The four factors that have ended Cameron's honeymoon

Fraser Nelson uses an article in this week's Spectator to suggest that David Cameron's honeymoon is over. He doesn't think that there is a crisis but he argues that the Tories have progressed less than supporters might have hoped.  Internal dissent is one of the four things he identifies as having ended the Cameron honeymoon. He does note, however, that "the internal opposition to Cameron is deferential rather than regicidal."  "The aim," he continues, "is not to thwart [Cameron] but to change his mind".

The four honeymoon spoilers…

Modest opinion poll progress: "On Tuesday Lord Ashcroft, party donor and now deputy chairman, invited Conservatives to a meeting in Portcullis House to hear some bad news. In the opinion polls there is little evidence of the Cameron phenomenon spreading much beyond Westminster. There were encouraging signs of progress — target women voters are becoming keener — but the public remains to be convinced that the party is different from the one they rejected last year... YouGov, whose damnably accurate polling has taken the fun out of election night, had Labour and Conservatives at level pegging in December. It now gives Labour a two-point lead and, ominously, gives Brown a six-point lead over Cameron. Ashcroft’s private polling for the party is a little better, putting the parties neck and neck, but also shows no discernible progress."

Donor disquiet: "The whispers of disgruntled Conservatives have now become audible once more. First come the major donors, on whom the party is uniquely dependent. Stuart Wheeler has praised Cameron in public — but in private is becoming increasingly less guarded in his despair at policy reversals on grammar schools and health reform... I understand that two other major donors share his concern but have agreed to stay quiet for a year to see if Cameron delivers."

Poor campaign infrastructure: "The news from the front is so far grim. There is growing alarm that the party’s campaigning machine has grown inferior to the Liberal Democrats’ — as was witnessed during the disastrous Dunfermline by-election a week ago. Officials parachuted in a candidate who could have been designed by a committee of Tory modernisers: a single mother and professional nutritionist."

Right-wing anxiety: "Meanwhile Cameron is hearing the dissent for himself. His dinner on Monday with the No Turning Back group of Thatcherite MPs (whose membership overlaps strikingly with that of the David Davis campaign team) was far from a jovial affair, according to the accounts of two present. The group offered their personal support, but they made clear their dismay at his decision to relegate tax cuts from the political agenda, seeing it as a momentous act of appeasement to New Labour... Next comes the Cornerstone Group of socially conservative, Eurosceptic MPs who dine monthly under the chairmanship of Edward Leigh. Rather than brief against Cameron, they have decided to publish a series of pamphlets laying out areas where they disagree. They will soon announce their first: a rival agenda for police reform. Next month a paper on education will make the case for the voucher system in schools which Cameron has rejected."

Comments

[Sean Fear]

I doubt if Cameron has to worry about a "bad" result in May (though I suppose it depends what is meant by bad). In London, there seems no doubt that Labour will do worse than in May 2002, which will lead to the Conservatives gaining seats and boroughs, even if the Conservative vote share doesn't advance from the 34.5% won in 2002 (in fact, I'd expect it to be a bit higher).

The other points seem pretty well taken though. If pitching our appeal at left of centre voters doesn't actually lead to a net increase in support - what is the point of it?

[Guido Fawkes]

Tim,

YouGov only gives Brown a six point lead over Cameron in answer to a very rigged question and unreal circumstances. In a straight hypothetical Brown v Cameron choice Brown is 6% ahead. But the election will not be Brown v Cameron, it will be Brown V Cameron & a LibDem.

Factor in that LibDems prefer Brown to Cameron by a large margin and that gives actually Cameron a popular supremacy over Brown.

This has been widely pointed out elsewhere - take note. Gordon is not more popular than Dave by any measure.

[Gareth]

It seems to me that we have to change perceptions of the party that built up inexorably over 25 years. They are deeply embedded and will take more than 6 weeks to change.

We need to prove that we are back on the centre ground, rather than simply assert that we are. DC has barely started the job he knows he needs to undertake.

[Jaz]

I think a bad result for Cameron in May is on the way...and I AM a Cameron supporter.

The underlying problem is the method on which the campaign is going to be fought on. What issues does Cameron have where he can campaign on?

Proper change will take a lengthy amount of time..and I think the May election is far, far too close to really show the direction of progress.

Rightwing anxiety.. I'm afraid they'll have to live with it.. They can't expect to win on every issue.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Fraser Nelson needs to wake up. It's hardly news that the honeymoon is over for Cameron's Conservatives™.

It's still early days, and I don't think even the most sycophantic Cameronites such as Jack Stone were expecting David Cameron to storm to an unassailable opinion poll rating overnight, so now is when the hard graft must begin - Chameleon Cameron has been found out by New Labour, so it's time to start putting some meat on the bones of Conservative policy instead of relying on a glorified rebranding exercise.

[James Hellyer]

It's still early days, and I don't think even the most sycophantic Cameronites such as Jack Stone were expecting David Cameron to storm to an unassailable opinion poll rating overnight

Then why do they keep claiming he already has?

[Chris Palmer]

David Cameron has made a good start. Less us hope that the Conservative party as a whole benefits, as he brings key shadow cabinet members into the frame such as David Davis, William Hague and Liam Fox. David Cameron can use the personal appeal of individuals within the party to our advantage.

[Victoria Street]

Another point on the YouGov poll is that it compares with 9 point Brown lead in their comparable December poll, and a 17 point lead for Blair over Howard in the equivalent poll ahead of the May 2005 election.
Either way, the reality is that DC has made up some ground, which is reflected in all polls.
The question of how much progress he has really made cannot be answered until at least May.

[Michael McGowan]

Gareth's centre-ground strategy is nothing more than reheated Butskellism. It offers the voters a third centre-leftish party to vote for. It will win a few per cent of the vote from the politically volatile Guardian-reading classes but is likely to be largely cancelled out by defections/abstentions from the dwindling number of people who have backed the Tory Party through thick and thin. Gerrymandered constituency boundaries make matters worse. The view from the Tory Fuhrerbunker is consistently that they have nothing to learn from the US Republicans. Yet over a 20-year period the Republicans, just like the Lib Dems, have rebuilt a grand election-winning coalition of voters comprising groups across the nation who often do not see eye to eye on major issues. In the same period, the Tory share of the vote has gone steadily downhill, its ever-ageing core voters are not being replaced and its campaigning infrastructure has collapsed. Tory MPs seem more comfortable with failure than success.

[Editor]

Thanks for that Guido... I'll go and take a look at YouGov's raw numbers.

DC clearly has made welcome opinion poll progress but it's been more modest than I would have expected given the very favourable courage.

My hunch is that voters fear there isn't enough authenticity behind the constant policy repositioning.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Then why do they keep claiming he already has?"

Well I've repeatedly demolished the falsehood that David Cameron 'as' achieved the best poll ratings for 8+ years, but I've yet to see any claims of unassailable poll ratings, even from Jack!

[EU Serf]

Reality Bites.

The Truth is that we are in a better position to sell our story to the voters than we were. Cameron's likability factor and the positive press is to thank for that.

The problem is we still don't know what our story is.....

[William Norton]

Might I point out that these issues have been covered already in an article on the Platform? Modesty prevents me naming the author who writes with such flair, insight, wisdom etc. etc.

[Gregor Hopkins]

We musn't turn and fall back on unelectable core principles at the first sign of trouble as has happened before. I support what DC is doing whole heartedly, we need time to put together a modern Conservative centre right framework that can work electorally. I'm sure all of us in our heart of hearts would like to see a return to Grammar schools and a complete re-modelling of the social services and NHS, but we must accept that's never going to be palatable to the public at large, we can only baby step towards it.

In time, perhaps new centre right alternatives to Grammar schools/NHS etc may be developed that wont cause such an uproar from the naive left. However that's for the policy groups to decide. Above all else however we must stay with Cameron through the next election and hopefully beyond. We need an Alex Ferguson style long term leader, not a Graeme Souness one that stays for a bit and leaves us in a worse state than before, I'm afraid it's DC or bust for the Conservative party.

[Sean Fear]

What's the benchmark for a good or bad result on May 4th?

Personally, I would regard making no net gains (in terms of seats and councils) in London, would be a bad result (very bad in fact). Gaining over 100 seats, and winning 13+ councils, OTOH, would be a good result.

Across the rest of the country, gaining seats will be hard because (a) In the Metropolitan boroughs, the seats coming up were last fought in 2004, when Labour did terribly, and (b) in the Shire Districts, only a minority of council seats are being fought and Labour doesn't have much left to lose.

I'd say winning a national vote share equivalent of 38%+ would be the benchmark for a good result. Winning less than 35% would be a bad result.

[A H Matlock]

Mr Nelson's article sounds needlessly alarmist and pessimistic to me.

[John Hustings]

We had a thread a few weeks ago in which I claimed that that even the most diehard Cameroons must be disappointed with Cameron's poll ratings. They denied it, of course, but it seems obvious to me that they must be.

We were told that we were sacrificing everything we believe in for electoral success. What's the point of advocating vouchers for schools if we are never in government to implement them, we were told. I have been dismissed as an ideological purist, someone whose ideas are not necessarily wrong, but electorally out-of-touch.

But is Cameron really in-touch?

I think people need to question his strategy of being "more Blairite than Blair" (which is *explicitly* his approach). Blairism isn't actually that popular, and no-one feels particularly enthused by it anymore. As such, offering Blairism is both unambitious and misguided.

As I've said before, the modernisers aren't just wrong about what the best policies are for the country, they are wrong about what the people want as well. The people aren't particularly enthused about voting for more "women, gay, ethnic minority" MPs -- this is something that appeals to Tory modernisers, not ordinary people. They don't necessarily want social nihilism, again, this is popular in Notting Hill, but not elsewhere.

All of Cameron's approaches appeal to media hacks, who have been salivating over Cameron for months. But the media love-in hasn't turned into commensurate poll ratings.

Isn't it now about time to start appealing to the people now?

[Chris Palmer]

"people aren't particularly enthused about voting for more "women, gay, ethnic minority" MPs -- this is something that appeals to Tory modernisers, not ordinary people." - John Hustings

I would agree with this - although some would have you believe otherwise.

[Simon]

I have done a lot of canvassing recently in my neck of the woods in NW London.

A sizeable proportion of people who are thinking of voting Tory in May have said they are doing so because of Cameron. These are people who didn't vote for us at the general election.

Two factors to consider in that: it is unscientific and it is London, which is perhaps more open to social liberalism. Interesting nevertheless and certainly far better than the reception we got on the doorsteps in 2002 local elections.

[Stewart Jackson MP]

In my opinion, Mr Nelson's article draws inferences from the thinnest evidential basis. He was obviously tasked with doing a counter-intuitive "Things are going wrong with Cameron" piece. Just one fact: At the equivalent point post-2001 General Election, the Conservatives trailed Labour by 14 points in the ICM poll - we are now 1% ahead, giving an indicative swing of 7% since early 2002. This is enough to garner large seat gains in the local elections and I expect this to happen and Mr Nelson to eat humble pie.

[johnC]

Cameron started off with every possible advantage: united party support, a strong shadow cabinet team and media goodwill. He has now thrown it away with a series of ill-judged policy changes on tax cuts, academic selection, patients passports and student fees together with a number of speeches signalling his clear shift to the left. It would have been far better to keep existing party policies, together with a welcome new emphasis on the environment, human rights and international development (our editor's favourite 'and' theory) and only then if this proved to be electorally unpopular to try a shift to the left. Cameron has now burnt his boats: if he tries to revive the discarded policies and move back to the right he really will be guilty of flip-floppery. What a lost opportunity.

[Editor]

I hope you're right Stewart but your comparison with post 2001 is surely the wrong comparison? The right comparison is with our 2005 general election position as we made progress throughout the last parliament. Progress has been made - yes - but much, much more needs to be done in order to secure a parliamentary majority of just one.

Some of us fear that a failure to tend to core conservative policies on crime and Europe and immigration, for example, alongside the welcome new emphasis on environmental and poverty issues is a cause of the modest progress.

[Chris Palmer]

JohnC, what was David Cameron's "ill-judged policy change" on academic selection? He said there would be no return to Grammar Schools. That is very different to what you are suggesting.

[Chad]

"We need an Alex Ferguson style long term leader, not a Graeme Souness one that stays for a bit and leaves us in a worse state than before"

I just thought it worth noting that Souness took charge of a well supported but under-performing team from an older man who had done well, but his success was not considered good enough. They were challenging for the top spot, but just weren't close enough.

Souness tinkered with the squad, and soon ditched the high-scoring cavalier approach that most would consider a core Newcastle way, and there was lots of initial hope which was soon followed by a slump in Newcastle's league position.

However, Newcastle spotted a situation even worse than their slump, the possibility of relegation, so have take decisive action to end the slide.

That's a bad choice of comparison Gregor, I can't see any parallels...:-)

"I'm afraid it's DC or bust for the Conservative party."
No, it will be DC, or someone else if it all goes pear-shaped in the next 18 months.

[the scotsman]

Fraser Nelson specialises in exagerating his case. Any one who still reads The Scotman will have become familarwith his monthly " Blair about to resign stories" which he has been churning out for years now.

[John Moss]

Various thoughts.

My usual, about the centre ground being the ISSUES on which you must fight - and on which we have not, really, for two elections - not the policies you adopt on those issues. Thus, I'm all for a full blooded arguement in the media about the merits of an insurance based healthcare system and education vouchers as better answers than the Gordon Blairist, chuck cash at it and change the typeface on the logo approach of the last 8 years.

However, we haven't had the guts for that kind of fight - the four year election that Mr Norton referred to elsewhere - and I don't see that changing unless a fourth disasterous result ensues in 09/10 under Cameron's me-tooist approach, if that is in fact what it turns out to be.

Elections in May. Sean's point about the elections outside London is correct, but the story will be written in London by London based journos, so London is what matters.

Signs are good in my target ward in the socialist republic of Waltham Forest, with many old Labour stalwarts professing utter fedupedness and some even switching, plus lots of soft Conservative support firming up nicely. The earlier point about Cameron at least getting us a hearing is also true. We however, must capitalise on that and have something to say.

And finally on that, the something to say should be local. Forget national issue big-picture politics for May. Get on the council estates and up and down the streets. (What do you mean you haven't been doing this since Septmeber? Shame on you!) The electorate are political prostitutes prepared to spread, sorry, vote, for whoever pays up, ie delivers. The repaired street light, the new train information board at the local station, the double yellow lines on the dangerous corner.

If you're already elected, make sure they know what you have been doing the past 3&1/2 years in the Town Hall. If your fighting to win one, make sure they know you're doing it for them. It ain't rocket science!

[Stewart Jackson MP]

Tim - I have never believed that returning to power would be easy - it's going to be hard. But in order to win, we must jettison our negatives and develop a coherent and attractive policy platform and that will take at least two years. Anyone who thinks running again on an overtly right of centre platform will bring electoral gains should read Lord Ashcroft's "Wake up and Smell the Coffee" study. In terms of psephological imperatives, we need on the new boundaries, a swing of less than 2% to deprive Labour of their majority and 4.2% to be the largest party. I not only think that this is possible, I think it is the very least that will happen, so it really is all to play for. Finally, I really do sense a degree of goodwill and unity in the party, irrespective of the excitable musings of Mr Nelson!

[Editor]

I don't think we'll win on "an overtly right of centre platform" either, Stewart. We need to be different than what we were in 2001 and 2005. I've long campaigned for the party to emphasise social justice at home and abroad and am delighted that David Cameron is doing so. Really delighted. I just wish we'd stay more true to our policies on crime, Europe and immigration, too. I think voters might find a broader Conservative agenda more believable than swapping core policies for modernising policies.

[John Hustings]

"My usual, about the centre ground being the ISSUES on which you must fight - and on which we have not, really, for two elections - not the policies you adopt on those issues. "

To me I think this is the crucial point.

The reason we have appeared extreme in the past is because we've focused our campaign on fringe issues like Saving the Pound (2001) and Immigration (2005). This is not to say that our policies were wrong on either of those issues. Indeed, our policies on each were both manifestly popular (which is the very reason they were given such undue emphasis by the leadership).

What we need to do is to have an election campaign that puts the economy and public services at the centre of the campaign (and have a broad set of policies in other areas). The reason we have appeared extreme for the last 8 years, is *not* being "too right-wing" (as is so frequently, but dangerously asserted), but because we've been running away from the crucial policy areas.

[michael]

"It seems to me that we have to change perceptions of the party that built up inexorably over 25 years. They are deeply embedded and will take more than 6 weeks to change.

We need to prove that we are back on the centre ground, rather than simply assert that we are. DC has barely started the job he knows he needs to undertake."

Couldn't agree more Gareth. Now, I want to see Cameron defining a clear, new narrative - an alternative to Labour authoritarianism.

[Gregor Hopkins]

Come on chad, we can go around in circles digging deeper into analogies all day. The main thrust of my analogy is this: Souness took a club with potential but with recently indifferent performance 'Blackburn' and did nothing with it, then he took a similar club 'Newcastle' and did the same. A comparison with IDS and the party is obvious, and to a large extent Howard performed in a similar manner; although not quite as badly.

The party needs stability and for its supporters to show some backbone. Hoping against hope that somehow the great British public will see things differently and more in tune with our core beliefs is delusional. A more Howard/Davis esque leadership would see us mired in the 32-33% bracket, we all know that. What is needed is a reinvigoration, introspection in terms of policy, and then delivery and the hammering home of electorally significant policies in 18 months time, anything else is political suicide. We are currently seeing the reinvigoration (a work in progress admittedly), and I look forward to the centre right policies in due course. Some poeple here seem to want to have their right wing cake and for the public to eat it too. I'm afraid this country has become too passively left wing to stomach it in big portions I'm afraid.

[William Norton]

I'm reminded of the 1990 council elections. Everyone was forecasting utter meltdown for Maggie, but in an inspired moment CCO were able to present it as a referendum on three flagship Thatcherite councils: Wandsworth, Westminster and (I think) Bradford. Result: fairly dire meltdown, but we got back in two of the three councils and the initial media reaction was of a limited success for Thatcherism in practice.

Or perhaps an even better example: 2003. Labour massacred, but the media reaction focussed on Crispin Blunt's tactful suggestion once polls had closed that IDS ought to go.

If I were advising Blair right now I'd be spreading stories of complete extermination of Labour councillors, knives out for Blair in May etc. etc. - because what I really want in the next day's newspapers would be stories about "Cameron fails to pull it off", "Smile wiped off Cameron's face", "Voters see through Cameron's new image" etc. etc. if it isn't an utter massacre. Blair can afford a small massacre if he's framed the media debate.

The fact that already people are focussing on London makes me think that this operation is at work already. I hope nobody here is offering to volunteer for the Crispin Blunt role (or should that be Anthony Blunt?)

[John Hustings]

"A more Howard/Davis esque leadership would see us mired in the 32-33% bracket, we all know that."

This is lazy thinking. Davis and Howard are not particularly similar. In fact, I would suggest that Howard was very much a "moderniser" in his campaigning platform.

[Sean Fear]

"A more Howard/Davis esque leadership would see us mired in the 32-33% bracket, we all know that"

I imagine that if David Davis had won, Labour would now be enjoying a small lead over us, as opposed to our being level-peggign

[Rob Largan]

If Cameron has bad local elections in May, there will undoubtedly be some sort of backlash, tacit or otherwise. However the question remains, will we have bad local election results? Obviously local issues will play the most important role, and from my own local knowledge things dont look all that fantastic. Yes, it looks like we should gain a councillor in Manchester, however in Bury thanks to the shameless gerrymandering at the last ward boundary changes, the Bury Conservatives have no chance whatsoever of taking Bury council. What's the news elsewhere?

[Sean Fear]

The danger with that approach William, is that you completely demoralise those who are campaigning on your behalf.

I don't think these local elections will tell us if Cameron is proving a good leader or not; I think we'll do well, but not outstandingly well.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"A more Howard/Davis esque leadership would see us mired in the 32-33% bracket, we all know that."

What absolute tripe. Got any evidence to back this assertion up?

[Goldie]

This article is spot on. It's exactly what I've saying here for a while.

DC's numbers are simply not good enough to justify his wild movements to the Left.

His position on tax cuts and public spending is ridiculous. "Sharing the proceeds of growth" an incoherent idea that Brown will destroy.

YouGov poll numbers very discouraging. Dunfermline confirming the LibDems still very much effective local campaigners.

And grumbling within the ranks.

As I said before: I expect a bad result in May, followed by recriminations. DC should start worrying.

[Graeme Archer]

I thought Nelson's article was funny. He said something like "Cameron only just level pegging with Labour" as though this was evidence of a two month "failure" in the Cameron project. Gosh. How preferable it was when we were stuck in the low 30s. Erm. He also speaks funny -- never trust an over-educated Scotsman (that's a pun, geddit? never mind).

John Moss is right, of course, all this blather about percentage points in weekly polls is worthless, unless we were scoring in the late20s, as I remember we were at one point in living memory. Would prefer to hear what all the bloggers feel when they're out on the doorsteps, granted anecdotal and of course biased to what the individual wants to hear, but a (to me) more interesting embedder for the empirical data than arguing about the biased estimates of multinomial distribution location parameters (fnarr, {rubs corduroy trousers}
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MultinomialDistribution.html )

Success or failure in May? Keep your eye on Hackney (to borrow from Disraeli; were he still with us I'm sure he'd be knocking up the Queensbridge Rd on May 5th).

[michael]

The impotant thing at this stage is not our lead in the polls, but our share of the vote. A sustained rating in the high thirties is real progress compared with over a decade of flatlining.

On the local elections, we all need to get out there now and work to deliver the kind of result we want.

[Goldie]

Guido Fawkes writes: YouGov only gives Brown a six point lead over Cameron in answer to a very rigged question and unreal circumstances. In a straight hypothetical Brown v Cameron choice Brown is 6% ahead. But the election will not be Brown v Cameron, it will be Brown V Cameron & a LibDem.

Factor in that LibDems prefer Brown to Cameron by a large margin and that gives actually Cameron a popular supremacy over Brown.

This has been widely pointed out elsewhere - take note. Gordon is not more popular than Dave by any measure.

Maybe I'm thick, but it doesn't particularly encourage me that the LibDems continue to side with Labour over Dave. Obviously that means that, should there be real chance of a Conservative government, LibDem voters will tactically revert to Labour.

The YouGov numbers very clearly spell out a comfortable fourth term for Labour.

[Goldie]

PS: All that being said, I was and continue to be in favor of DC as Leader. I was May Cameroon!

He just needs to make some changes. He'll come around.

[William Norton]

Sean Fear:The danger with that approach William, is that you completely demoralise those who are campaigning on your behalf.

I assume you mean from Blair's perspective? Of course: it's a damage-limitation strategy from the top, writing off people on the ground. If morale was bursting out all over Labour right now you wouldn't need to think in these terms any way.

Sean Fear:I don't think these local elections will tell us if Cameron is proving a good leader or not; I think we'll do well, but not outstandingly well.

Agreed. It's simply too soon to say one way or another. If DC had committed an early own-goal and we went on to be massacred, he would carry the can for defeat, but we're not in that country. Expect some disappointing misses due to some good local Labour teams (and some casual local Tory campaigns), some remarkable Lib Dem wins (mainly from Labour in the north, but probably from us somewhere or other), generally solid Tory advances and a few remarkable Tory gains. Insight into the 2009/10 General Election: probably zero.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"A sustained rating in the high thirties is real progress compared with over a decade of flatlining."

Michael, 2 months coasting along in the mid-to-late 30s is neither sustained nor real progress compared with the supposed decade of flatlining. Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard both achieved longer runs at higher ratings. I daresay I will now be admonished by the Cameronite finger-waggers for mentioning this yet again but it's true.

[Gregor Hopkins]

I would say the last 14 years of polling for a start. Howard had a bright start, his British dream speach brough a tear to my eye (I'm not kidding) however it fell back to the tried and tested approach we all saw with dog whistle politics and a campaign that many saw as having racist overtones. Howard may have thought his Jewish background gave him licence to touch the third rail of imigration policy, but it didn't, and the static tory vote is proof.

I saw in Davis's campaign the same shoddy thinking. Davis seemed to think that because he came from a council estate that somehow he could reach parts of Britain others couldn't, while at the same time espousing the same core conservatism (of Major, Hague, and Howard) that lost us the last three elections (IDS had other problems). That is why I think Davis would have left us in the 32-33% bracket Howard found himself in, and the large majority of the party that voted Cameron I would say (likely) agree with me.

[michael]

Goldie what do you think Cameron will 'come around' to?

[michael]

DVA - I should have said consistent, rather than sustained. Howard and IDS did touch the high 30s but only in the odd poll - compared with the high 30's across the polls currently being achieved by cameron.

The important thing at the moment though, isn't the polls, its changing perceptions through the current modernisation process.

[Rob Largan]

I havent witnessed any changed perception of the Conservative Party from where I am standing.

[Sean Fear]

In fact, following the May 2003 local elections, we did move out of the 30-33% "box" we'd been stuck in for years, and again when Michael Howard took over as leader.

Our current average poll ratings are only slightly better than those we were achieving in the Summer of 2003, or the Spring of 2004.

[michael]

Where are you standing Rob?

Ok, so that's an argument to go further with modernisation. it musn't be an argument to start mixing in core vote/populist messsages.

By the way, having just fought a by-election, i have seen a big shift peceptions of the Party - traditional Tories aren't very keen while young, middle class, aspirational voters are very persuaded.

indeed two friends of mine who have been lifelong Labour suppoters have both joined the Party, they are 27 year olds.

[Chad]

I'm sure the next members panel poll will more than confirm the end of the honeymoon.

[Sean Fear]

"traditional Tories aren't very keen while young, middle class, aspirational voters are very persuaded."

Which suggests, unfortunately, that we could expect very little improvement in our overall vote share.

The strategy of tacking to the Left because we had millions of core voters in the bag worked very well in the fifties but won't work today because that vast deferential vote has gone.

[Rob Largan]

"Where are you standing Rob?"

I dont know a single person who has changed their opinion of the Conservative Party since Cameron became leader. Admittedly I am living in fairly hostile territory. But most people I know seem to think the Conservatives would still do nothing different than Labour if elected. Absolutely nothing has been done to change that perception.

[Rob]

Editor

Why do you think we haven't been attentive to issues like 'crime'. Didn't we have a launch which focussed on making the police more accountable to local people (a good Tory policy) and haven't we been tough on saying that Abu Hamzer should have been arrested years ago and that the police should have taken a tougher line on the recent 'cartoon' protesters.

[Rob Largan]

If anything its been reinforced.

[michael]

Rob L. what was the perception which has been reinforced?

Negative, intolerant, populist, right-wing?...surely not!

[Rob Largan]

The fact that the Conservative Party has little different to offer than the Labour Party.

[Michael McGowan]

Someone earlier on made the point that UK is too passively left-wing to countenance alternative ways of thinking. That may be true but the whole point of being a centre-right opposition is to change that way of thinking, not to further entrench the left-wing mindset, which is what the Tories have mainly done since 1945. I don't see Cameron doing much if anything to bring about that change of thinking. In which case the Tories, who in the fifties had close on half the vote, will continue to decline......

[Goldie]

Goldie what do you think Cameron will 'come around' to?

Some different policies and some different tactics. But it will take some time.

[why bother]

As someone who has supported the Conservative Party for over 20 years for the first time I'm having doubts about why they leadership deserves my support.

Ideals like reducing the tax burden on hard working families, and providing social mobility by grammer schools and access to university have been abandoned - so what's to aspire to, or evangelise about?

There is no realistic prospect of improving health or education delivery whilst statist approaches are favoured over plural funding and consumer oriented pressure. So Consertvatives become spokespeople for the problem and a barrier to real improvement.

Finally gimics like having an anti-nuclear advisor on environmental issues, whatever Dave's old school tie loyalties to a fellow Etonian, are just plain barking.

I've a horrible sense that we'll look back on the current chapter like British Airways now does on its PR driven decision to replace tail fin flags with "diversity tokens". When the PR department is in charge look out as you are at the mercy of fickle media spin. Rootless, unguided, uninspiring and fickle.

[malcolm]

Goldie and others look closely at what Guido has to say.If you look at Mike Smithsons web-site there is a very good explanation of the latest poll.Generally speaking it is good news for Cameron(or at least far better news than we've been used to).
Cameron or anybody else cannot wave a magic wand but I'm pleased that he has made a good start,we are moving in the right direction.But for God sake he's been leader for two months, so much more to do but much more time to do it in.
I'm starting to think that Frazer Nelson is a master of hyperbole.

[Jon White]

Malcolm, you're right - he has only been leader for 2 months. But as someone once said (Harold Wilson, I think), "a week is a long time in politics". That would make two months a very long time!
Seriously though, he clearly HAS made a good start, despite what many (myself included) think of some of his policy initatives. Lets give the man a chance - no one can deny that we're doing better than at any time in the last 9 years.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I think the prospects in the Metropolitan boroughs are better than the raw figures might perhaps infer.

Across many of these boroughs Labour's vote share plummetted in their safest seats - mainly due to the all-out elections allowing greater choice. However despite the changing vote share, comparatively few seats changed hands.

This year, with the traditional elections, I would expect turnout to plummet, but that in some seats the Labour majorities will numerically increase due to the lack of all-out ballots. However, the marginals are still there to be won with hard work. If Labour and ourselves score the same vote share as 2004 in the Metropolitan boroughs I think we will be looking at moderate to good gains, simply because the distribution of the votes will change.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I think everybody needs to step back a little bit and pause. Not so long ago the Tory Party was tearing itself apart, while Blair sniggered, having spent seven years successfully demolishing every Tory leader that put his head above the parapet. Now the boot is more or less on the other foot, and the Labour party is having difficulty in convincing the public that it has even a clue as to what it is doing, and at long last the spin doctors are seen for what they are. At the moment Brown exists with an aura of Blair behind him (At least that is the impression that I get), take that pop-star aura away and Brown will look entirely different, dour perhaps comes most readily to mind, but until he is out of Blairs glare, its difficult to say exactly how Brown will come across. The way that David Cameron comes across to the public at the moment is very positive, despite the Labour loving luvvies, and some presenters in the media. When you think of the years that Toryism has just provoked scorn in the media, and now all of a sudden there is a new, albeit reluctant, respect in the air when dealing with Mr. Cameron and his Cabinet. I think there is still such a long way to go before a large number of the electorate will readily feel like voting Tory, but on the other hand as the wastefulness and hypocrisy of this Labour government becomes more evident, plus the emptiness of their promises, that same electorate will decide that a change is necessary, it may not be yet, but it will come. And I don't think that David Cameron needs wieghty policies yet, I still think he is doing just fine. Let Labour do the work for him!

[Bob]

Anyone who thinks it would all be great headlines with no speedbumps is deluding themselves.

The fact is that from flatlining in the low thirties, we are now consistently polling at or near 40%

Is there more to do? Absolutely.

Is there any doubt that the early signs are that Cameron's leadership has been transformational to the Party's fortunes? Not reasonably.

Our best days lie ahead.

[Rob Largan]

The media good will most certainly will not last forever. If Cameron doesnt back up presentation with policy then, the pubic will lose any sort of goodwill and tolerence towards Cameron's Conservatives. And once that goodwill is lost, there will be no getting it back.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

If we don't improve the presentation, then our target floating voters won't listen to the policy anyway. It has to be this way around.

[Jaz]

Rob, Cameron cannot offer those policies..as his policy groups will report after the honeymoon is dead anyway.

Yes, he will have problems capitalizing on the new boost, and things might sink until those policy groups return.

Cameron hasn't really abandoned any policy, he's merly put it aside, or simply not talked about it. There have been a few u-turns, for example tuition fees etc... But really nothing serious. Anti-Cameronists are causing a stir for no good reason... They say he has no firm policy, then accuse him of being a leftist closet socialist...

Honestly, I think Cameron has brought in diversity for the Tory party...In recent years we've been stuck talking about the same issues. Tax cuts, waste, immigration and crime. <-- Not representative of a government in waiting.

[Rob Largan]

"Cameron hasn't really abandoned any policy.....There have been a few u-turns....But really nothing serious"

Except his promise that he will never bring back a selective school system. Seems fairly serious to me.

[John Hustings]

"Honestly, I think Cameron has brought in diversity for the Tory party...In recent years we've been stuck talking about the same issues. Tax cuts, waste, immigration and crime. <-- Not representative of a government in waiting."

We're still afraid to say anything positive about the economy (all we do is try to allay fears) or anything to do with reforming public services. So nothing's really changed: we're still running away from the major issues.

[EML]

I think we have to see who the Lib Dems elect as their next leader, and what effect this has on the electorate.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Except his promise that he will never bring back a selective school system. Seems fairly serious to me.

At what point in the last thirty years or so has bringing back a fully selective education system been active Conservative Party policy?

As far as I can tell, the only time it was even vaguely our policy was Major's promise of "a grammar school in every town" in 1997... and most of those who bemoan the lack of prescriptive education policy probably bemoan the Major government too!

[James Hellyer]

The return of Grammar schools was also policy under Hague's leadership.

[Rob Largan]

Its more of an issue that Cameron has directly ruled the policy out, period. He is making similar statements for short run gain that is boxing the party in, for the future.

Cameron doesnt have to suddenly start announcing specific policies, of course wait for the polcy groups. But Cameron needs to start making the case for the fundemental Conservative Ideas, smaller government, greater individual freedom and how to create a more dynamic economy. More vision than just presentation.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I agree with Rob about 'making the case for smaller government', we have plenty of examples at the moment of ever larger bureaucratic entities which are mostly extremely costly and mostly inefficient! As for 'greater individual freedom', I think that needs to be very carefully defined, aw 'freedom' seems to mean such different things to different people nowadays, even in a political context.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

The return of Grammar schools was also policy under Hague's leadership.

So, grammar schools were in our manifesto in 1997 and again in 2001, both very successful years for the Conservative Party!

[James Hellyer]

Interesting use of the double standard there. If anyone mentions something from when the party was successful, you argue that times have changed, or its not relevant.

I'd also like to see some evidence that tghe grammar schools policy contributed towards the bad results at those elections.

[John Hustings]

Iain Lindley's logic, consistently applied, would see us abandon every single policy we've ever espoused in the last 8 years, since they all "failed" at general elections.

Furthermore, we should probably be advocating the Labour Party's election manifesto, after all that "succeeded".

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Iain Lindley's logic, consistently applied, would see us abandon every single policy we've ever espoused in the last 8 years, since they all "failed" at general elections.

Furthermore, we should probably be advocating the Labour Party's election manifesto, after all that "succeeded"."

Don't scoff - this is the guiding principle of Cameronism after all!

[John Hustings]

"Don't scoff - this is the guiding principle of Cameronism after all!"

Oh, I'm sure there are some things Iain thinks "worked" well enough under Michael Howard to keep, like not talking about tax cuts and barely mentioning public services.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Why am I not surprised that the doom-and-gloom merchants have cottoned on to what was clearly a throwaway off-the-cuff remark as if I'd just been on the Today programme?

I spent two summers a few years ago working at Salford Young Peoples' University, with whole classes of young people from the most deprived areas of Salford and Trafford (inner Trafford bears little resemblance to Altricham and Sale!). Almost without fail they were happy, enthusiastic, eager to learn and smart - yet many of them go on to high schools where three quarters of them (or more) leave with fewer than 5 Cs at GCSE.

That experience is one of the main reasons that I am in politics today. These children are being let down - some of them by their schools, some of them by their Council, some of them by the Government, some of them by those closest to them.

We need a new approach, raising aspirations for all children. They are the future, and they deserve better than the tedious arguments about grammar schools and comprehensives. Those should be consigned to the seventies.

[Annabel Herriott]

Would it not be simpler, with May not that far off, if we all got stuck in, did some surveys, found out what the great british public really thinks, and act on it, instead of running this hot air club? Political theorising is all very well, makes the writers feel better, but how does it all translate on the door step in 2006? At least DC appears to be making an effort to get around and have a look see.

[William Norton]

Iain: I'm not taking a particular side in this discussion, and would not dissent from your preference for "raising aspirations for all children". But I'd like to test what you mean by that.

Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that a uniform education system for all had the effect of condemning most to receiving "fewer than 5 Cs at GCSE". Let us say that this particular system is unable to engage everyone's aspirations. Would you exchange that uniform system for two parallel systems, say one with an academic-orientation and the other non-academic-orientated, where more performed to a standard equivalent to 5 Cs at GCSE? Would your only objection be that parity of esteem could not be guaranteed?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

A two-tier uniform system is still a uniform system. I would like to see considerably more flexibility and choice within the schools system, and an eleven-plus arrangement does not provide flexibility any more than a comprehensive system does - just two groups in which you are stuck, two parallel one-size-fits-all systems.

Children develop at different rates. Some have a clear path they wish to follow, others do not. Some forge ahead and slip back, and some are late developers.

Most importantly, the idea that children are either academically focused or vocationally focused is absurd. You can't say to an eleven-year-old "this is your path" - that is far more uniform and anti-choice than anything the comprehensive system could throw up!

[William Norton]

I'm not entirely convinced that the academic/vocational distinction is all that absurd, although probably a more accurate description would be "pro-book learning" and "not pro-book learning". Some people do have certain aptitudes - I've never grasped foreign languages; can make sense just about of some written (=can guess what it probably means) but useless at spoken. Still, as we say in Millwall, inglese italianato e un diavolo incarnato.

The multi-flexible system you describe is likely to be unrealistic in the current school system - in the old days your choices were driven by what it was possible to fit into a timetable (not sure what the driver is nowadays, probably budgets and targets). Ultimately, it would suggest some form of transferable voucher: every school teaches a core 'national curriculum' and then in the afternoon you go to St Joan's if you want to do French, or St Joseph's for woodwork, or St Matthew's for accountancy for beginners or (perhaps) Kwik-Fit High to learn about car engines.

To create critical mass for specialist subjects, move the children not the schools. The unions will hate it. Sounds a great idea. Why not knock up something for the Platform?

[Paul Kane]

You miss the point about this or any education debate. Teachers need to teach good lessons. School organisation, selection, diplomas, faith-based schools or any other reform will always be undermined if poor teaching takes place. There are only so many really good teachers out there and there are even fewer really good school leaders. Its time to bite the bullet and look at ways of making teaching better rather than reorganising the system in which the teaching takes place. Focus on teaching and learning and sack the staff (at all levels) who do not do the job. Before anyone asks - I am a teacher.

[James Hellyer]

Reorganising the system in which teaching takes place is a driver for improving teaching. Where voucher schemes have been introduces to allow pupils to escape failing schools, those schools have been hiring better teachers, improving management practices, and so forth, in order to keep their pupil bases.

[William Norton]

Paul Kane: wouldn't disagree, but the discussion above was specifically confined to questions about structure.

[Paul Kane]

You assume there is choice and freedom of movement. Large rural authorities do not have competing schools - they are simply too far away to influence each other. Likewise parents with poor educational backgrounds (the very people whose children benefit from inspirational teacher) do not tend to move their children from the local "family" school that has provided the same poor level of education for generations.

Equally, many LEAs are also looking at cutting school transport and this will prevent less-well-off students from travelling to "better" schools.

Basically, if we are to make a big difference to general educational standards we have to have a big impact on those students from "poorer" backgrounds who do not fully engage with schools. They will generally not move to good schools (in the way that their middle class peers do) so we have to take good teaching to them. However, many very good staff are reluctant to work in such schools as the pressure is too great. We could pay them more, but to be honest few of my colleagues would be willing to work in such a stressful environment regardless of the level of pay. A possible solution would be to increase the staffing in these schools and reduce the numbers of students in the groups and cut the number of hours teachers spend in the classroom. Planning lessons that meet the needs of these students takes more time and the actual delivery of the lesson takes much more out of a teacher than delivering to a class of well-behaved and motivated children who find academic work almost natural.

This would be expensive - but in the long run it would break the cycle of underachievement and so save money on police, prisons, probation services and health costs as lower attaining students will grow in adults who put more pressure on these services.

One major objection I have heard to this suggestion is that middle-class children deserve the best teaching as much as those from poorer areas. However, middle-class kids tend to do well even when poor teachers are put in front of them.

Spending in this way really would be caring Conservatism.

[Paul Kane]

James Hellyer - I hear what you are saying, but the whole structure debate is elipsing the real issue.

[William Norton]

Paul - presumably there would have to be some form of peripatetic teachers in certain subjects. Isn't music taught that way (if it still is taught)? You have mobile libraries, in principle you could possibly have mobile chemistry labs or whatever. It rather depends how much you want to spend vs how much you're allowed to.

The moral would seem to be: decide what sort of educational system you want, and build the structure around it (then see how much it costs). The wrong way is to assume you're confined to the present set-up. Where do you stand on abolishing middle schools? Go on, tell me that's where you work.

[Rob Largan]

"the whole structure debate is elipsing the real issue."

Serious structure reform is the only way to long term serious success. Under the current system there are many good teachers, but despite the current system not because of it. The current comprehensive experiment abandons far too many children of a wide range of talents to despair, truancy and inevitably the council estate. A vast amount of current social problems and indeed falling economic competitiveness all comes from a flawed education system. That is the real issue.

[Paul Kane]

Rob - break away from the idea that comprehensive schools are an experiment. They have lasted longer than the old three tier system and have produced better results for working class kids. I should know I am one! My parents failed the 11+ and so went to sink schools. I would have failed the 11+ because of poor primary teaching - no one seems to look at this issue. Your chances of getting into a selective schools depends on the ability of your primary teacher to teach and your parents' abilty to support you. Thus middle class kids living in nice areas that attract the best primary teachers will always dominate selective schools.

Will, I'm not sure what you mean by a "middle school" - If you mean a school that caters for 9-13 yaer olds, very few schools like this exist.

I teach in an 11-18 comprehensive in a socially deprived area. We take everyone and manage a 62% A*-C pass rate. Ofsted say we are a "Good school with many outstaning features" that meets the needs of the local community. Why? Because we focus on teaching and learning.

My advice to all budding policy wonks and MPs is to spend some time in a range of schools. All too often we are a prisoner of our own school experiences and for many of the political elite, regardless of pary, this means a nice safe school.

By the way - posting at half past midnight is a little sad - get some sleep.

[Chris Palmer]

"Except his promise that he will never bring back a selective school system. Seems fairly serious to me."

Sorry, but again, where has David Cameron actually said that he will not return to selection? He has said no return to grammar schools, but you can still have selection without it being a grammar school.

[Chris Palmer]

"They have lasted longer than the old three tier system and have produced better results for working class kids." - Paul Kane

And your evidence is..?

[Rob Largan]

All the evidence shows that the current system makes it much harder for children from working class backgrounds to achieve. Very well known and often quoted figures about state school pupils going to oxbridge being higher in the 1960s than today and the Conservative cabinet of the 1980s having more state educated memebers than todays cabinet. In your case you might have failed the 11 plus, from my own fathers experience thanks to the selective system he managed to escape the backstreets of Salford in the 1950s and get into a good grammar school and go to university. The current system would have failed him utterly and his more practically talented brothers would have been ignored completely.

You mention middle class children able to live in areas with the best schools. The principle surely continues to high school. The current system (or failed experiment) means that getting into the best high school is based on money, under a selective system it is based on talent, regardless of money.

Middle schools do still exist in a reasonable number, roughly 25% of the people I know at university went to middle school.

Chris- "The Conservatives are ruling out a widespread extension of academic selection in England" from BBCi. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4589328.stm

"By the way - posting at half past midnight is a little sad - get some sleep."

Was only returning from a night out at the pub. ;)

[Chris Palmer]

Read the article that you have posted. Again, I think it's very clever of the Conservatives. They are saying that they won't return to the 11+ and grammar schools. This still leaves open selection by ability in the future in another form.

[Rob Largan]

Not all that clever, it would still look like a U-turn.

[Chris Palmer]

Only if we let Labour set the agenda.

[Paul Kane]

Rob - There are now under 400 "middle schools" in the UK. This compare with almost 4000 secondary schools. There are, by the way only 166 grammar schools.

In 1965, when 8% of secondary pupils were in comprehensive schools, 17% got 5 passes at GCSE; by 1998, when 86.7% of pupils were in comprehensive schools, 88% got 5 passes at GCSE.

More young people stay on at school and go to university now than when we had grammar schools.

You also need to look at some of the evidnce you present - you say the 1980s cabinet went to state schools, what does that prove in the debate about grammar schools. Likewise, educational success must be measured in a wider context than Oxbridge entry.

Glad to hear your father did well - but I would like all students to escape the back streets of all poor areas, not simply the odd one from Salford.