Drop gay marriage. Commit to the NHS. Cut foreign aid. Attack Miliband. Leave Afghanistan.

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

Over the last few days we've been publishing your rating of 23 ideas to win the next election. 1,419 Tory members were asked to rate the ideas listed below on a scale of minus five (least helpful to winning a majority) to plus five (most helpful to winning a majority).

I've already blogged my encouragement that so many Tory members think that blue collar conservatism is so central to Tory election hopes. Some of the other ideas rated highly by Tory members are less resonant with the kind of conservatism I'd hope we might advance in coming years. Idea ten in the list, for example, is cutting foreign aid and spending the savings on British pensioners. Item 16 is about leaving Afghanistan. For a lot of Tory members it is clear that charity begins at home. There is also a belief (misplaced in my view) that dropping David Cameron's support for a policy like gay marriage (ranked seventh) will be more potent than, for example, recommitting to the NHS (ranked eighth). That overstates the potency of the gay marriage issue and understates the importance of the NHS. I'd have re-establishment of our NHS credentials near the top of my list of election-winning ideas.

In contrast there is more agreement between ConHome and its readers on the need for Conservative HQ to make sustained attacks on Ed Miliband and Ed Balls (item 14) and the need for more candidates with northern and working class roots (item 11).

60% of Tory members think pact with UKIP will help Tories win next election

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

This is the fourth instalment of a series of blogposts examining which of 23 ideas to win the next election tested best among Tory members. I've already blogged about the popularity of a blue collar message, members' lukewarm interest in a change of leader and the need for a bolder economic plan. Today we turn to Europe.

The poll finds support for an attempt to end the new division on the Right of British politics and forge some kind of pact with UKIP. Respondents were asked to rate "a pact with UKIP that avoids the two parties standing against each other in marginal seats" on a scale of -5 to +5 (where +5 equalled a "very positive impact" and -5 equalled a "very bad impact".)

1,419 members voted in the survey. 397 members (28%) said a pact would have a negative impact. 128 (9%) said a pact would have no impact at all. 856 (60%) said it would have a positive impact. 38 (3%) did not give an answer.

The overall average rating was +1.18, putting it number 18 in the list of 23 ideas.

It's the economy stupid: Tory members see recovery as the key to majority

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

Over the last few days we've been examining the potency of 23 ideas to win the next election. 1,419 Tory members rated the various ideas and so far we've learnt that members are lukewarm about changing the party leader and very positive about the need for a blue collar message.

Completely unsurprisingly the factor that was rated most important to Tory election prospects was "signs of an economic recovery". That option got a score of +4.16*.

Will we get those signs though? Is the worst of the recession over or will years of continuing austerity and the unresolved €uro situation mean that the economy will remain stuck in stagnation?

Tory grassroots see blue collar message as more important to Tory fortunes than Europe, crime or immigration

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

Nearly two weeks ago ConHome readers ranked the potency of 23 ideas to win the next election. Yesterday I noted the relatively weak showing of changing the leader to Boris Johnson or William Hague. Members said that greater party unity and greater loyalty to David Cameron were more likely to help the Tory cause.

Today I report the strong showing for what I have described as conservatism for the little guy. Dom Raab MP has called it conservatism for the underdog. It's conservatism for Howard's battlers, Reagan's Democrats, Harper's Tim Horton voters, Thatcher's Essex Man. It's a conservative politics that understands that the party cannot win without solidarity with the striving classes. It's the 1992 model when John Major's mix of soapbox-and-Brixton-conservatism saw the party win 14,093,007 votes - more than any British party leader had won before or has won since.

Installing Boris as Tory leader comes 20th in list of 23 ways to win next election

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

Borismania hits a new peak today with a Sun/ YouGov opinion poll suggesting that the Tories might be more competitive if he was Conservative leader:

"Labour’s current poll lead would be slashed to one point if Boris was Conservative leader. It revealed 34 per cent of people would vote for a Cameron-led Tory party, while 40 per cent would vote for Ed Miliband’s Labour. But if Boris was leader, support for the Tories would rise to 37 per cent, while Labour’s would fall to 38 per cent."

Earlier in the week we found that Cameron remained the strong favourite of Tory members to lead the party into the next election. Although Boris Johnson is Tory members' favourite to be the next leader once Cameron has stepped aside the Prime Minister enjoys a three-to-one advantage over the Mayor of London for now.

Lord Ashcroft sets out four tests that policies should pass if the Conservatives are to be electorally successful

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Last night I listed ten big takeaways from Lord Ashcroft's latest megapoll on the Tory path to a majority.

This morning I want to focus upon the central conclusion of the report and Lord Ashcroft's four tests for electorally successful policy. He writes:

"Everything the Conservatives do between now and the next election must pass at least one of the following four tests, and it must not fail any of them.

First, does it show we are sticking to the right priorities for the country?

Secondly, does it show strong leadership?

Thirdly, does it show we are on the side of the right people (and, if necessary, make the right enemies?)

Fourthly, does it offer some reassurance about the Conservative Party’s character and motives?

Sticking to the deficit reduction programme passes all four tests. So does welfare reform, provided people can see it helps people towards a better life and protects those who still need help, as well as weeding out scroungers. Well thought-out immigration policy fits too. Even tough European policy, such as last December’s veto, can qualify, though embarking on a time-consuming referendum campaign would so dominate the government’s agenda that it would fail the first test. The NHS reforms, meanwhile, arguably failed all four. Bringing forward proposals for Lords reform was unavoidable because of the coalition agreement, but there is no case for spending any more time on them in this parliament."

I think these are four excellent tests. If adopted they could be an important and constant reminder of the kind of policies that will deliver a Tory majority and those that won't. I note with interest that Michael believes that the NHS reforms failed all four tests.

I can't agree with ConHome's proprietor, however, on the question of an EU referendum. Firstly because it's hard to separate the EU from the issue of the economy and the economy is surely a top priority for the people. The EU also, of course, affects the hot issue of immigration. Second I think we need to consider the downside of not holding a referendum. Voters hate disunited parties and I can't see anything solving the Conservative Party's chronic EU tensions (and our hemorrhage of support to UKIP) other than a referendum. If Cameron walks away from a referendum I think the party will struggle to hold together.

Ten things we learn from Lord Ashcroft's latest mega poll on the path to a Tory majority

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Lord Ashcroft has just published the third edition of his 'Project Blueprint' polling* - polling which seeks to examine the snakes and ladders between where we are and the Tory majority we desire at the next election. It contains a mountain of evidence but in this post I highlight some of the key findings.

(1) WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THOSE WILLING TO VOTE TORY

One of the key benefits of Lord Ashcroft's research is the size of its samples. 8,000 plus on this occasion. More potent is the way he breaks voters down into four groups:

1. Loyalists (those who basically always vote Conservative);
2. Joiners (Those who've recently become Tory voters);
3. Considerers (Those open to supporting our party); and
4. Defectors (those supporters we've recently lost and need to win back).

Most polls give us the views of all people. The Conservative Party will never win all voters, especially the diehard Labour and Lib Dem voters. The Ashcroft research forces us to focus on the preferences of people who genuinely might support us. There are some big differences in attitude. Across the population as a whole, for example, the Cameron/Osborne economic ticket is preferred to the Miliband/Balls ticket by just 53% to 47%. Amongst 'considerers' the advantage is 81% to 19% and 76% to 24% amongst defectors.

(2) ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE KEY REASON WHY SOME VOTERS WHO DIDN'T SUPPORT PARTY IN 2010 ARE NOW DOING SO

Lord Ashcroft: "The most important factor attracting Joiners has been the view that the Conservatives are the best party to manage the economy; 95% of them say they most trust Cameron and Osborne rather than Miliband and Balls. They are impressed that the government is sticking to its guns over difficult policies, and are more likely than most voters to give high marks for Cameron’s performance. Two thirds of Joiners voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 and many will still consider the Lib Dems at the next election."

(3) 34% OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED CONSERVATIVE IN 2010 HAVE DEFECTED

Building a Conservative Majority (19): A researched campaign against Ed Miliband's politics

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

Every voter complains that they hate negative campaigning but every political party engages in it. Are these parties stupid? Are they flying blind? Or do they understand us better than we know ourselves? I fear the answer to the third question is ‘yes’.

But before thinking about negative campaigning at the next election a few foundational thoughts.

Elections are won and lost because of fundamental factors. Is the economy essentially strong? Is crime under control? Are public services improving? Does the government appear competent? Is the PM/ Leader of the Opposition “up to it”? Are the Conservatives/ Labour/ Liberal Democrats united and cohesive? Do the political parties understand people like me? Has X, Y or Z kept his or her promises?

Political campaigning has two major roles to play in turning the available raw material (the fundamental factors) into something of advantage to the cause it serves.

Role one is to increase the salience of some issues and reduce the salience of others. When voters go into the polling booth at the next election they could be thinking of any number of things. Their personal finances. Ed Miliband. The state of the NHS. George Osborne. The level of immigration. The anger of some Tory MPs towards Cameron. The quality of their local schools. The price of petrol or the cost of train travel. Labour’s links to the unions. UKIP’s promise to hold a referendum on the EU. The fact that the Greens might be the only party talking about climate change. HS2. Government U-turns. David Cameron’s standing on the world stage etc etc etc. A good campaign will neutralise the weaknesses and turbo-charge the strengths.

The second role is to take a strength or weakness and REALLY understand and then exploit it. Why, for example, is Ed Miliband a weakness for Labour? The things that Tory politicians like least about the Labour leader might not be the things that most worry swing voters. Is it a weakness that he stood against his own brother for the party leadership? Is he a drag on the Labour offering because of his links to the trade union movement? Is his inexperience his main problem? Or is his detachment from heartland Labour concerns about crime, immigration and welfare a problem? A big weakness now (the David Miliband factor, for example) is likely to be less potent by 2015 (his failure to develop a coherent economic policy might, by then, become a much bigger problem for Labour).

The Conservative Party must prepare for a comprehensive relaunch at the end of this parliament

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

Last week I listed seven reasons why the Tories COULD win the next election. Reason seven was what I called the "re-emergence opportunity" and I promised to write more about it today. In this morning's Times (£) I describe it as the Tory Party's butterfly opportunity - our opportunity to emerge from the Coalition caterpillar in some dramatic way towards the end of this parliament.

Governing parties don't normally get the opportunity to mount a fundamental relaunch but coalition government means we have an exceptional opportunity to do so. We should be preparing now for that relaunch.

The opportunity --- No PM has increased his percentage of the vote since 1974 but coalition government presents unusual opportunities. A complete relaunch is credible in a way that isn't normally possible for a governing party because Britain has not had a Conservative government and voters know it. The Coalition government clearly hasn't been able to do the things on Europe, the economy, the family, immigration, crime etc that a Conservative government would normally have liked to do.

The process --- A comprehensive review of the Tory message, manifesto and machine should be undertaken. The very process will reassure anxious Conservative voters, members and MPs that Cameron has a plan beyond the Coalition. It should keep the party together over what will be an anxious 18 or so month period of continuing Coalition compromises and increased tensions between the two parties. The process should begin now in order to convince the party that Cameron is serious about winning the next election and because the mountain we have to climb at the next election - adding 3% to 5% to our vote share - demands more than small and obvious steps.

The content --- The PM has apparently been keeping a little book of things he'd like to do if he was governing on his own but its vital that the offering is more than predictable Right-wing action on eg Europe and immigration. There needs to be a big economic plan so that Conservatives are seen as party that will ensure we can compete and flourish in the world. There needs to be a blue collar/ social mobility agenda to reach the striving class. And, yes, Chris Grayling's "EU veto moments" to reunite the Right. But more than policy, we need a new machine as much as a new manifesto. We need a new approach to internet campaigning, candidate selection, targeting of Lib Dems etc etc. We also need a big message to compete with Labour's cuts narrative.

The authors --- Cameron needs to appoint someone who he and George Osborne trusts to undertake the regeneration for them. They are too busy to do it for themselves. I have suggested Gove and still think he'd be ideal. He's also trusted by the parliamentary party and has the intellectual gifts to use the next 18 to 24 moments to do the job properly. The process should also involve the brightest and best backbenchers (as well as one or two current ministers). The process could easily involve a dozen under-used Tory MPs. Doing so would also ease Cameron's reshuffle headache.

The timing --- The Relaunch should probably occur with about one year to go before the next election -- but might need to happen earlier if the Coalition becomes strained very early. There must be a 50/50 chance that the Lib Dems will leave government from the end of 2013, without bringing the government down, moving to a supply and confidence arrangement, and beginning to reinvent themselves. The Tory butterfly should appear when the coalition caterpillar is near death. Cameron is rightly concerned that voters don't respect PMs who say they can't do things for X or Y reasons. The butterfly launch shouldn't happen too early therefore and risk Cameron looking like an impotent PM - with an agenda that he is unable to implement. Equally it mustn't occur too late, meaning there won't be adequate opportunity to sell it.

The unveiling --- Some of the Relaunch Project's work shouldn't wait until 2014. Thoughts on the revitalisation of the machine, for example, should happen sooner rather than later. The policy appeal, however, should be unveiled in a big way. There should be a clear moment when voters understand very clearly how a Conservative majority government would be different. Perhaps at a week-long Convention. Perhaps in interactive online formats. Certainly via intensive leafleting and regional media operations.

Grateful for your thoughts...

Mountain to climb but not Mission Impossible --- Seven reasons why the Tories CAN win the next election

By Tim Montgomerie
_{Follow Tim on Twitter}

A few months ago when I started arguing that the next election might be difficult to win it was an unpopular argument. Many in the party thought that Ed Miliband was easily beatable. Things have moved on since then with dark clouds descending across the party. My view hasn't changed and it's not recent events that are uppermost in my mind but various structural factors. No sitting PM, for example, has increased their vote share since 1974. Labour has been hugely strengthened by the mass defection of left-leaning Lib Dem voters to the red corner. UKIP is biting chunks out of our own core vote. As yesterday's YouGov polling on the Right/Left brands proved, detoxification has failed. With only 20% of the cuts made we are also busy (some would say unavoidably) retoxifying ourselves.

But enough of this pessimism or, depending on your outlook, realism.

Here's the key question: Can Cameron complete mission impossible and overcome these trends?