than Howard -he was a walking disaster, and his staunch support of the Iraq war against all the evidence and public opinion was a supreme piece of folly which cost us dear in the subsequent election and was a boon to the Lib Dem's, who managed to increase their numbers of MP's even with a pissed leader. His time as leader was painful to anyone who cares about the Conservative party, and is frankly best forgotten.

[Yet Another Anon]

chuntering on about Iain Duncan Smith being a better leader than Howard -he was a walking disaster, and his staunch support of the Iraq war against all the evidence and public opinion was a supreme piece of folly which cost us dear in the subsequent election and was a boon to the Lib Dem's
Michael Howard tried to have it both ways, supporting the war while being quiet about it. The government's position on the war was another thing. The government should from the start have emphasised the benefit or removing someone who was destabilising the security of South West Asia, was destroying Iraq's environment, wrecking the Iraqi finances through extravagance and gross mismanagement, led by people leading playboy lifestyles errecting statues to themselves (Idolatry is forbidden in Islam as it is in Judaism and Christianity) and massacring it's own citizens, indeed the Ba'ath Party had little popularity out of a tiny part in the middle of the country. In the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement they agreed on limits to developing new guidance systems and to a 150km range limit, weapons inspectors discovered missiles before the war that had not been declared that were in breach of the agreement. In addition further missiles used during the war that were previously unknown breached the limit and after the war weapons inspectors found new missiles in development that breached the 150km limit and had prohibited new guidance systems.

The Ceasefire Agreement was re-affirmed by UN Resolution 1441 and later resolutions, the regime were required to co-operate unconditionally with inspections and they did not. If you breach a ceasefire agreement then ceasefire is breached ie there is a de facto state of war.

The regime certainly would have resumed development of nuclear weapons when attention turned away, as for Chemical & Biological Weapons, there is no waty to know if they were looted, or sold during the war or they may have been moved around - current Ba'athist leaders may well know where any such stock is - Iraq covers a big area, there are still large paramilitary stashes of weaponry and ammunition the police and military don't know about in the UK which is far smaller.

The Rumsfeld strategy was flawed, more troops should have been committed from the start and the cuts in the UK Armed Forces from the mid 1980s on, especially those of the 1990s have taken a severe toll on the ability of the Armed Forces to adequately carry out their duties in a world that is as dangerous as it has ever been.

The Liberal Democrats (although not all - Paddy Ashdown is one notable supporter of the Iraq War, and there are others) rode a wave that was all, of a coalition of jingoistic pacifists and those opposed to military involvement of UK forces abroad. International relations are never easy and the UN Security Council is a talking shop more to do with allowing China to consolidate it's annexation of Tibet and Russia to continue Tsarist\Soviet policies in Chechnya, and France who not so long ago were letting off nuclear weapons in the South Pacific and sinking ships in other countries territories, there was a lot of hypocritical posing over the issue of the War in Iraq on both sides, but especially by the anti-war lobby.

[London Tory]

Quite incredible that Tories still post messages in support of the IDS leadership.
I have a vivid memory of the 2001 leadership campaign- IDS addressing a local association in a blazer and grey slacks. The average age of the audience was 70+. We had just lost to Blair by over 250 seats, yet they cheered him as he basically promised more of the same, unpalatable medicine.
Forget the cringing "Quiet Man" speech, the phrases like "this is flim flam", the frog in the throat every week, IDS' one huge, unforgiveable error was to lock us in with Blair on Iraq. However noble the motives, he was totally out of his depth and by doing this, he basically signed our death warrant in the 2005 Election.