Yesterday we posted the main results of January's ConservativeHome.com Members' Panel. 82% of 1,351 Tory members told ConservativeHome that they were very or fairly satisfied with David Cameron's leadership. There were, however, clear majorities of members who disagreed with his policy on grammar schools and his 50% male/ 50% female 'Priority List' for parliamentary candidates.
Listed below are members' ratings for ten of the biggest names in the shadow cabinet. You can click on the graphic for a slighty enlarged and clearer version of it.
William Hague - long a darling of the Tory grassroots - and David Davis enjoy the highest levels of support among members. Mr Davis may have benefited from the dignified way he ended his leadership bid and for having loyally served Mr Cameron since having been reappointed Shadow Home Secretary.
For a relatively new member of the top team George Osborne scores very highly with a 68% net approval rating.
David Willetts who has been high profile in the last week - because of the sex offenders in schools scandal - scores well, too. With a net positive rating of 61% he outperforms Liam Fox on 55%. Dr Fox has been relatively quiet since dropping out of the leadership race last October and particularly since being appointed Shadow Defence Secretary.
Francis Maude, Tory Chairman, finishes bottom of the list of ten. Although 55% of members are satisfied with his performance, 27% registered dissatisfaction. This may reflect the legacy of last summer's bruising fight over members' voting rights (when he was Michael Howard's Chairman) and Mr Maude's responsibility for the controversial 'A'-list for parliamentary candidates. 60% of party members oppose this list. Also scoring relatively poorly is Oliver Letwin. 63% are satisfied with Mr Letwin as Tory policy supremo but 27% are dissatisfied. Mr Letwin's pre-Christmas remarks on redistribution enraged visitors to this site and may have contributed to the rating.
Mr Hague's net rating of 83% reflects the fact that 87% of members are satisfied with him and his performance - just 4% are dissatisfied.
Ratings for these ten figures will be tracked every month by the Members' Panel. Different months will also see questions on more junior shadow cabinet members, the chairmen of the policy groups and rising parliamentary stars.
Liam Fox... 55%? That's interesting, I thought it would be much higher.
Posted by: Al Gunn | January 23, 2006 at 07:50
Seems unfair the way it's done - yesterday you said "82% satisfaction with Cameron" which was the right way to do it. If you'd done it the same way it would have been 66% for Cameron.
Posted by: petersmith | January 23, 2006 at 08:33
Fair comment petersmith. If we had used net ratings (total satisfied minus total dissatisfied) for DC he would have ended up at 66% - you're right.
Posted by: Editor | January 23, 2006 at 08:47
I cannot forgive Theresa May her stupid comments about the nasty party - with friends like her, who needs enemies ? I know she did NOT call the Conservatives nasty - but what other sound-bite would Labour and the media take from her remarks ? A PR disaster, she should go.
Posted by: Alan Douglas | January 23, 2006 at 08:51
Mrs May's and Mr Maude's relatively poor ratings could reflect their participation in and advocacy of the Priority List.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 23, 2006 at 08:59
Liam Fox... 55%? That's interesting, I thought it would be much higher.
If you're voting on performance of the jobs held since Cameron was elected leader, then Hague, Davis and Willetts are the ones who have been given a chance to shine (respectively concerning the EPP, drugs and prostitutes, and sex offenders in schools).
Fox, Lansley and Spelman have had relatively low profiles by contrast, which in the case of Fox and Spelman largely reflects an absence of headline grabbing issues surrounding their briefs. In the case of Lansley it may reflect abject uselessness on his part, as there have been several high profile problems in the NHS that he's totally failed to capitalise on.
As far as Letwin and May are concerned, their views have had ample airing and I think it's fair to say that people don't like them.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 23, 2006 at 09:29
Agree with James. It's hard to gain public attention at the moment if the Party leader has been focussing on issues that don't fall within your portfolio. In fact it would be positively discouraged for members of the shadow cabinet to make policy prononcements at the moment: Cameron is clearly pursuing a planned series of announcements, and bright new thinking from say, Caroline Spellman, on the day that DC was making his social justice speech, would not be seen as helpful at this stage.
Has DC actually uttered the word "Defence" since December 6? In Fox's case, there's also the small matter of having his wedding & honeymoon to attend to.
Posted by: Simon C | January 23, 2006 at 09:49
At the risk of courting controversy, I'm afraid the highlights clearly for me that those such as Maude, May etc who are pushing hardest for reform and modernisation are condemned to unpopularity amongst members while those most firmly associated with the right Hague, Davis maintain a high level of support.
Fox's ratings also surprise me, although he isn't on my wing of the party I thought some of the things he had to say about a "broken society" were fascinating and deserved a higher platform.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 23, 2006 at 09:55
"Mrs May's and Mr Maude's relatively poor ratings could reflect their participation in and advocacy of the Priority List."
I think you are spot on, and they deserve to be at the bottom for even contemplating that "positive discrimination" would help modernise the party.
Their aims are arguably good, but their proposed solution is completely misguided.
They are often described as 'modernisers' but their proposed solutions are decidedly old-school.
Posted by: Chad | January 23, 2006 at 09:56
When you say "old school" what do you mean?
Posted by: Frank Young | January 23, 2006 at 09:59
Frank,
Resistance to a poor proposal is not resistance to chance. They are two very different things.
Lots of us are thinking of new and innovative methods to bring the party into the 21st century, but we do not consider new layers of prejudice called "positive discrimination" as the solution.
As always, I support a "no preference, no prejudice" approach, that means breaking down the walls for everyone,not providing ladders for selected groups.
Posted by: Chad | January 23, 2006 at 10:00
Oops typo: chance s/b change.
Posted by: Chad | January 23, 2006 at 10:01
Thank you Chad.
Interesting and persuasive. Although I’m open to the ideas put forward by Cameron/Maude and May I'm thinking hard about them.
I'm also increasingly coming to the view that it will be beholden on this site to campaign for a better system. Much in the same way it led the resistance to the change in leadership rules. The way forward is for the many critics of the scheme on this site to think carefully about a better system that addressees everyone’s concerns and campaign for it. We should hold a ConservativeHome referendum on a number of different, but well thought out, proposals.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 23, 2006 at 10:10
I don't think any of the above have done badly as Francis who been battered here recently still got 55% which I think Charles Kennady would have loved to have got in terms of support from his MPs?
Posted by: Peter | January 23, 2006 at 10:11
I don't think any of the above have done badly as Francis who been battered here recently still got 55% which I think Charles Kennady would have loved to have got in terms of support from his MPs?
Posted by: Peter | January 23, 2006 at 10:12
Spelman's figures are interesting. How long before she leaves the shadow cabinet. We not only have a dirth of women in parliament but also in our shadow cabinet. Is there any women in a high profile position in the party who could get the level of support enjoyed be Hague etc?
Posted by: Frank Young | January 23, 2006 at 10:30
I think Chad make the point quite succinctly there. We know theres a problem, we all understand that, but the solution isnt right.
I dont have a problem with modernisation. I know the problems with the selection of candidates and the lack of female representation in Parliament, but the proposals are a knee-jerk reaction ill thought out and without consulting the wider Party. Bernard Jenkins says that these changes involve persuasion but it is actually based on threats of future coercion.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 23, 2006 at 11:11
The poll figures suggest that the party members rate William Hague more highly than David Cameron.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 23, 2006 at 11:12
This is all interesting but in my humble opinion it is a bit early to have this poll.As other bloggers have mentioned several senior cabinet ministers have been pretty invisible since Camerons election so whether they have done a good since is unknown.
I hope this state of affairs does not last much longer,we have many talented individuals in the Shadow cabinet and it would be good to make the electorate aware of the fact.
Posted by: malcolm | January 23, 2006 at 11:14
Malcolm, it could be that certain Shadow Cabinet members are being sidelined.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 23, 2006 at 11:17
Malcolm, it could be that certain Shadow Cabinet members are being sidelined.
Which is certainly what Michael Portillo has suggested in his Times columns, when he's said that an un-elected "kitchen cabinet" is who's really advising Cameron. Given the positions of people like Boles and Hilton, this is all too credible.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 23, 2006 at 11:21
Do you think that people like Willets,Hague and Davis will be as supine as their Labour opposite numbers?Straw and Kelly in particular are after all little more than bag carriers for the PM.I don't think so.
I also think it's bad politics.Other 'one man band'operations like Ashdowns Lib Dems or ur our party during the last election campaign where MH seemed to control everything have rarely been electorally successful.
Posted by: malcolm | January 23, 2006 at 11:45
Do you think that people like Willets,Hague and Davis will be as supine as their Labour opposite numbers?
Do you think they're being allowed to formulate health and education policy (where their views are at variance with Cameron), or is that being kept "in house"?
I also think it's bad politics.Other 'one man band'operations like Ashdowns Lib Dems or ur our party during the last election campaign where MH seemed to control everything have rarely been electorally successful.
Especially when the electorate dislike and/or distrust the one man!
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 23, 2006 at 11:47
To further add to the "kitchen cabinet" idea, the positiion held by Oliver Letwin seems to be taking the place of the Shadow Cabinet on policy formulation. On economic and education policies, for example, it's been Letwin and not Osborne or Willetts who's been the frontman. The question is whether he is the spokesman, or the author too!
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 23, 2006 at 11:49
From what I've seen Spelman has been in the headlines discussing Mr Prescott's slip up on his Council Tax. She's been banging on about the anticipated rates bill too. I would go as far as to say we've heard more from her than Hague, Fox, and Davies.
Simon - 'In Fox's case, there's also the small matter of having his wedding & honeymoon to attend to.' Its a good thing he wasn't elected leader then wasn't it?
Posted by: a-tracy | January 23, 2006 at 12:24
Interesting figures for Maude , I suspect he'll probably be quite pleased however. From what I can make of Maude, the more he upsets the members, the more he'll feel his modernisation is having an impact.
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | January 23, 2006 at 12:24
Taking on the points about the lack of big issues some briefs have had in the last month or so, I would say it's still worth doing to keep the shadow cabinet on their toes.
I'm sure we'll do something similar to the debate about the leadership election rules, and host arguments for different options before having them voted on in the panel.
Posted by: Sam Coates | January 23, 2006 at 12:49
A great common sense quote regarding women in government in today's Sydney Morning Herald from ex-minister Kay Patterson:
"I would like to see women in leadership positions in the ministry but I would not like to see them put there because somebody thinks we should have a woman," she told ABC Radio.
"That would denigrate the role that all women have had in the cabinet."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-for-more-women-in-cabinet/2006/01/23/1137864835275.html
Posted by: Chad | January 23, 2006 at 13:04
Anecdotal I know, but my reason for not rating Maude highly is that he seems poor at people management. He came to this blog and sought volunteers, but then did nothing with the willing volunteers he recruited. We were left feeling bemused and somewaht unappreciated, which is a stupid way to daft your supporters.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 23, 2006 at 13:06
My experience exactly Mark.I wonder what Francis was thinking of when he asked for volunteers.If he had any ideas he certainly didn't communicate them to James Mcgrath who didn't seem to know why he was meeting me.A waste of my time and his.
Posted by: malcolm | January 23, 2006 at 19:55