ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Cameron points to importance of low council tax in last week's victories

The Spectator's Political Editor Fraser Nelson has interviewed the Tory leader for this week's edition.  Here are some of the things we learn from the interview (that isn't yet online):

"[David Cameron] has two mobile telephones, one for speaking and one for reading emails. One phone has the ring tone taken from 24 — the hit television show about a counter-terrorist agent who regularly escapes mortal peril. ‘It’s an in-joke,’ the Tory leader says."

"‘Asking people to change their government is a big decision, and that is why there is not an ounce of complacency from me after the local results,’ he says. ‘There’s an enormous amount of reassurance we have to give people — that we have the right leader, a strong team, that we will take no risks with the economy and that we have a clearly worked-out plan for public services.’" Interesting that the emphasis is all on reassuring, rather than energising voters.

"‘If you take the local elections, there was no doubt in my mind that it was easiest to campaign in those places where Conservative councils really did have a record of keeping the council tax down, or at least promising to limit the increase,’ he says. ‘I haven’t done the sums. But I’m pretty sure that the areas where we did best were those where we were able to say: look, we’re in government here, we are helping with the cost of living, we understand your problems and difficulties.’"  Encouraging.

Cameronism 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0

Iain Murray has been defending Cameronism from some of its critics on The Corner blog in the USA.  Here are two of his observations:

Iain Murray replying to Jonah Goldberg: "I think if you'd asked me about a year ago I'd have agreed with you. The Conservatives were talking like New Labour and trying to take advantage of the unpopularity of the government that is always associated with a long time in power. It didn't work, though. After Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair, in September and October last year he was riding high. If he'd called an election then, Brown would have seen Labour re-elected with a bigger majority than Tony Blair and he would have destroyed David Cameron's claim to be a viable alternative. This concentrated the Conservative mind wonderfully. Starting at the party conference in October last year, the Tories started advancing genuinely conservative policies on tax, crime and education, for example. Yes, Brown proved to have a political ear as tinny as Al Gore's, but the Tory decontamination of the brand (Cameron's genuine acheivement) meant that people reacted well to Conservative policies for the first time in 15 years. Boris is a solid conservative (with a small 'c') and Labour attempted to use this to paint him as the bastard son of Cruella de Ville and Lord Voldemort. It didn't work. Nor did people turn to the Liberal Democrats. People are not just tuning out Labour, they are willing to listen to conservatives advancing conservative thought again. And about time, too."

Tories promise "policy striptease" as Brown bores on

Gordon Brown was on Andrew Marr and Adam Boulton this morning.

It's not clear why Gordon Brown bothered.  He offered no new message - just the usual tired talk of listening and facing up to long-term challenges.  Mr Brown told Adam Boulton (who pressed the PM much harder than the deferential Marr)  that he wouldn't hold a 'put up or shut up' leadership challenge to his critics, as John Major did in 1995.

Thursday had been a referendum on Labour, Mr Brown said, but the next election would be a choice between Labour and the Conservatives.  He said that he "relished" the prospect of beating David Cameron at the next General Election.

If Brown bored the Conservatives plan to excite, says a leader in The Sunday Times.  The leader-writers say that the Conservatives "plan a slow striptease over the next two years to unveil the policies that will form the basis of their manifesto."

ConservativeHome understands that this "striptease" aims to address the "enthusiasm challenge" and will include a heavy emphasis on measures to tackle crime and school failure.  The social justice agenda is also going to be 'bigged up' as the party aims to build on lower income voters' loss of faith in Labour after the 10p fiasco.

And let's not forget the LibDems.  Professor John Curtice in The Sunday Telegraph notes that Thursday was also poor for them (our emphasis):

"Outside London the Liberal Democrat vote slipped for the fourth year in a row. With 25 per cent of the equivalent national vote, the party recorded its weakest local election performance for a decade.  Fortunately for Nick Clegg, his party's slide was masked by a modest net gain of 31 seats and Labour's even more dismal performance. But in London, where there was no such camouflage, the party's vote was down on 2004 by between five and six points in both the mayoral race and the assembly contests."

It is very significant that voters are deciding that a vote for the Conservatives, in this mid-term moment, is the best way to most punish Labour.  We now need to make sure that - come the General Election - voters understand that a vote for the Conservatives is the only sure way of ending Labour rule.

3pm video: Sky's 18 minute interview with Gordon Brown

How should David Cameron target "Tony's Tories"?

Melissa Kite identifies this new 'Tony's Tories' group of target voters in The Sunday Telegraph.  CCHQ wants to woo the three million 29 to 40 year-olds who voted for Tony Blair but haven't taken to Gordon Brown:

"A senior Tory strategist explained: "People think of winning back votes we lost in '97 but that's an outdated approach - we need new Tories. We need a large number of people who have never voted Conservative. We need around three million first-time Tory voters." The strategy goes a long way to explaining why Mr Cameron has repeatedly dismissed the idea of promising tax cuts as a vote winner. Strategists point out that the thirtysomethings they hope to convert have never voted for a politician in return for a tax-cutting pledge and are unlikely to start now. Their concerns are more likely to be housing, transport, the environment, crime, education and the NHS. Much of the current mood music of Tory campaigning is aimed at people in their 30s.The words "change" and "new" are used repeatedly by Mr Cameron and other frontbenchers to convince them that this is a different party from the one they rejected in the late Nineties."

In the same newspaper, however, Professor John Curtice writes that a small government message may be exactly what these voters want:

"There is some reason to believe that this 'New Labour generation' might be particularly sympathetic ideologically to the Conservative message.  Over the last ten years public opinion in Britain as a whole has become less keen on big government and attempts to create greater equality - and the attitudes of younger people particularly reflect this change of mood.  For example, according to the British Social Attitudes survey, just 39 per cent of those aged under 35 believe the government should spend more on things like health and education and put up taxes if necessary to pay for it.  In contrast just over half (51 per cent) of those aged 55 and over take that view.  Equally, just 26 per cent of younger people think the government should spend more on welfare benefits for the poor at the cost of putting taxes up, compared with 47 per cent of those aged over 55.  The 'New Labour generation' wants to be able to want to get government off its back and so be free to 'get on'."

PS We've crossed swords with Melissa Kite before on reshuffles and don't particularly want to revisit all of that but her article today warns that Oliver Heald might be demoted.  For the record: Mr Heald went to the backbenches a year ago.

Call for papers on the Conservative Party

As the Conservative Party continues to make progress corporate affairs companies are increasingly hiring Conservatives, world leaders are increasingly keen to meet with the Conservative Party leadership, and academics are devoting more time to studying the Party and its beliefs.

In light of that, Professor Phillip Cowley, Dr Andrew Denham, Dr Steven Fielding and Dr Tim Bale are organising a one-day conference in Nottingham at the end of the year (Dec 12th) to discuss "how likely is a Conservative victory at the next election and how 'Conservative' is Cameron's party?".

They are interested in papers dealing with any aspect of the party's development, but especially those that place developments within the party in a comparative and historical perspective and those touching on the following themes: Ideology, Electoral strategy, Campaigning, Europe, National Identity and the Constitution, The Market and Social Justice, America and the War on Terror, Party cohesion and division, Financing, and Feminisation.

Paper proposals - a title, details of authors, along with a paragraph description - should be submitted by 1st September 2008 to Steven Fielding (Director, Centre for British Politics): Steven.Fielding@nottingham.ac.uk.

Cameron's task is harder than Thatcher's

We hoped to review the first in the series of eight Margaret Thatcher DVDs that The Telegraph is giving away from today but can't because ConHome's copy arrived with its DVD missing.  The first DVD is about The Making of Margaret Thatcher.  Apparently!

The series couldn't have come at a worse time for Gordon Brown.  The focus on her resilience and decisiveness is such a contrast with Mr Brown's dithering.  Matthew Parris and Martin Kettle have written devastating pieces about the current occupant of Number Ten in their must-read Saturday columns.

Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979 wasn't easy, of course.  Most of all she had to overcome resistance to the idea of a woman Prime Minister.  Was she tough enough for the very large challenges that Britain faced at the end of the 1970s?  Memories of the failed Heath government were also much more recent and she was a reasonably prominent member of that administration.  There are many ways, however, in which her task was easier than that facing David Cameron today:

1. Britain was in a state of economic collapse in 1979.  It's not clear that Britain's economic problems will get as bad as the Winter of Discontent by 2010.  We must certainly hope not.
2. Margaret Thatcher was much closer to a parliamentary majority when she was Leader of the Opposition.  The Tories won 276 MPs at the second 1974 election; 78 more than Michael Howard won in 2005.
3. The Liberals had just 13 seats in 1979.  Today the LibDems hold 62 seats - many of which have always been essential to a working parliamentary majority for the Conservatives.  Labour unpopularity won't produce an automatic Tory win.  Conservatives have to oust LibDems too.
4. Margaret Thatcher was able to win a majority over Labour of 44 seats by polling nearly 44% against Callaghan's 37%.  Put those numbers into electoralcalculus.co.uk today (with the LibDems on a squeezed 15%) and the Tories are eight seats short of a majority.  The electoral mountain facing the Conservatives has been catalogued by Conor Burns for ConservativeHome.
5. Incumbency is more protected.  All MPs now enjoy large allowances with which to communicate with their constituents.  It was much more expensive for individual MPs to communicate with their voters in 1979 and they were consequently more at the mercy of national trends.
6. The Conservative Party membership is much smaller and less docile.  Membership is now about 250,000.  Tory membership was much younger and larger in 1979 (although Labour also had more infantry for the 'ground war' too).  The Boris campaign is finding very uneven levels of activity as it aims to maximise turnout in London's outer boroughs.  The party is also more demanding than in 1979.  It was then a largely pragmatic party of government.  Mrs Thatcher changed that herself.  It now expects more red meat from its leadership.  It's not so ready to follow any kind of agenda.
   
7. Levels of apathy are now much greater.  Voters unhappy with Labour can vote LibDem or stay-at-home.  It's no longer enough to say 'governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them'.  In order to climb the electoral mountain the Conservatives need to persuade voters that they are superior to the other parties.
8. Selling the Conservative Party to voters is harder in today's media age. In 1979 more people read newspapers and millions more tuned into the news bulletins of the three nationwide TV networks.  Today's Conservative Party - in order to overcome the apathy factor - has to find a way of communicating with millions who never watch the mainstream channels or pick up a newspaper.  The Brown-Blair years of spin have also trashed the standing of politicians; Margaret Thatcher said something notable to the BBC1 Nine'o'clock News in 1979 and she had a big audience that was ready to believe her.  She could also be sure that The Daily Mail and The Sun and The Telegraph and the Times and The Express would report and analyse her words for a number of days afterwards.  In 1997 voters are more cynical and the rapidity of the news cycle makes it very hard for any message to stick.

Cameron has advantages.  The SNP threat to Labour in Scotland is particularly significant but he has a tough challenge to win the next election.  That's probably why the Westminster insiders that contribute to the PoliticsHomeIndex still expect a hung parliament.  The 1st May elections are very important.  Up until now Labour unity has been impressive.  The Conservatives are hoping to smash that unity with victories in London and across the country.  George Osborne is making a big speech on the economy on Monday as part of the 1st May attack plan.  ConservativeHome will be there to cover it.

The enthusiasm challenge

Today's YouGov survey is confirmation that the strong surge in Tory support that we saw after the Budget has been largely maintained.  Labour are 14% behind the Conservatives.  Years of spin'n'squander are finally being reflected in Labour's opinion poll rating.   It is also to David Cameron's credit that the main beneficiary of Labour unpopularity is the Conservative Party.  The LibDems remain subdued under their new leader.  After 100 days of Nick Clegg the party is stuck on 18% in the ConservativeHome poll of polls.

Where there is still work to do is in generating enthusiasm for a Conservative government.  Last month we discovered that 82% of Tory members thought that voters were unhappy with Labour but were yet to become enthusiastic about the prospect of a Conservative government.  The detail of the YouGov survey confirms that.  The graphic shows that Project Cameron's reassurance strategy (most exemplified by 'disarming' on tax and the NHS) has produced a significant drop in the number of people who would be "dismayed" at the prospect of a Tory government and a big increase in those who "wouldn't mind".  Those who would be "delighted" if Cameron became PM hasn't changed that much, however.  25% would be delighted - just 3% more than said the same about Michael Howard in 2005.  PoliticalBetting has been looking at similar numbers and notes that only 61% of Tory supporters would be "delighted" at a Tory victory; 36% wouldn't mind.

None of this matters if the other parties don't find a way of enthusing voters but it might matter if they do.  We cannot assume that unhappy voters will always flock bluewards.  They can also stay at home or vote Liberal Democrat.  Time is on the Tories' side but our support is currently much broader than it is deep.

Commitment to rescue failing schools from local authority control underlines new centrality of education in Tory strategy

The main story in this morning's Telegraph (also covered in The Times) is a Tory plan to use the first Queen's Speech of a Conservative Government to remove up to 640 failing secondary schools from local authority control and transfer them to city academies, charitable trusts, and parent co-operatives.  Iain Duncan Smith proposed such Pioneer Schools last July.

Michael Gove MP told The Telegraph:

"In areas where the same party has been in power for too long, and where standards remain poor, we will have the most failing schools transferred to academy sponsors and others who have a proven record of improving education for the poorest. We will bring forward legislation to do so in the first Queen's Speech."

Michael Gove has rapidly become the shadow cabinet's leading hare since he took over the brief last summer.  The Tory leadership has largely decided that education rather than the environment will be the main 'change theme' for the party - a big change from the first eighteen months of Project Cameron.

Other Tory measures include a new national reading test for six and seven year-olds, Year Six resits, a general return to traditional teaching methods, an option for 'National Citizen Service' for all sixteen year-olds, grammar streams in every school, protection of special needs schools, synthetic phonics and new freedoms for headteachers to exclude disruptive pupils.

11.45am: Link to speech on Michael Gove's website

Time to 'man up', Mr Cameron

How do we go from 5% ahead to an election-winning lead?

You were clear in your views.  You want more attacks on Labour but, perhaps more significantly, you also want the Conservatives to say that Britain is broken.  It's time, in your opinion, for a political leader to tell the truth about Britain.

It's time for David Cameron to tell the British people that Britain is going in the wrong direction.  He needs to say that we're living beyond our means.  We're spending too much and borrowing too much.  We have surrendered our streets to yobbery and incivility.  Britain's schools are failing the poorest members of society.  He needs to promise a government that will put things right and he should tell the British people that it won't be easy or painless.  We need to forget the focus groups and the polling for just one minute and tell the truth about a nation that is in trouble.  Mr Cameron might be surprised at voters' reaction.  Our hunch is that the first  politician to tell the British people 'how it really is' will form a bond with many millions of them.  It doesn't need to be a message that is soaked in gloom.  Mr Cameron can be optimistic about the future but only, he should say, if Britain has the courage to elect a new government with a different agenda.

But Matthew Parris says it so much better in his column for today's Times:

"A change is taking place in the economic weather; and change in the political weather must follow. To suit an altering climate over Britain the Official Opposition needs a change of focus, of message and of tone. The key Tory messages of cuddliness and generosity should now leave the spotlight.

The new Conservative language should be about waste, maladministration, extravagance, incompetence and drift. The new idea should be the need in hard times for rigour, severity and unsentimentality. Sheer necessity should be part of the backdrop to every Tory speech about the economy and public services.

The whole ethos surrounding a party leadership with ambitions to topple the present Government must be of a ruthlessly businesslike instinct to cut the fat, strip waste, sack the incompetent and pare down public administration to its essentials. David Cameron, George Osborne and their team should present themselves as a hit squad of top-flight company doctors, sent in to rescue a flabby and flailing corporation on the verge of insolvency. Tories should not fear or duck the implication that there will be victims, sacrifices and cuts. Shadow ministers should not shrink from the impression that some people are going to hate this new Tory government's guts.

The public are ready for this."

We think they are, too.  Read Matthew Parris' excellent article here.

What Tory members want next from the leadership

As Conservatives gather in Gateshead (see the above morning view from ConservativeHome's hotel) we asked Tory members what they thought the leadership should do next.  The results below of yesterday's survey also featured on this morning's Today programme.  Highlights:

• Members want stronger attacks on Labour and a powerful account of the extent to which Britain has become broken during the Blair-Brown years.  These are the top two wishes of the grassroots.
• There is a strong belief in the electoral potency of David Cameron.  85% want him front-and-centre in future campaigns.
• 82% support the Tory leader's recent decision to launch a campaign against the political establishment.  Nick Clegg is jumping on to this issue today with a call to cut the number of MPs by 150.
• By four-to-one Tory members oppose George Osborne's matching of Labour's spending plans.  They want to abandon that pledge so tax relief can be afforded.  Iain Dale makes the case for lower taxation in his Telegraph column of today.
• Tory members aren't in a hurry for a change of direction, however.  84% agree that we should focus on May's elections and then make next step decisions.

The words used above to describe the next steps are summaries of the statements put to respondents.  Download exact_wording_of_next_steps.pdf

'What should the Conservatives do next?' survey

Following Tuesday's debate we have devised a questionnaire to test overall party opinion on next steps for the Conservative Party.  Please click here to rate the options.

What should the Conservatives do next?

Ahead of the Gateshead Spring Forum (this Friday and Saturday) we thought the focus should turn to next steps.  The latest ConservativeHome poll of polls has the party 5.2% ahead.  What needs to be done to move the party further ahead - to an election-winning lead?  Please use the thread below to suggest ideas.  We'll then put the best ten or so ideas to a vote of the ConservativeHome Members' Panel.

Here are a few ideas to get you going...

• On the basis of 'Smithson's law' - the more David Cameron is in the news the better the Tories do - a greater promotion of David Cameron in all Tory campaigning literature and election broadcasts.
• A reduction in the growth of public spending so that a Conservative government can find room for lower taxation and borrowing.
• The production of a Tory pledge list that contains ten concrete things that would change if we were elected - and the distribution of that list to every home in the country.
• A major nationwide campaign highlighting the failures of Gordon Brown.
• Greater focus on just one or two issues - like crime and the NHS - and a relentless focus on those two issues.

What do you think?

The Tories are still to choose a big theme

This morning's Independent wonders if there might be a June 2009 "double election" - with voters asked to choose their MEPs and MPs:

"The idea was discussed in the margins of Labour's spring conference in Birmingham last weekend and has won the backing of some party officials. Although allies of Mr Brown said it was "very premature" to talk about the date, party sources said he did not want to delay polling until the last possible moment in the spring of 2010."

This is the second recent story of its kind.  Monday's FT got there first.  The key factor in Mr Brown's mind appears to be the economy.  If the economy is picking up next year he will be able to go to the country and invite voters to stick with him as the best person to steward Britain through global economic turbulence.  Brown believes that the economy will remain the decisive electoral issue and that the Tories made a strategic mistake in their first two years by emphasising social rather than economic issues.  Oliver Letwin famously wrote of a movement away from an econocentric worldview to a sociocentric worldview. 

Up until now the Tory approach has been to adopt a very similar economic policy to Labour (matching Brown, for example, on spending - an approach endorsed by Daniel Finkelstein in today's Times).  This 'reassurance, reassurance, reassurance' tactic - neutering Labour's fifteen year advantage on economic competence - will only work if the Tories give voters other potent reasons to choose them.

The last week alone has seen frenetic activity from the Tory leader:

• At last week's PMQs he launched his anti-politics drive - followed up by a big speech on Saturday that listed what he would do to restore trust in politics.  27 of the newest Tory MPs joined in with a campaign to allow failed MPs to be sacked by constituents mid-term.
• He has announced an aspiration for a third of ministers to be women.
• He has promised to equalise the size of Westminster constituencies - a major reform necessary to eliminate the system's bias against the Conservative Party.
• A major prison-building programme that will create the space for 'a rehabilitation revolution' - with prisoner governors incentivised to reduce reoffending rates.
• A Military Covenant Commission to investigate ways of improving care of servicemen, their families and veterans.
• A strong attack on 'state multiculturalism' and criticism of Labour's handling of Muslim extremism.

The announcements and initiatives are coming so fast that it is difficult to keep up with them and there is a danger that they are not producing any defining picture of what a Conservative government would look like.  Last week's £0.5m Tory advertising campaign confirmed that the Tories are still keeping their options open in terms of 'a big idea'.  The campaign included ten messages - all carefully targeted - but no overarching theme.  ConservativeHome continues to believe that crime should be the main Tory theme.  The Tory leadership, for the time-being, doesn't seem ready to choose and, to be fair, it still has time on its side.

"You can get it if you really want" (and become a friend of the Tories)

You can get it if you really want is the theme of a £500,000 upbeat advertising campaign that the Conservatives are launching on Facebook, on billboards across Britain and in tomorrow's national press.  Versions of the two ads that you see below will be appearing in seven national newspapers and many regional newspapers:

There are ten themes to the Tory campaign: the NHS, policing, borrowing and the economy, inheritance tax, stamp duty, pensions, benefits reform, a tougher approach to immigration, green energy and classroom discipline.  No mention of Europe - that's deliberate with the explanation that the Tories are currently working with the cross-party IWantAReferendum campaign.

The party is also introducing a new form of recruitment: Friends of the Conservatives.  People will be able to register as friends of the party for a minimum of £1 and in return they'll receive a weekly online newsletter and suggestions of how they can get involved in their communities.

A few reactions to all of this:

1. A half-a-million pound investment is a big deal for a British political party; this far from an election.
2. It's a positive and upbeat campaign and it's very broad - a good, balanced mix of traditional issues (tax, crime, immigration) with newer messages (protecting the NHS, encouraging greenery).
3. But is it too broad?  The Tories still lack a big theme.  We think the party would be better to pick fewer, more defining messages and pursue them with hare-like boldness.  We don't necessarily have to pick those defining issues now but we still believe that a war on crime and protecting the NHS would be good bets.
4. The Friends idea is a good one.  The age of mass membership political parties is over.  CCHQ doesn't have up-to-date Tory membership numbers but the guess is that it's probably still down from 2005.   Our preference, though, would be for people to be invited to be Friends/ Supporters of Conservative campaigns rather than the party.  This is the age of single issue campaigns.  We think people will give money to vigorous campaigns on issues that they really believe in.  Those campaigns will need good websites to give the campaigns life.  Conservatives.com remains an uninteresting site - too focused on us and not the voters and their concerns.

The politics of small promises

In his interview with yesterday's Telegraph William Hague was reported as saying that promising big is over-rated.

The politics of what might be called small promises is one of the persistent beliefs of Team Cameron.  Both Michael Gove and Oliver Letwin have expounded it.

The idea is a response to the lack of respect that most voters have for today's politicians.  Voters, the argument goes, won't believe big promises so it is better to promise a little in opposition and deliver more in government.  It's one of the big reasons why the tortoises are currently triumphing over the hares in deciding Tory strategy.

Like nearly all of the arguments between hares and tortoises the 'small promises argument' is reasonable enough but is it correct?  Do we overcome voter suspicion of politicians by shrinking ourselves to match voters' low expectations or do we find a way of reigniting their enthusiasm?

The politics of small promises may win over those individuals that are sure to vote (and are floating between the main parties) but will it work for the non-floating voters - those voters identified by Stephan Shakespeare as floating between voting and not voting at all?  Iain Martin is in pursuit of those forgotten voters in his Sunday Telegraph column.  He notes that millions of Britons have stopped voting and politicians are expending far too little effort in trying to decide how to win them back.  The forgotten voters have long been a concern of Norman Tebbit.

And there are very practical reasons why Conservatives cannot trust in the politics of small promises:

(1) We have an electoral mountain to climb because of the unfair distribution of seats and
(2) The fact that disillusioned Labour voters can choose the LibDems or can choose to abstain - instead of voting for us.

Dr David Green of Civitas has suggested that a preferable answer to the real problem of voter distrust is to present a compelling account of what is wrong with Britain.  What is wrong with the economy, for example, or education and welfare and then chart a way to solve the problems by pointing to other nations or cities where similar remedies have triumphed.  Zero tolerance policing in New York, for example, or Swedish school choice.

We are very much with David Green on this issue.  Voters are ready for some straight-talking from politicians.  We can't tackle every problem simultaneously but we might be surprised at the electorate's reaction to a political party that tells the truth.  Straight-talking certainly brought McCain's presidential bid back from the dead.  It might just be enough to give the Tories that elusive election-winning lead.

The tortoises versus the hares... How bold should the Tories be?

In a piece for today's Telegraph Iain Martin urges David Cameron to be bolder.  In The Spectator's Politics column Fraser Nelson touches on similar themes - believing that Labour is exhausted and now is the time for the Tories to seize hold of the economic agenda.

'How bold should the Tories be?' is the big question now being asked at the very top of the Cameron project.

The argument is gentle.  It doesn't have the intensity of wets versus drys or modernisers versus traditionalists.  It's not a personal dispute but it's a serious debate.  It's tortoises versus hares.

Leading the cautionaries - or tortoises - is David Cameron himself.  The cautionaries believe that Brown is finished.  They believe that Northern Rock, in particular, is fast eroding the Prime Minister's reputation for economic competence.   They do not want to risk the Tories' strong position in the opinion polls - with the latest ConservativeHome poll of polls giving the party an 8.4% average lead.

The hares - wishing the party to be bold - are hoping to be led by George Osborne.  The importance of George Osborne to the Cameron project is difficult to understate.  Last summer he took much of the initiative in rebalancing the Conservative project away from the uber-modernisers.  He recruited Andy Coulson and won the argument for the inheritance tax cut.  At the end of last year he noted the drift in the Boris campaign and took the decisions that have now produced a team around the Mayoral hopeful that might deliver victory in the most important contest this side of the next General Election.  Osborne is now said to be "on manoeuvres" again - listening carefully to those who think the Tories need to move up a gear.

The bold camp note that the Tories need a seismic shift in order for the party to form a parliamentary majority but that opinion polls point to a defeat for Labour rather than a much larger shift.   They say that the Tories need to give electors some big reasons to vote for them rather than the LibDems.  They worry that support for the Conservatives is widening much faster than it is deepening.   They worry that the party still lacks a defining theme or two that will energise the people who don't float between the parties but who float between voting and not voting at all.

The cautionaries worry that the 'time-to-be-bold' camp are being impatient.  They want to delay any big decision on strategy until after May's election results.  The depth of Brown's problems and the extent to which Clegg will have revived the LibDem vote will then be clear.  They also fear that the Tories may define themselves premmaturely.  They remember the rush to talk of a 'recession made in Downing Street' during the Hague years.  They worry that a too downbeat assessment of the British economy may be at odds with the 'sunshine image' that David Cameron has largely championed.

ConservativeHome believes that it's time to be bold.  Last November we argued that Britain is in decline again - that Britain doesn't need a change of management but a real change of direction.  We've argued that that should start with a promise to slow the growth in public spending.  Only yesterday David Cameron emphasised his cautionary credentials by saying that he may well extend the commitment to match Labour's plans (which continue the biggest peacetime increase in the size of the British state).  This is such a contrast with France that has just announced a five year freeze on public spending.  All of the hard work of the 1980s and 1990s by the Thatcher and Major governments is being undone.  Britain as the enterprise capital of Europe is no more.  Boldness on economic policy could not be more urgent.  If George Osborne really wants to lead the bold camp he should start with his own brief.

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.

Conservatives should be on the side of the little guy - not big political parties, big government, big business or big charities

David Cameron has just been interviewed by Andrew Marr.  He said that it "beggared belief" that Gordon Brown really knew nothing about the events that have unfolded over the last week.  He accused Mr Brown of being a bigger spinner than even Mr Blair - noting that a statement by John Mendelsohn was only released three minutes before last Wednesday's PMQs.

He said that he would still welcome a £50,000 cap on political donations but it must include the trade unions.  He said that Labour's relationship with the unions was the last corrupt relationship in British politics with the unions getting policy changes in response to their giving.

A £50,000 cap on donations would hurt the Conservatives he said and some extra state funding of political parties would be necessary.  He would only accept extra state funding if the cost of politics was cut in other ways.  Previously he has spoken about a reduction in the number of MPs.  That deal has been called more taxation for less representation by the Daily Mail.

Editor's comment: "Mr Cameron is missing an opportunity here.  The public mood towards politicians has soured considerably since he proposed extra state funding for political parties in return for a cap on donations and fewer politicians.  He needs to show that he understands that mood change.  Voters do not want more of their taxes going to political parties.  Conservatives should be the anti-establishment party at a time when the establishment appears rotten.  We shouldn't look like we want to prop it up.  Moulding ourselves as the anti-establishment party could be a much bigger theme for our whole approach.  In addition to encouraging political parties to use the internet to fundraise and therefore become much closer to the concerns of voters we should be promising to diversify and localise the processes by which peoples' lives are affected.  There should be less power in the hands of big clunking government departments and their capacity to lose 25 million peoples' records and more power to local schools, local hospitals and the grassroots poverty-fighting organisations that the Conservative leader has done so much to champion.  Conservatives should be on the side of the little guy - not big business, not big charities, not big government and not big political parties."

We now have breadth but do we have boldness?

Praise for David Cameron's immigration policy from an unexpected source this morning; former Labour GLA member and the new chief of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips:

"For the first time in my adult life I heard a party leader clearly attempting to deracialise the issue of immigration and to treat it like any other question of political and economic management... And given that Mr Cameron is speaking against a background in which his party's policy inheritance is defined by Howard, Hague, Thatcher and Powell, this seems to me like a turning point in our national debate about immigration – one that will make it possible for us to speak openly and sensibly about the subject, which most of the country sees as the single-most important in politics."

Mr Cameron was on Radio 4's Today programme this morning to talk further about his immigration policy.  He attacked the Prime Minister's "British jobs for British workers" slogan - noting that it was illegal.  He described Labour as "completely incompetent".  They try and control everything but end up controlling nothing, he concluded.

The Today programme had previewed the interview by caricaturing the immigration debate over the last forty years as the Tories roughly against more immigration and Labour as broadly in favour.  David Cameron said that this was a false description of the reality.  Over forty years, he said, both parties had been in favour of  "controlled immigration" but Labour had either abandoned or failed to enforce historic controls.

The Conservative leader said that "we would benefit if actually we had slightly lower levels of net immigration" but appeared to rule out attaching a number to the promise of a cap on non-EU immigration until the party is in government.  Mr Cameron said that he would not want to set a number until he possessed all of the facts - facts that would be gained after talking to local government, business leaders and those running our public services.

Editor's comment: "Every day David Cameron is growing in standing.  He handled this morning's interview well.  He is able to talk about issues like immigration in ways that were impossible for Michael Howard.  The praise from Trevor Phillips is very valuable.  After nearly two years of silence on bread and butter issues the party is talking again about the issues that matter to the British people and is doing so with previously elusive sensitivity.  Will this new breadth from the perfectly-pitched David Cameron be enough?  It might be.  This week's immigration stats blunder is just the latest example of Labour's extraordinary incompetence.  Labour's decline and possible LibDem infighting (of which more later) may be enough to win us the next election but we shouldn't presume so.  I'm genuinely wondering whether more policy boldness will help get us a parliamentary majority or will frighten folk.  I hope Lord Ashcroft's money is investigating that question.  What I do think - and there's plenty of time to put this right if necessary - is most of our current policies are inadequate to the challenges Britain faces.  This concern was expressed by Melanie Phillips on Tuesday although, also from within the Spectator family, Fraser Nelson appears to believe that the Tories are on the road to genuine radicalism.  I'm open to being convinced but am not yet converted.  The Tories are promising to match Labour on spending which may make significant (and economically urgent) reductions in tax and borrowing very hard to deliver.  Our health reform policies are very timid although education policies are looking better and better.  It is not clear that, outside of things being more competently managed, how much of a bankable difference on immigration would be possible.  Will Conservatives really repatriate powers from Europe?  Will we renew our armed forces?  I repeat: Over time the Cameron leadership may offer convincing responses to Britain's challenges but I don't think they have done enough yet."

Cameron: Modernisation versus traditional conservatism is a "false choice"

Samuel Coates and I are currently on the 29th floor of Millbank Tower waiting for David Cameron to speak to an assembled audience of CCHQ staff, candidates and journalists.   According to PA this will be Mr Cameron's main message:

"He will tell an audience of candidates and activists in central London that to win power he must be able to combine tough approaches on issues such as crime and Europe with support for gay rights and civil partnerships."

11.25am: This is my view...

11.35am: Cameron now speaking. He says party has changed. New candidates. New balance. The environment as well as crime. The NHS as well as Europe. Well-being as well as wealth creation.

11.40am: The first test for every policy will be whether it helps the family. The family, he says, is at the heart of his conservatism.  Social responsibility is second core theme.

11.45am: Download PDF of speech

11.50am: Key quote: "Anyone who says that the family is an old-fashioned idea and not relevant to the modern world and its challenges is just completely, 100% wrong.  It’s precisely because the modern world can move so quickly, has so many varied temptations and opportunities and choices that you need the rock of the family to be a secure base.  Just ask yourself…who is best at bringing up children with the right values, helping with the elderly, sick and disabled…Who’s picks us up when we fall, or puts us back on track when go astray…. It’s the family."

11.55am: "Forget about those on the left who say I shouldn’t talk about Europe, crime or lower taxes... or those on the right who say I shouldn’t talk about the NHS, the environment or well-being.  That is a false choice and I will not make it... And to those who think, even in 21st century Britain that commitment and responsibility cannot be embraced by all, I say: you will not find a stronger supporter of marriage but why not also recognise the commitment that gay couples make to each other in civil partnerships? That’s modern Conservatism."

Editor's comment at noon: "Speech over. Must dash to speak at a lunch club for David Gold and Eltham Conservatives.  This was a good speech.  He addressed ConservativeHome's two main recommendations: the need for a balanced Conservatism ('the politics of and') and by rooting his politics in a commitment to the family that was based on values forged by his personal experience, he addressed the need to show authenticity.  We still need more depth but I'm today happier with Project Cameron than I've ever been."

Click continue for further points from Samuel and a video of the speech...

This is not a 'lurch to the right'

I've written an article for Comment is free arguing that David Cameron is not 'lurching to the right'.  I argue that the issues of Europe, tax, crime and immigration cannot be crudely characterised as right-wing issues.  I also say that David Cameron's approach to these issues is very different to that pursued by Michael Howard in 2005.  Read my words here.

My own view is that David Cameron's rebalancing of his pitch is very welcome.  We still need to see more policy beef but we are seeing the leadership embrace one of the core themes of ConservativeHome's manifesto; 'the politics of and'.  I've got to be happy at that!

I still wish we had not waited until now to fully do so, however.  If the 'And theory of Conservatism' had been vigorously pursued by David Cameron from day one - mixing modernising and familiar themes from the off - we would not now have the 'lurch to the right' headlines and the criticism from people like Melanie Phillips in today's Mail.  It's also true, as Michael Portillo wrote in yesterday's Sunday Times that core-vote-talk would have been more credible when the Conservative leader was at the height of his powers:  "Had Cameron, a few months back, when he was 10 points ahead in the polls, adopted the tough tone on immigration that he used last week, he might have looked more like a man playing an ace (although I doubt it). But raising it now that he, too, is trailing, just looks like Tory despair once more."  I don't fully agree with Portillo that it's wrong to rebalance the project now but his point has validity.

Nick Wood, former press adviser to William Hague and IDS, begins a new weekly column for ConservativeHome today.  In his first column Nick analyses the media's coverage of the recent change in Conservative tactics.

David Cameron is indicating right but this is no lurch back to 2005

As I said on this morning's Today programme (at 7.13am if you want to listen), there has most certainly been a rebalancing of the Cameron project in recent days.  The Conservative leadership has started talking again about all of the core vote issues - crime (particularly), immigration, Europe and (to a lesser extent) tax.  The 'politics of and' that this website has long recommended - and was opposed by Oliver Letwin in a party conference fringe debate with me last October - is, for now, the organising principle.

But it's wrong to say that the party is lurching to the right.  There will be - and should be - no abandonment of the last eighteen months' work.  David Cameron's Conservatism is different from what went before and many of the changes need to go deeper still.  Here are a few thoughts:

1. Talking only about core vote issues like crime and immigration as in 2005 won't work even though David Cameron is a better salesman than Michael Howard.  David Cameron is right to talk about social justice and the NHS as well.  Today's news that the Tories enjoy a 25% lead among GPs is encouraging (although it appears the doctors want still higher pay!).  The social justice agenda is vital to win back those middle England voters who left us for the LibDems in 1997 because, although they'd done well out of the Tory years, they didn't think we had a heart.  David Cameron must do something every week to show that his gentler, greener conservatism remains strong.
2. Everyone in the Westminster village has noted the new and grittier Tory approach.  It doesn't mean that many voters will have noticed - particularly those still on holiday in the Med.  The messages of the last ten days need to be repeated and repeated if the party's number one immediate objective - stopping an autumn election - is to be realised.  We also need to get very specific about what we'll do about crime and immigration (and the NHS and the environment).  Tory activists need clear messages for their campaign literature and doorstep conversations.
3. Talking again about crime and immigration doesn't mean it has to be done in the same way as last time.  David Cameron was superb on Newsnight last night.  He didn't talk about immigration in a scary way.  He was cool and reasonable.  He connected immigration with the pressures on our public services.  The emphasis on crime is also different from the past.  There's less 'lock 'em up' language and more focus on family breakdown, educational failure and the other forces that set young people on to the conveyor belt to crime.  The work by IDS (on inner city breakdown) and Nick Herbert (on police reform) over the last eighteen months means that David Cameron is equipped to respond to public anxiety about social breakdown.

Tories will fight next election on social - not economic - issues

David Cameron gives a revealing interview to today's Yorkshire Post in which he puts social breakdown at the heart of the Conservative pitch for the next General Election:

"What's the big question? Social breakdown.

"What's the big answer? Family and community policy.

"What's the big difference to Labour? They believe in top-down state control, ID cards, top-down targets, covering the police in red tape. We believe in social responsibility.

"That's an issue, that's an answer and that's a choice."

He also repeats that the family will be the first beneficiary of any reduction in tax that the party can afford:

"The first is the family tax reductions that will be met by the green tax rises.  And the second is that over time, as we share the proceeds of growth, some of the suggestions for reducing tax can be implemented."

George Osborne's office tells me that inheritance tax could be understood as a 'family tax reduction' although it was not one of the recommendations from Iain Duncan Smith's social justice report.

Mr Cameron tells the YP's Simon McGee and Tom Smithard that the Conservative Party is ready for a General Election.  A manifesto document is "on the stocks", he says, "the marginal seats are selected. We've been very effective in fundraising and in clearing debts."  Although he admits that the party will need to raise more money for its fighting fund.

Louise Bagshawe makes the case for voting Tory in her regular ConservativeHome column today.  David Cameron chooses to highlight four policies in his interview:

"We have committed ourselves to a proper border police force. On the environment, we're the ones committed to binding targets on carbon reduction. On education, we've said we want to see setting by ability in every school and stop the closure of special schools."

Lord Saatchi calls for an end to "nicey-nicey" politics

Lord Saatchi has today warned that "nicey-nicey" politics will not win us the next general election urging David Cameron to reach out to voters on the economy instead of focusing on branding. He said all of Mr Cameron's efforts so far had been "to no avail".

"Not a single poll in a single month in the past 15 years has given the Conservative Party a sufficient lead to win a general election," he wrote in the Evening Standard. Lord Saatchi argued that voters were put off by the two main parties fighting for the centre-ground, saying that David Cameron needs to find "an expression of true Conservative ideology".

Lord Saatchi said the grammar schools row showed an inconsistency in the Conservative approach leading voters to think: "He's only saying that. He doesn't mean it."

He also said that Tony Blair's party reforms in the mid 1990s had won Labour a reputation for economic competence."The earth shook," Lord Saatchi said. "When the Conservative Party moves along the dimension from nasty to nice, nothing happens. It follows that nothing will happen until the Conservative Party has something compelling to say about the subject that matters - economics."

Cameron: There'll be no "retreat to the comfort zone"

Interviewed on Sky News David Cameron said: "This is the Conservative Party, but what we are not going to do is retreat to the comfort zone.  I made changes to and with the Conservative Party over the last 18 months for a very clear purpose, to get us back into the centre ground, to get us into a position where people listen to what we were saying, where we are more in touch with Britain as it is today."

Watch the full interview by clicking here.

Editor's comment: "The above quotation gets to the heart of the problem with Project Cameron. He describes the move to the centre ground as essential to ensure that voters listen to the Tories again. That's a political strategist talking - not a conviction politician. He should be explaining that his deepest beliefs are the reasons for the changes the party is making. He should be connecting everything he has done - not to some political marketing plan - but to his commitment to the family, the NHS and to a Britain able to govern itself."