« Nominations for New Technology | Main | No wonder John Prescott didn't have time to deliver that integrated transport system »

Comments

Exactly Matt, it should be kept to less than 50 words, to make it punchy and effective.

The more people (particularly Cameroons) who make the effort, the result could actually be a really using message that could be used in campaigning, as it will focus on the core issues in a focussed way.

Can you sell Cameron's Conservatives in less that 30 seconds (<=50 words) and convince a floating voter to vote out Brown?

"Women go for the Tories 39%, Labour 32%. This comes from their affinity for Cameron.

Which of course is why according to that poll, fewer women than men think Cameron is doing "very" or "fairly" well. Some affinity."

Tut tut, James, I'd have expected better from you. Cameron's approval rating among women is 48:27, a net rating of +21 points. Among men it is 53:36, a net rating of +17 points. The difference is in the don't knows. Cameron IS doing better among women than among men, but women for whatever reasons are less likely to have reached a judgement.

Suggestion - bravo, you put a very powerful case lucidly, calmly and bravely. Other lesser people (like me) would have given up.

Editor - Its all very well repeatedly referring to the 'politics of and', which may well be a coherent and plausible theory. However, right now it is not the one CCHQ is following. The strategy they have been following has been to focus relentlessly on issues not associated with the Conservative party, especially the Green stuff. This is to show (a) Cameron is different (b) the party is changing. To talk about traditional Tory issues, while they are still very important, would be to dilute the message.

I cannot say definitively which strategy is the correct one. However, the fact that people like Cameron more than the party, and the fact that people think while he is different the party itself is probably still the same, suggests to me the current Cameron strategy is right for now. And I emphasise 'for now'. There will come a time when, hopefully, the groundwork will have been laid in that more people are willing to give us a go, and actually listen. In which case, what we have to say on crime, immigration, Europe etc. will have significantly more impact. The 'politics of and' is perhaps the politics Cameron should adopt before the next election, but not quite yet.

(I should add the caveat that what I am saying does not imply completely ignoring issues and not responding to events. Its a question of focus and emphasis. DC does have stuff to say on these issues, as Suggestion points out, but they are not trumpetted as much as the 'change' issues.)

Tut tut, James, I'd have expected better from you.

You've missed the point. His net rating is higher with women, but fewer women rate him highly. This supposed vote winning affinity has in actuality left him with lots of "don't knows". That's hardly success.

Henry,

What has David Cameron said that will allay fears from non-Tories, the public at large who are most likely sceptical about trusting the tories, that he will not cut public services (ie he will spend less than Labour)?

Labour have already used the argument that "sharing the proceeds of growth" between the taxpayer and public services must mean less for public services (as they would put *all* of it into public services.

This is a real fear that the Tories will cut spending on public services. The efficiency argument will cut no ice, it will be presented as a cut.

What if Labour says this?
"Will David Cameron pledge to match our spending on public services?"

How would/should Cameron respond?

HMMMMMMMM.

First the polls, opinion polling is certainly a much more accurate science now than it was. It is fairly obvious that the Tories will do well at the local elections. Will they do well enough? I should imagine after the results are in, we will hear the yes/no arguments for some time to come.

Party leaders and their popularity or lack of, Ted Heath was never popular, his party was always more popular than he was, he also had to put up with those on the right who wanted Enoch Powell, despite this he won the 1970 general election.

Jim Callaghan always out polled his party and Mrs Thatcher, never won a general election!

Winning a third general election is the poisoned chalice. It never changes, hardly have the cheers of victory dried in the throats of the victors, then 'events' start to destroy the victory: first hubris then nemesis.

Can you do anything to prevent this? The Tories managed a fourth election victory, by a political assassination, replaced Mrs T with John Major, fat lot of good it did them in the long run.

Can governments turn themselves around after political disasters of this magnitude or even bigger. The Tories, after 1956 Suez, changed leader, Macmillan won landslide in 1958. Home nearly won a few years later despite Profumo etc. Even though Wilson lost in 1970, the government did recover from the devaluation crisis. The Tories after Westland, Blair after the fuel crisis, the list goes on. What seems a disaster at the time is not necessarily terminal. It's difficult to draw any firm conclusions, certainly with 3/4 years till the next GE.Speculation is great fun, but we with a tendency to Chaos Theory, know its pointless.

Men make plans for the gods to mock!

"You've missed the point. His net rating is higher with women, but fewer women rate him highly. This supposed vote winning affinity has in actuality left him with lots of "don't knows". That's hardly success."

Look at the figures for Tony Blair and Ming Campbell - women are five times more likely to give a 'don't know' answer than men for the PM, and almost twice as likely as men to give a 'don't know' answer on Ming. For whatever reasons, be they sociological or psychological, women are less likely to give answers to the personal questions. Therefore your point was misleading - the net figures are a fairer demonstration of the relative effect Cameron has on the two sexes.

"Will David Cameron pledge to match our spending on public services?"

How would/should Cameron respond?

If Oliver Letwin is anything to go by, he'd match their pledges pound for pound, and then wonder why people thought the tax burden wasn't going to go down...

Most Lib Dems would think Cameron is doing a good job, as he is promoting their agenda. Would they vote for him - of course not. A big chunk of those who think Cameron is doing a good job will never vote Tory. The only figure worth looking at is voting intention.

Still in the 30-35% range after such a bad period for Labour is unacceptable. Strategy obviously not working. Only 3% more people want to see us in power compared to the current shambles.

""Will David Cameron pledge to match our spending on public services?"

How would/should Cameron respond?"

He should say we will come up with our own spending plans based on our own assessment of what needs to be done and how much it will cost. The starting point for our plans should not be how much Labour spends.

For whatever reasons, be they sociological or psychological, women are less likely to give answers to the personal questions.

The more longstanding the leader has been, the more willing women are to make a judgement. That is the only key differential here.

Therefore your point was misleading

No it wasn't. It was being asserted that David Cameron was succeeding among women, and that this was was the cause for the "favourable" poll results. As a lower proportion of women than men like him, it's this assertion that's misleading.

Henry Cook, Labour response -

So the Tories are considering cutting spending on the NHS and education. Services only safe in Labour hands.

Exactly Will.

The starting point for our plans should not be how much Labour spends.

But it will, it will. Labour will attack on this.

Labour will slam home this point. There'll be posters about cuts in public services, figures of waiting lists in 1997 compared to now etc, a reminder of 15% interest rates etc.

Why should people trust the Tories? They will not unless there is a specific, and unequivocal pledge to protect and not cut them.

No-one will believe the "we'll be more efficient line".

As long as the rump right of the Tory party cling to Cameron's coat tails and Labour doesn't really f**k up, then Labour will keep winning. Thank you, and keep up the bickering. But if you let the LibDems in I will hold you personally responsible. If they do really well, they will ransom the other parties for PR, and we'll never have a strong government again.

Incidentally, if you'd be so kind as to get the few remaining Blair allies to resign, then we can have start with Brown as PM, a strong and competenent Chancellor. Rememeber interest rates at 15%, the real Black Wednesday, appalling levels of unemployment, the poll tax, negative equity? People simply don't appreciate what they've got.

Labour will get a thorough kicking in the locals to punish perceived smugness, but because you lot can't get your act together, the LibDems and possibly the BNP will benefit.

What concerns me, is that one of Cameron's key aims when he came to the leadership was to take on the Lib Dems and steal many of their voters. There is nothing wrong with that, but the fact of the matter is that, in this aim we have completely failed. Despite the series of scandals that engulfed the party and the election of a damp squib as leader the Lib Dems, instead of losing support to the Conservatives are the ones gaining from Labour imploding. That hardly bodes well for the tactics currently employed. Labour look exhausted and out of ideas, but at the moment we have very little to offer in the sense of a coherent vision for an alternative Britain, you could say that Cameron has a touch of Eisenhower about him, with "his smile is his philosophy". Until we create the feeling amongst voters that all the ideas are being generated from the right, that we have the ideological momentum behind us and have clever positive sounding policies on Health, Education and the economy we will be rooted to the mid 30s in the opinion polls.

There is however limited time in which we can do this. Labour is dragging down the reputation of politics as a whole, unless we are able to attack government failures and provide a conservative alternative direction then voters will continue to think that all politicians are the same and descend into further apathy or even worse go to the Lib Dems.

James you're simply ignoring my point. Women in general give more 'don't know' answers on these questions than men. To say the key differential is length of time in office is irrelevant - how does this explain the difference in how much more likely women are than men to give a 'don't know' response? It doesn't. For some reason women respond less to these questions than men. Therefore net figures are more useful. I won't press it any further as its a pedantic point in the scheme of things.

"The BNP have registered at 5%. This is by far the most significant number to appear in these polls.... "

Won't they be mainly standing in Labour seats at the GE? Also, it's not impossible that 5% is just the remnants of the publicity burst they got recently, and will diminish back to their normal level of support in a month or two.

At least, I hope so - the thing about the BNP is it's pretty much uncharted territory in modern UK politics, so the uncertainty of their future course is fuelling the current media fascination. For example: what happens if they improve fundraising, and stand all over the place? Now that would be significant.

Isn't the BNP thing a deliberate Labour ploy, executed perfectly by Hodge, to attack our right, and try to make us go to the right?

We should ignore it - some of those BNP will come back to us once their oxygen of publicity is cut off again.

If BNP continues to grow at 2:1 pulling votes from Labour and Conservative in that proportion, but not any from Lib Dem, and they grow to 20% by election day.....

Labour would be down to 22% (-10), Conservative to 30% (-5) and if Lib Dem stay at 20%, what would the computer say as to the results of that split?

(No more Caramel, Editor - this is getting much stickier!)

Andrew - Could be significant in seats like Colne Valley and Calder Valley which are in our top 50 targets. BNP are a growing force in West Yorkshire. Standing in every seat for Kirklees council this time which includes Colne Valley.

""Will David Cameron pledge to match our spending on public services?"

How would/should Cameron respond?

If Oliver Letwin is anything to go by, he'd match their pledges pound for pound, and then wonder why people thought the tax burden wasn't going to go down..."

That is what worries me. If we are going to win the next election we need to, like we did in the run up to 1979, win the battle of ideas. And by matching Labour's spending pledges we most certainly wont do that.

Why on earth cant we take the approach that the first wave of neocons took, using the langauge of social science point out how throwing money at social problems is no way to solve them, that they are far more complicated than Labour make out, and point out the limits of government programmes can have on actually helping the poor, and the unintended consequences they cause. Or you could always go Goldwaterish:- "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom."

northwest, BNP have plenty of money. Nick Griffin has always been good at raising and investing it - unlike UKIP which has squandered millions.

The BNP leader is about to sentenced to jail term - probably two years but maybe longer - this usually boosts support in politics.

Their constitution is fairly democratic. They might well retract on outright racism based on colour as they become mainstream, and focus on barring immigration based on educational level or targeted skills etc.

They are standing in all 45 council seats in Birmingham, for example. They have numerous hotspots of support in cities, but they are beginning to leaflet far and wide. They have hardly begun.

Just another comment,

Passing leftie, made the statement, that Labour would always win! This is utter rubbish. Which ever party you support, not one of them has a mortgage on No 10 Downing street, you get a four year lease, and don't you ever forget it!

Fifty years ago, 95% of the electorate supported either the Conservatives or Labour, that was it, small changes between the two, changed governments. The Liberal Party was down to two, no nationalists, no UKIP no extreme right etc. The Conservatives had a membership approaching three million, Labour, never a party with a big membership, even that, had eight hundred thousand.

I do wish that some people would not abuse this excellent website, by ignoring the political reality of the present situation.

Party political activists, have to work in a totally different environment. It's much harder now, I would say impossible to try to guess the political future than it once was.

Even though we don't have PR in this country (I don't want to get into that argument) we are developing a form of it, by default.

So the future, that's another country!

As far as I can see the Tories have got themselves a nice core vote of 35% here, without any policies or making a particularly big deal out of Labour's troubles, can only see that share increasing as they begin to flesh out what they would do in government and people gradually feel more and more like they want a change, and with a stronge base the Conservatives will be the first choice for a lot of people at the next election.

>>>>Passing leftie, made the statement, that Labour would always win! This is utter rubbish. Which ever party you support, not one of them has a mortgage on No 10 Downing street, you get a four year lease, and don't you ever forget it!<<<<
In fact with only a slight change in the course of history there could easily have been continuos Conservative government from 1951 onwards and in Japan there has been one party government since 1950 however I don't see the prospect of indefinite Social Democratic government in this country and in even in the Scandinavian Countries there have been interludes since World War II, I think labour government will continue for some time - I think Gordon Brown will get his 10 years as leader, Ed Balls will be Prime Minister in Labour's twilight years in government and increasingly once Blair and Brown have gone Labour will embark on tearing itself apart with more radical Fabians and those of more Bennite tendencies demanding a turn in charge and more radical redistributive policies and in 2024 or thereabouts after 27 years in power Labour will lose and be out for the rest of the century and a party ready to remove the UK from the EU, to purge liberalism and push back the frontiers of the state, to downsize government and stand on a more socially conservative platform but one that recognises common aspects of the different main religions will come to power and govern for decades to come - could be UKIP or could be the Conservative Party, or a new party combining past Conservative and Unionist Parties with some elements from other parties.

>>>>The BNP leader is about to sentenced to jail term - probably two years but maybe longer - this usually boosts support in politics.<<<<
I hate to say this, but the charges against him recently were thrown out and although various attempts are being made to bring back the charges and add others at the moment it is not clear if he will be convicted of anything.

>>>>If BNP continues to grow at 2:1 pulling votes from Labour and Conservative in that proportion, but not any from Lib Dem, and they grow to 20% by election day.....

Labour would be down to 22% (-10), Conservative to 30% (-5) and if Lib Dem stay at 20%, what would the computer say as to the results of that split?<<<<
There would be a hung parliament with the Conservative Party as the Largest Party, probably the Conservative Party would have enough seats to form a minority government and the main losers out of BNP gains would be the Labour Party who however would probably still be the Offical Opposition.

However the BNP as it always does most likely will have a brief false dawn and then at the next General Election at most be back to making modest gains in numbers of votes.

Interesting piece on UKPollingReport.co.uk. More details on the BPIX poll showing that Cameron is rated more highly on likability but is beaten by Brown on competence.

Its interesting that the men on this site will spend hours debating on a thread, and some seem to feel that if they are not being provocative then they are not being effective....

Much as I would like to feel excited at what the polls seem to be saying, I also feel cautious, and prefer to wait until after Thursday before I will really let rip, and you had better believe I can!

I am sure there would be people who will disagree with me, but, a hung parliament would suit me fine, the thought of all those MP's who have been so cocky and arrogant having to work REALLY hard every time they attended the HOC, and really worrying their little socks off as to whether they could get favoured legislation through yum yum.

David Cameron come across as 'nice' (I have said to myself on previous postings) amd inoffensive, and yes Tony Blair HAD an exhilirating charisma once, that carried all before him in 1997, but now, although he tries (and may impress some very young people) people are NOT carried with him anymore as they see how hollow the whole mirage is! So it is a good thing that David Cameron is establishing his own persona (which takes time), but maybe time is on his side, because Brown has NO charisma he doesn't come across as inoffensive, or even very nice.....

>>>>Even though Wilson lost in 1970, the government did recover from the devaluation crisis.<<<<
The devaluation incident saw the beginning of a long decline in the Labour vote which really only levelled off in the mid 1970's, in fact the general trend was that Labour's vote peaked in 1951 and except for 1966 was only roughly the same or lower at every General Election after this until the 1987 General Election which was the first of 3 General Elections in which Labour's vote rose.

Camerons credibility is not great with him harping on about all that climate change crap. Every sane person knows climate change is a natural phenomenon and thus not an election winner.

The only election winner is withdrawal from the EU. The control freaks and unelected politicians and bureaucrats from Brussels have destroyed our farmers, fisheries industry and defence industry. What we need is a referendum on our staying in the EU or not and clearly making the case that it is not. We pay more in than we can get out. The best thing for Europe is to dissolve that anti-democratic atrocity as soon as possible.

Until Cameron and the clowns around him understand that, I'm voting BNP. The only party that actually wants Britain to be governed by the British and not by Brussels.

I've started a separate thread, Jack, on those new BPIX numbers. Thanks.

What about UKIP?

If you'd vote for a bunch of racists, I for one don't want you in the Tory party.

Y A Anon.

If the powers that be want Griffin behind bars, they'll find a way to get him there. You have a touching belief in our system of justice, which I wish I could share.

>>>>Until Cameron and the clowns around him understand that, I'm voting BNP. The only party that actually wants Britain to be governed by the British and not by Brussels.<<<<
The BNP want to do more than just govern the UK, they want to become the UK - if anything they are possibly even worse than the Iraqi Ba'athist Party.

>>>>Y A Anon.

If the powers that be want Griffin behind bars, they'll find a way to get him there. You have a touching belief in our system of justice, which I wish I could share.<<<<
As we have seen with the growth of the litigation culture, Anti-Terrorist Laws being ruled illegal because of provisions of the Human Rights Act and the release of those recommended for deportation having finished their sentences (mainly because there has to be consideration given of how they will be treated when returned to their home country because of the Human Rights Act and the government's opposition to deporting or extraditing anyone to a country where they may be executed and this has resulted in huge bureacracy and an inability to administrate the system), the authorities are quite capable of shooting themselves in the foot - in fact given the numbers of times this seems to happen you might think that they do it deliberately.

"The only election winner is withdrawal from the EU."

As someone who supports that policy I have to say your analysis is misguided.

"I hate to say this, but the charges against him recently were thrown out"

Why hate to say this? Griffin's views may be unpleasant but we should be thankful that the principle of freedom of speech was victorious. I was also unashamed in opposing the anti-free speech conviction of Abu Hamza.

"Every sane person knows climate change is a natural phenomenon...."

So the vast majority of scientists who say it's caused by man are all just crazy?

I'm sure the BNP will be happy to have your vote.

>>>>I was also unashamed in opposing the anti-free speech conviction of Abu Hamza.<<<<
Abu Hamza is an active prominent supporter of Al Qaeda who has urged British Nationals to Treasonable Acts, I would be delighted if he was to be executed.

" Apparently Labour has a lead with the Under 35s - Where are these under 35 Labour supporters? I'd say they are more unpopular with my generation than my parents."

I think people should be wary of becoming too London-centric when talking about David Cameron.

The under-35's in the London area may love Cameron, but that's not the impression I get here in the Midlands.

Yes, he's more popular than Howard, IDS or Hague, but there's no huge rise in popularity as there might be in London.

Y A Anon writes - the release of those recommended for deportation having finished their sentences (mainly because there has to be consideration given of how they will be treated when returned to their home country because of the Human Rights Act...

If this is correct, here is a classic example of why people don't trust big parties any more. OK Labour have not pointed out the role of the HRA in this situation - (even though it would have saved their faces to some extent, their loyalty to the 'programme' enforces their silence), but then neither have Cameron and the Conservatives, or the LD's.

If voters believe the BNP are telling them the truth, and that Lib Lab Con are hiding it and playing to a hidden agenda, they will inevitably turn their loyalties to the BNP.

Hence the need for Conservatives to propose EU withdrawal to voters, so that we are able to tell the truth as it is perceived by the man in the street.

Bureaucratic 'truth' will not cut the mustard.

Voters know when they are being 'lied to', or if you prefer, not being told the whole truth, and they don't appreciate it.

Labour have abandoned any attempt at communicating the truth. The tragedy for the Conservatives is that Cameron seems to be dancing to the same tune, not admitting that he is conforming to the Directive for the Funding of Political Parties e.g. and pretending it is him that approves of State Funding.

Unless Conservative MP's take hold of the situation and enforce a change of approach, the Party is extremely vulnerable to being lumped with Labour and dumped with Labour.

"Abu Hamza is an active prominent supporter of Al Qaeda who has urged British Nationals to Treasonable Acts, I would be delighted if he was to be executed."

Urging acts is not enough in my opinion. Direct participation in those acts or in the planning of those acts is, of course, a different matter.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr035.htm

Anyway, I fear to drag this conversation off topic.

It must be remembered that the Tories briefly went ahead in some polls during the petrol protests back in 2000. Let us hope that this boost in the polls (which is more to do with a fall in Labour support) is not temporary. We must remember that much of this may be forgotten by the electorate or at least marginalised in significance when it comes to the GE. An economic crisis that hits wallets is more likely to have a long-term effect.

But 'Richard' Abu Hamza, apparently urges young people to commit suicide, and that is murder, by extension.

"But 'Richard' Abu Hamza, apparently urges young people to commit suicide, and that is murder, by extension."

The choice is in their hands. They don't have to take notice of what he says. If on the other hand he actively aided and abetted them in a murder then I'd be all for handing him the death penalty.

>>>>

"But 'Richard' Abu Hamza, apparently urges young people to commit suicide, and that is murder, by extension."

The choice is in their hands. They don't have to take notice of what he says. If on the other hand he actively aided and abetted them in a murder then I'd be all for handing him the death penalty.<<<<
It wasn't just his statements though (which in themselves justified action against him, even the lesser statements by Omar Bakri Mohammed that called on people not to report the bombers on 7/7 to the police justified his deportation), in addition Abu Hamza was found to be linked to plans to carry out bombings and such plans and bomb making equipment were found in raids of where he lived and places he had been.

I think it worth mentioning with regard to polls that about 25 % of people will vote Labour even when threatened with an electric drill. The same applies to the Tories. So, Labour have got 7 % more than absolute bottom...and lost 13 % from absolute top (45 %). So they have lost two thirds of the voter pool that is up for persuasion in 12 months. So it should not be seen as a Tory failure to say we are only 3 % ahead....we have GAINED voters from that persuasion pool.

"Abu Hamza was found to be linked to plans to carry out bombings and such plans and bomb making equipment were found in raids of where he lived and places he had been."

On those grounds I agree he should be punished.

Dear me- that previous post of mine sounds like Tony Blair giving off his statistics at PMQ....what I mean to say is that the best and worst the two main parties historically can do is 45 % and 25 %....there are only 20 % points up for grabs.

"we have GAINED voters from that persuasion pool."

There is a risk we may also have lost some to UKIP and the BNP. What we need is an analysis of where UKIP and BNP votes are coming from.

>>>>I think it worth mentioning with regard to polls that about 25 % of people will vote Labour even when threatened with an electric drill.<<<<
Labour core vote must be about 23%, even in 1983 there were people who weren't core voters who voted for them - if you go back to 1951 which really has been Labour's high point in terms of votes which was 48.8% (13.98 Million votes - also their highest ever number of total votes), also some people who might normally be considered Core voters may well vote tactically on occassions where the alternative is a Conservative win in that seat.

>>>>what I mean to say is that the best and worst the two main parties historically can do is 45 % and 25 %<<<<
The lowest vote in a General Election that the Conservative Party have ever had is 28% in 1830, they got down to 25% in Local Elections in the mid 1990's, actually in the 2004 Euro Elections Labour only got 22% which was even worse that the 1979 Euro Elections - the Conservative Government got over 50% of the vote in Local Elections in the late 1970's and in the 1950's and very close to 50% of the vote in the 1955 General election, they are the only UK party to have got over 50% of the vote in a General Election also in 1935 - in fact it was 60.7% of the vote.

"they are the only UK party to have got over 50% of the vote in a General Election also in 1935 - in fact it was 60.7% of the vote."

Actually that was 1931. Although I think they got over 50% in 1935 as well.

PS Bear in mind these figures depend on how you interpret votes for the National Government.

If it's just the Tories alone, they got 55% in 1931 and 47% in 1935.

The BNP and UKIP votes are coming from all social groups, specifically from people who have taken it upon themselves to check facts from sources other than the BBC and the Press. Such people have discovered that they are being lied to and don't like it. An example: in the late 70's and early '80s when the National Front were shouting that "we're being invaded" etc. people in the streets could see for themselves that it wasn't true. Sure, there was immigration, but it was controlled and reasonably beneficial. Today, the three main parties say that immigration is not an issue - wrong! I see it and so do all of my colleagues and friends. Cameron has hitched himself to Blair's wagon as it goes over a cliff.

Indeed! I was refering to modern times when we had a clear 3 party system where 25 % and 45 % seems to be the range. Major and Thatcher best wins up there in the mid-40s; Labour's 1997 landslide, up there in the mid 40's (the best of modern times), Labour at 27 % when imploded by the Alliance and the Tories at 25 % in the Euro elections of 94 I think (the worst of times).

Suggestion - What a relief. I voted Labour in 1997 but only because I thought the Cons needed serious refreshing. I never thought that NL would be in for so long. I became interested in the Cons again over the leadership election as DC started to offer the first chink of light electorally in the Conservative movement since Maggie. However I gave up on this site once it got hijacked by the nut squad. It is therefore very refreshing to see the first really lucid debate on this subject.

I think the Editor has been swayed by the anti-Cameroon brigade and as a result this site has become a breeding ground for knocking the Tory leader. The key point is your one about likeability.

The Tories have been incorrectly seen as being in it for themselves an impression furthered by previous stances on immigration, taxes, business etc.

Until this incorrect impression is destroyed (and remember the soft left bias of the press) then no Conservative is ever going to have the credibility and electibility to make the changes that we know need to be made. Cameron is the best chance we have, and we should give him a lot more slack to succeed.

I hope more Cameroons will add to the site and consequently the Editor will be less flattering to the antis.

"However I gave up on this site once it got hijacked by the nut squad."

May I suggest a theory? The sort of people who visit political websites will disproportionately be political activists or people interested in politics. These people are more likely to be ideological and less keen on compromise, even if they accept an electoral need for it. Therefore there will be disproportionate criticism of Cameron for not sticking to the Right.

I say this as someone who is fairly ideological although I try and give a balanced opinion of Cameron. I backed him during the leadership election and continue to do so but I don't support his strategy 100%.

What a lot of delightful BNP supporters we have on this thread. I hope that the ban that applied to Margaret applies to them.

>>>>Major and Thatcher best wins up there in the mid-40s<<<<
Percentagewise 43.9% that the Conservative Party won on in 1979 was the highest, it then dropped to 42.4% in 1983 and then raised to 43.7% in 1987 and then 41.9% in 1992 so it was more low 40's percentagewise (in terms of those eligible to vote the 1992 result was the best of the 4 elections Labour losr both for the Conservative Party and for the Labour Party), of course the Liberal Party did get 18% of the vote in 1966 and Labour got 46.8% of the vote then and in 1970 actually got about the same percentage vote they won with in 1997 - the recovery of the Liberal Party really began in 1959 and they have had 3 peaks previously - 18% in the 1960's, 20% in 1974 and 25% in 1983 and so far they've only got up to 22.3% of the vote in what (2001-) has been the lowest levels of turnout since Universal Suffrage was introduced.

It's not a permanent thing - core votes can grow or wane over the years as well and their effects on the percentage of the vote depend on turnout of other parties supporters

>>>>make the changes that we know need to be made<<<<
and those are? Or is that just media cliche?

>>>>Labour's 1997 landslide, up there in the mid 40's (the best of modern times), Labour at 27 % when imploded by the Alliance and the Tories at 25 % in the Euro elections of 94 I think (the worst of times).<<<<
In 1997 Labour's vote was only about the same as the Conservative vote in 1979 and in the 2004 Euro Elections they were down at 22% of the vote, of course Euro Elections are rather different in that the European Parliament actually has very little power and can only accept or reject things placed before them by the Commission - a bit like a chained dog really. It does depend what you mean by Modern Times.

Labour were lucky to get 27.5% of the vote in 1983, if it hadn'tve been for Francis Pym and others raising worries about the destruction of the Opposition and tactical voting by Socialist leaning Alliance supporters for Labour in seats where Labour was the main alternative to the Conservatives, easily the Conservative Party could have got over 50% of the vote in 1983 and Labour would have gone to being a 3rd party in a parliament with the largest one party majority in history.

I remember 1983. We COULD have got over 50% had it not primarilly been for the 'wets' like Pym.

What did we have then that we don't have now - promise of tax cuts, standing up to the EU, a strong leader whom whilst not liked by all WAS respected by all, and a discredited opposition. Today we only have 1 of those 4. Until we get the other 3, we're not going to have a chance like that again.

"Labour were lucky to get 27.5% of the vote in 1983"

If everyone had read their manifesto and their more in-depth book "Labour's Programme 1982" they'd have been lucky to get 20%! It wasn't communism but it was a radical brand of socialism far to the Left of anything attempted before.

I think it worth mentioning with regard to polls that about 25 % of people will vote Labour even when threatened with an electric drill.

I have two choices - to be heartily depressed, and waste my energy rebutting all the carpers on this thread who have either forgotten that we have a polling day next week or don't care about a good result for Cameron's Conservatives and the following positive stories... or to have a damn good chuckle at the above comment and take my cordless Black & Decker out for some last-minute canvassing tomorrow.

Better put my battery on charge, I guess!

I'm with Patsy here. Read the posts with match sticks propping my eyes open, there was so much hot air. Friday/Saturday will be interesting when the actual facts of the locals are revealed. Do try and get hold of the out of print Peter Principle. You will then see that Tony is already past his level of incompetance, and Gordon Brown is just waiting to be found out. The one good thing is, that this particular collective is challenging and undermining the individual (DC) on this weblog, and not in public. Gets it out of the system, and hopefully does not present us as a divided party.

These numbers continue to be absolutely PATHETIC. Cameron should have been 10 points ahead after a week like this.

You will then see that Tony is already past his level of incompetance, and Gordon Brown is just waiting to be found out.

Can't disagree with that one...

The one good thing is, that this particular collective is challenging and undermining the individual (DC) on this weblog, and not in public. Gets it out of the system, and hopefully does not present us as a divided party.

I hope not too, Annabel, because I don't believe it's a correct picture. However, we do have to remember that posts on the internet *are* public, and are open to all. A sign of this blog's deserved success is that the print media have begun to quote it.

I was amazed when UKIP (bleh!) documented in excruciating detail the pitiful demise of their branch in my constituency last year on a public web forum (well, okay, not that amazed, but even I thought they were more savvy that that!)

Annabel, success is the aim. In changing circumstances, successful organisations change to meet them.

The political marketplace is moving, with voters showing their preferences by moving their votes. We can either put our heads in the sand, or adapt.

Cameron is assured of media support. He gets much exposure and a light touch of criticism. The media are unlikely to feature the BNP more than they absolutely have to.

Pointing out that votes are going over to them here, will therefore not expose the Party to any extra media problems. The media will be silent about it. But that creates another danger - viz. that we don't assess the threat correctly or address it in time.

If MP's want to address our electoral weakness on this front they can do so by joining Better Off Out, and stopping Cameron from promoting policies that eliminate British independence. Or they can sit tight, let him do as he pleases and suffer the drift away of support at their leisure.

Right now we face this new threat from the BNP, and we have a leader who refuses to address it, other than by his name-calling strategy, and his backing for the EU's programme to eliminate eurosceptic parties such as the BNP.

This is anti-democratic and against all the principles on which the EU was founded. More people should be complaining - in public, in private and anywhere else, before we have a one party state and all opposition leaders in gaol....in the UK, not Russia or China.

Cameron is assured of media support. He gets much exposure and a light touch of criticism. The media are unlikely to feature the BNP more than they absolutely have to.

And not a bad thing - are you saying that you want the abhorrent BNP to have any more of the oxygen of publicity than can be avoided? Personally, I'd advocate cutting off any oxygen whatsoever (sorry, I know I've departed from compassionate conservatism for the first time in a while, but as a campaigner I do have a few caveats!)

If MP's want to address our electoral weakness on this front they can do so by joining Better Off Out, and stopping Cameron from promoting policies that eliminate British independence.

Because I always dream of seeing Conservative parliamentarians oppose the Party leadership while I'm fighting an election campaign...

More people should be complaining - in public, in private and anywhere else, before we have a one party state and all opposition leaders in gaol....

And here I was hoping that all the nutters were in other parties. You are, right? UKIP, maybe?

Because I always dream of seeing Conservative parliamentarians oppose the Party leadership while I'm fighting an election campaign... from Richard.

If the voters leaving the Conservatives are doing so because their views are not being represented, then the only solution is for Conservative MP's to show their determination to do so - election time is as good a time as any other to stop voters going elsewhere.

'before we have a one party state and all opposition leaders in gaol....'

Richard adds 'And here I was hoping that all the nutters were in other parties...'

With Nick Griffin likely to be locked up, and Blair and Cameron agreeing to work on the State Funding of Parties, we are moving closer. As they say in my village, you can learn from a fool!


As they say in my village, you can learn from a fool!

Then I hope they all stay in your village, because I don't suffer them gladly. Especially not this week when I'm trying to win elections. What are you trying to do, exactly?

(BTW, I *know* I'm going to regret asking that...)

>>>>The media are unlikely to feature the BNP more than they absolutely have to.<<<<
There will be a few people either supporting the BNP or sympathetic to the BNP in parts of the Media and among other media people the BNP will still be good for a story - for a shockjock a BNP person on one line and a member of Respect on another, and someone professing to be close to Al Qaeda on yet another line makes for a sensational bust up that will bring in lots of listeners.

Goldie is right. To be only 3 points ahead after everything that has happened recently is nothing to shout about. 35% is pathetic.

In 1990, after the poll tax riots, Labout were at least 20 points ahead in the polls for months on end, yet they still went on to lose the 1992 election!

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker