Cameron ahead by 1% on eve of 'big speech'

An ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph shows little change from the previous survey in the series.  David Cameron's Conservatives remain 1% ahead of Labour and the LibDems are on 18% (just 1% off their December rating). 

80% of those sampled by ICM said that recent scandals had made no difference to whether or not they would consider supporting the LibDems in the future.  16% said it would make them less likely to vote LibDem; 2% said more likely.  My goodness, who are those 2%!

Today's Observer reports that Mr Cameron will make his most ambitious speech since becoming leader tomorrow.  The Tory leader will tell the left-leaning think tank Demos that Tony Blair had the "'profound' understanding that the changes in Thatcher's Britain in the Eighties were 'irreversible, because people didn't want to reverse them', as well as with 'making the aims of a stronger economy and more decent society most explicit'."  That is a direct quote from The Observer , which continues:

"But he will argue that New Labour has in the end failed to deliver - and that the Conservatives now are in a position to do so. Blair's government, Cameron says, 'has failed to maintain the competitiveness of our economy, and has failed to lift the excluded out of the trap of multiple deprivation'. It had provided 'neither economic efficiency, nor social justice'.  The speech will blame the government's failure on looking for short-term, headline-grabbing answers to serious problems, and on reverting to an emphasis on 'legislation, regulation and bureaucracy. That is the natural instinct of the Labour Party - and especially of Gordon Brown.'"

Comments

[Frank Young]

This could be a hugely exciting speech. Demos are THE think tank for New Labour-ites. It led the way in the late nineties for much New Labour thinking and was considered very much a friendly voice for "Blairism". Just the symbolism of this is enough to highlight a changing political dynamic.

It will be interesting to contrast the speeches of Cameron tomorrow at Demos and Tebbit on Wednesday to the Bow Group. The party is increasingly divided along the lines that will be outlined this week. Much in the same way as the Labour party was in the nineties. It's time for people to be on the winning side.

[Andrew Kennedy]

"It's time for people to be on the winning side."

Sorry Frank, if that is our only objective then we would have all followed Woodward and Howarth into the Labour Party in the late 1990's.

Surely it is far more important to be in the right side - and to campaign to ensure the right policies are implemented.

We did not win in 1979, and continue to win throughout that era, by offering to rewrite "In Place of Strife" or by claiming we would deal with the IMF in a slightly firmer manner.

We won by setting out clear alternatives, presenting the facts, and campaigning to win the minds of the electorate. Once that battle was won, electoral success followed.

I am now referred to as a "nostalgic". Perhaps I am...nostalgic for a time when we set the political agenda (not followed) and nostalgic for a time when we were considered the natural party of government. None of this was achieved by campaigning from the centre.

[Elena]

But Andrew - wasn't the key problem in 1979 that this country was in an extremely bad way (and I mean extreme) and so people would be more willing to look for radical alternatives? Somehow, I can't see that happening in 2009. People think they're doing OK at the moment and see the country as being relatively stable. Therefore, a more measured and moderate style of campaigning and platform is required for success.

[James Hellyer]

It's time for people to be on the winning side.

That would be the side of the Social Democrats, would it Frank?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

That would be on the side of the moderate centre-right Conservative Party, James.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I'm glad this poll result hasn't prompted the usual comments from Jack Stone et al soiling themselves with excitement about how well Cameron is doing, he's going to be the next Messiah etc...

It would seem that after an initial mini-bounce in the poll ratings, Cameron has stalled around the 37% mark only a month and a half into his honeymoon period.

I know it's only early days etc, but quite frankly, with the Liberal Demoprats tearing themselves apart, large levels of public dissatisfaction with the Labour government and Cameron's honeymoon period with the media and the public, we could and should be doing better.

And that's coming from somebody who doesn't set much store by opinion polls.

[James Hellyer]

That would be on the side of the moderate centre-right Conservative Party, James.

No Iain, it would be ex-SDP arrivistes.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Mr Positive as ever! I'm trying to recall one positive thing you've said in the five months or so I've been visiting this blog. I genuinely can't...

[James Hellyer]

I can't be held to blame for your selective memory.

[Biodun]

It would seem that after an initial mini-bounce in the poll ratings, Cameron has stalled around the 37% mark only a month and a half into his honeymoon period.

Remember: Easy Come Easy Go.

I'd rather see a gentle but steady climb in support for the Conservative Party over the next 2 to 3 years, than a huge rush of support in the first 2 months after Cameron took over.

A 40%+ rating in the polls, means we will have everything to lose over the next couple of years as the other parties inevitably raise their game.

Slow and steady wins the race. There is no rush.

Also Daniel don't forget that most Lib-Dems are
left-leaning. If too many lib-dem supporters are joining the conservative party then there might be a problem with what exactly it is we stand for.

We don't want to do a David Davis style campaign for the 2009 election where we're the favourites by a long shot at the beginning and then lose it all hopelessly at the last minute.

[Rob Largan]

Cant help feeling that we should be doing better at this stage. The problem is that when peoples attention was ca[tured during the leadership contest and the immidiate aftermath. But since then Cameron has said nothing to catch their attention, he has given people few reasons to actually vote Conservative except they have a nice looking nice sounding new leader who says they are changing. There is nothing significant that would make people sit up and seriously consider getting out and voting Conservative. Lets hope this big speech will do the trick.

[Anatole]

On what basis should we be "doing better" at this stage? Daniel Vince-Archer's posting makes very little sense: the idea that we have "stalled" by "only" reaching 37% is ludicrous. Given that we have not yet announced any policy direction, and will not for another 18 months or so, any bounce out of the 30-35% box is purely driven by Cameron's successful brand-decontamination strategy (as well as his personal charisma although that is hard to measure).

We will not see any further bounce until 2007, and neither should we expect any. The Lib Dem kamikaze will not directly equate to our polls lifting, particularly as it is well known that they split 2:1 for Labour in general. And as for "only one and a half months into his honeymoon" - what does this phrase actually mean, in any context? Are you suggesting there is some kind of set period for a honeymoon? As far as I am aware, a "honeymoon" refers to that period of initial bounce, and if you genuinely think that that has ended then what you effectively saying is that the "honeymoon" is over.

Cameron is, in my opinion, doing exactly the right thing by not attempting to get an initial "big bounce" through policy initiative a la Major (Poll Tax), Blair (Clause 4), Hague/IDS (Euro), Howard (European constitution) etc. He is playing a long term game because there is still at least 4 years until an election. I find this board's general pessimistic demeanor rather bizarre and somewhat embarassingly out of touch with Tory supporters and activists "on the doorstep". Not that you are not entitled to your points of view, of course; but strange nonetheless! :-)

[John Hustings]

"We don't want to do a David Davis style campaign for the 2009 election where we're the favourites by a long shot at the beginning and then lose it all hopelessly at the last minute."

Oh, this is an interesting explanation for why Cameron isn't doing great in the polls: he doesn't want to be the frontrunner. He wants to do a Kelly Holmes and come from behind, is that it?

[tory activist]

"If too many lib-dem supporters are joining the conservative party then there might be a problem with what exactly it is we stand for"

Some people might say we have that problem already.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"On what basis should we be "doing better" at this stage? Daniel Vince-Archer's posting makes very little sense: the idea that we have "stalled" by "only" reaching 37% is ludicrous. Given that we have not yet announced any policy direction, and will not for another 18 months or so, any bounce out of the 30-35% box is purely driven by Cameron's successful brand-decontamination strategy (as well as his personal charisma although that is hard to measure)."

On what basis? Well, for starters you have the months of positive pro-Cameron media coverage pre-dating even his election as leader, then you have the generous public disposition that most newly-elected political leaders are blessed with, throw in the fact that our two main rivals are beset with problems at the end, and you have your menu for 'should be doing better'.

As for 'the idea that we have "stalled" by "only" reaching 37% is ludicrous', your misinterpretation of my point is ludicrous. Cameron's Conservatives™ appear to have reached a plateau around the 37% mark in the poll ratings - as we show no sign of a significant move either up or down the ratings, I think it is fair to say we have stalled there.

Also, I did not use the term 'only' in front of 37%, that was your insertion. You obviously share my opinion that 37% isn't that great otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to describe it as 'only 37%'.

Now I've no desire to spend the rest of the afternoon conducting an argument bogged down in semantics (if I did I would have deliberately picked a fight with James H) so feel free to disagree with me, but try not to misrepresent my opinion along the way.

[James Hellyer]

Looking back through the YouGov archive, I noted that we're actually doing worse than we did in Michael Howard's first five months. And we all know how that ended up.

So perhaps those thrilled by 37% are the ones who need some perspective?

[Anatole]

You haven't dealt with the main issue. "months of positive pro-Cameron media coverage pre-dating even his election as leader, then you have the generous public disposition that most newly-elected political leaders are blessed with, throw in the fact that our two main rivals are beset with problems at the end" is not enough, until we have some policy messages to espouse.

Are you seriously suggesting that, in the absence of policy announcements, the above issues which for most real people are fairly peripheral, could/would in themselves result in a huge bounce? That is what I was saying is quite wrong - show me anywhere a huge bounce that has not been caused by a policy announcement, even if only in reaction to opposition unpopularity. As for the semantics - only partly. My point is that your opaque definition of "honeymoon" is precisely what has set up your ill-founded expectation. Finally, you yourself are arguing pretty semantically given that, although I acknowledge I accidentally added the "only" in, it was the clear gist of your posting.

[Biodun]

He wants to do a Kelly Holmes and come from behind, is that it?
I think its well known that in marathons, the person who starts out in front never ever wins! It didn't just start with Kelly Holmes. 8-)

I think the run up to the general election is more like a long-distance race than a 100m one.

What we need is a good start (which we've got) and stamina in the form of decent policies (which will be out in 18 months time) to see us through.

Perhaps it means that people aren't ready to flip-flop over parties as soon as they sing a new tune. This is a positive sign.

Good things come to those who wait.

[Ted]

I'd have been very surprised if Cameron had moved public opinion in one big bounce, and even more surprised if he'd retained it. That needs some event to change perceptions. The Conservatives had a big bounce after the Falklands War & the Labour Party after ERM

We have a long haul to get the public back onside - and our most likely winning strategy is "time for a change", presenting the government as tired, with the second eleven on the field, out of ideas. That doesn't mean we have to offer radical policies - more likely to scare the electorate grown used to the Blair settlement.

Offering detailed policies is a tactic we used against Labour - we destroyed the 1992 manifesto by getting Labour to detail & cost out their proposals (John Smiths infamous shadow budget). Gordon Brown cleverly offered safety by saying he'd stick to our spending plans for first two years so we couldn't attack firm plans only the spectre of old Labour.

Cameron is right in setting out the mood music rather than detail - he laid out clearly our strategy "I am the future, you were the future once".

Anatole is wrong about how long we have though - next election is more likely in late 2008, early 2009 so we have 2 1/2 to 3 years. I hope we win but unless Blair's deposition is painful I think the most likely result then is a hung parliament or a small majority for Brown - hopefully weak enough to bring his government down in 2010 / 2011.

[John Hustings]

I think even the most fanatical Cameron fans must be secretly dissapointed with his poll ratings. 37% is, by any standards, pretty jejune when you consider that the media is constantly telling us about how great Cameron is and how "rejuvenated" the Tories are. This is why we get these ridiculously sanguine offerings like Bioduns which try to put an optimistic slant on low ratings.

Remember that Tony Blair had a 20% lead over John Major when he took over, and he didn't "stumble" before the finishing line.

I find it pretty amazing how the media are so convinced that Cameron has been doing so well. His poll ratings are only 4-5% up on the general election result, and this can be explained entirely by the usual bounce you get with a new leader. He offers no new vision or policies that are different from Labour; indeed, that seems to be what makes him so attractive to the media. What is so staggeringly impressive about that?

Anyone hoping that our ratings will rise when the policies are unveiled will be disappointed. Cameron doesn't have any spectacular, radical policies up his sleeve. You see, if he did that, Labour might criticise him.

As time goes by and Cameron doesn't improve on these ratings and it becomes obvious that the Tories *won't* win the next election, then the internal war might start. Right-wingers might be prepared to keep quiet for success, but why sell out your principles for ratings that are no different from Michael Howard's?

Altogether we seem to be discovering that the general public are not as in love with Cameron as the media are.

[Mac]

Anatole is correct. Cameron has to play a long game. He can't come out with some radical proposal that allows him to be portrayed as another exterme right winger, it just puts off the 15% or so he needs to swing behind him. He is not going to be bullied into believing the Tories haven't been right wing enough.

We may all believe that radical changes have to be made now to prevent the country having a crime, NHS, pension, whatever crisis in the future but most people can't be bothered worrying about it. The reality is British people will never accept radical changes to the NHS. It must remain basically taxpayer funded. If Cameron went in to an election pushing an insurance based system it would be political suicide. You do what you can.

I may be wrong here but I don't think Mrs Thatcher's 1979 Manifesto was all that radical.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Are you seriously suggesting that, in the absence of policy announcements, the above issues which for most real people are fairly peripheral, could/would in themselves result in a huge bounce?"

Given the lack of restraint of Cameron cheerleaders in the media and elsewhere about just how wonderful he is, and his high-profile attempts to pick off voters from a party that are in complete disarray, then it's not unreasonable to expect better ratings than around the 37% mark.

A huge bounce is unrealistic, but expecting consistent progress rather than being stuck on a plateau only slightly better off than where we were before isn't. Seeing as I haven't actually argued that we should have achieved a huge bounce, please refer to my previous point about semantics ;-)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Looking back through the YouGov archive, I noted that we're actually doing worse than we did in Michael Howard's first five months. And we all know how that ended up."

The same archives reveal that, at the moment, we're just about matching the performance levels achieved during Iain Duncan Smith's last six months as leader. And we all know how that ended up too!

[James Hellyer]

He can't come out with some radical proposal that allows him to be portrayed as another exterme right winger, it just puts off the 15% or so he needs to swing behind him.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that he has to come out with radical proposals, or details like he'd cut x tax by x%, but rather that being well spoken and ruling out policy options is not in itself enough.

I may be wrong here but I don't think Mrs Thatcher's 1979 Manifesto was all that radical.

She consitently argued for lower taxes for years, and pledged them in her manifesto, along with council house sales, moves towards privatisation, and putting controlling inflation ahead of saving jobs.

[Biodun]

This is why we get these ridiculously sanguine offerings like Bioduns which try to put an optimistic slant on low ratings.

Hmmm. I say that Cameron is in for a long marathon of a race, and a huge surge in polls at the beginning isn't necessarily going to get him to the finish line first.

What is so ridiculous or in fact so sanguine about that?

I haven't even said that 37% is a good rating. I've only implied that it is adequate to take us where we want to go.

John Hustings, there's nothing wrong with stating your case or disagreeing with somebody else's stance.
It is disheartening to see that you have to falsely paint me as being "ridiculously sanguine" in order to get your response seen as the measured one. A pathetic way to argue your case.

[Anatole]

John Hustings: no, the Cameron supporters that I know are not in general disappointed, as I have now said three times, because there have been no policy announcements. We are 4-5% ahead of the GE results, *without policy announcements*. Usually, leader bounces are connected with *with major policy announcements*. Therefore the bounce we have so far had has been an added bonus, and the media is convinced he has done so well because we have been stuck in the previous 30-35% box for over a decade - any movement is pretty significant.

The Major bounce occurred because he repealed the poll tax, not because he was the new leader. The Blair bounce was miniscule and had to do with the renoucement of socialistm through Clause 4. The Hague bounce was barely existent and had to do with ostensible stability over Europe. IDS had no bounce. So until Cameron actually gives policy direction in more than a year's time, there will be no further bounce. Your ill-concealed and rather clumsy attempt to sow discord where there is none, leads one to conclude that you are of another party, stirring. If that is wrong then you are simply out of touch with the real people's priorities amongst the rank and file.

Daniel, again I disagree. It is unreasonable to expect a constantly improving poll rating - why would there be one until policy annoucements have come out? Poll ratings don't just constantly move around, divorced from the dynamics of politics. Poll leads are built through 1-2% movements, in steps, when little things go right for us - an education announcement here, a health announcement there. The idea that we should just expect them to go slowly but consistently upwards is silly and I don't think many people have such false expectations. It is an illogical argument which would only be used by someone who has not accepted Cameron in the first place - though I notice your blog "Conservatives Against Cameron" has shut, allegedly changing its mind!

[James Hellyer]

Anatole, your claim that leadership "bounces" derive from policy announcements is simply flawed.

Major did not do anything about the poll tax until long after he'd been elected leader, by which time he'd seen the party go up in the polls because he was seen as having removed Mrs Thatcher's personal negatives.

Similarly Howard's "bounce" owed nothing to policy (it was immediate) and more to his being perceived as a capable and strong leader compared to IDS.

As in those cases, Cameron's bounce owes its existance to his being different from his predecessor. Howard was perceived as being an extreme right winger (even though he wasn't), and simply replacing him with someone without that negative moved the party towards more voters.

[Mac]

I don't think Mrs Thatcher made it clear unemployment would go through the roof. Fair point about lower taxes but some of the tax rates back then were clearly ridiculous. I don't think a top rate of 40% has too many people crying in their beer.

Cameron is not ruling out tax cuts and clearly their is scope for some but initially at least less tax will mean more borrowing or spending cuts. He has to grow the economy first. It is a slow boring process but it is the only way.

[Goldie]

OK, so the Boy King is now officially saying that he wants to do what New Labour only promised to do.

If only he would have had the guts to say this during the leadership elections, in which Liam Fox would now be the leader.

He deceived us, and he will the price for this deception sooner or later, I'm afraid.

It's too bad because I think Cameorn is by far the most talented communicator in his political generation. He could actually have sold the 'And Theory of Conservatism' to the electorate and *everythng* he did say in the Leadership Campaign pointed in that direction. Too bad we got yet another toff without a spine instead.

Here's hoping for a disastrous May elections!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"It is unreasonable to expect a constantly improving poll rating."

In which case, why did you make such an issue out of me pointing out that the poll ratings appear to be static?

"Poll ratings don't just constantly move around, divorced from the dynamics of politics. Poll leads are built through 1-2% movements, in steps, when little things go right for us - an education announcement here, a health announcement there."

Oh sorry, I must have imagined all that guff about tax etc. Just like I've imagined the Liberal Democrats going into meltdown mode and presenting a golden opportunity to pick up support. Silly me.

"The idea that we should just expect them to go slowly but consistently upwards is silly and I don't think many people have such false expectations."

You obviously haven't read one of Jack Stone's posts recently.

"It is an illogical argument which would only be used by someone who has not accepted Cameron in the first place - though I notice your blog "Conservatives Against Cameron" has shut, allegedly changing its mind!"

Balls. I've made it perfectly clear that I have accepted Cameron as leader, but there is a clear difference between acceptance and uncritical worship, which is what a few too many people are guilty of IMHO. As for the blog you mention, it was 'Conservatives Against Cameron's NewLabourisation', and in any case, it was not my blog (I was invited to become editor after the founding editor, a personal acquaintance, got a new job). You can access my blog here!

[Anatole]

I know that is one school of thought, but I don't really agree. The poll tax policy change was a long time in coming, in terms of legislation, but it was on the cards, and in full public knowledge, in the first few days after Major came to power. Everyone on the streets knew that the whole leadership business was about poll tax policy. Any other considerations are largely "in the village".

There was no real leadership bounce according to the polls, for either IDS or Howard. Hague's was miniscule and merely reflected the absolute nadir of the 1997 GE. See them all here:

http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/voting-allpub-trends.shtml#2005

[James Hellyer]

I know that is one school of thought, but I don't really agree.

Then you're flying in the face of public opinion, which seemed to indicate that it was Major personally and his more consensual style that attracted them after Thatcher.

And no, that leadership election wasn't about the community charge. Or can you tell me who the pro-community charge candidate was?

There was no real leadership bounce according to the polls, for either IDS or Howard.

There wasn't for IDS, but there was for Howard. Personally I wouldn't rely on MORI's polls, which have consistently had quite large margins of error in labour's favour.

Look at the four point bounce YOUGov shows when Howard took over!

[Anatole]

Daniel, I think you are being rather obtuse:

"why did you make such an issue out of me pointing out that the poll ratings appear to be static?"

Because, you used the staticness of the polls to criticise Cameron, with the implication that it should be looking better. Or are you now converted to the fact that the current "plateau" is no bad thing?

Furthermore, the idea that the Liberals are in "melt down" is ludicrous, and as I have pointed out their dispersion will help Labour at the polls as has recently been demonstrated - LDs currently break 2:1 in Labour's favour. And what was your point about tax? Are you suggesting that some actual policy has been announced? If so, I would like to know what it is.

[Anatole]

James, if you had actually looked at the link I posted, you would see that it is a history of ALL polls. The nine months prior to IDS' removal averaged 32.1%; the six months after Howard came in averaged 33.6%. Bounce away.

"And no, that leadership election wasn't about the community charge. Or can you tell me who the pro-community charge candidate was?"

The public perception was that Thatcher's removal was about the Poll Tax, do we at least agree on that? During the leadership campaign, Heseltine pledged to reform it; within days of Major's victory (29th Nov, to be precise), he publicly charged Heseltine with reforming it - essentially to scrap it for something new. That is what caused the bounce.

[Goldie]

PS: Cameron's polls are nothing short of a disaster. He's ditched every policy this party stands for and in return.....polls BELOW Michael Howard in this first few months of leadership, while New Labour continues to strengthen its position.

The people want a change, yes, and they'll get one--Gordon Brown.

Cameron will fall short and disappear in the mist of history unless he returns the party to genuine Conservatism. Modernize, sure. Apply the 'And Theory of Conservatism' absolutely. But become tepid Social Democrats? Never.

[James Hellyer]

James, if you had actually looked at the link I posted, you would see that it is a history of ALL polls.

I did look at the link, which is why I a) posted the YouGov results that it doesn't include, and b) criticised MORI's polling history (I'd add that I don't set much story by Communicate or Populus either).

And an average of polls wwith different weightings and methodologies is meaningless!

The public perception was that Thatcher's removal was about the Poll Tax, do we at least agree on that?

No, that's just an element of it. It was not about the Community Charge, it was about an isolated leader who was increasingly seen as unpopular and a liability largely because of her style.

[James Hellyer]

That is what caused the bounce.

No it wasn't. The bounce was caused by the change of leader, not the change of policy.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Because, you used the staticness of the polls to criticise Cameron, with the implication that it should be looking better."

There was no such implication. It was an unashamed assertion that it should be looking better.

"Or are you now converted to the fact that the current "plateau" is no bad thing?"

You're misrepresenting my point again. I didn't say it was bad (after all, it is an improvement of sorts), I merely stated that it could/should be better given the circumstances. You were the one who scoffed at the suggestion that the poll rating was at a plateau.

"Furthermore, the idea that the Liberals are in "melt down" is ludicrous, and as I have pointed out their dispersion will help Labour at the polls as has recently been demonstrated - LDs currently break 2:1 in Labour's favour."

It's hardly ludicrous to suggest that a party that recently lost their leader due to a drinking problem, is suffering declining poll ratings and is seemingly riddled with scandal and dishonesty left, right and centre is in meltdown. The facts are that the Liberal Democrats are on their knees (I've had to restrain myself from making the obvious joke there) and that David Cameron has made a concerted high-profile attempt to woo their voters. The fact that the Liberal Democrats are seemingly haemorrhageing (if that's a word) support to Labour would appear to be a damning indictment for the effectiveness of Cameron's strategy in that regard.

"And what was your point about tax? Are you suggesting that some actual policy has been announced? If so, I would like to know what it is."

Of course I'm not suggesting some actual policy has been announced. This is Dave Cameron we're talking about, remember? A clear(ish) policy direction has been announced though, to quite a fanfare of commentary in the media, but seemingly little impression on the public. We probably won't get an actual policy announcement for some time to come, certainly not until the findings of John Redwood's Economic Competitiveness Policy Group have been dismissed in 18 months time by Oliver Letwin anyway.

[a-tracy]

If you watched Big Brother more chaps you would see that Cameron is perhaps onto the right tack - smile, say little, smile some more, (don't add the blond extensions though Dave!), don't enter into conflict, agree with everybody and you can WINnnn.

Perhaps his next move will be to rename the Conservative Party the Konservatives with a 'K'.

[John Hustings]

Anatole, your theory that Cameron will receive a bounce from policy announcements also overlooks the fact that Cameron is not going to offer any significant distinctive policies.

He's already made lots of announcements vis a vis education and health, all demonstrating that he is offering the same thing as Labour: i.e. lots more spending, and nothing else besides.

Extra spending on public services has failed to improve. This is starting to sink in with the public. But just at this point where the public might be *open* to new ideas, Cameron rules them all out and offers to do what Labour have been doing for the past 8 years.

It is totally craven. It isn't imaginative in the slightest.

Tony Blair gave up policies he didn't believe in, because they had demonstrably failed. Labour *haven't* given up policies that have failed less perceptably (like state control of education, health etc), but have failed nonetheless. Labour's changes were easy to swallow because they were obviously necessary. The same is not true for Cameron's changes. He is giving up things probably he *himself* believes in. This is not visionary leadership; it is gutless.

Cameron is not offering any alternative vision for Britain. He is not seeing where we're going wrong and offering ways to correct them. Instead his mantra is, "we like Britain as it is" and offers to carry it on the way it's been going. This will *not* get the dissatisfied Labour vote. You don't attract those dissatisfied with Labour by offering to continue what they have done.

Moreover the Tories will never win an election on public services by offering to spend more. The public won't believe it. So as long as you don't offer an alternative vision for public services, the public will continue to believe they are safer in Labour's hands.

Cameron's craven cowardice will get no reward, and eventually I predict he will become very unpopular once people tire of his meaningless guff.

[James Hellyer]

... Perhaps his next move will be to rename the Conservative Party the Konservatives with a 'K'.

Kameron's Kompassionate Konservatives.

Or would that send out the wrong message? ;-)

[Andrew]

All i seem to read on this blog is how we should be more right-wing,with more tax cuts,heavy on law and order and asylum and so on.I find all of this amazing because its exactly the kind of stance we have adpted over the last 3 elections,all of witch were huge failures!
Going back to that kind of stance would mean even worse poll results than we have now.I find it very difficult to beleive that David Davis or Liam Fox would have done better than Cameron in the poll's so far and i dont think that they would have made such a big impact as Cameron has had either.
To be frank i never thought we had a chance in the next election anyway no matter who was leader and i still feel it is a huge mountain to climb now.I think that Cameron is doing a good job so far, in in my opinion any lead in the poll's is a good lead.The real time poll's matter is at the time of the General Election and by then we will have policy to talk about,and once that happens i would not be suprised if we extend our lead!

[a-tracy]

No James that's a good message it's probably how the kids would spell it anyway! well drop the second s in Kompassionate.

Perhaps Cameron should just jump up at the next PMQ's and say "Am I bovered" - no now I'm getting ridiculous.

[Interesed Observer]

It's no use anymore, Andrew. The lunatics have already taken over this particular asylum. Thankfully, Cameron has so far had the sense to ignore their misguided ravings that have proven to be losers three times running at last count.

[John Hustings]

"All i seem to read on this blog is how we should be more right-wing,with more tax cuts,heavy on law and order and asylum and so on."

I think you must be reading a different blog. I think most of us on the right would like to retain policies on immigration and law and order (which were demonstrably popular) but to change the emphasis of our campaign on to public services.

As for tax cuts, we did not offer that in the previous election, and we have failed to argue for the benefit of tax cuts for years. This has resulted in a great deal of economic ignorance that sees tax cuts as a bribe to the wealthy. We should emphasise its benefits for the whole country, and especially those at the bottom.

Moreover, tax cuts are absolutely vital. To avoid talk of them is to overlook the most important thing our economy needs.

"Going back to that kind of stance would mean even worse poll results than we have now.I find it very difficult to beleive that David Davis or Liam Fox would have done better than Cameron in the poll's so far and i dont think that they would have made such a big impact as Cameron has had either."

I find it unlikely that Davis or Fox would be doing *worse* and they would not have sacrificed our principles in the process!

"The real time poll's matter is at the time of the General Election and by then we will have policy to talk about,and once that happens i would not be suprised if we extend our lead!"

We will have policies most of us don't agree with to talk about, and which are of very little difference from Labour's. People will always favour Labour over Tories on the extent of spending, so we will be heading for another defeat (and well deserved).

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Some of the negativity on this site is extremely depressing. It seems plenty of people have yet to learn the lessons on the consequences and divisions.

Where is the comment, for example, of John McCain's praise for David Cameron? Instead we have a non-stop stream of negatively and anti-Conservative comments - perhaps the most ridiculous being the criticism the BBC got for giving a Shadow Cabinet member an easy ride! Absurd.

[A H Matlock]

Absolutely correct, Iain. People also seem to forget that this is the first time in 13 years that the Conservative Party has sustained a lead in the opinion polls for more than one cycle. The way some here are complaining would make you think we were ten points behind. Extraordinary.

[John Hustings]

"Some of the negativity on this site is extremely depressing. It seems plenty of people have yet to learn the lessons on the consequences and divisions."

Wasn't it Cameron's policy to create these divisions? The 25% strategy and all that?

[James Hellyer]

Absolutely correct, Iain. People also seem to forget that this is the first time in 13 years that the Conservative Party has sustained a lead in the opinion polls for more than one cycle.

Other than when Michael Howard took over, of course.

[John Hustings]

"Absolutely correct, Iain. People also seem to forget that this is the first time in 13 years that the Conservative Party has sustained a lead in the opinion polls for more than one cycle."

We haven't even had a sustained lead. Lots of recent polls have put us behind or level with Labour. So that's just not even true.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"People also seem to forget that this is the first time in 13 years that the Conservative Party has sustained a lead in the opinion polls for more than one cycle."

I hate to disappoint you but that's untrue. We led YouGov polls between June and September 2003, and then again from November 2003 to June 2004.

[Sean Fear]

While I've been critical of David Cameron, it would be unrealistic to expect us to do better than level-pegging for the time being. A sharp decline in the standing of the Lib Dems does have the effect of shoring up the Labour vote. I would expect us to get a boost after the local elections in May, but in general, I'd expect the polls to be at level-pegging for most of this year.

When we should really be looking for a big sustained lead (and worrying if we don't get it) is as we approach mid-Term.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

We have a lead or a statistical dead-heat in every poll from every polling company over the last month and more. Howard certainly never managed that.

The reaction on the doorsteps is good. The polls are improving. The media coverage is mostly positive. We have nearly 20000 new members and morale in the Party is better than I can ever remember it. Yet I log on here and there is a long line of whingers.

Perhaps rather than this conversation we could be talking about the praise for Cameron's position on education in today's Sunday Times editorial...

[Tom Ainsworth]

"I think most of us on the right would like to...change the emphasis of our campaign on to public services."

"People will always favour Labour over Tories on the extent of spending, so we will be heading for another defeat (and well deserved)."

I think you're absolutely right about this. To win we need to be ahead of Labour on public services, and to do that we need to persuade the public that just chucking more money at them isn't the answer. DC has said he agrees with Blair on school choice but wants to go further. The question is how much further. He's dropped the Patient Passport; he needs to replace it with something that allows as much parental choice as possible, but is difficult to criticise on the grounds that it will only benefit the rich. Vouchers but only for state schools is the obvious answer, I suppose.

[James Hellyer]

Where is the comment, for example, of John McCain's praise for David Cameron?

Didn't you read the newslinks?

... the most ridiculous being the criticism the BBC got for giving a Shadow Cabinet member an easy ride!

The point wasn't that a shadow cabinet member got "an easy ride", it was that the BBC typically criticises everything from a leftist point of view (hospital deficits are always greeted with questions about why more money wasn't allocated, for example), and in that case the shadow minister took a position open to criticism from the right - but not the left - and was unsurprisingly not critiqued.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Sunday Telegraph editorial, sorry. Silly Iain.

[Biodun]

EXACTLY

(At Comment Posted by: Sean Fear | January 29, 2006 at 19:05 )

[James Hellyer]

Howard certainly never managed that.

Perhaps if the polling companies hadn't changed their methodologies in the last year or so, that wouldn't have been the case.

YouGov's polls are a good one to use for comparatives because their methodology hasn't changed, and they called things like the last European elections more accurately than any other pollster.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"We have a lead or a statistical dead-heat in every poll from every polling company over the last month and more. Howard certainly never managed that."

Again, untrue. A YouGov poll just two days ago had us one point behind Labour.

[Interesed Observer]

Is it really worth arguing about it here though? It's quite clear to me that the likes of Hustings, Hellyer, Goldie and Vince-Archer et al. have already defected in their hearts (even if they haven't been able to admit it yet) and the prospect of getting anything positive out of them is remote. In fact, some (like Goldie) are already openly wishing for defeat in order to get rid of Cameron as leader and I'm sure the others think the same, but haven't had the courage to come out and say it. Banging one's head against the wall would be more productive than banging on to this lot for those of us who genuinely care about the future of the party.

[James Hellyer]

It's quite clear to me that the likes of Hustings, Hellyer, Goldie and Vince-Archer et al. have already defected in their hearts

By not abandoning Conservative principles?

those of us who genuinely care about the future of the party.

But strangely seem to not give one jot for Conservatism...

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Again, untrue. A YouGov poll just two days ago had us one point behind Labour

A one-point deficit in an individual poll pretty much is a statistical dead-heat. A one-point deficit over a series of polls, isn't.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Is it really worth arguing about it here though? It's quite clear to me that the likes of Hustings, Hellyer, Goldie and Vince-Archer et al. have already defected in their hearts (even if they haven't been able to admit it yet) and the prospect of getting anything positive out of them is remote. In fact, some (like Goldie) are already openly wishing for defeat in order to get rid of Cameron as leader and I'm sure the others think the same, but haven't had the courage to come out and say it. Banging one's head against the wall would be more productive than banging on to this lot for those of us who genuinely care about the future of the party." - Interesed (sic) Observer

What absolute rot. Obviously I can't speak for the others you named, but as I've stated repeatedly, I've accepted Cameron as leader and have positively welcomed several of the policy initiatives he is pursuing.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"A one-point deficit in an individual poll pretty much is a statistical dead-heat."

That's one from the Gordon 'fiddle the figures as the economy burns' Brown school of mathematics! You could teach Sir Humphrey a thing or two about spin!

[A H Matlock]

Alright then Daniel. Can you tell me, where do you think we should be in the polls now? You obviously aren't pleased with the lead this ICM poll reveals. What exactly would you consider a 'good' rating to be?

[Biodun]

Daniel,

Just out of curiousity what sort of changes would the Labour Party or The Liberal Democrats have to make in the space of two months, to make you switch your vote to them from Conservative?

Do you think Cameron has done anything on this scale to warrant people leaving their party at the levels you're expecting?

If so, what are these things he's done?

Personally, I don't think he's done much yet and so I'm not expecting anything radical in the polls. 37% is quite adequate considering he's just introducing himself as a nice guy to the public, and said "We are not going to have some of our old policies anymore."

[James Hellyer]

Just out of curiousity what sort of changes would the Labour Party or The Liberal Democrats have to make in the space of two months, to make you switch your vote to them from Conservative?

I think that's a rather different question to ask a party member than it is a supporter or floating voter. The scale of magnitude required for any change will be much larger for someone who supported a party enough to join it.

[Sean Fear]

With 37-38% of the vote, we probably are getting quite a positive reaction on the doorsteps ( I did when out canvassing today).

The problem is that Labour may also be getting a positive reaction, if Lib Dem switchers are going in their direction.

We may well hold Richmond and Solihull, quite comfortably, thanks to recent events, and maybe win Sutton, but that'll be cold comfort if Labour holds onto places like Merton and Croydon and Brent by squeezing the Lib Dems.

[John Hustings]

"Personally, I don't think he's done much yet and so I'm not expecting anything radical in the polls. 37% is quite adequate considering he's just introducing himself as a nice guy to the public, and said "We are not going to have some of our old policies anymore."

What attractive new policies are you expecting him to produce that will attract swathes of new voters?

I think his stategy is simple: Do whatever Labour does. Junk whatever differences there are. How is that attractive in policy terms?

[James Hellyer]

How is that attractive in policy terms?

It's only attractive if you like things how they are, but think a change of management is needed.

[Chris Palmer]

People seem unable to (or conveniently chose not to) realise that David Cameron cannot satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time. The people who win elections are not the core Lib Dem voters, core Labour voters or the core Conservative voters but the floating voter who doesn’t watch Newsnight or Question Time, who doesn’t really care too much if at all about politics, who rarely reads a Newspaper or watches the news. That is the type of person that David Cameron must win over – and by all appearances he is managing to do that.

I would have thought this reasonably self-explanatory.

[John Hustings]

"That is the type of person that David Cameron must win over – and by all appearances he is managing to do that."

I don't think so. *That* type of person is the very person David Cameron is ignoring. Are you telling me that those people are desperate for about more ethnic minority, gay and female candidates? Or dumping tough immigration policies? Are these the things that most concern them?

David Cameron is not targeting the unpolitical ordinary voters. He is sticking two fingers up at them. Instead, he is quite obviously ingratiating himself to the media, and the media class. However, so far, the media's adulation of him hasn't translated itself into great poll ratings. It's open to question whether it ever will.

[Richard Allen]

It's quite clear to me that the likes of Hustings, Hellyer, Goldie and Vince-Archer et al. have already defected in their hearts

Strangely enough many of us joined the Conservative party because it broadly represented what we believed in and we felt that a Conservative government was something that would be good for Britain. We didn't join the party out of a simple desire to be on the winning side or because of tribal loyalty.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Alright then Daniel. Can you tell me, where do you think we should be in the polls now? You obviously aren't pleased with the lead this ICM poll reveals. What exactly would you consider a 'good' rating to be?"

I would expect poll ratings, public perception and media coverage to be proportional to each other. Therefore, given all the talk of Cameron's rejuvenated Conservatives being able to win or run Labour close at the next election, I would expect poll ratings that reflect that talk.

"Just out of curiousity what sort of changes would the Labour Party or The Liberal Democrats have to make in the space of two months, to make you switch your vote to them from Conservative?"

That's an interesting question. Off the top of my head - a firm commitment to defending Britain and traditional British values. Such values would include 'respect' and 'responsibility', which would need to be reflected through moral responsibility in areas like environmental and foreign affairs and respect for the law through a tougher stance on home affairs, for example.

"Do you think Cameron has done anything on this scale to warrant people leaving their party at the levels you're expecting?"

Not really, to be honest. The way other people talk could create that perception though (see my above point about 'Cameron's rejuvenated Conservatives' etc).

[Jaz]

I must thank the editor for a job well done to collect the finest, negative Cameron bashers regularly.

Lets see.

Howard. ICM polling data gave him a bounce of about 2%, highest highest point being 35% after he got elected.

MORI gave his a peak at 36% and began to nosedive all the way down to 29%

Cameron has exceded Howards record, in almost ALL pollsters, for a longer period of stability. We are very happy that this has happened, and we ALL know that its a geniune effect and anomolous like Howards polling figures.

I can't possibly imagine what you guys think one man can do in a few weeks! He isn't God! I expect he will get another big surge at the party conferece(s) and policy announced, perhaps into the low forties.

As for Cameron bashing. James, I see your point that Cameron may have abandonded some principals, but it comes a point, after 3 right-wing leaders (and failures), 3 election loses, no improvement in polling data for decades, drastic measures had to be taken. Frankly all your principals are as good as dead if you think that they can be applied without being elected. OR maybe you think labour is better at conservatism than we are.

Goldie, you have betrayed your party, I hope you can low leave this blog without blindly flamign and ranting about Cameron. I wish you good luck in whatever alternative you wish to choose (BNP, Veritas, UKIP)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"That is the type of person that David Cameron must win over – and by all appearances he is managing to do that."

This is the sort of comment I'm referring to.

(Sorry Chris.)

[Richard]

"As for Cameron bashing. James, I see your point that Cameron may have abandonded some principals, but it comes a point, after 3 right-wing leaders (and failures), 3 election loses, no improvement in polling data for decades, drastic measures had to be taken."

The point is that the immigration and law and order policies weren't at all unpopular. Quite the opposite in fact. The problem is that people were more concerned about other issues.

You can't just ignore polls showing around 70-80% of the population wanting tougher restrictions on immigration. You can appreciate though that people put issues like health and education first. The Tories had some good ideas in these areas during the last election, it's a pity they didn't emphasise them more.

As for tax cuts, if Cameron could convince the floating voters that they are necessary for economic growth, it would be a strategy well worth pursuing. Sadly he seems to have flunked this despite having the charisma to get the message across.

[Andy Peterkin]

Interesting that Frank impliedly thinks that Lord Tebbit and his views must be "beaten".

Are the modernisers *trying* to provoke a destructive civil war within the party?

[Sean Fear]

"Are the modernisers *trying* to provoke a destructive civil war within the party?"

An interesting question.

Jaz - if you check MORI polls you'll see they fluctuated wildly up and down during Michael Howard's leadership (one reason I don't set too much store by MORI's polls) - but our best MORI rating under Howard was 39% - on the eve of the election.

Overall, our poll rating is better than it was in the first few months under Howard, but not by a huge margin - and, sadly, Labour's poll rating is also a little better than it was then.

[Selsdon Man]

Yougov is a better guide than ICM and MORI. Cameron is doing worse than Howard during his first few months as leader.

[Selsdon Man]

Just read the Observer article on tomorrow's speech - classic triangulation (again!). I would like to see Mr Cameron give the same speech to the Centre for Policy Studies - somehow I think that reaction would be different.

[kingbongo]

I started to read this blog as I thought the Conservative party had become interesting again for the first time since 1990. SInce starting to read it I have become more and more dismayed at the true believers who ignore things such as the Lawson boom, the destruction of the tory presence in Scotland and the general ineptitude of the tory party for so long.

These people have the temerity to criticise Cameron for not getting a big enough bounce in the polls and then go on to list a load of policies that have already not attracted the public. As Conservatives we have been disliked for so long that some people seem to think it is the path to glory to wish the party ill.

The left always had the upper hand at factionalism but reading this blog shows that mainstream right wing opinion can really get its knickers in a twist over very small things. We've all read Hayek, we all agree that Brown's client state is evil. We have tried to explain this to people but they don't want to know because it doesn't seem to affect them.

Only by adopting the Cameron process of gentle exposition and gentle change can we change the general mood of the country. When Baroness Thatcher won in 1979 it was largely a result of poor timing by Callaghan and the government was unpopular afterwards. The people of this country do not like radical solutions if they think a softer alternative is available.

I shall give up reading this blog as it seems to be largely populated by zealots who don't understand how to win anything except pedantic little battles about things nobody else cares about. If we are to stop a police state, government expenditure of over 45% of GDP and ultimate third world status we need a Conservative government. It might not be as Conservative as some would wish but Blair and Brown have succeeded in carrying out a lot of socialist policy within the framework of the centre. Some of you might be surprised how much of a freedom agenda could be carried out by Cameron's Conservatives.

I have been attracted back to the Conservatives because of Cameron and the team he has around him, including Liam Fox and William Hague and (most surprsingly for me) IDS. We are in a strategic war with socialism; the only hope to prevent the whole of the UK turning into another Scotland is a Conservative victory and the only way that will happen is gentle change over the next two to three years. The current poll ratings will see us getting some of our lost LibDem territory back. When the policies are out we will start to get back some of the Labour territory too. It is hard to credit that Labour will get more votes at the next election than in 2005 and all the polls including YouGov underestimated the tory vote and overestimated the Labour one. The Labour bias is not as great as in 1992 but it is still there. A victory in 2008-9 is a massive challenge. I think the doom merchants need to think of ideas to help defeat local Labour councillors and local Labour MPs - oh but then they couldn't spend all their time moaning about their own party and how rubbish it is.

[Mark Fulford]

1. During the leadership campaign, much was made of how difficult the first 100 days would be. I don't remember anybody saying that our new leader would get a honeymoon. In fact, I'm fairly sure that some of those who think that Cameron isn’t doing well enough were predicting that he would crumble. I’m inclined to feel that the dissatisfaction here is malicious.

2. The Conservative brand had become tarnished as mean. Many hate Theresa May for “Nasty party”, but it was a fair assessment of how we were perceived. To recover the brand we have to distance ourselves from pitiless policies and campaign on a softer, more human issues. Our immigration policies had support, but they simultaneously reinforced our mean image – and caused a net loss of votes.

3. Time and again I read that Cameron has abandoned Conservative principles. I’ve been a constant Conservative all my life but, for the past 5 to 10 years, I found that that the party moved away from me. That's changing and under Cameron I agree with more, not less. The Conservative-right is inclined to think that it has the only say on defining Conservative values. You've had it your way for too long, and it's cost us 3 elections.

[kingbongo]

I wish I'd put it as pithily as you Mark

[Selsdon Man]

King Bongo? You must be a fan of Alan Clark!

[kingbongo]

I am, especially the John Hurt incarnation, but it actually comes from my favourite film 'OC and Stiggs', too obscure to mention but the two protagonists' hero is one King Bongo

[Selsdon Man]

"If we are to stop a police state, government expenditure of over 45% of GDP and ultimate third world status we need a Conservative government."

Agreed - but Mr Cameron is not talking about stopping them. If he does and sets out policies to do so, I will support him 100%. There is no such content being trailed in stories about his "major speech" tomorrow.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"These people have the temerity to criticise Cameron for not getting a big enough bounce in the polls and then go on to list a load of policies that have already not attracted the public."

If that was a reference to me (egotistical? moi?), I did not list a load of policies that have already not attracted the public.

FWIW, I broadly agree with the direction Cameron appears to be indicating that the Conservatives will take policy-wise (the proof of the pudding will be when the policies are actually announced), but I don't think we should be getting carried away about it.

It's the same people who are lauding Cameron to the heavens as some kind of Messianic figure (forgive all the religious metaphors please) who will lead us to victory (or near enough) at the next election who then plaintively moan that he hasn't been given a chance to impress whenever it is mentioned that the opinion polls aren't as good as they could/should be.

A sense of perspective wouldn't go amiss.

"The left always had the upper hand at factionalism but reading this blog shows that mainstream right wing opinion can really get its knickers in a twist over very small things."

Much as I detest left-right pigeon-holing, I would probably be one of those considered to be on the lonely left of the Conservatives, and there are several critical voices on this side as well! It's always tempting to demonise the right, but on this occasion, it won't wash.

[Selsdon Man]

"we have to distance ourselves from pitiless policies"

Examples please Mark!

I do not want us to prop a socialist health system that kills thousands of patients each year by infecting them with MRSA and other avaoidable infections.

[James Hellyer]

The Conservative-right is inclined to think that it has the only say on defining Conservative values. You've had it your way for too long, and it's cost us 3 elections.

How many time does this tiresome line have to be trotted out and shot down in flames?

We lost three elections for not being good enough, not because we were right wing.

We lost in '97 because of Black Wednesday, with the sheer crassness, incompetence and corruption of the Major government just making it worse.

2001 was almost certainly unwinnable, but we did worse than we should have done because Hague's leadership was inconsistent - lurchin g from abortive rebranding to abortive rebranding, fighting the wrong battles, and never developing a clear message.

And Howard's tenure was not right wing. Unless you define topping Labour's spending pledges and offering a narrow technocratic agenda as "right wing".

Finally:

Our immigration policies had support, but they simultaneously reinforced our mean image – and caused a net loss of votes.

Please prove this assertion.

[Selsdon Man]

"The left always had the upper hand at factionalism"

- as the purge of right-wingers from the candidates lists shows.

[Selsdon Man]

Well said James!

Michael Howard is a patron (with other Heathite has-beens) of the Tory Reform Group - not known for its Thatcherite views.

And I see you that you have picked up my posts on Yougov too. So many on this blog clutch at short-term straws.

[James Hellyer]

SInce starting to read it I have become more and more dismayed at the true believers who ignore things such as the Lawson boom, the destruction of the tory presence in Scotland and the general ineptitude of the tory party for so long.

As a "true believer" I'm well aware that fiddling with interests rates before an election for partisan reasons is not a good thing, that we need to win back seats in Scotland, and have suffered from woeful leadership. I think there's a different way to address those problems than the modernisers do, however.

and then go on to list a load of policies that have already not attracted the public.

Given that the policies the public were aware of were "school discipline, clean hospitals, lower taxes, more police and accountability", I don't think that point stands.

We are in a strategic war with socialism

We really aren't. Socialism is dead. Its place has been taken by Social Democracy.

[Sean Fear]

To claim that that the right wing nature of John Major's government cost us the 1997 election is certainly rewriting history with a vengeance.

[John Hustings]

"How many time does this tiresome line have to be trotted out and shot down in flames?"

It really does get tiring, doesn't it? And many of the people trotting out this line have read the responses -- but just ignore them -- and then just carry on repeating it in the hope that we get too tired to pick them up (Jaz is the worst offender in this regard).

John Major was *not* right wing.

William Hague may have been right-wing, but that was the least of his problems.

Ditto for Iain Duncan Smith.

Michael Howard was *not* right-wing. Far from it. The reason why he had to focus so much on immigration is that he had no other distinctive policies he wished to sell.

Can we stop pretending that the Tories have been radically right-wing since Margaret Thatcher (our last successful leader)? It isn't true. And can we stop blaming the right for all of our failures? It's thoroughly mendacious.

[James Hellyer]

Jaz is the worst offender in this regard

I would agree with that in "principal".

[Mac]

Some of the comments here are madness. If you are bemoaning the fact that LibDem voters are moving to Labour how on earth is a more radical right-wing agenda going to win them over to the Tories.

Cameron has to appeal to the media, it might be sickening but if papers like the Sun turn on him your average punter will be left with the feeling that he is an idiot, that can't be trusted to run the country, no matter what his policies are.

[Rob G]

James/John: "How many time does this tiresome line have to be trotted out and shot down in flames?"
The point is that many of us don't accept that you have shot the arguments down in flames - merely that you have made the same unconvincing points on numerous occasions.
Repeating the same points is unlikely to convince us.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Some of the comments here are madness. If you are bemoaning the fact that LibDem voters are moving to Labour how on earth is a more radical right-wing agenda going to win them over to the Tories."

Well if it isn't our old friend Worzel Gummidge making a guest appearance again! I never said we should counteract Liberal Demoprat voters moving to Labour by offering them right-wing radicalism with fries. My point was that the high-profile concerted strategy of Cameron to woo disenchanted Liberal Demoprats doesn't appear to be reaping dividends so far. Right, that's that straw man up in flames. Next!

[Selsdon Man]

Mac, don't you think that a lot of people are fed up with Blair and Brown's higher taxes, regulations, political correctness, police state, nanny state, EU sell-out and blatatnt lies.

That is what we should be attacking rather than claiming (according to the Observer's article on tomorrow's speech) that Blair is Thatcher's heir and that Cameron is his (and her) heir. The public will associate the Conservatives with Blair's faults.