Cameron does well amongst floating voters

An article in today's Guardian by Gavyn Davies argues that David Cameron has had a significant impact on the Conservative Party's poll rating - breaking the flatlining trend.  More good news for the Tory leader came on last night's Newsnight.  US pollster Frank Luntz held a focus group of floating voters and David Cameron came out very well.  "Honest"...  "Committed"...  "With Ideals"... were just some of the things the floating voters said.  One member of the focus group was impressed with the way David Cameron had had experience of the NHS because of his disabled son, Ivan.  Another member, a former Labour voter, said that a vote for Cameron was worth a chance - "it couldn't get worse".

There was also a very negative reaction to Tony Blair and Ming Campbell.  Gordon Brown did better but not as well as the Tory leader.

Frank Luntz famously focus-grouped floating voters for Newsnight on the Monday night of last year's Tory conference.  David Cameron did much better than David Davis in that test and it helped drive the momentum towards his eventual victory.

The second instalment of Luntz's focus group is broadcast tonight.  You can still watch 'part one' on the internet until tonight's programme goes out at 10.30pm.

Comments

[Richard Hyslop]

I watched our Party election broadcast last night and I must say I was quite impressed. I am not usually a huge fan of David Cameron and I certainly did not vote for him during the leadership election, I am however very pleased with the "vote blue go green" campaign particularly as it constantly highlights the very good work done by Conservative controlled councils up and down the country.

I am standing as a candidate in London and in my area the Conservatives have done a great deal on the environment and what is more it is going down really well on the door step!

While many of us on this site have continually mocked some of Cameron's gestures (wind mills on his house etc) we all must accept that people are increasingly rightly concerned about the environment and for once we are leading the debate and the other parties are lost as to how to respond!

[Editor]

I agree with you on the political broadcast, Richard. All those facts about Tory councils substantiated Cameron's green agenda in a way that hadn't been done before.

[RobL]

Yes agree with that. I think the election broadcast was spot on. Well executed, positive and focussed on the 'green' record of Conservative councils. In stark contrast to the negativity of Labour's cartoon pap.

[Chad]

Got to agree. I thought the broadcast was good too.

I could never vote for a party that supports state funding of political parties and won't believe Cameron on anything until he delivers his EPP pledge, but the broadcast was both positive and informative.

[William Norton]

Chad: this may have cropped up before, so apologies for asking again (and for going off-thread) - Do you agree with salaries for MPs? Do you agree with the "Short Money" funding to pay for parliamentary researchers?

[Chad]

Hi William,

I'm not keen, but I am a realist so accept some state money is needed for the official opposition to operate.

I don't agree with the current inflated size of the Short Money, but yes, I do agree that there has to be support for the opposition to function in parliament but much less than the current figure.

So, re short money, I would like to see a large reduction in its current size to force some efficiency and value for money on the parties.

However, there should be no payment-per-vote or even allocation per vote type state funding which turns independent political parties into state vehicles and renders them impotent as opposition as they will not bite the hand that feeds them.

[Mark Fulford]

I could never vote for a party that supports state funding of political parties...

I agree that state funding is a bad idea but is it really your button issue???

...and won't believe Cameron on anything until...

What has Cameron lied about to justify this deep distrust?

[Tim Aker]

It's an incredible gamble to lead with the environment as a key election issue.

As i see it, caring about the environment is like asking people whether they want higher taxes paying for impreoved public services. A minority will respond negatively, more so for whether you 'care about the environment' because of how badly it looks on those who do reply negatively from a purely public, floating voter perspective.

My borough of Thurrock is the kind of borough we need to hold to show that we are making progress. We won it in 2004 with massive swings to us, doubling our seat share and winning a clear majority on the council for the first time. Then we focused on immigration, tax and crime, with spectacular results. It's also an area where people care about the environment, but when they get their council tax bills, or immigration comes up as an issue, they soon care about other things.

Interestingly Labour are running on council tax [the cheek of it], not the environment, in their local campaign. So are the lib dems. We don't need to guess what the BNP are running on. If we dodge the issue any longer, we're screwed because it's areas like Thurrock where the environmental message plays well, but not enough to keep hold of the agenda or significantly sway people's votes.

In my opinion, the national campaign is lacklustre and Camreron's jolly to Norway is risible. On May 5th, if we lose places like Thurrock, but say increase our vote share in Kensington and Chelsea, it won't be progress. We'll see if Cameron's green gamble pays off.

[RobC]

An interesting article, especially the following extract. It goes someway to dispelling the myth often posted on this board that Cameron's positive impact on the polls is no different to that experienced by Duncan Smith or Howard.

"On the occasions when Messrs Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard became Tory leader, there was not the remotest of deviations from the levels of support predicted by the trendline. But Cameron is different. An econometric equation fitted over the past 12 years says that the probability that the recent rise in the Tory share of the vote could have been produced by chance is approximately zero."

[James Maskell]

I didnt like the PPB. As Ive said on other threads, itsw cheesy and blatantly copied off the BP advert. Camerons little speech at the end ruined it. His little joke wasnt funny. Big urr urr from me.

[Chad]

agree that state funding is a bad idea but is it really your button issue???

Without a single shadow of a doubt.
It is not a bad idea, it is the worst idea and its existence is a serious threat to democracy.

State funding is the most unconservative, big government proposal I have seen from Cameron. I cannot believe that anyone with conservative values could accept it at all.

The very idea of charging people to vote (which is what it effectively is) is replusive and that is why I will ensure that if no other party is prepared to do so, I will work to ensure there is one place that voters can cross on the ballot paper that will not cost them.

...and won't believe Cameron on anything until...
What has Cameron lied about to justify this deep distrust?
Not Cameron, politicians as a whole. I'll trust the politicians by their delivery not their words. The EPP pledge is a specific pledge that Cameron made and can deliver in opposition. When he does, I will be more inclined to support him on other issues.

[wasp]

I thought the PPB was wonderful and for the first time I think it would have made people want to vote.

However the Cameleon got so much free media that the impact will probably have been relatively small.

It does remind you however that Cameron is really good at the set pieces. The trip to Norway may well get a lot of coverage.

[J W TOZER]

HMMM, Lets see now, everyone is getting exited because, into a third term of a labour government, which has had all of the problems that you would expect: plus Iraq,David Cameron has managed to put his party at level pegging, big deal! The first poll taken after TB became leader gave Labour a 25% lead, subsequent polls held that lead to 15%, 20%, on the day, Labour won with a 10% lead.

What we have at the moment is a flitting 5%, which bounces around between the three main parties. At the moment it has settled on the Conservatives, but these are butterfly voters. At the last general election, because of Iraq they went to the LD's, between now and the next general election they could bounce anywhere!

The problem for most tories certainly tory activists is these people do not share tory beliefs or values, they are probably more Guardian than Daily Mail, and they are more likely to be opposed to such things as free markets, and euro-sceptism, how are u going to marry their beliefs to yours. Any ideas?

[Richard]

"On the occasions when Messrs Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard became Tory leader, there was not the remotest of deviations from the levels of support predicted by the trendline"

They obviously didn't check out the Yougov polls (which have tended to be the most accurate when predicting election results): http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/you020101076_39.pdf

[Kevin Davis]

I actually thought the PB was a refreshing change.

The Lid Dems in Kingston have given us the highest Council Tax in London. What we are actually finding on the door step is that men are into the tax issue, and really are a bit "iffy" about recycling. Whereas the women find recycling something they really want to see more of and vote for. I am not sure why the women are so into this but the PB will have certainly hit all the right buttons with them.

[Sean Fear]

I thought it was a good PPB, too.

Gavyn Davies' article is factually incorrect, though.

[a-tracy]

I first got involved with politics locally primarily because I was fed up with the local environment, something the local council could actually do something about. You know damaged railings, litter, graffiti, the poor standard of the local industrial estates, letters dropping off council owned buildings, overgrown hedges giving an unkempt unloved appearance of my town. An unfair allocation of the Council budget for the environmental issues as we're only a secondary town and of secondary importance.

As for women are more interested in recycling that's probably because it's predominantly us that do it (have to wash out cans, wash out plastic bottles - although my better half comes in useful for crushing) especially if we have children, recycling is a very popular project for school children and they are very switched on to saving the earth for their future.

Plus local people are very animated when a local 17 skip dump is going to be put on their doorstep, or an incinerator is planned nearby, so he may have something with this environment is important message - although the link with a glacier is a bit of a stretch for me.

[Rob Largan]

"Camerons little speech at the end ruined it. His little joke wasnt funny" ?

What actually was his joke? If there was one, I didnt pick up on it. Apart from that, I was moderately impressed with the PPB, as long as it is balanced with PPBs on other issues like council tax.

[Julian H]

I missed the broadcast as I was attending the European Cup semi-final.

Can I view it online somewhere?

[James Maskell]

The links on a previous thread. Conservative TV.

[Julian H]

Good point. Excuse the dopeyness.

[James Maskell]

Thats alright. How was the football? The joke was Camerons first line.

[luntz is a stooge]

I find it incredible that, even after the flack they got following the outing of Frank Luntz as an old mate of Cameron's from Oxford after the pre-conference Cameron political braodcast masking as a focus group, Newsnight wheeled him out again to shore up the metropolitan media darling. I know the white city brigade co-hibit with the notting hillbillies but really, can't they even attempt to be objective.

[Tristan Donovan]

JW Tozer, comparing Cameron's poll ratings with those of Blair just after he took control of Labour isn't comparing like-with-like.

The last election was a significant defeat for us, but the 1992 election was a very close defeat for Labour. So Labour were already in a better position when Blair took over than we were pre-Cameron.

Blair also took over Labour about two years on from a general election, not within a year. He also had a higher public profile than Cameron thanks to his role as shadow home secretary. And Blair had the added advantages of the early 90s recession and the Conservative divisions over Europe and John Major.

[the Prince]

I have to say I enjoyed the broadcast and I believe that the Conservatives are right to highlight those issues. I do hope, however, other broadcasts should go into the value for money of Conservative Councils though not necessarily in terms of council tax. Also a bit about crime might temper the willingness of some to support the BNP. This should be presented in a similar manner to last nights broadcast as opposed to the broadcasts of William Hague’s day that to be honest terrified me. But overall the broadcast was very good.

[the Prince]

I have to say I enjoyed the broadcast and I believe that the Conservatives are right to highlight those issues. I do hope, however, other broadcasts should go into the value for money of Conservative Councils though not necessarily in terms of council tax. Also a bit about crime might temper the willingness of some to support the BNP. This should be presented in a similar manner to last nights broadcast as opposed to the broadcasts of William Hague’s day that to be honest terrified me. But over all the broadcast was very good.

[eugene]

Yes- it was a lovely broadcast- the party was shown to have ideas and actions...in contrast to Labour's PPB that had nothing to say about local issues. However, I must confess that I cannot wait for the next Labour broadcast- that reptile is just so cute!- it gives me the giggles.

[Rob Largan]

"The joke was Camerons first line."

That was supposed to be a joke? Wasnt exactly...well funny.

[Richard]

"That was supposed to be a joke? Wasnt exactly...well funny."

I seem to be the only one that found it funny and I'm usally quite cynical about lame humour. Perhaps I can empathise with the pretend vanity.

[Rick]

Good to see there are people who watch PPBs - obviously you'll be voting.

Most people switch off PPBs so don'ty count on them voting

[Jack Stone]

I don`t get the bit about having to do something on crime to stop people voting BNP.
There are more people in the BNP who have committed crime rather than been a victim of it.
Most people who support the BNP do it for one reason alone, race, nothing else.

[James Hellyer]

There are more people in the BNP who have committed crime rather than been a victim of it.

And the evidence for this is?

Most people who support the BNP do it for one reason alone, race, nothing else

Which fails to take account of the BNP's strange success among some immigrant communities. The BNP has been successfully portraying itself as a champion of the people the mainstream parties have left behind.

[Rick]

Jack Stone must be preparing for a career in Politics - he has that disdain and contempt for voters which is driving them to find salvation - or at least a listening ear - with the BNP.

Personally I think the BNP is a joke and if it ever did get enough votes to take office we would find that Nick Griffin adopted the same policies as Cameron and Blair and Campbell - they all say one thing to get elected and turn out to be similar in office.

There is no harm in voting BNP - it is not really different from the other parties - Jack Stone tells us more people in the BNP have committed crime than been a victim of it...................a sweeping statement.................but I should be careful since we can be certain that noone in the BNP has ever sold seats in the House of Lords for Cash, and that is something not one of the so-called respectable mainstream parties can say.

Now Jack, how many charges do you think Conservative treasuers will face ? Do you think Labour or Tory has more to fear from Transparency International's dossier ?