Greater progress (or more conservatism) is needed to save Cameron from a right-wing backlash

Peter Oborne, on his weekly Spectator perch, is in no doubt that David Cameron caused the fall of Charles Kennedy:

"Kennedy has been ‘boozing’ (i.e., enjoying the odd glass of beer or whisky, and occasionally letting his hair down in private) for years. He would have been allowed to carry on in the same merry vein into the next general election except for just one thing: the sudden emergence of a popular Conservative leader who threatened to reverse the Lib Dem gains of the last decade. David Cameron was Kennedy’s undoing, not secret bingeing."

Mr Oborne notes that Mr Blair is Mr Cameron's latest target.  Mr Cameron hopes to divorce Mr Blair from the mainstream of the parliamentary Labour Party by supporting the Prime Minister's education reforms. Mr Blair tried to escape being too close to the bipartisan Mr Cameron on the education bill by taunting the Tories over their support for grammar schools.  This, Mr Blair hoped, would be enough to reassure his backbenchers that he was sufficiently different from the new Tory leader.  Faced with these tactics Mr Cameron had a choice, Mr Oborne argues:

(1) Keep traditional Conservative policy on selection and grammar school education or...

(2) Ditch Conservative policy and stick close to the Prime Minister.

We all know that Mr Cameron chose option (2).  Mr Oborne notes that "Cameron has been forced to set aside a valuable article of Conservative belief, laying himself open to attack from the Right".  That attack came immediately from The Telegraph and last night from Norman Tebbit.

On last night's Question Time Lord Tebbit warned that Mr Cameron's rush to the increasingly crowded centre posed real dangers for the Tories:

"The danger for him is that that if he moves the Tory party on to this mythical central ground that he will finish in a dogfight with the Liberals and New Labour, all of whom would be saying things which were very similar to each other.  That would leave a lot of people on the Right of politics - voters - feeling disenfranchised in the same way that Tony Blair has left a lot of people on the Left of politics feeling disenfranchised." 

The Cameroonies may hope that The Right has nowhere to go but that's not true.  Some may go to UKIP.  Some (hopefully very few) may even be tempted by nationalist parties.  Much more likely is that many will sit on their hands and stay away from the polling booths.

Discontented small 'c' conservatives may even join campaigns like those that will be run by emerging groups like the enormously promising Taxpayers' Alliance.  James Frayne used an article on the must-read Spectator blog to describe the Alliance's unfolding agenda.  Britain has long lacked a conservative movement to hold the Conservative Party to its historic tasks.  The combination of a more consensual, centrist Conservative Party and the possibilities of internet-based mobilisation may have created the possibility for such a movement to begin to emerge.  This will be a theme that ConservativeHome will be examining in detail over coming weeks.

The one bone that Mr Cameron seems doggedly determined to throw to The Right is his EPP pledge.  Today's Telegraph reports that MEPs who do not toe the new leadership's line will not be permitted to stand as Conservative candidates at the next European elections.   The Eurosceptic Right must insist that exit from the EPP is the beginning of  Mr Cameron's Euroscepticism - not its end.  In itself it does nothing to give Britain more independence from the Brussels superstate.  One policy that would have been good for British sovereignty and our marine environment - repatriation of fishing policy - has already been sunk.

Defenders of Mr Cameron's centrism nonetheless point to the LibDem leadership crisis and opinion poll advances as justification for the Tory repositioning.  Core Conservatives may accept that the interests of the Conservative Party sometimes require some dilution of conservatism but their loyalty can only be stretched so far.  If it is stretched much further there will be a backlash.  It will be a mighty backlash if the LibDems end up choosing a more dynamic leader than Charles Kennedy and the Tories fails to move appreciably ahead of Labour.

Tony Blair is telling his party not to panic.  Labour insiders note that the Government still enjoys big leads on crime and security issues and although David Cameron has only enjoyed good publicity in his first six weeks he remains level-pegging with Labour in overall voting intentions.  What's more, Labour believe, all of David Cameron's really difficult policy decisions lie ahead of him...

Comments

[Gareth]

The loony right of the tory party to join UKIP (where they belong)? When's the leaving party?

[Frank Young]

"The loony right of the tory party to join UKIP (where they belong)? When's the leaving party?"

I'll drink to that.

[Frank Young]

I suspect very few on the right will go to other fringe parties. There will very well be some sort of vocal minority who feel disenfranchised. They'll just moan. It may even be to Cameron's benefit, just as middle class voters supported Tony Blair rather than the Labour party. With friends like Norman Tebbit...

[James Cox]

Great - I'm fed up with the assumption that the Tories soak up votes from the lunatic and racist right.

If those people find a new home and feel disenfranchised all the better.

[Nicholas Bennett]

Soundings at my local ward meeting and amongst other members indicate growing uneasiness about the direction the party is taking. Most members I talk to accept that we must wait and see what the shape of the new policies are (although concerned at the constraints which appear to be being set down in advance of the policy reviews)and give the new leadership some space having been elected by a two one majority.

[James Hellyer]

"Great - I'm fed up with the assumption that the Tories soak up votes from the lunatic and racist right.

"If those people find a new home and feel disenfranchised all the better."

I see the "nasty party" meme is alive and well with this conflation of the party's right with racism. Who needs Labour to amke the accusation when the party does it itself...

[Frank Young]

Let's stop this before it goes too far. It was a little silly of me to glory in the right's disatisfaction. We all have the same collective interest. There's only one Conservative party and we've got to make the best of it by working together.

We, im sure, sometimes wonder why some people in our party are not in others, but that only leads to dis-unity and a boon for our opponents.

We all work hard for the party and should continue to do so.

[James Hellyer]

"Faced with these tactics Mr Cameron had a choice, Mr Oborne argues:

(1) Keep traditional Conservative policy on selection and grammar school education or...

(2) Ditch Conservative policy and stick close to the Prime Minister."

Oborne's choice is a false one. "A grammar school in every town" hasn't been party policy since the end of William Hague's leadership. The policy we actually had would have allowed Cameron to sidestep the grammar school question.

The beauty of the policy was that it neither imposed a grammar-school system or a comprehensive system. It allowed good schools to develop according to parental demand — while weeding out bad schools. It would have allowed a diversity in schooling from Grammars through technical schools and specialist academies, through to continuing mixed ability — and all driven by parental choice in the marketplace rather than by ideologues and state planners.

But no, we opted for Oborne's false dichotomy.

[malcolm]

I am very interested to know where the Independant or the Labour Party get their information that that Labour enjoy a big lead on 'crime and security'over us.
It would be amazing if it were true.

[James Hellyer]

More from Oborne:

"His education spokesman David Willetts has ingeniously come to the rescue by producing a plausible alternative: a renewed emphasis on setting, i.e., academic selection within schools."

Except as John Clare pointed out this claim doesn't hold water:

"Today, nine years after Tony Blair first urged schools to extend setting, the majority of pupils are grouped by ability in English, maths, science and modern foreign languages, which accounts for most of a secondary school's timetable.

"So Mr Cameron's lament that "only 40 per cent of classes are set by ability" must assume that pupils would benefit from being set in such subjects as design and technology, geography, citizenship, religious education and PE. Perhaps they would, but is that really the basis of an education policy?"

[Chad]

If David Cameron successfully pulls us out of the EPP and forms a new pro-European grouping based on nation-state alliance rather than a federalist or superstate view, I am sure the electoral rewards will be unexpectedly positive.

Far from isolation, such a brave move, I am sure, would soon attract other conservative groups who are pro-European, pro-cooperation, but reject the drift to a federalist United States of Europe.

There have been many estimates of how many seats, the few but important votes that drifted to UKIP cost the Tories, and I am sure such a positive move would reverse the drift.

When commentators note that there is little to choose in the middle ground between the parties, the Tories could show themselves to be geunuinely progressive and different with their approach to Europe.

Instead of the rather xenophobic sounding call "withdrawal from Europe", Cameron can send a really positive pro-European message of nation-state alliance that challenges the EU-is-the-only way view.

IMHO, we should not be arguing as for the EU or for withdrawal, but for Europe, but in a clearer, alliance form.

By championing a pro-European alternative to the EU, the Tories could display real bravery, vision and clear water to the opposition parties.

www.europeanalliance.org.uk

[Chris Palmer]

"The loony right"

Who might they be then? There is the loony left in the Lib Dem and Labour partys, but there is certainly not a "loony right" within the Conservative party.

"Great - I'm fed up with the assumption that the Tories soak up votes from the lunatic and racist right." - James Cox

You said it - not us.

This article condenses the arguments that we've seen on this blog since Cameron became leader. Either Cameron continues as he has been doing, or the traditional party reins him in and holds him to account. I cannot see the latter happening any time soon, so Cameron should have plenty of time to do what he has to do, and set about winning an election.

[James Hellyer]

I am very interested to know where the Independant or the Labour Party get their information that that Labour enjoy a big lead on 'crime and security'over us.
It would be amazing if it were true."

It's quite plausible actually, Malcolm. Michael Howard let our lead on law and order sink into single digits during his leadership (and you'd have thought that's one area he could have landed blows in), and public opinion was overwhelmingly against the party line on issues like 90 days.

[James Hellyer]

"I cannot see the latter happening any time soon..."

If Cameron is unable to maintain or grow a lead in the polls then his strategy will face growing opposition. People are willing to gove some leeway in exchange for results, but are hardly likely to shed their principles in return for being three points behind!

It's therefore likely that the choice of Lib Dem leader could be crucial. Someone like Clegg or Huhne could wreck the triangulation strategy.

[Mark Fulford]

The right tends not to make sufficient allowance in its logic for the fuzziness of the human-condition. I agree intellectually with much of what the right says, but my politics are moderated by the belief that you can’t force change. A father who forbids a particular boyfriend will usually find that it backfires, even though the boyfriend is patently lousy. A political party that challenges established institutions will get a similar result – largely at the hands of the media.

In this age of 'information', pressure groups (such as this) are bound to play an increasing role in setting the agenda, while parliamentary parties will increasingly follow rather than lead.

[Sean Fear]

Indeed, James. If we only finish up doing as well as we would have done under David Davis, then a lot of people will ask if our march to the Left has been worthwhile.

[Selsdon Man]

Do not confuse Conservative free marketeers with the racist or xenophobic right. That is a typical tactic of the left and the Europhiles. The free marketeers are rightly concerned at the jettisoning of the Patients' Passport and the rejection of school vouchers.

Some of us were opposed to Howard's immigration and asylum polices. He also favoured ID cards. We were hoping that Cameron was a classical liberal Tory. Sadly, these hopes are fading fast but have not vanished completely.

[Selsdon Man]

"It's therefore likely that the choice of Lib Dem leader could be crucial. Someone like Clegg or Huhne could wreck the triangulation strategy."

That is exactly what I posted on other threads yesterday, James. If Cameron moves to towards social democracy, the Lib Dems may outflank Cameron as classical or economic liberals. Even Ming Campbell is proposing to ditch their higher tax policies. The next few months could see dramatic changes in British party politics.

[michael]

I'm more than happy with our move back to the centre ground and I must say that for every nervous trad Tory, I'm amazed to find friends and colleagues seriously considering voting Conservative.

Tebbit and the Telegraph grumbling actually helps our strategy - but if there does come a time when there is a credible 'backlash' then the modernisers must hold their nerve and not repeat the mistakes of Hague and Howard in falling back on a core vote strategy.

[Adrian Owens]

Selsdon Man is correct.

Free marketeers should logically support the free movement of labour. Certainly many of my clients in the north of England would not be able to operate without the input and work ethic of workers from eastern Europe.

I don't like left-right labels particularly, but if I had to submit to such pigeonholing then I guess I'd be labelled right wing. However many of us on the "right" are not xenophobes and were deeply uncomfortable with our party's immigration stance under Michael Howard's leadership.

[Sean Fear]

The problem with immigration is that it doesn't just involve the free movement of Labour. People who move to this country acquire the right (in due course) to bring relatives in with them, and to claim a variety of benefits.

[R UK]

The 'right-wingers' who believe that Cameron is compromising too much on policy such as Norman Tebbit, are missing the point.

The only game in town pre-winning an election is winning an election. The problem with the media political game that Labour lives by, is that the ordinary voter does not really know or care much what Conservative policies are anyway. They say simply that there is not much difference between the parties on most issues, and pick who they like the look of.

Norman Tebbit is living in a bygone age when people still did take an interest in policy - as policy then meant taking part in a massive tug of (class) war which people thought they could understand. Now people have given up trying to understand.

Tebbit will not change this, but he might persuade people that Conservatives are divided which would be a pity.

We could have chosen Fox and had
a conviction platform. We didn't. We chose Cameron and we have a media professional who knows what politics requires now.

Cameron's response to the pressures of the media battle is to fulfil voter's expectations and ensure that there are as policy differences as possible. Why? Because any different policy will be misrepresented in the media and this misreprentation will convince many voters that Conservatives are not as nice as Labour are etc. So why bother having an intelligent policy platform?

The only antidote to continual misrepresentation is to ensure that all Conservative policies are near replicas of Labour ones. Cameron is right. The media make it inevitable that this approach will be taken.

The only policy which has been stuck to regardless is the EPP withdrawal, and even that is being misrepresented as anti-european - by Kenneth Clarke primarily. With friends like Clarke, who needa enemies? As Chad says (above) ending the EPP link is in fact a pro-European policy.

Once an election is won, then the real policy debate can begin. meanwhile Tebbit is not helping any more. It's time he shut up, and played the game.....a game that is no doubt too subtle for his generation of class warriors to understand.

[Mark Fulford]

"were deeply uncomfortable with our party's immigration stance under Michael Howard's leadership"

This is an example of my earlier point. The electorate was not ready for the immigration controls that Michael Howard presented and, through attempting to sell the message, he turned people away from everything that we offer.

Intellectually it's absolutely clear that immigration has to be controlled. But before we, as a political party, can make our case, the issue needs to be put on the agenda by pressure groups such as MigrationWatch.

[Selsdon Man]

"People who move to this country acquire the right (in due course) to bring relatives in with them, and to claim a variety of benefits."

That is an argument against the welfare state rather than freedom of movement, Sean.

[malcolm]

A very perceptive post R UK. I would agree with every word except your hatred of Ken Clarke.
To be fair to Tebbit he was fairly restrained on Question Time last night.I hope he doesn't pick a fight with Cameron his time has passed and he would lose.

[Chad]

"Some of us were opposed to Howard's immigration and asylum polices."

Agreed, and the "it's not racist" ad was a huge mistake imho.

It is vital, imho, that the Tories control the debate in a positive frame and keep telling everyone what they are, not what they are not.

Let the opposition use the tired old "don't vote for them because...", "they can't change" or the "we're not this or that" approaches, leaving us to push ahead with a positive agenda that defines who we are.

As long as we are telling people what we stand for, and the opposition are trapped by just saying why we are bad, or what they are not, the public will see who is offering a positive vision for Britain.

Let them keep talking about us, however negatively, as it shows who is leading the way.

Labour and the LibDems are already resorting to the wrong tactics of attacking the Tories instead of presenting their own agenda, and this bodes very well for us.

[Selsdon Man]

"Norman Tebbit is living in a bygone age when people still did take an interest in policy - as policy then meant taking part in a massive tug of (class) war which people thought they could understand. Now people have given up trying to understand."

That is cynical nonsense, R UK. Just ask small businessmen. They are fed up with more regulations.

[Sean Fear]

"The only antidote to continual misrepresentation is to ensure that all Conservative policies are near replicas of Labour ones"

I'd have to take issue with that. I don't see how you can actually implement Conservative policies after being elected unless you have actually prepared the ground for such policies in advance.

As it happens, I think a lot of people do take an interest in the policies put forward by politicians. One reason why abstention is now mainstream is because there is so little choice now on offer.

[Anthony]

"I am very interested to know where the Independant or the Labour Party get their information that that Labour enjoy a big lead on 'crime and security'over us.
It would be amazing if it were true."

THe Indy suggests they have been told what Philip Gould's private polling for the party says. It's unusual for Labour to have a lead on crime, but it does happen - last year a couple of Populus and ICM polls gave Labour a lead on law and order (though most polls gave the Tories a lead).

As James Hellyer says above, on "security", and one assumes respondents answer this as being about anti-terrorism, the government would probably enjoy a lead. If the question was about the best party on "crime and security", rather than two separate questions about "crime" and "security" it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see a Labour lead.

[Sean Fear]

Selsdon Man - not merely cynical but depressing.

IMHO, politics is more than just a sub-branch of marketing.

[a-tracy]

I have a lot of respect for Norman Tebbit and enjoyed listening to his point of view last night. His comment about Mrs T increasing her vote during her term -v- Blair losing his voter numbers over the same period was excellently made, as was his point about contractors in a school not being able to continue in term time because they hadn't been security cleared and the irony that a list that specifically excludes someone considered a danger to children is authorised to work in a school.

[chad]

Remember that although many policy proposals may overlap, the key difference the Tories are offering, is policy delivery over Blair's policy promise.

Blair promised policies that appealed to the electorate but could not deliver them as they did not appeal to Labour MP's, so it makes sense to stand for similar policies but show how the Tories could deliver them.

Bear in mind that these are conservative policies anyway.

The Tories are reclaiming their own clothes and showing how only they can actually deliver, not stealing anything from Blair.

[Andy Peterkin]

What are these "conservative policies" that Blair has been offering, Chad?

[Mark Fulford]

"Free marketeers should logically support the free movement of labour. Certainly many of my clients in the north of England would not be able to operate without the input and work ethic of workers from eastern Europe."

A free market is a good starting philosophy, not a holy grail.

As you point out, if a business needs workers, a free market allows it to go to the best source. However, imported labour places pressure on housing and other infrastructure that is borne by neighbours. In a genuinely free market, the neighbours would bill the business for the extra costs and loss of amenity that they suffer.

I find that passionate free marketeers often underestimate or ignore business costs (often intangible) borne by society; costs such as pollution, quality of life, natural resources, health, etc.

[a-tracy]

Don't worry Mark free marketeers are seeing their opportunity in other Countries and moving our jobs out, let's hope the remaining businesses can support the costs of society.

[R UK]

Malcolm - hatred is too strong a word for how I perceive Ken Clarke - misguided, wrong, blind, immoral, out of time, strangely tolerant of corruption, aggressive against democracy, manipulative, arrogant - but also charming, lucid, good in his day and certainly a character.

Politics is like that. You find yourself up against people you like sometimes, and allying with people you don't much like. What was it Churchill said about the opposition? They're not your enemies. Your enemies are behind you! etc

Clarke attacked Roger Helmer as an extremist on national radio when he asked questions about evidence of the corrupt practices of Barroso the Commission President. It's just nonsense.

Clarke attacked Cameron on Channel 4 on the EPP before he ahd even won the leadership. He's simply obsessed with protecting the fraudulent truth that is the EU.

maybe because he personally introduced the enabling laws that entered us into the EU in the 1970's. He cannot admit that for all these years he's been on the wrong side. All the small business people mentioned by Selsdon Man are paying a heavy price to save Clarke's face. He has become a political enemy - par excellence, and the Conservative Party needs to move him on. Rushcliffe?

[Selsdon Man]

Businesses pay taxes, business rates and other taxes. Mark wants them to pay even more - a true socialist.

[Mark Fulford]

"Don't worry Mark free marketeers are seeing their opportunity in other Countries and moving our jobs out, let's hope the remaining businesses can support the costs of society."

The free market allows us to boycott suppliers that don't work to acceptable standards.

"Businesses pay taxes, business rates and other taxes. Mark wants them to pay even more - a true socialist."

I'm a socialist because I believe that business should take responsibility for their actions?! ROFL!!!

[a-tracy]

The free market allows us to boycott suppliers that don't work to acceptable standards.

Yes but people don't - they are quite happy to only pay £5 for an iron at the supermarket without thinking about the UK manufacturers that can't compete whilst paying their wages and UK taxes. People are quite happy to buy their CD's and DVD's in the supermarket that hasn't paid UK taxes which has effectively put out of business small music retailers.

I could go on and on but it would get boring.

[malcolm]

Maybe I'm a socialist too in that case Selsdon.
You know my views on the EU RUK,it's just that I also believe that Clarkes'qualities outweigh the fact that he's wrong on this question.

[Chad]

Andy asked:
"What are these "conservative policies" that Blair has been offering, Chad?"

Hi Andy,
Remember that Cameron told Blair to be as bold as he liked on his Schools policy as the Conservatives would support it.

This is an aim to move power away from government and so, I would suggest is a "small government" and hence essentially conservative idea.

There certainly would not be so much dissent from the Labour backbenchers if it was not such a conservative idea, and shows that Blair is coming towards conservative policies rather than Cameron just moving towards Blair.

This is a great example of where Blair is closer aligned to the Tories than his own party, and (most likely) can only deliver his plan with their support.

[Richard Bailey]

Two quick points:

First - the ruination of Blair has always been the most important step in destroying New Labour and then to regaining power. Now that we have someone who is determined and clever enough to achieve it, we should let him get on with it. It is crucial to a future Tory resurgence that Blair leaves in as much disarray as is humanly possible. Cameron also knows it is crucial to achieve this as early in the electoral cycle as possible so that there is time to recover from the tactics used before the next election.

Second - what Tebbit's "left and right" groups forget (constantly) is that alone neither are powerful enough to win an election. Elections are won when one side or other successfully woos the centre ground. They do this by connecting with the character and mood of this group. Cameron is achieving this.

You must remember to start from the understanding that the electorate wants this to change AS LITTLE as possible. With no great problems of our time, elections are being won in the crowded centre. So you have to be in it to win it.

No sense fighting a campaign on dogmatic hard right policies - just bleed them in gently when you get there.

[Sean Fear]

One should not assume that just because the Labour Left is upset about something, that Blair is actually doing the right thing.

As far as I can tell, the school reforms that so enrage Labour's Left are of footling triviality.

[Mark Fulford]

"Yes but people don't - they are quite happy to only pay £5 for an iron at the supermarket without thinking about the UK manufacturers that can't compete whilst paying their wages and UK taxes." -- a-tracey

On the smoking thread, James H posted yesterday to explain why we shouldn't have regulation to make up for people's inability to boycott.

[James Maskell]

Are you arguing that Camerons moving towards Blair in fact is just Blair moving to the right and that Cameron isnt moving as far to the left as we think, Chad?

[Oberon Houston]

His strategy will work, because for every UKIP convert there will be 100 ABC men and women that will listen to us now. And many of these people will count double in many constituents (i.e. extra vote for us at the expense of one lost to the current Labour MP). I was listening to R4 the other day and for the first time in years I have heard a group of middle-class women that were Lib-Lab in May saying that if (if) Camerons positioning is real, they will switch to the Tories. If we deliver and are consistent, these voters will allow us to be more adventurous in the future, but only after we show we can be trusted on a moderade agenda. It is for these two essential reasons that Peter's article is unimpressive.

[Peter]

Again we get the people who say that MEPs have to support the line by Cameron. Sorry but in a democratic party we should have a vote on policies first or did we just a elect someone who just thinks that the only people who have rights are the people at central office.
Also I would love to find out who on this board actually turned up the last two selections for the EU elections in 1999 and 2004?

[James Maskell]

Ah, the balance between allowing people to be free and having discipline. I lean towards the Party having to understand on an issue like the EPP, the MEPs must decide by themselves what they would do. It cant be whipped. If Cameron tries to push too hard, the MEPs will just dig harder and -heavens forbid - leave the party. Europe's always been a thorn in the Conservatives. Cameron must let them decide for themselves or risk open warfare. And no one wants that.

[a-tracy]

I'm not supporting more regulation Mark god forbid, I'm supporting level playing fields with regard to taxation of businesses e.g. The closure of the retail giants tax dodge using Channel Island VAT loop holes.

People aren't unable to boycott they don't want to.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Regular visitors to this blog will know that I'm not exactly Norman Tebbit's biggest fan (having referred to him as a 'swivel-eyed fossil' on one occasion), but a lot of the attacks aimed his way on this particular thread are a unfair and reflect that the persons concerned clearly did not watch Question Time last night, when he put in a surprisingly measured, reasonable, balanced and downright funny performance.

He did not attack Cameron at all, he merely offered constructive criticism, which is a lot different from the foaming-mouthed, 'doomed! doomed I tells ya!' rants we get from the Heffersaurus and co, so let's not tar him with the same brush eh folks?

[Derek]

David Cameron's strategy will be dictated by the polls.If he can establish a lead, that will vindicate his strategy. If not, then he will eventually be forced to appeal to his core voters.

[James Maskell]

The problem Cameron is facing stems from your point Derek. Hes set his path as being much more left wing than the Conservatives are typically accustomed. If he was to turn back now it would be held against him IMO. He would be seen as weak. Also if he had to go back towards charming the core vote he would almost certainly have to pull off some U-turns and that gives the ball back to Labour.

[Ted]

DVA I agree - Tebbit seems to recognise Cameron is playing political chess - Norman's concerned about the pawns being sacrificed and unsure of the strategy but wants him to win.

If you go on the electoral calculus site and feed in the numbers you get a feel for how difficult it will be for the party to win the next election - DC has to play the game very careully, he must position us as the safe pair of hands to take over from a failed government (either because its run out of ideas and has nowhere to go or that its flailing around unable to take the right decisions). Having an early success on LDs he now has to fatally weaken Blair so Brown takes over a failing party.

He's only been leader for just over a month - and having promised change thats what he's doing - but lets wait a bit longer before we start second guessing where he's taking us and going into attack mode.

[johnC]

"Remember that Cameron told Blair to be as bold as he liked on his Schools policy as the Conservatives would support it.

This is an aim to move power away from government and so, I would suggest is a "small government" and hence essentially conservative idea."

Chad is right. What has happened is that Blair has realised that many of the Conservative public sector reforms of the 1990s which took powers away from the state and which he abolished on coming to power(Grant Maintained schools, Independent NHS Trusts etc.) were in fact the only way forward so now he is reintroducing them under a new name (Trust Schools and Foundation Hospitals). However he is having problems taking a large chunk of his party with him. Cameron has seized on this split and is trying to widen it by promising to support Blair to see the legislation through. But he needs to capitalise on this golden opportunity. He should seek to rewrite the political narrative of the 1990's in order to persuade the electorate that the Tories were right about their public sector reforms all along, and Labour was shortsighted and retrograde in abolishing them (ditto nursery school vouchers). Too often he still sounds apologetic about the Tory past. He should also stop rejecting all the ideas for taking these reforms further (school vouchers, patient passports, extension of academic selection, insurance-based NHS funding) in order to continue to set the agenda. Otherwise his support for Blair over health and education reforms looks merely opportunist.

[Chad]

James asked:
"Are you arguing that Camerons moving towards Blair in fact is just Blair moving to the right and that Cameron isnt moving as far to the left as we think, Chad?"

No James, I wasn't. I was responding to Andy who asked me to name a Blair policy that I considered to be Conservative.

Cameron is moving more to the left, not to the left wing. The Conservative party is centre-right, but has been perceived as being too much "right" and not enough "centre".

Cameron is just seeking to restore that balance, imho.

[Wat Tyler]

As I've posted before, for us smaller state free marketeers, DC's Conservatives are now effectively a lost cause. His priority is a Conservative victory, and so far his softer centreground positioning seems to be doing the trick. Fine.

What we now need to do is to find some other way of getting heard. Personally, I'm coming round to the thought that a Clegg LD party might look interesting. But more realistically and practically, we all need to get involved with campaigning groups. We need to work on public opinion directly, not just hope we can somehow do it through our centrist party political mush.

And I agree with our Ed- the Taxpayers Alliance looks like an excellent prospect. May I commend it to you all.

[Chad]

His priority is a Conservative victory
Thank f**k for that!

Wat, what is the point of a political party that does not have the main priority to win elections?

I find this a bizarre and regular criticism of all political parties. You can't deliver your agenda without first winning power, so naturally it is the main priority.

If you are just campaigning for a particular cause, then you are a pressure group, not a political party.

[Sean Fear]

Well, of course, you must do both Chad. Merely holding office is pointless unless you do something with it. You won't do anything with it, unless you persuade the public to move in your direction.

How many people here would be content with a government that acted in much the same way as Blair's, but was led by a Conservative?

[James Maskell]

The problem appears when you give up everything for that election victory, including your principles.

[Jaz]

"His priority is a Conservative victory
Thank f**k for that!

Wat, what is the point of a political party that does not have the main priority to win elections?

I find this a bizarre and regular criticism of all political parties. You can't deliver your agenda without first winning power, so naturally it is the main priority.

If you are just campaigning for a particular cause, then you are a pressure group, not a political party."

Win first, principals later. If we don't win the principals are useless and can't be applied. the point of a political party is to win, if you don't win..you're protesting..which is usually useless...

[Andrew]

I really don't understand all these 'winning is everything and the only thing' people. Winning is the first step. We need a plan for what happens once we actually get into office, and we need a mandate to implement that plan. Just saying that we'll do what Labour want to do, only better, just isn't convincing.

[Sean Fear]

If we win without having any principals, then any win is useless Jaz.

[Sean Fear]

Whoops, principles!

[Oberon Houston]

There is a big difference between adapting policies that the electorate are comfortable and being ideologically rooted to the spot.

Principles are much more flexible than that, and people will see a big difference with a Cameron-led Conservative party in power that uses ‘Conservative Principles’, it may not conform to a Right-Wing Ideologues preferences, but it will suit the Country, and me, just fine.

[James Hellyer]

"I really don't understand all these 'winning is everything and the only thing' people. Winning is the first step."

Exactly. Newt Gingritch made this observation in yesterday's Telegraph:

"For most of modern conservatism the primary job of their leadership has been to acquire power," he said. "Thatcher was remarkable because she thought they should acquire power for a purpose.

"You could argue that a pale version of Tony Blair may be the best technique for achieving power against [Gordon] Brown.

"The question then is what would you do with it. I come from a very different tradition, the tradition of Thatcher, Reagan and de Gaulle: first, you figure out what the country really needs, then you tell the country the truth, and the country has to decide whether it is adult enough to get what it really needs.

"Politicians who are too timid to do that can't do it."

[James Hellyer]

"There is a big difference between adapting policies that the electorate are comfortable and being ideologically rooted to the spot."

I do love the false dichotomies that turn up on this blog.

[James Maskell]

Principles arent meant to be flexible. They are supposed to be hard statements that a person or organisation believes and which all actions stem from. If they are flexible then they arent principles, they're guidelines, and poor ones at that.

[ted]

Sean, James, Wat

DC has not given up principles - I agree he's moved the party's appeal more to the left but that only takes us to where we were under Thatcher - she agreed with funding the NHS through taxation rather than insurance, she was never sold on idea of school vouchers. Blair's victory was through appropriating much of our ground but offering a more compassionate version. Responding by creating clear blue water that positioned us even more right of the mass of electorate isn't a sensible strategy.

I agree with much of what you support and also agree its sensible to move political thought forward by engaging with outside think tanks etc but lets remember that in around 36 months we will most probablty be at the start of the 2009 election campaign.

If we don't do well in 3 years time then we face becoming the third party - as has happened to us in Scotland already, where Labour, LDems and Nats are all following policies that would be ruinous without England's subsidy.

I do not believe that going into 2009 with a re-hash of the last three manifestos but a nicer leader is a winning proposition. Lets not do what we are saying DC is doing and reject any alternatives - patients passports etc are means to an end, why should we assume they are the only means that can deliver efficient effective public services - lets be open to new ways, more popular ways of achieving the ends we want.

and yes let's get involved in moving public opinion but lets not "write off" our party, its still the vehicle for getting any of our policies into practice.

[Wat Tyler]

Of course I'd prefer Cameron's Tories to Blair's Labour- let alone Brown's Labour. But everything I've heard from DC tells me he won't try moving ahead of the centreground on small statism.

And as for those who say "take it easy- once we're in power, we can start to shimmy in a few of our own beliefs"...we know what the Blair Book says- as soon as you get to No 10, your Number One priority is getting back in again. Suddenly starting to listen to your own party's "ideologues" just ain't in the script. Listen to Nick Boles.

So those of us who bizarrely want to pursue our ideas for that Better World, rather than simply power for power's sake, have to find some other way.

[Esbonio]

If the strategy is to win the centre ground (in the hope of winning the next election) by imitating New Labour and by appearing to avoid as many policy differences as possible,
it strikes me (to say the least) as very unsatisfactory.

In the first instance it is cynical and contemptuous of the traditional Tory voters. Secondly, if it does not deliver electoral success, what would be left of the Tory party? Thirdly, from the traditional Tory voters' persective, why vote Conservative if you get Labour policies? (If the answer to my last point is that an incoming Tory party would in reality be different from Labour, some voters are likely to feel very disappointed with if it turns out it has all been smoke and mirrors and positioning).

Maybe I am naive but I do believe that at some stage (even if it is not until the manifesto) the Tories will have to produce policies for which they will be liable to account to electors both before and after the election.

On a related point it has been suggested elsewhere on this blog that we live in relatively benign times which are conducive to a policy of occupying the centre. It would be foolish to rely in strategy terms on this perception staying the same.

[Sean Fear]

Ted, I'm not writing off the Conservatives or asking for detailed policies at this stage.

What worries me is (a) the way that important areas for debate (like health and education) have effectively been shut down; (b) the pandering to the Left on issues like the environment and business; (c) control of the party by clique, through measures such as the A List.

I'm not asking for a rehash of the last three manifestos either. But I agree absolutely with Gingrich. Ask ourselves how we think this country could be made a better place to live in, and then sell it to the public.

[BB]

The backlash is happening already and all the signs are that Cameron hasn't a clue how to deal with it.

The sooner this nasty little interloper is kicked off his perch the better it will be for our great party.

As someone famously said; Cameron isn't capable of running a bath.

[Ted]

Sean

I agree - thats what I meant about the ends rather than the means. But I'd like us to be more constructive in our approach, not tied to particular solutions but first agreeing what we want to see.

In 1979 I voted happily for a Party I thought could improve the UK - and was then surprised by council house sales, privatisation, tax cuts none of which I'd expected but all of which I welcomed. I loved the optimism of the mid 80s.
In 1992 I voted for a Party that I disagreed with on ERM, that had wrecked much of what it achieved but still thought was better than the alternative.
In 1997 I still voted Tory but with a heavy heart - I hoped we'd see a Portillo (version 1997) leadership afterwards as I was disgusted by Major and his team - never to have to hear Hurd, Heseltine & Clarke again pontificating as "my" party's leadership would have been bliss. But the massive loss of talent in that election resulted in a weak party that imploded.

I'd like now to see the old optimistic, we can do better, party. Even if its only just on the right it'll still be a better choice than a Brown Labour party (that would take another victory as a licence to massively increase the state) or eht new Green/Orange LDs.

And just winning would envigorate the right - as it did post 1979. Its not that DC is a Trojan horse, its that victory opens new horizons and the opportunity to sell from a position of strength the radical changes we could deliver.

[BB]

I'd like now to see the old optimistic, we can do better, party.

Agreed, but the problem with Kameron is that he is optimistic about Blair's scummy Britain.

Did you read about all the violent assaults in the Telegraph this morning? The country gets filthier and more violent every day under this revolting government, many of whose ideas are apparently shared by boy wonder.

We need a leader pledged to clean up Britain.

[James Maskell]

I know we'd all love someone who says they will clean up this country. I would. Cameron knows that this has been tried before and it hasnt worked. His idea is to be positive about Britain and instead of calling it "problems", he calls it "challenges" which sounds much nicer to the public.

[Oberon Houston]

Dialogue on policy has not been shut-down, but there needs to be a clear message to the electorate about what a Conservative Government will do when it is in power. This does not mean that we cannot work on policies that go further than the 'message', it just means that we will need to be realistic about what are acceptable objectives in a Parliament.

The Conservative Parties objective is necessarily limited because we have been held in so much distain until recently it is unrealistic to expect the electorate to jump on-board the old train. We need to change pace and tack, win them over and then think about the best way to take thinks forward. I find the radicals very tiring on this site for two reasons (a) their (Right Wing) approach has been proven to be a failure electorally. (b) Their message that the country will go to the dogs with these radical moves it is hard to believe. The electorate will wonder how things have been relatively okay without it so far.

No right-wing policies have been an abject failure, the majority don’t want it or like it. A useless Labour Party running out of ideas is preferred to that by the voters. Cameron is doing a great job as leader. We should be heaping praise on his first few weeks as leader, not wringing our hands in disappointment and using awful language to criticise him.

I’ve got a headache now.

[BB]

Cameron is doing a great job as leader. We should be heaping praise on his first few weeks as leader, not wringing our hands in disappointment and using awful language to criticise him.

I know what I'd like to heap on him and it's not usually called praise.

I’ve got a headache now.

Aw shame. Go to the ladies' room and do whatever you do in there when you're suffering a fit of the vapours.

[James Maskell]

BB, play the game not the player.
Oberon has a point.

[Sean Fear]

Actually, Oberon, I think that when the previous Conservative government applied right wing policies, they were generally beneficial to this country.

Previously, for most of the post-War period, all we offered the public was managed decline leading eventually to absorption into a United States of Europe - because of our belief that real Conservative policies could never be sold to the public at large.

I am a good deal more optimistic than you are about the ability of right wing policies to actually improve life in this country.

[Goldie]

In the last general election, in about 25 seats the difference between the winning candidate (usually Labour) and the Conservative challenger was smaller than the tally for UKIP, Veritas and other small right-wing parties.

See here:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/05/ukip-effect.html
"potentially, the Labour seats could have been reduced by 19, bringing down its overall majority to 28. For convenience, the complete list is now:

Battersea (Lab hold) Maj: 163 - UKIP: 333
Burton (Lab hold) Maj: 1,421 ­ UKIP/Veritas: 1,825
Carshalton & Wallington (LD hold) Maj: 1,068 - UKIP: 1,111
Corby (Lab hold) Maj: 1,517 – UKIP: 12,078
Cornwall North (LD hold) Maj: 3,076 – UKIP/Veritas: 3,387
Crawley (Lab Hold) Maj: 37 - UKIP 935
Dartford (Lab hold) Maj: 706 - UKIP: 1,407
Eastleigh (LD Hold to Chris Huhne) Maj: 568 - UKIP: 1,669
Gillingham (Lab hold) Maj: 254 - UKIP 1,191
Harlow [Lab hold) Maj: 97 – UKIP/Veritas 1922
Hereford (Lab hold) Maj: 962 - UKIP: 1,030
High Peak (Lab hold) Maj: 735 - UKIP 1,106
Hove (Lab hold) Majority 420 - UKIP 575
Medway (Lab hold) Maj: 213 - UKIP 1,488
Portsmouth North (Lab hold) Maj: 1,139 - UKIP 1,348
Romsey (LD hold) Maj: 125 ­ UKIP: 1,076
Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Lab hold) Maj: 79 – UKIP/Veritas: 1,118
Solihull (LD Gain) Maj: 279 - UKIP: 99
Somerton & Frome (LD hold) Maj: 812 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,531
Staffordshire Moorlands (Lab hold) Maj: 2,438 - UKIP: 3,512
Stroud (Lab hold) Maj: 350 - UKIP: 1,089
Stourbridge (Lab hold) Maj: 407 -­ UKIP: 1,087
Taunton (LD gain) Maj: 573 ­ UKIP: 1,441
Thanet South (Lab hold) Maj: 664 - UKIP (Nigel Farage) 2,079
Torbay (LD hold) Maj: 2,029 - UKIP 3,726
Warwick & Leamington (Lab hold) Maj: 306 - UKIP: 921
Watford (Lab hold) Maj: 1,148 - UKIP: 1,292
Westmorland & Lonsdale (LD gain) Maj: 267 - UKIP: 660"

That was in 2005, with Michael Howard. If Cameron drives out the remainder of the eurosceptics and hard-core conservative and/or conservative turn-out will be lower, you can easily add another 25 seats to this tally.

Just refusing to hold the line, then, leads to a starter loss of 50 seats. This, when the prospects of a hung parliament loom.

Great strategy!

[BB]

She's talking rubbish.

Right-wing policies like immigration control were popular with the public. The Tories lost for other reasons - like having a series of leaders who looked like refugees from the Addams Family.

Kameron may look marginally more human than Hague/IDS/Howard, but he's a pink renegade.

[James Maskell]

Thanet South wasnt decided by the far right though. It was decided by a large increase in the Lib Dem vote. Nigel Farage is a nut. There was also an Independent candidate, a lovely lady who felt that her concerns about pensioners wasnt being addressed.

[Ted]

James
And he's right to do so - UK may not be in top 20 Happiest Countries but its not far off that (no 23 I think).

And I don't want someone who says "I'll clean up Britain"

You can build on fear as a way of getting power - fear of immigration, fear of crime, fear of terrorism, fear of minorities- but in doing so you create conditions of social division. Crusaders for "cleaning up" tend to be those who want to tell us what to do, want to ban things, impose new offences (TB is going close to this in Respect Agenda with increased police powers, on the spot fines, less judicial oversight).

Sorry I grew up in a dictatorship, I love the UKs civil liberties - at least what TB has left us.

And its not a scummy country - its a great country with less social deprivation than most, with politicians who are on the whole more interested in what the can do for their country than what they can take from it, one which offers better justice than most. It has challenges but has shown that it is capable of meeting these.

[BB]

Who gives a flying F*** what happened in Thanet South?

We've just heard about 25 seats where right-wingers screwed the Tories.

If Kameron continues to renegade on trad policies the list will grow.

PS I didn't vote for him. Hands up everybody who did and now regrets it!

[James Hellyer]

"Dialogue on policy has not been shut-down"

Apart from where things have been ruled out forever, of course.

"We need to change pace and tack, win them over and then think about the best way to take thinks forward."

The best way should be to show how your policies and values connect with people's aspirations. I don't believe it's simply parrot what the government says, or to tell people what they want to hear.

"I find the radicals very tiring on this site for two reasons (a) their (Right Wing) approach has been proven to be a failure electorally."

I find the persistent use of fiction and straw men very tiring. These ideas have not been proven to be a failure electorally. Indeed on education and immigration we enjoyed a lead over the government.

What has been proven to be a failure are timid proposals and strident language. Howard positioned the party a wafer thin distance from Labour. He surrendered on tax and spend, and the size of the state. He barely advanced any right wing positions, and certainly didn't campaign on them.

Hague again didn't fight his election on these positions. He fought it on a narrow range of issues on which we enjoyed a lead (er... keeping the £) that just weren't seen as priorities for people.

And the defeated John Major government was noted for its moderation.

I can't see the evidence for your point at all.

"(b) Their message that the country will go to the dogs with these radical moves it is hard to believe."

Oh, and straw man.

[johnC]

The problem is that even a strong
Conservative government carrying out successful policies which benefit the country would face the hostility of the left wing media, particularly the BBC, as it did in the 1980s. The only solution which I can see is the abolition of the BBC licence fee and the establishment of a level playing field. Then the BBC would have to be more responsive to the views and opinions of the general public which it has ignored and despised for so long.

[John Hustings]

The point remains that Cameron is offering no difference to Labour. If the Tory manifesto is exactly the same as Labour's at the next general election, what's to stop the public from reasoning, "better the devil you know"?

[True Blue]

Conservatism is a principled philosphy, rooted in the center right. It requires a man of integrity to uphold those principles. Such a man would not ape the weasel-words and market-lead polcies of a slick, unprincipled faker, but instead make a stand for what he and his cohorts believe.

Either Cameron does not genuinely support the policy positions he is proposing, or else he is not a true conservative. In the first case he is a liar, in the second, why is he leading a body of people who fundamentally disagree with his philosphy?

It's a strange position for me to be in, but in some ways I hope he is a liar rather than a leftist.

[James Maskell]

41,242 voters did. Ladyman is a waste of time, mistrusted by the public, invisible to the constituency. Hes Minister for Transport and was Minister for Health at the time of the election. Hes also a loyal Labour supporter and doesnt rebel. Thanet South was Tory target seat 27

The Green vote was 888. Therefore the Greens cost the Tories the election too...

Did every seat on that list miss out just because of the far right or were there other reasons?

[R UK]

If Cameron announces a new policy initiative of any kind, it will be met with one of two reactions.

First if it seems to be instantly more popular than Labour's current policy, it will be copied. So there will be little political gain for the Conservatives.

The copy will probably only be verbal, without any effective delivery of the policy in Labour's hands. So people will assume the idea hasn't made any difference, and think that it hasn't helped them in any way. It will then be harder to re-introduce the initiative as a new idea later.

If the new policy can be misrepresented however, and be used to reinforce Labour's narrative that Conservatives are a narrow class of snobs out for themselves, it will be so used.

In these circumstances proposing any intelligent policy on the part of the Conservatives, is a waste of time.

The willingness of Labour to misrepresent information, starting with weapons of mass destruction ,and going on from there, is unparalleled in our history. Their control of the media is almost total.

These circumstances are completely new to our political system, and it will take a highly focused strategy to overcome the barriers to the normal democratic process resuming as described by james Hellyer, where policy can be discussed intelligently in public.

Full marks for Norman Tebbit for trying to resume normal political debate, but if he keeps trying, his efforts will be misrepresented as Tory splits, costing us support. In the corrupted system that labour has created, right is made wrong, and wrong right. Tebbit must tread carefully. Cameron must win power, and if that means allowing him to mirror labour's policies, then so be it.

UKIP tendency must acknowledge that Cameron is firm on his EPP commitment, and that the Conservatives now have a strongly eurosceptic platform. Fishing is seen as totemic anti-Europeanism, and that too will be misrepresented. So it too has to wait, while we pay twice the price for fish for four more years. Expensive fish and much else that is criminal is the price of a Conservative electoral vistory.

[Noah]

Editor/anyone:
I may have missed this. What's the evidence that Cameron's ditched the old fisheries policy?

[Oberon Houston]

I thought that Cameron said he wouldn't consider withdrawl from the common fisheries policy (but in the leadership race, Davis said he would I think). Im not aware that Cameron has changed his position on this. What are the consequences of withdrawl? Might be high, as I thought it was necessary for entry in the first place.

[Editor]

Noah,

Owen Paterson MP - who devised the policy - said that he would vote for the candidate who would protect his policy. DD gave the commitment. DC wouldn't. OP voted for DC as a result.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/11/clear-blue-water.html

[James Hellyer]

"DD gave the commitment. DC wouldn't. OP voted for DC as a result."

He voted for DD surely?

[Editor]

Sorry James. Yes. OP voted for DD.

[William Norton]

I don't know what the position on fishing is now, but on 7th December there was a Commons debate and the point cropped up. At that point both candidates were in favour of withdrawal:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051207/debtext/51207-08.htm#51207-08_spnew9

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I am behind today as my pc was down; just read all the posts and there are a couple of comments I would like to make:

Firstly, BB, Thanet South DOES matter; if we cannot gain seats like TS, we really are doomed! Yes, of course the minority parties 'robbed' us votes there but the local Assn is in a shambolic state (very few activists/common sense etc) AND the candidate spent his first six months working as the Campaign Manager for Steve Norris in London! I also found him quite aloof (goodness knows what the voters thought of him?).

Secondly, Sean Fear suggests that we are "pandering to the Left on issues like the environment and business". One cannot deny that the Left has been pro-active when it comes to putting forward environmentally-friendly policies and wanting to make businesses responsibly for their actions - i.e. polluting. If the Conservatives want individuals to take responsibility for their own actions, why not extend that logic to businesses? The Left should NOT have a monopoly on the environment or corporate responsibility.

Thirdly, this question has been bugging me for a long time: what should we do about Tesco? Yes, Tesco! On the one hand we support free enterprise and competition, but, on the other hand, we support local communities and small businesses. Do we, as a Party, ignore Tesco and let it run and ruin Britain on ideological grounds or do we step in and say, 'hey, hang on there. You're doing well at the expense of local communities and small and medium-sized businesses. The government needs to step in and halt your growth'. Is there a third way?

[James Maskell]

About TS, there arent many activists and I think that stems from the fact that its been Labour since 1997. Having Jonathan Aitken as the last Tory MP for the area probably hasnt helped matters either. Help was needed from Thanet North. Tebbit spoke up which caused problems one week before the vote.

Oh well, given that TS is one of the top 140 marginals, we'll be having a happy clappy A-List candidate...

[a-tracy]

Tesco's and a third way:

It's not just the concern about Tesco's advance in their large stores (i.e. taking out record shops, digital, film processing, clothing etc) it is what they do to the wholesale suppliers who service the small independent shops. Small shops need strong wholesalers who can stand up to Tesco, ASDA etc. When Tesco advanced into the small shop sector this hits wholesalers profitability and increases their delivery costs as order volumes drop and the number of shops diminishes.

Tesco in the past ran small stores (they had one in Knutsford) and when it suited they closed it down - I am worried that they are only buying up small shops in order to close down their small business competition then when the sector is dead and gone they can seriously drive up prices, or close down these loss leader stores and force everyone to the nearest large store.

I support my local shops especially the convenience store whose owner runs himself ragged providing value added service to our community. I supported my milkman until he quit as so many of the local residents were buying in from the supermarket his delivery round was no longer profitable - I liked knowing where he bought his milk from, I liked the fresh delivery, I liked the recycled bottles and now I'm stuck with plastic yuk like everyone else. I suppose we'll only miss the small independents when they've gone, and you need to remember small local business people do alot of their buying locally and spend their earnings in their local areas it's not taken out to spend goodness knows where.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

James, I can personally assure you that Thanet North CA, led by Roger Gale, gave an enormous amount of help and support to TS. BTW, TS is such a beautiful constituency - much more so than TN!