A MORI survey for this morning's Observer gives David Cameron's Conservative Party a 9% lead over Labour. This is a much bigger lead than that recorded by competitor pollsters but appears to confirm Michael Portillo's argument that the tectonic plates of politics are moving.
The chances of a Labour recovery have been undermined by Tony Blair's "EU climbdown". The Sunday Times reports how (1) the French are overjoyed at Britain's summit humiliation and (2) how Gordon Brown was not consulted by Tony Blair:
THE HAPPY FRENCH: "Alan Posener, chief leader writer for Germany’s influential Welt am Sonntag newspaper, said the prime minister had gone away virtually empty handed after being outmanoeuvred by the French president. “Chirac’s praise for Blair is the kiss of death because Blair couldn’t get anything he wanted,” Posener said. “He was so desperate for a deal that he was willing to settle for a vague promise that France would some day review its farm subsidies. That is worthless. “It is a black day for Europe and a black day for Tony Blair because France was unwilling to move.”"
THE UNHAPPY CHANCELLOR: "The Treasury is said to be "quietly fuming" about the deal agreed by Blair, which will see Britain paying 60% more to the European budget and the UK rebate cut by £1 billion a year for seven years, in return for a mere review of farm subsidies."
Hardly a win win situation is it. Blair's standing within the country and his own party must have been really shaken. Will this be a catalyst for him to be forced to make an exit earlier than he would have liked?
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | December 18, 2005 at 10:19
Brilliant news for us. The more I see and hear of David Cameron, the more I think we'll win the next election. Also, it look as though we're back to two-party politics!
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | December 18, 2005 at 11:40
I agree Justin. We're not exactly at the point where we should crack open the champagne and toast PM Cameron -- but I don't think he's put a foot wrong (howls of protest over blogland? I know) -- he's making it possible to be both a Tory and to be seen visibly to care about the worst-off in society. Surely DD ("wrist band generation") and IDS supporters would be pleased about this? There's nothing soft about it, so long as we remain distinct in our approach. Labour and the LibDems would never be enthusiastic about something wonderful like IDS' Centre for Social Justice, with it's focus on what people rather than the state can do -- we're talking about distinctively Tory ways of empowering the dispossessed, and I'm really excited about where we're going.
As for the appeal to LibDems to join us, dismissed by some as "naive" -- I think it's both strategically and tactically spot on. Strategically, because we both require the electoral numbers AND have to do something about our "nasty" image; and tactically, because it makes life impossible for the ghastly LibDem MPs --- they can't go on pretending to be all things to everyone. I was a bit concerned that we would accelerate their tilt to the reasonable right, but the interview I read with Oaten last week dispelled that fear - they're simply not the intellectual equals of our party's thinkers.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | December 18, 2005 at 11:48
I was going to post something, but ^Graeme Archer^ said it all really...
Posted by: Graham Wild | December 18, 2005 at 12:49
Well, I have to admit he's virtually achieved the 10% poll lead we DD supporters set him as an impossibly high hurdle (you don't think he's bunged Bob Worcester...)
We know polls schmolls, but this is pretty sensational stuff. An incredibly good start.
Now, if only we could get him to adopt a few more Tory policies, we'd really be in business...
PS As for that Lib-Dem appeal, yes, it looks pretty wide-eyed, but with all their problems and possible blood-letting to come, I agree with Graeme.
Just imagine if Hughes gets it...those Orange Book modernisers might be very tempted by the prospect of jumping across. It would save a lot of mess at the next election, and some of them could seriously expect to get real ministerial posts. Lipsmackin', or what?
Posted by: Wat Tyler | December 18, 2005 at 12:51
Polls don't mean anything.
I have yet to hear a WORD from Cameron about the rebate....
Posted by: Goldie | December 18, 2005 at 14:06
Polls don't mean everything but to say they don't mean anything is ridiculous. They aren't completely reliable but a lead of this size is unlikely to be a blip. It could be a rogue poll but I don't think so. People I talk to who are not normally interested in politics and are not naturally Conservative voters are sitting up and taking notice. They want us to succeed. Let's make sure we do.
And why complain that Cameron hasn't yet said anything about the rebate? Hague has. We need to look like a credible alternative government. That means that shadow cabinet members have to be visible and credible as well as Cameron. If Cameron weighs in on everything we'll look like a one man band.
How long is it since we last recorded 40% in ANY poll?
Labour are rattled. Good to hear Prescott attacking the education reforms this morning. It looks like they are losing their discipline, just as we did when Blair became Labour leader.
P.S. Mr Editor - how come the "political polls" on the left stops at 27th November? It would be nice to see the good news since then included!
Posted by: Peter Harrison | December 18, 2005 at 14:47
I am behind the times, Peter, you're right. I'll update by the end of the day!
Posted by: Editor | December 18, 2005 at 14:55
Those whom the media Gods wish to destroy, they first build up.
Bob Worcester --the most socialist of all pollster-- is also the one with the highest scores for the Conservatives.
That's suspicious.
Posted by: Goldie | December 18, 2005 at 15:59
"Bob Worcester --the most socialist of all pollster-- is also the one with the highest scores for the Conservatives"
Bob Worcester doesn't run MORI anymore though - he might still be the public face of MORI (and is it's Life President) but it's actually run by Brian Gosschalk.
Posted by: Anthony | December 18, 2005 at 17:23
At the last election Bob Worcester was nicknamed 'the random number generator' on politicalbetting.com. Spot-on in my view.
Posted by: petersmith | December 18, 2005 at 18:42
The Poll is great news, but in reality you don't even need the figures to see that for the first time in 15 years we are the most united party (made far easier by David Davis' excellent attitude since the leadership vote). Labour are stuck between an increasingly unpopular leader (who is appears is consulting his cabinet less and less) and an uncharismatic Chancellor - who's popularity is based soley on he is Labour but not Blair. Hard to see him out debating Cameron. As for the Lib Dems, they can forget all about coming second, but they still have the potential to block us from Government, we shouldn't take them too lightly.
Posted by: Kate Castle | December 18, 2005 at 20:18
"Brilliant news for us."
As Conservatives - yes Justin. As Britons - no. Blair's Brussels Budget Balls-up (making him last week's Friday Fool, jointly with Charles Kennedy) was anything but brilliant news for anyone except Jacques Chirac.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | December 18, 2005 at 23:43
"... because we both require the electoral numbers AND have to do something about our "nasty" image"
How about shutting up about it? Seriously, the only time it seems to get a media outing is with the consent and participation of the likes of May, Maude and Portillo. Is it any suprise people think we're nasty, if our own senior members have made a career out of telling people just that?
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 18, 2005 at 23:46
Don't trust MORI polls - they produce highly suspicious results. Remember at the beginning of the 2005 election campaign they gave us a five point lead out of absolutely nowhere - we had not received particularly positive coverage prior to its release, and the figures were immediately reversed in the next poll. ICM are the pollsters I trust most. Apparently they have one coming out this week.
Posted by: Henry Cook | December 18, 2005 at 23:48
Further to what I said before, one thing that seems to have been lost amongst everybody getting carried away about the indicator of how Cameron's Conservatives might fare against Blair's Labour (and for the time being, Kennedy's Liberal Democrats) is the rather important indicator of how Cameron fares against Gordon Brown and Kennedy as most capable Prime Minister - Cameron still trails Brown. Sorry to rain on everyone's parade.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | December 19, 2005 at 01:08
Daniel - He might trail Brown but it would appear that the voters are nevertheless willing to give him a chance.
This, IMO, is further good news, because if we can poll 40 without the Prime Ministerial perception, we should be able to poll high also when (or IF) he proves himself to have these qualities.
Nobody has yet seen much of Dave, how he acts in the Commons, how he leads his own party etc - as time goes by he'll have every chance to prove himself to be a good candidate for Prime Minister, as long we don't anything silly like the Sheffield Rally ;)
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | December 19, 2005 at 02:46
Some of you are being too negative. This poll result may be a blip, but it is one of a string of polls that show that we are no longer flat lining.
No doubt there is s very long way still to go. Whilst I agree that DC's appeal to the Lib Dems is tactically clever, as is the policy of agreeing with Our Dear Leader. However there is a balance to be struck, so as not to alienate sections of the party faithful.
If we can keep the likes of Portillo in a cave somewhere, that would also help.
But above all lets all enjoy the feeling of being ahead in the polls.
Posted by: EU Serf | December 19, 2005 at 07:45
Blair has many talents, but negotiation is not one of them. Unfortunately, for all of us, it is a key requirement in a Prime Minister.
EU Serf, whats the hostility to Portillo? I think his column in the Sunday Times is very good - as is Simon Jenkins'.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | December 19, 2005 at 09:22
I don't take much notice of the numbers from MORI (yougov seem to always be far more accurate).
But what they do demonstrate is drift, there is no way Conservatives can be at 40% at the moment and even if they are its unsustainable.
In the new year the polls will settle down a bit with something a bit more like a 3% either side margin that fluctuates. From which the Tories can build a sustainable momentum.
Posted by: wasp | December 19, 2005 at 10:18
"EU Serf, whats the hostility to Portillo? I think his column in the Sunday Times is very good"
Michael Portillo is emblematic of everything that's wrong with the Conservative Party: he's wracked with self doubt, suffers a lack of conviction, and he thinks the only thing a party can do to be elected is tell people what they want to hear.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 10:36
Agreed, James. I have never understood why Portillo is so highly rated. His career has been conspicuous for poor judgment and opinions which zig-zag violently.....This after all was the man who begged Mrs T not to resign in 1990 when she was clearly finished and who flunked his opportunity to challenge Major from the right in 1995, before going on to deliver his gruesome SAS speech.
His opinions in his Sunday Times column betray all the same weaknesses. Pre-May 2005, he sniped constantly at Michael Howard, notably over Iraq. Now he is flip-flopping over Iraq.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | December 19, 2005 at 12:35
I'm a forty-something female whose female, middle-class friends have gradually drifted off and voted New Labour or LibDem, while most of my male friends have remained loyal Conservatives. Suddenly all my female friends are telling me unprompted that they are seriously considering voting for a Cameron-led Conservative party. It has been an electrifying start and my only worry is that we've got to keep going for another four years until the next general election.
Posted by: Private pollster | December 19, 2005 at 12:55
You're right that Portillo has changed his opinion on a number of things, but is a good thing in my book (see below). The other thing that has occurred is that, as a commentator, he has much more freedom to express and change his views.
I think we have seen a growing realisation in Michael Portillo, d many other Conservative politicians, that the Tories of the 80s are part of the past, and that today in an era of relative good living and affluence, the electorate demand a more balanced Conservative Party, one that promotes both markets and social policy, rather than the Thatchetite policies that were required 25 years ago to fix a severe depression in both the economy and working practices in Britain.
This simple realisation has completely reversed the awful and excruciatingly long bad-run of the Party almost instantly - and the more, not less, that get on-board the better. I say well done to Michael, I just wish more would make the leap, so we can leave the dead wood behind and get on with getting elected with a whopping majority.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | December 19, 2005 at 13:38
I disagree, Oberon. What we've seen in Michael Portillo is a man who had neither courage nor convictions. He put on an act as an uber-Thatcherite to get ahead in the 90s, but lacked the drive to actually go for the job he so wanted. He was even too lazy to campaign for hsi seat in '97.
His conversion after the '97 defeat amounted to no more than a reversion to type. Having failed as an uber-Thatcherite he became an empty vessel, and instead parroted the new status quo.
Now he promotes a Conservativsm that's identical to New Labour, and therefore pointless. He's urged Cameron to be as similar to Blair as possible. This is a man with so little faith in his politics that he's given up trying to sell any residual beliefs he might have (doubtless he'd claim that would have been pandering to the core vote).
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 14:13
Well said Oberon. "Personal Pollster"'s experience is an exact copy of mine too.
James, has any elected Tory ever lived up to your internal view of the one true path? Let me guess ... :-0)
Posted by: Graeme Archer | December 19, 2005 at 14:18
More slash-and-burn factionalism from Oberon. Yawn. Portillo did more than Major to cause the '97 defeat. Yeah right.
Thatcher won us three, arguably four, elections. Of course, as people have become better off their interest in compassion and the less well off has grown. Now we did conservative solutions that work not centrist mush to solve those problems.
Posted by: this is just mindless factionalism | December 19, 2005 at 14:21
I don't have any vision of "the one true path". So perhaps you'd like to find another well to poison.
But unless anyone's vision includes vacillation, intellectual vacuity, and self-loathing I doubt Portillo would match up to it.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 14:23
But Thatcherism is the problem.
Thatcher divided the country in the same way Bush divides the US. A future Tory government must bring people together not seek to drive them apart.
I hope Cameron will be able to achive a post-Thatcher conservative narrative. By using free-market reforms as the driver to achiving One Nation goals.
Posted by: wasp | December 19, 2005 at 14:24
I'm poisoning nothing! Apologies if you read it that way. I'm just noting that your posts, while I find them impressively logical and well-argued, have rarely been positive in tone. I am genuinely interested: who are your political heroes?
Posted by: Graeme Archer | December 19, 2005 at 14:28
"Thatcher divided the country in the same way Bush divides the US. A future Tory government must bring people together not seek to drive them apart."
By winning three elections in a row rather than cutting our parliamentary party's strength in half like John Major.
Get over it would you. I can't believe these prehistoric attitudes are still sulking around our party after all this time.
Posted by: get real | December 19, 2005 at 14:29
"But Thatcherism is the problem."
No, Conservatives letting Labour write the popular political history of the 80s and 90s, with us as the villains, and then responding to that by giving it credence (the "nasty party" meme) and by abandoning those policies and values that are still relevant to today's problems (any piece of advice Portillo offers).
"By using free-market reforms as the driver to achiving One Nation goals."
Or by using soundbites, apparently.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 14:30
ED, check out 'thisisjustmindlessfactionalism'
I think you have a right-wing robot attacking your system. If indeed you are human - is that your stage name? Funny the more stupid the comments on this blog, the less willing people are to give out their real name.
Robot: YOU explain the lead we have in the polls today then. Is it Right Wing Thatchetite rhetoric and policy that got us there? Christ, I sometimes think I’ve blundered through the looking glass without realising it.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | December 19, 2005 at 14:38
"Is it Right Wing Thatchetite rhetoric and policy that got us there?"
It's easy to be ahead in the polls when the government is on the ropes and publically divided, the press are landing blows on its major policy areas, the other opposition party has collapsed into infighting, the press have given you largely positive coverage, and you've not had to make any more troublesome public announcement than saying "we care about the environment".
You can't rely on all or any of these thingss being an ongoing state of affairs. So yes, it's nice to have a poll lead, but it's not all down to the wonders of centrism.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 14:44
I think that Portillo's flip flops have psychological roots, and its pointless us trying to analyse them in political terms.
I certainly don't see what he has to offer the party that is positive.
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 19, 2005 at 14:47
James - Now that denial mate.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | December 19, 2005 at 14:49
No it isn't, Oberon. If you don't think that the government's public internal troubles, the Lib Dems public internal troubles, and media coverage thereof has had a profound effect, then you live in cloud cuckoo land.
Similarly, it's easy for Cameron to look good when he's talking about being nice to the environment or genuine asylum seekers. That's not necessarily going to be the case when he has to deal with tough issues - like the number of bogus asylum claims.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 14:53
If Cameron is doing well with the public it is because he is nice, presentable and positive sounding (and the media are currently on his side).
It has *nothing* to do with centrist policies. Or that people find "right-wing" policies so repulsive.
Posted by: John Hustings | December 19, 2005 at 14:55
"If Cameron is doing well with the public it is because he is nice, presentable and positive sounding (and the media are currently on his side)."
Indeed. Add to that the implosion of the current Labour and Liberal leadership, and it's given him a clear run.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 14:58
Let's see where we are in 12 months time.
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 19, 2005 at 15:02
"Robot: YOU explain the lead we have in the polls today then. Is it Right Wing Thatchetite rhetoric and policy that got us there?"
This and similar comments lack balance and perspective. What got us to our lowly position in the polls was John Major who jacked up interest rates to 15%, introduced the biggest tax hike in British history and then gloated--on billboards--"yes it hurt, yes it worked."
Since then we've had three leaders, all three of whom have got the party to 40% of the polls and then been unable to sustain that lead later.
Your embarrassing hatred of Thatcherism is more suited to the Labour Party than ours. It wasn't her who was rejected in a humiliating, devestating defeat in 1997. It wasn't her who passed on a rump of a parliamentary party and flatlining opinion polls to her successor.
The fruits of that success are borne out by the fact that so many of us can afford to be concerned about issues like the environment and global poverty today. It was Thatcherism that made the discussions we are having today possible. What is still up for debate is whether the solutions we offer to problems like that are conservative ones or those that have traditionally been advocated by Labour and the Lib Dems.
Posted by: this is just mindless factionalism | December 19, 2005 at 15:02
Cameron is on a honeymoon and it's great while it lasts. He's still holding back on policy - just lots of 'tone' and nice thoughts.
But one day an election will loom and he'll have to get specific (what will you actually *do* about the environment, or immigration, or Europe?). And then people can argue back.
....
"Funny the more stupid the comments on this blog, the less willing people are to give out their real name."
That's never your real name is it, Oberon Houston??
Posted by: Coxy | December 19, 2005 at 15:07
I'll attempt to disprove Oberon's theory of the anonymity - stupidity nexus by agreeing with him.
Michael Portillo's analysis is consistently more thoughtful than many of his detractors, even if that doesn't mean his conclusions are always correct. (He advocated dumping DD like toxic waste after the leadership contest was won). The Simon Heffer position, on the other hand, seems to be that we're not shouting loud enough. Not to overanalyse, but balls to that.
We've shouted and dog-whistled in the dark for the best part of a decade and a half now, and we've flatlined. Now we have a leader who comes along and tries talking to the electorate not hectoring them. Result? The first positive polling since I was Master Eugenides and Lady Thatcher was plain old Mrs.
No-one's suggesting that hand-wringing should be our default position, or that getting a couple of photogenic candidates of "minority ethnic" background, to employ the buzz-phrase du jour, is going to be a silver bullet, but I think the critics of DC's style and direction have at least to acknowledge, as Oberon points out, that something positive is happening and that he is the reason - what he's saying and how he's saying it.
Posted by: Mr Eugenides | December 19, 2005 at 15:09
"The Simon Heffer position, on the other hand, seems to be that we're not shouting loud enough. Not to overanalyse, but balls to that.
We've shouted and dog-whistled in the dark for the best part of a decade and a half now, and we've flatlined. "
Really? I don't think that Simon Heffer requires a leader to talk in the exact same language that he does. "Tone" isn't the point of debate here (though there will be times when a tougher tone *is* needed, and we'll see how Cameron manages that).
Whether we "shout" or "dog-whistle" isn't the issue. The issue is whether we have to abandon conservative beliefs to become electable.
I do not believe that we do.
Posted by: John Hustings | December 19, 2005 at 15:21
"the Lib Dems public internal troubles, and media coverage thereof has had a profound effect"
It probably hasn't yet - the rumour that Kennedy was going to resign first came out on the 10th December, but the story didn't really start rolling until the 13th.
The only poll with fieldwork carried out since the 13th was YouGov's last Friday, and that had LD support unchanged.
Posted by: Anthony | December 19, 2005 at 15:44
It's been rumbling since their Conference week, Anthony. And the Lib Dems have starved of coverage in general since then, as the policitcal news has focused on the Conservative leadership election and the government's woes. None of which makes the Lib Dems look like a serious presence.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 15:52
This is one of the inherent quirks of politics, even with the evidence screaming at you in the face, someone who does not like it will argue black and blue something else was the cause of events.
Luckily 68% of Conservative members do not think this… and another thing (you guys always do this to me, wind wind wind, niggle here, poke there)… I am tired of the right accusing me of being unprincipled.
I believe pragmatic is good, in scepticism of change, liberalism, ownership and tradition; indeed all the traditional core values of true Conservatives. Many on the right however - I would argue – are not true Conservatives at all but Tory Anarchists at heart.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | December 19, 2005 at 17:02
"This is one of the inherent quirks of politics, even with the evidence screaming at you in the face, someone who does not like it will argue black and blue something else was the cause of events."
And that person is *you*, Oberon. Nobody is denying that David Cameron's style of leadership has influenced the polls, however you seem to be insisting that it's the only influence.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 17:08
James - but unless you are a devoted follower of politics you wouldn't have noticed it until last week, it certainly hadn't permeated into the wider public consciousness. The Lib Dem's media drought on the other hand has probably had an effect on their support.
Posted by: Anthony | December 19, 2005 at 17:14
That's fair enough, Anthony.
I'd expect the next few polls to show a big decline in Kennedy's personal ratings at the very least. When the only coverage after a media drought is the leader facing a potential leadership challenge, and then having to go on television to deny that he's a drunk, it's not going to impress the voters.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 19, 2005 at 17:18
Actually - having thought about it James, I think I'm wrong and you're right - the public had picked up trouble at the top of the Lib Dems.
Populus's poll last week was partially conducted on the 10th and 11th of December, so the time when people really interested in politics would have noticed Kennedy busily denying Andrew Neil's report that he was going to resign, but I would have thought that other people wouldn't.
Despite that though, the proportion of peopel thinking the Lib Dems had good leaders fell to 52% compared to 74% in September, and the proportion of people thinking they were united fell to 53% compared to 71% in September. People's perceptions of the Lib Dem leadership have indeed fallen.
I still don't think Kennedy's current troubles have affected the Lib Dem share of the vote yet - it had sunk to it's present levels before there was any coverage at all, but yep, you do seem to be right to say that the changes in the polls could be partly down to longer term change in perceptions of the Lib Dem leadership since conference.
Posted by: Anthony | December 19, 2005 at 17:36
I think there's two effects going on. First, a long-term drip-drip effect undermining confidence in Kennedy personally, and which really started during the Election when he loused up the council tax policy but accelerated after their party conference. Second, a more temporary blip created by publicity starvation during the Tory leadership election - in recent years the Lib Dems would normally benefit from Labour troubles. (There's a respectable argument that media treatment of the Lib Dems as a serious contender for power artificially inflates their vote; the BNP vote would go up if they got as much airtime, although admittedly not as much.)
What we don't yet know is whether this heralds a realignment or it's another fuel crisis-style blip. Aside from a small core, whose motives vary from region to region, explanations for voting Lib Dem have boiled down to (i) plague on both their houses/we're the nice people; and (ii) local tactical moves to kick out an incumbent.
We already know from May that the tactical voting motive is fading. Either or both a Cameron-led Tory Party and a messy civil war could undermine the 'nice people' motive, but it's not yet clear.
Kennedy is clearly on the way out, barring some miracle of statesmanship (or more likely a cynical calculation by some of the more junior MPs to keep him hanging on until Sir Ming and Hughes start passing their sell by dates). It's not impossible that the Lib Dems could try their own version of a "friendly contest" as with Davis vs Cameron. That would suggest Sir Ming, as the candidate least-disliked by his colleagues, for next leader (with the others gambling on being his successor in a few years time) - but whether Sir Ming could handle Cameron is anyone's guess.
Posted by: William Norton | December 19, 2005 at 18:24
I am not a member of any political party, boys and girls and I give my vote (for what it is worth) to the Party that I believe to be most effectual in pursuing the best interests of the nation. I am by nature conservative and in voting preference. I am in the fortunate position of not having to be bought or bribed by politicians seeking my vote. I did not vote Conservative in the last election (I would have done so if IDS - a memember of the Cornerstone Group - had remained as leader. I have read that IDS secured 22000 more votes in his bid - I cannot vouch for its veracity - than DC achieved0. James Hellyer and 'this is just mindless factionism' would appear to reflect my opinion of conservatism. I supply food for thought with this piece by Peter Hitchen. I disagree with him on his stance taken on the Iraq war - I believe he is anti-war and very often too trenchant in his critisism of the Tories.
"In The Guardian – of all places – last Wednesday, Peter Hitchens writes of the political classes:
Labour and the Tories are like a pair of corpses, stiff with rigor mortis, propping each other up. They no longer represent the true divisions in British society, which is why Labour can win only 22 percent of the popular vote, and the Tories a mere 20 percent. It is astonishing to think that neither of the major parties opposed the Iraq war; that neither resists the introduction of civil partnerships, devolution or the Northern Ireland peace process; that neither advocates withdrawal from the EU, a return to selective education or the reintroduction of the death penalty. Every important issue is left undebated and unexamined while the front benches quibble over trivia"
I agree that the the impact of EU legislation on Britain has never been debated properly; neither the effect that the EU has on the MOD (for more information on those topics log on to EUReferendum blog).
On a more light hearted and trivail subject: Mr Portillo. I believe that he is the type of Conservative that the BBC love (he is like a persistently negative film critic of the Conservative Party now that he is no longer a star). I believe that he may have spent too much time drinking tea in the BBC canteen and probably absorbing the soft leftie culture.
More trivia? Charles Kennedy. The media is having another feeding frenzy and this time they are right (they were n't about IDS - the right man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have just heard on BBC radio five Mr Cameron admonishing Blair ("I have no reverse gears") for his caving in on the rebate. Needless to say, shortly afterwards, the BBC quickly produced an 'expert' to tell us that Blair, for all intents and purposes, had given nothing away. Maggie did not make many mistakes, but she should have privatised the BBC, as once mooted, and never forgotten by that organisation and wont be.
I apologise for using the psuedonym 'Dontmakemelaugh', but that is all the Conservatives have done for me in the past 15 years. The joke is now wearing thin. Let us hope that DC does not prove to be a comedian.
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | December 19, 2005 at 19:14
So a more centrist tory party has had no adverse affect on the liberals or labour then. It was nothing to do with that.
You guys better wake up to what's happening or you will quickly find yourselves left behind.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | December 19, 2005 at 19:22
"You guys better wake up to what's happening or you will quickly find yourselves left behind. "
Maybe it is the fear that we will be left behind that has woken some of us up.
Others might wake up later on and realise that there they no longer have a party to represent conservative views.
I hope it doesn't happen, but it is looking distinctly possible.
Posted by: John Hustings | December 19, 2005 at 21:02
Where else could you go John.After Peter Hitchens was criticised by me and many others on this blog he started emailing and we had a weird conversation along the lines of the Conservative Party is dead and we need to form another right wing party that will deliver the milk and honey we want.
The failure of the political careers of Jimmy Goldsmith and the laughable Robert Kilroy-Silk have shown that the Conservative party is the only right wing game in town.
Posted by: malcolm | December 19, 2005 at 21:50
"Where else could you go John.After Peter Hitchens was criticised by me and many others on this blog he started emailing and we had a weird conversation along the lines of the Conservative Party is dead and we need to form another right wing party that will deliver the milk and honey we want"
"Where else would could you go". Answer: we would join the Disillusioned Apathy Party. It won the last election with 40% of the vote - or nearly.
I am no fan of Peter Hitchens; he thinks the BBC is worth preserving (although he wants to reform it - no chance). He is another
frequent guest of that organisation because he is regarded as a prehistoric Tory and therefore good for a laugh and I suspect the BBC likes the way he critises the Tories. He is anti-war Iraq which also helps the employers of Gilligan spread the word.
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | December 19, 2005 at 23:02
"Many on the right however - I would argue – are not true Conservatives at all but Tory Anarchists at heart."
More abuse from factional Oberon. What a surprise.
Tax cuts are anarchist. That has to be right up there with John Major the wise and successful leader. And of, course, Thatcher the big election loser.
Aren't their further education courses out there for these sort of delusions?
Posted by: not again | December 19, 2005 at 23:15
I always find myself wanting to disagree with Peter Hitchens comments on the Conservative Party but increasingly I find that I cannot. His Guarduan article from last week was spot on.
"Where else could you go John.After Peter Hitchens was criticised by me and many others on this blog he started emailing and we had a weird conversation along the lines of the Conservative Party is dead and we need to form another right wing party that will deliver the milk and honey we want.
The failure of the political careers of Jimmy Goldsmith and the laughable Robert Kilroy-Silk have shown that the Conservative party is the only right wing game in town."
Which is why Hitchens believes that the Conservative Party must be destroyed before a new right wing movement can achieve success.
Posted by: Richard Allen | December 19, 2005 at 23:53
It would be unwise to base any electoral strategy on the belief that rightwingers have no option but to vote Conservative. In fact, they could just stay at home (if they don't vote for fringe parties).
The age of deference is long dead.
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 19, 2005 at 23:55
With roughly 40% not voting at the last two elections it is obvious that a considerable number are those who we can broadly consider right wing. These people need to be targeted as well.
Posted by: Richard Allen | December 20, 2005 at 00:04
Right-wing people don't act like Old Labour. They're not as loyal. They have already left in droves. If you think you can take the right-wing vote for granted then you will soon find out otherwise. And who will benefit from that?
If you remember during Michael Howard's leadership, what really caused him to plummet in the polls was the pressure from UKIP. I myself would never consider voting UKIP, but the point was that there was unhappiness from the right wing who were unhappy with the direction Howard was taking, and that hurt Howard badly.
I also know several right-wingers who voted for Labour at the last election to send a message to the Tories that they were unhappy with their direction (various reasons: tax policy, sacking of Howard Flight, flip-flopping over Iraq, Europe etc).
Posted by: John Hustings | December 20, 2005 at 08:37