Can the Tories benefit from Labour's woes?

This morning's Sun Says column is unimpressed with Labour's record on crime:

"Throughout the “missing murderers” fiasco, Charles Clarke clung like a drowning man to his claim that crime is falling.  Now we have the truth.  Shocking new figures show street violence, muggings and robbery are UP. Sex attacks are UP. Drug crime and gunshot injuries are UP... Ministers can make all the excuses they like, but everything from minor bullying to machine gun killings are on the rise.  And the events of the last few days give us no reason to believe this government has a clue what to do about it."

But this disillusionment with Labour isn't sending The Sun into the arms of the Tories.   Like ConservativeHome.com, The Sun is frustrated with the Tory leader's near-silence on issues like crime and tax. Under a 'Too late, Dave' headline, it writes:

"Tory leader David Cameron has slammed the government for failing to get to grips with crime and asylum cheats.  That’s a bit rich after ordering his MPs to pipe down on immigration - even though the issue unites voters of all parties.  As a result of Tory silence, the extremist BNP has picked up votes and now poses an ugly threat in next week’s council polls.  Having tried to shed their “nasty” image, the Tories now risk looking like opportunists.  Mr Cameron must hope voters don’t get really angry about taxes – BEFORE the Tories wake up to it as the central issue of the next election."

ConservativeHome has always supported the Tory leader's commitment to the environment, domestic poverty and international hunger but there has been something unbalanced - even incredible - about completely abandoning the core issues that the party over-emphasised at last year's General Election.

Some visitors to this site don't want mention of the weaknesses of the Tory strategy and they want us to focus single-mindedly on Labour's mounting troubles but such an approach would be wrong.  Most disaffected Labour supporters appear - according to the polls - to be heading into the unlikely arms of Ming Campbell.  A Tory parliamentary majority of one doesn't just require Labour to do badly it needs us to do well against the LibDems.

The Tories will make gains next Thursday - partly on the back of increased support from ABC1s who find the party socially acceptable again - but today's Economist sets three reasonable benchmarks by which to judge the extent of progress:

• A share of the vote in the high 30s;
• A strong recovery in London where Tory support sank lowest during the darkest years;
• No LibDem surge.

In The Telegraph Philip Johnston thinks net Tory gains of 200 are "the least they should aim for".  "Over 300 would be good progress," he continues, "and 500-plus would raise hopes of an overall majority at the next general election."

Comments

[Chris Palmer]

Great idea. Fed up with Labour on crime and immigration - head to the Limp Dims who are even weaker on crime (and some of them would probably rather that criminals didn't even go to prison) and would actually like to increase immigration yet further.

Just because David Cameron is going Green publically doesn't stop local candidates and cllrs fighting on the issue of immigration and crime. Everything (or almost) in politics is local.

[kingbongo]

Chris Palmer is right. But in the current climate I think DC needs to make sure DD and the rest of the team are hammering away at the government just like Robin Cook used to do.

I didn't see it but from I've read DD was just too reasonable on Question Time last night.

Nobody working on the local elections should be afraid to rubbish this government on its sheer incompetence, which stretches from the top all the way down to town council level.

Where we are in a two horse race with the Limp DIms we need to stress their left wing credentials, and policies such as 'votes for prisoners' - to help that the top team could at least mention it once in a while.

[malcolm]

It has amazed me that the Lib Dems have been going up in the opinion polls in recent days after saying pretty much nothing about anything.Perhaps looking 'cuddly and nice' is really all that's needed.
The reluctance of both the Conservatives and Labour to attack them does seem to me to be a stategic mistake.

[John Hustings]

"It has amazed me that the Lib Dems have been going up in the opinion polls in recent days after saying pretty much nothing about anything.Perhaps looking 'cuddly and nice' is really all that's needed."

I think that's an indictment on our party, don't you?

[Richard]

I understand why Cameron doesn't want to go on about crime - he's afraid it'll be interpreted as lurching to the Right and only sticking to core issues. But crime is an important topic for many people and I doubt the electorate will punish him for mentioning it. It's more likely to be the other way round. Silence on the issue will only benefit the Lib Dems as a None of the Above Party and the BNP as the Get Tough on Crime party.

[Phil Taylor]

All politics is local. Yes, in Greenford, in the Borough of Ealing, we have recently had a horrible murder and a string of 20 robberies perpetrated by East Europeans.

The Home Office presides over a police force that can only nick a violent drug user after 20 goes. The Home Office presides over the Immigration & Nationality Directorate that lets these people in. The Home Office presides over a Prison Service that fails to talk to the IND so that 1,023 similar foreign criminals are roaming free right now.

We know who to blame. He is called Clarke.

[Voice from the South West]

Well isn't it perfectly obvious why we don't concentrate on crime? Surely we have to "change to win" and if we go on about crime like we've done before it will prove to the public that we haven't changed, and that we're still the same old nasty party.

Spot the sarcasm.

[Sean Fear]

"Well isn't it perfectly obvious why we don't concentrate on crime? Surely we have to "change to win" and if we go on about crime like we've done before it will prove to the public that we haven't changed, and that we're still the same old nasty party."

A friend of mine organised a function at which a senior party figure (who shall remain nameless) argued on precisely those lines, straight after Greg Hands had given a very good speech about crime.

[Richard North]

Absolutely! We can't possibly have the Conservative Party "banging on" about things that really matter to people, like coming out in the morning to find the car window smashed and contents of the car missing. Or the burglaries that happen with unfailing frequency, or the 80 year old neighbour being mugged on her front doorstep ... That really would be "nasty".

[frank aylesford]

Portillo was such a lost opportunity for the party. When he stood for the leadership, so many of us were hoping for a resurgent party which continued to be economically liberal on taxes and public service but which was socially liberal on things like civil partnerships, without being "wet" on crime. This would have been a hard edged liberal party (note the small l). Instead of this he gave in to the Liberal metropolitan elites and gave up true conservative policies as well as trying to change our image. He then lost the leadership election, but Cameron is life after death for Portillo - all politically correct Liberalism in the classic 1980's American sense.

So we're left with no true representative of Conservatism and no party espousing economic liberalism and it's hard not to feel that all "Dave" wants is power for power's sake rather than because he believes anything. Certainly his little coterie seems to regard being part of the establishment as more important that political beliefs. Please God he sees sense or the Party will perform badly and we'll be left with no voice.

Perhaps he could start by ditching all of the political apparatchiks around him who haven't spent a day of their adult lives outside of politics or political journalism. What do they know about real life? It is bad enough that he has no real business or non political experience (note Jeff Randall's views on him at Carlton Communications), but we're stuck with him. Personally, I've never been more pessimistic.

[AlexW]

The argument about crime has to be coupled with a message about social justice. The latest IPPR report (http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/: go to the one labelled "Crime Share") highlights the fact that the poor are disproportionately more likely to be victims of crime, and the impact of that crime is likely to be greater (since they don't have insurance etc.). Davis (in particular) should attack the LibDems and others, noting that leftish middle-class voters are essentially prioritising their own pre-conceptions of crime over those living in deprived areas who are more likely to be victims of crime.

Pressing home a "crime hits the poor hardest" message will, I feel, be difficult to rebut.

[malcolm]

Kingbongo,DD was indeed far too reasonable for my taste on Question Time last night.The performance of this government is lamentable and he should say so loudly and clearly.Having said that I think I think DD is the only senior shadow cabinet minister who has significantly enhanced his reputation in the last 6 months.Where are you Fox,Hague and Willets?

[EdR]

In my experience, the LibDems would have a lot more supporters, including from Tory voters, if people felt they could actually form a government -- don't underestimate them. Their stance on Iraq and tuition fees is popular, and their scrap the council tax campaign, despite being astoundingly misleading, sounds great on slogans. Labour sleaze just reminds people of Tory sleaze; Labour's Black Wednesday just reminds people of the Conservatives' (much more devastating) Black Wednesday. That's why it's dangerous for Cameron to try and make too much hay out of Labour imploding: in any event, the next election is likely to be fought against Brown and the Brownites rather than Blair. Cameron would be foolish to get bogged down in a mud-slinging match with Blair so Brown can ride in as the saviour of the country. Obviously, the Lib Dems don't have these negative associations and so stand to directly benefit from the plight of the major parties.

But that's not to say that Cameron's strategy isn't working in the short-term as well. I keep coming back to Gordon Brown's idea that only when political pundits are sick and tired of hearing something banged on about again and again and again will the general public really start to take something on board. Cameron's green credentials are important: they portray a different image about the party than the dog-whistle of Howard, it's an issue where he can propose changes people might be more inclined to believe (as opposed to the 'save the NHS' stuff every opposition promises), and it plays very well with young voters or soon to be voters who are normally turned off the party.

Playing dominant-issue campaigns in general elections, as Hague and to some extent Howard did, always struck me as a terrible mistake -- far too limiting. But doing so early in a parliament establishes a reputation for Cameron on an issue that none of the other major parties have really made their own. By consolidating his reputation on the environment now, he's in a stronger place to speak about others of his 'six challenges' later on. And if he runs intensive campaigns based around each of those, working his way along the policy agenda slice by slice (the environment, global poverty, police reform, social breakdown, etc.), it could be a very effective long-term strategy, building to a crescendo around the time of the next General Election.

[Nicholas Slide]

Clarke to make statement this afternoon, according to the Guardian

[Umbongo]

Malcolm

If the Conservatives are really only blue Blairites the obvious (major) party to switch to is the LibDems. Why? Because their policy is "the answer's yes, now what's the question?" Even so, in that policy statement there remains a possibility that the LibDems might (although it's unlikely) listen to the electorate and do something wanted by the electorate: rightly or wrongly they certainly have that reputation in local politics.

DC's policy is to turn away from a substantial (and growing?) portion of the electorate (including a fair swathe of his natural supporters) to offer what this country has been getting since 1997. As I've written before, shoot the messenger if you will but, even if, faut de mieux, DC's party (I am reluctant to call us Conservatives) does quite well next Thursday, the long-term message is being shown in the polls.

[Richard North]

"By consolidating his reputation on the environment now, he's in a stronger place to speak about others of his 'six challenges' later on...."

Perhaps you need to read the previous post. Any "reputation on the environment" the Fraud King ever had is now in tatters. It's environ - mental, Watson.

[Ted]

Richard - I feel a liitle childish today so won't bother arguing the reasons but

No it isn't

[frank aylesford]

Umbongo

I agree - and like everything to do with DC the timing could not be worse. Just when the electorate gets truly fed up of insubstantial spin politics as played by Blair, Cameron announces himself heir to Blair and behaves accordingly. As with our policies on the NHS and tax, which as I said yesterday, we have abandoned just as the electorate is ready to become receptive to them. DD did harm to far more than himself and his ambitions when he made that ill-prepared conference speech

[malcolm]

Umbongo, I don't understand your post above.I didn't advocate we 'shoot the messenger'.Nor do I believe that we are 'blue Blairites'.

[John Hustings]

"Nor do I believe that we are 'blue Blairites'."

But does the electorate?

[frank aylesford]

we're not blue blairites - we're just one shade of paler pink

[Christina]

It's no use having a nice clean green park if you get mugged while walking in it. Crime can be argued as an issue of the environment. People want a crime free environment.

[Voice from the South West]

"A friend of mine organised a function at which a senior party figure (who shall remain nameless) argued on precisely those lines, straight after Greg Hands had given a very good speech about crime."

Yes Sean, I've noticed that those who defend the leadership's direction, and the leadership itself for that matter, always revert to "but we must change to win..." line whenever someone voices even the smallest query on the party's direction, let alone direct criticism. When that fails to win over or reassure people, then the "well you’re stuck in the past" line then follows.

Am I alone in thinking that if the leadership itself cannot substantiate the arguments as to why we must "change" without getting past sound bites and platitudes, and/or insulting anyone who dares to disagree with them, then it does not bode well for communicating our eventual message, whatever that may be, to the electorate?

[Michael McGowan]

Surely the whole limp-wristed strategy is being driven by Letwin's desire to merge the Tories with the Lib Dems? Whatever Tory High Command says, the Tories will only skirmish with the Lib Dems, rather than really challenge them (especially their spurious credentials as environmentalists and upholders of social justice).

[Richard North]

Ted says - "Richard - I feel a liitle childish today so won't bother arguing the reasons but

No it isn't"

Now, that's a winning argument, if ever I saw one.

[northwest]

"Perhaps you need to read the previous post. Any reputation on the environment the Fraud King ever had is now in tatters."

No it's not - in fact it's the only thing the public at large have noticed. Oh, and having the only charismatic leader for the next general election.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

The editorial in the Sun is completely disingenuous.

(Rebekah Wade has obviously decided to take time out from beating up her husband to revert to beating up the Conservatives instead.)

Conservative MPs haven't been told to 'pipe down' on immigration, but the Conservatives are developing a broader message which will appeal beyond the core vote and expressing our position on immigration in a moderate (as opposed to strident) tone is a key part of this strategy.

[Wat Tyler]

Well we all knew image led politics was going to be grim, but slumped back on 33% is too distressing to contemplate. Goals don't get any more open than the government's- indeed their entire team seems to have left the pitch today- WATO hasn't been able to get a single minister to come on about any of the current horrors.

And the really awful thing is that Dave's painted us into a corner- if we now start talking about law and order, immigration, or even tax, then it will just scream "same old Lurch to the Right panic".

The DD strategy of rightwing solutions to help our most vulnerable citizens was what we needed... as events since have shown.

Is it too late?

Gahh...I think I've had another seizure.

[Chad]

People like you criticising DC are the reason the party is not leading the polls Wat Tyler, so please stop it.

Less nay and more hooray please. It is just about image.

[J.W.Tozer]

The Lib/Dems are in a win/win situation, it doesn't matter what they say or do,the POWTOT's (P****d off With The Other Two),will always vote for them.The only thing that will ever weaken their appeal,will be power. If after the next election,they enter a coalition with either of the main parties, and lets face it DC is a cross between a left Liberal and a paternalistic socialist, (as were most post-war Conservative leaders) he could settle in quite happily with Ming and co. If the LD's became tarnished with actually having to be responsible for something, their situation would soon deteriorate. There is nothing like power, to make the electorate really get to hate you

[roger]

A repetitive and concerted attack on labour's incompetence over l & o, waste of tax revenues, pensions and sleaze, is the only way to make an impression on the public. Every single interview should be along the lines that they couldn't run a p#ss up in a brewery.
Keep O Letwin completely away from the bbc, who are delighted to let him flip flop about in his inimitably indecissive fashion

[Wat Tyler]

Chad- I understand your feelings, which is why I have made very few DC criticisms here since his victory. But jeeps...the polls are actually heading the wrong way, and most of us who were never keen in the first place have been biting our tongues for quite a while now. Mine's virtually bitten right through.

[Wat Tyler]

And do you really think people like me criticising DC is the reason we're not ahead in the polls? I think he's had very little public criticism from inside the party, despite his team's best endeavours to pick a fight.

I reckon the reason we're not ahead is nothing to do with that, and more to do with the difficulty of selling politics on image alone.

[Chad]

No Wat, I 100% agree with you. you criticism was relevant and constructive.

It is just that every criticism at the moment seems to end in someone believing the only way to win is to become nodding dogs, and I just thought I'd get in with the comment to save them the effort.

We should be more critical of ourselves than the opposition will ever be, so we are fully prepared to combat the opposition.

[Chad]

..I didn't want to add a smiley at the end as I wasn't taking the piss, but seeking to show how countrer-productive the "we must all agree to look united" approach is.

[Umbongo]

Malcolm

Apologies for not being clear. I certainly wasn't accusing you of attempting to shoot the messenger but many contributors to this and other threads demand a spurious and dumb "loyalty" so that DC can get on with his work undisturbed and bring the party to ruin. As to "Blue Blairites" (DC, Maude, Letwin and co); a rose by any other name . . . .

[malcolm]

I can't resist it.Umbongo are you Kingbongo who has decided to abdicate or are you two different people?

[Umbongo]

Malcolm - we're two different people and, as far as I know, not related. He's obviously from a higher social class than me.

A further thought: I realise Chad's response to Wat Tyler "People like you criticising DC are the reason the party is not leading the polls Wat Tyler, so please stop it." was a sort of lightning conductor.

However, the desire by many contributors in this blog's threads and in the party to shut down debate by shouting "loyalty" whenever DC's death march is brought up is exactly analogous to the PC response on, for instance, immigration by which any rational discussion stops when the word "racist" is thrown.

[Paul Marks]

Sadly politics in Britian is NOT "local". People vote on national matters - and rightly so as local government is more than three quarters financed by central government and most of its spending is mandated by central government orders.

Also the idea that local candidates (whether for councils or Parliament) are free to speak their minds is absurd.

Even before Mr Cameron became leader Conservative Parliamentary candidates (indeed even members of Parliament) were being kicked out for speaking their minds (without having said anything "racist" - they were kicked out for things they said about "public services" or about taxes).

A local candidate would have to be very brave indeed to say anything (or do anyting) that the centre might not agree with. Candidates with strong principles or with strong local concerns need not apply.

And with the "A" list (and other dodges) candidates for Parliament are going to be imposed by the centre anyway - using the excuse that this is the only way to get more women and ethnic minority candidates.

Our support is down to less than a third of the voters (lower than it was at the last election) when we should be at least ten points ahead of Labour with the government as unpopular as it is. And, I believe, that our showing in the Scottish by election was lower than in 2003.

I agree that it is absurd to vote Lib Dem - but what is the point of voting for us?

We may pick up a lot of seats in the council elections (if only because a lot of Labour people will stay home or vote for either the Lib Dems or the local National Socialists - B.N.P.). But it is clear that the policy of "ditch all principles and say anything that the Guardian and the B.B.C. might like" has failed.

[northwest]

Irritatingly the Lib Dems are onto a winner - gaining from cash for peerages despite their only backer being in a spanish jail.

But the strategy of making us attractive is the only long term solution - do you think we'd be doing better if people still thought we were stuck in the past, didn't care about them, and were generally unpleasant.

We'd be in a much worse situation than we are now. The problem is that we haven't changed enough, not that our move towards relevance has failed.

[CDM]

"But the strategy of making us attractive is the only long term solution - do you think we'd be doing better if people still thought we were stuck in the past, didn't care about them, and were generally unpleasant.

We'd be in a much worse situation than we are now. The problem is that we haven't changed enough, not that our move towards relevance has failed."

The main reason the Conservative Party has been irrelevant is down to the parliamentary party. After the loss of 1997, the PCP seemed more concerned with settling personal disputes rather than thrashing out new policy. Although there are signs that they are beginning to remember that politics is a team game, most MPs are afraid of suggesting policies that are clearly distinct from Labour, because they fear that they will be rubbished by the press and the government (or seen as "nasty" by such esteemed pundits as Señor Portillo).

Until the Conservative Party undergoes an intellectual renaissance and develops well-thought out policies that are different to those advocated by the present government, we cannot win an election. Why vote for Cameron if he's just another politically correct social democrat?

[kingbongo]

can't resist it.Umbongo are you Kingbongo who has decided to abdicate or are you two different people?

Definetely two (very) different people!

He's obviously from a higher social class than me.

Well, I don't want to rehearse the 'I had it harder than you' argument but just for the record.

Born into genuine poverty, father was a wages clerk with three kids, lived on sink estate got educated had my own business chucked it in and went into teaching because I wanted to make a difference to the life chances of young people.

Don't like the whingeing on CH, am naturally optimistic and think more contributions on how strategy can be tacked and trimmed so we can get rid of this truly awful government would be better than the sniping.

Said it all before, water off a duck's back to the Empire Loyalists but I still think DC is doing the right thing.

[Esbonio]

I also thought Davis was tame on Question Time.

I have have no confidence in Cameron. I agree with the view that if the Tories had not painted themselves into a cuddly feely corner they could be delivering real punches now.

And now I understand Cameron cycles to work with a chauffeur driven car behind him. And he expects to be taken seriously?

[northwest]

"Until the Conservative Party undergoes an intellectual renaissance and develops well-thought out policies" we can't win an election

Couldn't agree with you more. Isn't that what we're doing?

But you're saying these policies must be different from the Government's. That would mean we would have to come out against Trident if the Government plumped for it.

We should chose the right policies - and not be afraid of competing on the Government's turf.

[John Hustings]

"We'd be in a much worse situation than we are now. The problem is that we haven't changed enough, not that our move towards relevance has failed."

Yes, because simpering over glaciers is definitely a move towards "relevance".

[Richard]

"Said it all before, water off a duck's back to the Empire Loyalists but I still think DC is doing the right thing."

Does that include refusing to put more emphasis on crime at a time when it would be electorally advantageous to do so? Nobody votes for a party that is nice to criminals (except maybe the Lib Dem core).

[kingbongo]

Richard - just so you know, I decided to stop arguing with people on CH as it serves no purpose. You clearly don't like DC and I do. The only person I enjoy debating with is Chad and that's because he does amusing adverts on Guido.

[Patsy Sergeant]

People are turning to the LibDem's because in their PPB's they are saying what people want to hear, as I said on another thread. Anybody with half a brain would know that they can't deliver whoever appealing the message, because they would never get a majority in Parliament. But the real issue is where does that leave the other two? Obviously, Labour can't claim, with any conviction to 'be tough on crime', and egercation hasn't improved enough, so they are not 'claiming anything at the moment. Well Patricia Hewitt is, but the nurses don't buy that.
So what are the Tory Party leadership doing, I think they a taking a 'long view' which of course aiming at radically changing the public's perception over a longer period of time. Unfortunately I think this leaves them unable to make the most of unexpected opportunities that arise, like the events of the last three days, particularly the Charles Clarke fiasco. And even the long view is no guarentee of success, with combined antagonism of the BBC, luvvies, comediennes? like Jo Brand etc:, and the press. A lot of them will change their minds if some the policies that this government want to adopt really begin to bite and start to affect the cushy life of these people!

[wicks]

Two thoughts.

i) Is it realistic to expect the Conservatives to be in the high 30s/low 40s when people still feel that the economy is still good?

ii) A more general point, are we moving away from any party getting up into the 40s, and moving more towards a genuine three party system?

About that article, crime certainly might be an issue people are concerned about and maybe moving away from that is a mistake, I don't think being tough on crime makes you look like a nasty party in any way really if done right.

Don't think it should be linked to immigration though, and we shouldn't get too hung up on people leaving us for the BNP.

[Paul Marks]

On this "stuck in the past" stuff.

Anybody can play the dates game. I can say that various Roman Emperors were deeply concerned with "social justice" (hence price controls, confiscation of property, "bread and games" and so on). And Louis XIV was opposed to "extreme" notions of free trade (he liked "fair" trade much better).

So it is possible to call Mr Cameron "stuck in the past".

People can scream "Thatcherite" at me and I can shout back "Heathite" at them.

They can quote Dizzy at me (thus rather moving from the "stuck in the past" line) and I can cite Sir Robert Peel and Edmund Burke.

All this does not get us anywhere.

If Mr Cameron really believes that we can match the Labour party on spending in the "public services" he should explain how this will not undermine the economy in the long term (and whilst I may well fit in to Lord Keynes line about "in the long run we are all dead", I am not in a good position, most voters do count on being about for a few years).

Also if Mr Cameron really believes that we can have powers returned to us from the E.U. (without which all talk of "deregulation" or even resisting more regulations is a sham) without leaving the E.U., he should explain how this can be done.

For all his faults, when Mr Davis claimed that he would return powers to Britain without leaving the E.U. even I found myself thinking "well perhaps he might be able to it".

Would anyone in the country believe Mr Cameron if he said he could get powers back from the E.U.? And (I repeat) without that any talk of "deregulation" is a sham.

At bottom I do not have doubts about Mr Cameron because of his style (although I am not fond of it), but because of his lack of substance.

His association with Francis Maude is not a good sign. Mr Maude is not a person who has "different principles" from "rightwing" (a silly term anyway) Conservatives like me -he is widely known to be unprincipled, and this is not a good thing.

[matt wright]

We do need to present a more caring image but we must do this within the frame of the issues that matter to people. The things that matter to people are health, education, law & Order, pensions etc. Talking about crime will not make us look like the old Tory party. As has been said we can talk about law & order and also show we care as to how it affects the poor and young more. We can talk about long term solutions for youth engagement as well. This sort of practical change, no nonsense, no-spin stuff would go down extremely well and be exactly what DC was aspiring to and so many of us support.

Matt

[CDM]

"Couldn't agree with you more. Isn't that what we're doing?

But you're saying these policies must be different from the Government's. That would mean we would have to come out against Trident if the Government plumped for it.

We should chose the right policies - and not be afraid of competing on the Government's turf."

We are undergoing less of an intellectual renaissance and more of a retreat. The fact that Cameron is no longing to vigourously defend traditional tenets of Conservative policy (such as tax cuts) while raising new issues (such as the environment) to prominence shows that there is little appetite to "rehabilitate" conservative ideas in the eyes of the public.

You're point about Trident does seem rather foolish; of course I'm not advocating total opposition of every government policy, but I do think that in most policy areas the Tory Party could be offering a better alternative than what the government is currently offering.

[Giffin Lorimer]

We need philosophically coherent policies plus people who can articulate them to the masses rather than a bunch of policy wonks. We also need to look competent and we need a leader who looks like a leader rather than a manager.

The wheels are falling off the 'we manage best' Labour party because it evidently doesn't manage anything except winning power. Brown is another manager, and that style won't recover any votes from the disillusioned and disgruntled.

DC has to adopt a leadership style that encourages the grassroots to change, rather than a managerial style that tells them how they are to change. Such a difference in style would give a huge boost to morale and encourage new membership.

[CDM]

Why should the grassroots change? How have they been at fault?

[Patsy Sergeant]

Well Clarke has just been interviewed on the news, trying very hard not to look so disdainful and arrogant, what a fink he is!

Let us not be too hard on Mr. Blair, we really must help him to achieve the only thing that is of REAL importance to him - that is to achieve ten years in office and then be able to crow that he has been in office longer than Mrs. Thatcher. Now how can we deny him that-------.

[St. Ella of Artois]

Wicks - "are we moving towards a three-party system?"

Yes. We're already there. The "big" two are not even getting 70% in the opinion polls now.

[Sean Fear]

Wat, I share your concerns. Had DD been elected, we would have come in for quite a lot of initial flack from the left wing media, but I think we would have weathered the storm. Our poll ratings would be no different from now, but, importantly, we could look forward to moving up as Labour imploded.

However, we are where we are. I hope that David Cameron will learn from his mistakes, and realises that endless weird stunts are not what the public wants. They just want a competent, capable, opposition, that can solve the problems that concern them.

[Chris D]

David Cameron is not the heir to Blair, Gordon Brown is according to an apparent consensus within the Labour party. But I think that David Cameron wants to be the natural heir to the centre ground of British politics which is in my view where the majority of the public tend to think their government should be. The public know that the tories are tougher on crime and immigration than Labour, we had the last home secretary who really cut crime leading us at the last GE and guess what it was not enough to make people vote for us. This fiasco with Charles Clarke is just the latest in a long line of bad headlines from the home office under this Labour government and still people vote them in! Its not enough for them to know that we are tough on these issues, people also need to know they can trust us with the economy, NHS, employment and yes the environment. Our image has been so tarnished over the last 20yrs that it will take David Cameron a lot more than cuddling huskies in Norway to change it but at least he is heading in the right direction. As for having a little loyalty within the party, well it seems to have worked for the Labour party where as we have quite a reputation for being disloyal to our leaders which might explain the reluctance of factions within the labour to remove Tony Blair. If we spent less time arguing among ourselves about David Cameron's conservative credentials we might ask why its Labour and the LibDems who have been so successful at winning seats in so many tory heartlands rather than parties like UKIP.

[Alexander Drake]

Wicks said: Is it realistic to expect the Conservatives to be in the high 30s/low 40s when people still feel that the economy is still good?

I think wicks is right to ask this pertinent question, and I am now wondering whether the answer is 'no'.

[Martin Bristow]

DC's performance when interviewed by Sky was shocking.When he was asked directly why the conservative party needed to change and what he does not like about the party he was visibly shaken ,breaking off the interview.

The strategy of turning your back on and taking for granted those who traditionally support you was shown up in this moment.Cameron's project has no substance and is purely presentational.

We are heading south in the polls and are singularly failing to benefit from Blair's woes.What is popular for discussion amongst chatterring classes over dinner does not address the real issues pertinent to the wider electorate.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>If the Conservatives are really only blue Blairites the obvious (major) party to switch to is the LibDems. Why? Because their policy is "the answer's yes, now what's the question?" Even so, in that policy statement there remains a possibility that the LibDems might (although it's unlikely) listen to the electorate and do something wanted by the electorate: rightly or wrongly they certainly have that reputation in local politics.<<<<
Somehow I think the prospect is non-existent of the Liberal Democrats bringing back Capital Punishment and allowing indefinite internment for terrorists who are abusing technicalities as means of going free or of scrapping the Human Rights Laws (which indeed made deporting foreign criminals who had served there sentences far more difficult and so increased the neccessary bureacracy) or withdrawing the UK from the EU all of which in their topic area are the most supported solutions to these problems.

Most people in this country don't care what the USA does to terrorists in Guantanamo Bay and the impression that they do is created by a Liberal press in the UK and USA.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>We are heading south in the polls and are singularly failing to benefit from Blair's woes.What is popular for discussion amongst chatterring classes over dinner does not address the real issues pertinent to the wider electorate.<<<<
Once the issue of party finance, honours and the structure of the House of Lords is addressed the levels of support of both main parties will bounce back again, the issue has been of as much damage to the Conservative Party as to Labour.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Martin Bristow at 11.02, regarding your comment on David Cameron's when interviewed on Sky. Its a pity his extremely expensive advisors don't do their job properly, and educate DC what to do when faced with a totally unexpected question! You 'throw' the ball back into the interviews court, it doesn't really matter what you SAY as long as you don't DO what he apparently did and LOOK flustered or shocked, because then the interviewer has 'scored' which of course is all that most of them want to do!!!!!, not to get any particular information out of 'you'. A little bit of practice would be all that Cameron would need to perfect this habit, and it has nothing to do with lying or obfuscating!

[Martin Bristow]

You miss the point.I don't really care about the techniques you can or can not use to improve presentation in interviews.What I draw from David Cameron's response betrayed a lack of convinction and leadership direction.

Politics is essentially a battle of ideas not spin.If David Cameron wants to change us we need to know what is wrong with the party and what is ideal would look like.

My sense is that the electorate are totally disconnected from the political process.I discern a yearning to see some good honest integrity and convinction injected back into our debate.

There is a profound desire out there for a new way.We should tap into this sentiment driving towards the new model party first advanced in the Direct Democracy pamphlet.

DC should promise to spread democracy down throughout the land.Communities were hope is scarce need more power to directly influence the outcome of decisions affecting them.The state must be unbundled not further extended to destroy enterprise and initiative.

It is the above sentiment that our leadership should articulate when faced with question about changing our party.Politics is not all about spin and presentation.