David Davis tops satisfaction league table

The same big health warnings that I attached to David Cameron's April dip in satisfaction need to be attached to the data for the top ten members of the shadow cabinet - published on the right (click on image to enlarge).   The numbers for the ratings were collected before May 4th's encouraging local election results.

All members of the shadow cabinet saw their net satisfaction ratings drop in April except for David Davis.  David Davis now tops William Hague.  91% of 1,503 Tory members are satisfied with David Davis' performance and only 7% dissatisfied (producing the 84% net satisfaction rating).  Francis Maude's net rating has sunk to just 6% this month.  11% are very satisfied with the Party Chairman and 36% are fairly satisfied.  This 47% satisfied slightly outnumber the 19% fairly dissatisfied and 22% very dissatisfied.

Last month's data can be read here.

Comments

[Matthew Oxley]

I'm not sure what Boy George and David Willets are doing to see their satisfaction drop so sharply , perhaps just a lack of exposure.

DD has had a lot of exposure (particularly with foreign criminals) and has excelled, so his rating is unsurprising.

The only surprise I notice is that Lansley's rating is so high, he's not managed to put a great deal of pressure on Hewitt who has been in plenty of trouble recently. He was OK when I saw him in the house recently, but he really needs to make the national news more when the government is under such pressure.

[James Maskell]

6 percent!!! Maude does not have the backing of this site for sure and the biggest reason at the moment...the A-List. Its a hint, Maude!

The big problem is that Cameron isnt letting the Cabinet gets a real chance to talk with the exceptions of Davis and Hague. Let your Cabinet members talk!

[Chad]

Time for Maude to reshuffle out of the door?

[Jacob Traff]

It is fun that the two who party members are consistently most satisfied with must be considered as right-wingers... But I believe that you can be quite satisfied with Cameron's modernisation (as I am) while, in the context of modernisation, appreciating the traditional Tories even more. In these days, they offer a contrast to the new don't-over-fill-your-kettle-and-take-the-bus conservatism we are getting used to hearing about in the news.

[Jon Gale]

It's interesting that Guido is reporting rumours Maude was nearly fired and is on borrowed time.

[Andrew Woodman]

Francis Maude will be getting a complex!! I agree about Andrew Lansley. He seems to have a bit of the Geoffry Howe being savaged by a dead sheep about him. We need to do to Labour and Health what Blair did to us on crime in the 90's. I don't think Lansley is tough enough to do that. I'd be tempted to put Micheal Gove there myself.

[Deputy Editor]

6 percent!!! Maude does not have the backing of this site for sure and the biggest reason at the moment...the A-List. Its a hint, Maude!

Can I just stress that the 6% is a net satisfaction statistic, and that the Members Panel includes people from a variety of Conservative groups - not all of whom comment on this site.

[James Maskell]

I remember it said before the May elections that Maude was to be the fall-guy if the elections went bad. Of course they didnt and that was down to Cameron himself not Maude. Maudes past his sell by date. Throw him in the bin and get a real leader in the Chairman position. Get the right person and Ill have two reasons less for quitting.

[changetowin]

So the man who lost us an election and the man who lost the leadership contest are nearly universally adored by members of this site??? What a laugh! What this poll really reveals is who is playing the most reassuring tunes. If the Conservatives are to win again we need to reach out beyond our core vote i.e. the bulk of those taking part in these surveys. Those who really get this - such as Francis Maude - are constantly challenging us. People on this site may not like this, but if we are to please new people (and win an election) there are going to be some things that the core voters find uncomfortable. Davis may please you guys by playing the old politics, but it is the new politics of Letwin and Maude that is reaching out to new voters and winning us elections.

Funny, isn't it, that DD is SO popular when his agenda was roundly defeated at the leadership election? Could it be that ConservativeHome contributors are out of touch not just with the mainstream of the country, but also with the mainstream of the party? I THINK SO!

[James Maskell]

Yes you can stress that Sam... Ohhhhh, this was before the election too. I bet right now that the next panel will show a minus net satisfaction figure for Maude next month.

[Mike Christie]

Andrew who? Rhetorical question, but given how I must hear at least one article about NHS problems every time I listen to the news, Mr Lansley is most conspicuous by his absence from the airwaves.

[malcolm]

I would agree with Matthew,lack of exposure is hurting several members of the Shadow Cabinet.Every 'initative' seems to be coming from DC himself and we seem to be imitating Blairs form of presidential government which I think is a mistake.We should remember that generally speaking we have a talented team and Blair doesn't.
BTW 'changetowin' I didn't vote for David Davis but I do think he's proved to be an admirable Shadow Home Secretary, don't you?
Francis Maude would probably do better if he didn't give the impression in both words and deeds that he is actually proud to be a Conservative rather than always adopting an apologetic tone.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Changetowin - how reassurring you sound so familiar!

It is just possible that David Davis has got higher ratings at the moment, because he has been effective coping with the usual interviewers and in parliament, rather than, the old-fashioned agenda he may or may not have.

Of course there has to be 'new', there always has to be 'new', but if you jettison all 'old' entirely - what is it? - 'the baby and the bath water!'

What is needed by a conservative party is appeal to the widest possible types of people, and I don't think the leadership is doing so badly at the moment, one can always say, they could do better.

[Jamie]

Not having a dig, but is this pre-occupation with polls entirely beneficial? Am all for guaging people's opinion, but every month having a new poll on satisfaction on various MPs...? If anything it shows the volatility (and fickleness?) of those that vote in these surveys, rather than anything subtantive or beneficial.

[Matthew Oxley]

Yes, Hague may have lost an election, and Davis may have lost the leadership contest, but you are assuming that all members of this site are also obsessed by winning. We are not. Indeed if this was the case, one might reasonably point out that David Cameron drafted up the losing 2005 manifesto.

Winning is obviously very important to many people here, which is why we backed DC in the poll that really mattered, but we also believe in conservatism as well as just the Conservative party. To gain high satisfaction with CH members, shadow cabinet members must be seen to be winners who are also holding true to the values of conservatism.

[changetowin]

Thanks Matthew - but I never made the mistake of thinking that people on this site are obsessed with winning. I've always said that this site is stuffed with ideologues who would prefer to lose with honour. Many of the attitudes that are expressed here are those which lost us three elections in a row.

If the leadership listen to some of the advice they are getting here - (you used to call it Clear Blue Water) - we'll start losing again. And without starting a whole other debate - by refusing to change with the times they'll be betraying the true spirit of Conservatism.

[Sean Fear]

Change to win - do you think there is any point to Conservatism over and beyond holding office?

[Chad]

It is interesting (and perhaps unfounded) that Guido has today suggested that Cameron and Maude are at loggerheads with one blogger cheeklily suggesting that the conflict could be caused as Dave is just playing modernisation.

[Sean Fear]

The reason why David Davis is topping the poll is that he's obviously effective at his job, unlike some of his more invisible colleagues.

[Richard]

"So the man who lost us an election and the man who lost the leadership contest are nearly universally adored by members of this site???"

After Davis caved in slightly on ID cards I didn't rate him as highly as before. I put "don't know" next to most of them because, as some posters have pointed out above, we haven't really heard from them.

Are you Jack Stone in disguise? Your OTT performance suggests so.

[James Maskell]

"I always said that this site is stuffed with ideologues who would prefer to lose with honour."

changetowin, whats your definition of an ideologue?

[Lord Haw Haw]

Well done on providing another pointless story for the anti tory press. Ever wondered why Channel 4 use this site for stories? Have you considered approaching Lord Levy to sponsor the site?

[James Maskell]

Channel 4 use this site...cool. They should quote people. Im up for it!

[Richard]

"Well done on providing another pointless story for the anti tory press."

If you're so upset then set up your own website and run it how you want.

[Richard]

Oh, by the way Lord Haw Haw (are you a William Joyce fan?), note that the Editor kicks off the article with a disclaimer regarding the timing of the poll and the recent elections.

[malcolm]

'Changetowin' have you any evidence for your assertion?The vast majority here supported and continue to support the leadership.
The majority also have the guts to post under their real name.

[Chad]

Davis performed well over the released prisoners, and that would clearly have had some positive impact.

Perhaps the 'and' theory (perhaps 'core + more'?) imbalance at the moment, where we seem to be getting just the 'more' has led members to swing back towards the core to restore some sort of equilibrium between the two.

It's not a rejection of the 'more' just a reminder that the core is equally important.

[changetowin]

Sean - of course there are all sorts of wonderful things that Conservatism can do for our country. But if our Conservatism is narrow and exclusionary then we will never win and never be able to do anything! And the longer we take to win, the longer we'll be stuck with this miserable lot...

James - I pulled this def of ideologue from an online dictionary - describes some of the people on here pretty well in my opinion!

"One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a spectator"

If we're to move on from being spectators and actually want to put our principles into action - we have to win first!!!

[Mark Fulford]

On the occasions that I have contacted Francis Maude, either directly or through this blog, he has responded very promptly and thoroughly. He is, in my opinion, a very competent and decent man doing a dirty job - but it's a job that somebody's got to do. View him as a tax inspector – necessary but never popular.

[torylady]

IN DEFENCE OF FRANCIS MAUDE

Maude seems to get the blame for anything that goes wrong in this party. It is tedious to listen to the barrage of unnecessary villification he constantly gets.

The Non-Tory James Maskell Chad, among others are obsessed with putting down Maude.
Mainly because of the proposal to take away the membership vote, yet Hague and Howard had just as much (if not more) to do with it than Maude did. In fact, on his last toryradio interview Michael Howard said he has no regrets about trying to take away the membership vote, Maude on the other hand is contrite.

Yet people forget that the members still have their vote. So the fact that he bowed to member's wishes in the end, clearly counts for nothing. He was associated with an unpopular move and must be punished forever and ever.
(Chad with his delusions of grandeur is also angry with Maude because Maude doesn't think the Imagine Party with ZERO members is a serious threat).

He is also blamed for the A-list, even though it is 100% David Cameron's idea, and is supported by Hague and Davis, but Maude has the unfortunate job of having to implement it. Who knows whether Guido's rumour has anything to do with Maude having reservations about the A-list?

His "apologetic" tone might not be the most strident, but he has made more of an effort than most MPs (if not all) to engage with us members through ConservativeHome - writing Platform articles, passing information to us directly through Tim Montgomerie and pretty much on a weekly (if not daily) basis is on Radio, TV and print trumpeting the party and defending our cause.

You don't have to agree with everything Francis Maude does, but credit must be given where credit is due.

When Maude actually does something right, the comments on this blog are filled with hysterical boos and whistles, claims that (because of the membership vote issue)anything that comes from Maude must be false/hypocritical.

People need to grow up, move on and be objective.
All this talk of "Chairman Maode" and "Fraude" is boring and off-puttinga and makes us all of us look like crass idiots.

Many of the people who vote in this poll get their opinions from reading comments on this site. If all they read are the rants of non-Tories like James and Chad, they will never remember the good things that Maude has done and is doing.

[Richard]

"One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a spectator"

Fanciful ideas and theories can become the orthodoxy of tomorrow.

Anyhow, I still believe your initial analysis is wrong. I expect the reason there is dissatisfaction with the "non-traditionalists" is because they haven't been in the spotlight as much.

[Richard]

A good post, Torylady. While I'm no Maude fan due to the reasons you highlight, I sometimes feel he gets too much flak. I confess I wasn't are of Howard not having any regrets or of Hague's involvement.

[Ted]

Torylady
- a well argued defence. I am pleased that his ratings remain positive in a time of change where the Chairman is the easy target as he has to front much that affects members. Are Party Chairmen ever that popular?

Maude unfortunately isn't judged on today's performance but through the Portillista/Howard lens.

I was one who didn't rate DD as highly as others because I thought his voting for ID cards compromise was a weakness but I think much of the preferences still reflects past rather than current performance. Until DC and the frontbench have policies or issues they can lead on it will be difficult to really judge the stars and also rans.

[Biodun]

A lovely breath of fresh air, from torylady. Enough Maude-bashing, it IS boring.

And you're absolutely right, Mark.
I remember sending a comment to Mr. Maude at his conservatives.com address well after 11pm one evening, and he replied less than 20 minutes later.IMHO, the man works harder than anyone for the party, but he doesn't have despatch box opportunities to show this off like other frontbenchers.

[Rob G]

Editor/Deputy Editor: Please could you remind us whose votes are used to make up these statistics. Is it everyone who votes in the survey and who self-identifies as a Party member? Or are you counting only people who were on your records as Party members during the leadership campaign? If the latter, have you eliminated people who have since left the Party?

[Andrew Kennedy]

"Yet people forget that the members still have their vote. So the fact that he bowed to member's wishes in the end, clearly counts for nothing."

Errrrr - perhaps I am mistaken but I don't recall anyone bowing to member's wishes. I thought we retained our vote because the proposals did not receive the required majority for the rules to be changed.

There is a significant difference!

[Oberon Houston]

I would like to say that I agree with Mark Fulfords remarks, in the only dealing I have had with him he was very good at getting back to me.

Now, I agree that there is an issue over the A-Listers, I suppose its the whiff of 'we don't want you' many people detect about it which can rankle, we need to try to find a way to deal with this sensibly so that things aren't destabilised. Hounding Francis doesn't really move things along much, and to outsiders gives the impression that we are unstable. Not a good impression for a party hoping to gain power.

[Oberon Houston]

... or (I should of added), the impression that we don't want our own candidates!

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I don't think polling in this method does anything other than provide ammunition for our opponents. I think it is excellent that every single member of the shadow cabinet in that list has a positive approval rating, do you think that would happen if Labour members were polled about the cabinet?

[Richard]

"I don't think polling in this method does anything other than provide ammunition for our opponents."

Can you suggest an alternative method?

If there is dissatisfaction with leading members then the leadership have a right to know. Obviously this approach carries risks (fickle opinions, politically motivated rankings etc) but it's the best way to ensure the leadership keeps in touch with the grass roots.

[Alex Philpott]

Jacob Traff makes an excellent point. "Don't-over-fill-your-kettle-and-take-the-bus conservatism" is fine to an extent, but it's great to see that the party has room for hardliners like Davis at the same time. ;-)

[John Hustings]

I disliked Maude well before the issue of depriving members of their right to vote. While that is symbolic, it is not the reason he keeps coming bottom of these polls. The reason is that he and Theresa May have often outwardly expressed their contempt for the members of the party they're supposed to represent.

He also doesn't represent the opinions of Conservative Party members, since he seems to wish to disown every conservative belief it's possible to disown; and by continually "trashing the brand", or "trashing the philosophy", he makes it alot harder for those who wish to stick up for conservativism to do so.

[Richard Allen]

As a staunch DD backer from day 1 of the leadership contest I actually rated him as 'fairly unsatisfied' in this poll because of his part in the disgraceful betrayal over ID cards.

As for Maude, a positive score is more than he deserves. He has contempt for party members and for their values. If he still has a shread of conservatism left in him he is a poor advocate for it.

[Biodun]

The reason is that he and Theresa May have often outwardly expressed their contempt for the members of the party they're supposed to represent.

He also doesn't represent the opinions of Conservative Party members, since he seems to wish to disown every conservative belief it's possible to disown; and by continually "trashing the brand", or "trashing the philosophy", he makes it alot harder for those who wish to stick up for conservativism to do so.

Can you provide some examples of this, John?
When did Theresa May express contempt for party members?
If it's just because of her "People think we're the nasty party" comment then I'd say your conclusion is a bit far-fetched.

[Esbonio]

I was discussing our country's travails the other day with my father who has never been political. His perspective includes growing up in the depression, serving as aircrew during the war and continuing in HMG's employ almost to the end of Maggie's reign. As children we often tend to poo poo our parents' views far to much so it comes as a surprise when they omething spot on that tyou agree with. And I had to agree with him entirely when he said so much blame has to be laid at the Ted Heath's door for taking us into the then EEC. I make this comment because the EU has made our Westminster government irrelevant in so many areas and accordingly the same applies to our ministers and shadow ministers despite what thet say and do.

[buxtehude]

Cllr,
Why can't you understand what even oldies like me and William Rees-Mogg understand: there is nothing you can do about the Internet-driven rise of transparency, bottom-up campaigning, participation, honesty... The days of us all getting together and saying what a jolly good show it all is, aren't our boys doing a wonderful job, and let's keep smiling in case anyone is watching - those days are long gone.

[Chad]

Opposition to state funding of political parties, opposition to the Iraq War, opposition to positive discrimination, epp withdrawal, support for grammar schools, negative opinion of Maude.

For all the regular shots fired at me ToryLady, I do seem to be in agreement with the mood of the majority of Tory Party members most of the time. My views are hardly outliers by firmly in line with members views on most issues.

It's easy to pick out James or myself, but probably a lot harder to consider why the chairman of the party is disliked by so many members, when the party is supposed to be representing views, not imposing them.

I have no delusions of grandeur though, I know I am a lowly scumbag and am quite happy that way! :-)

[Sean Fear]

That's an interesting post, Tory Lady. I'm not one of Francis Maude's natural fans, but the fact that he does read this blog regularly, (and much of what is posted here is certainly uncomplimentary) and posts articles here, certainly reflects credit on him.

[Ted]

When I read the results above a bit of TS Elliot came to mind "April is the cruellist month". The government was beginning to fall apart but we hadn't got the expected boost in polls, the loans scandal had tarred us as well as Labour etc. Camerons speeches seemed to have caused a flood of UKIP & BNP posters driving away many of CHomes more erudite and thinking posters (not just from one tendency).

I'm pleasantly surprised that the modernisers still have positive votes - so perhaps behind the noise the more representative are still reading & lurking.

The best bit I read on CHome today (aside from the welcome postings of ToryLady) was in the books section where a review of a book on FDR had a bit about his view of what could have beaten him in the 36 election - that if the Republicans accepted that the voters favoured the New Deal but attacked on competence & waste of cash they could have hurt him.

Cameron, Maude and others accept what the voters have beeen telling us since 1992 and are establishing a conservative approach built around that acceptance. I fully expected when I voted for DC that it would be uncomfortable and he'd be annoying the activists around now as the changes to the party started hitting home.

I'm sorry that Maude gets the bile he does because he seems to me to have made a deal of effort, through this blog and on Conservatives.com to be more responsive than many of his predessors and I hope he continues to be an active participant.

He of all the Party leadership seems to accept what Bux says above - that the internet, blogs, micr-campaigning are here to stay.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Why can't you understand what even oldies like me and William Rees-Mogg understand: there is nothing you can do about the Internet-driven rise of transparency, bottom-up campaigning, participation, honesty...

I don't doubt that, nor would I wish anything else, for one thing my political contributions are scattered across the internet... but what does this poll actually measure?

As others have pointed out, these people are doing very different jobs - you are not comparing like-with-like. I also wonder how much these polls actually measure current performance. Can you really compare David Cameron's performance with Theresa May's, or David Davis's with that of Liam Fox?

[Will]

Ted - but none of those who are prominent in new media have made the A-list - Iain Dale, Jonathan Sheppard, James Cleverley etc.

Iain Lindley - Blair is PM, DC leader of the opposition & Ming is leader of a third party. All very different jobs but we have no problem comparing them. Do you refuse to answer those questions on the survey then that rate the shadow cabinet ?

[Ted]

Will

We've seen the first part of the A list - and only the first 35 seats announced for selection. Lets see what position is in July.

[AlexW]

Cllr, torylady, changetowin et al. - I am sure that few of the more prescient modernisers will be surprised that Maude has poor ratings. The whole object of the exercise has been to capture the media's imagination by focusing the "Change to Win" agenda in certain areas that the media are most likely to pick up on. The majority of the press are wholly uninterested in the finer details of public service reform, and these can be readily mispresented. Big banner headlines of "Half of Tory candidates to be women", however, send very clear messages about the party having changed. The trade-off is that they tend to irk many members who believe them to be fundamentally flawed ideas. The last election demonstrated not that our ideas were unpopular, but that the party was. What better strategy, then, to focus the "Change to Win" on reforming the party structure?

I appreciate much of this is hypothesis. But the very fact of Maude's unpopularity is part and parcel of the "Change to Win" agenda. Maude's unpopularity should be welcomed by modernisers. If Channel 4 report that traditional right-wingers are upset with Maude, this emphasises the message that we have changed. If the likes of James Maskell were cheering him to the rooftops, our opponents could well ask the question as to whether we really have changed.

[Chad]

Sorry Alex, but you have lumped two very different groups together incorrectly.

The problem is that genuine modernisers do not accept that Maude is really a moderniser at all. He might think he is, but ideas like positive discrimination are not 'modern'.

I am a passionate moderniser, which is why I champion open primaries over positive discrimination to address fair representation etc.

I was not a Howard fan, did not like the 2005 Tory offering, and believe that real modernisation is necessary.

So your problems are two-fold:
The "old guard" dislike the headlines and the modernisers dislike the lack of delivery to match the headlines.

So you see, those who dislike Maude comesfrom two groups, and would make you question who is left to support him , which must be those who equally believe that his "modernising" ideas are really modernising. As we have seen, thankfully, that is a very small group!

[torylady]

Chad,
Your criticism would hold water if you were actually a Conservative Party member, and not a random one-man-party heckling from the sidelines on his own agenda.

[Chad]

ToryLady,
I was a Tory member and resigned over this very issue of positive discrimination so I think my comments are far from irrelevant.

[Chad]

You see, as you will see from my profile I believe in "No Preference, No Prejudice" in terms of sex, sexuality, age, race and religion.

I supported Cameron until it became clear that the "modernisation" was superficial and worse than that, prejudiced and racist.
(preference is as racist as prejudice).

[Deputy Editor]

I see your logic Chad, but please don't repeat it. DC is not a racist in the way everyone initially interprets the term, so it is probably wise not to say he is because of another interpretation.

[Mike Christie]

I must side with Chad here, I think his analysis of the position of Maude has some truth in it. Whilst Maude might not be personally responsible for all of the changes, he is the 'face' of them.

I view myself as a moderniser, I would love to see more candidates from outside the traditional backgrounds of many of our current candidates.

However, I view much of the focus on 'how do we appeal to women/asians/gays/martians' to be a little patronising. For the most part people have the same worries, things like paying the bills, healthcare, education, transport, crime... all the boring mundane things of everyday life.

If we focus too much on the appearance of our candidates, don't we send out the message that we think that women/ asians/ gays/ martians are so shallow that they will vote based purely on what a candidate looks like?

Do we really think that women are more likely to vote for a woman candidate who has nothing sensible to say about improving her voters' lives, than a man who has good ideas on improving local facilities and helping with the work/life balance?

Of course we want diversity of candidates, but we need to achieve that through robust policies that appeal to a wide cross-section of the population, rather than through tokenism and positive discrimination.

The change should be bottom up, recruiting a wider range of people to the party and through ensuring there are no artificial barriers to talent rising to the top.

[Chad]

Hi Sam,
I am not being radical, I am simply using the definition used by ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) definition racism which is as follows:

“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

This is of fundamental importance. We should not be afraid to challenge and stand up to policies that are racist or prejudiced in a calm and logical way.

[torylady]

Chad, This is balderdash.
I can count 9 ethnic minorities on the list of 100.
1 is an universally praised MEP
1 is a Vice-Chairwoman of the party,
5 are ex-PPCs,
1 is the incoming president and former secretary of the Bow Group, our main think-tank.
I have never heard of the last person, but nonetheless if you think that having these 9 people on a list of 100 whites is evidence of racism, then you clearly have a problem.

Mike Christie, your choosing to lump martians with women, asians and gays indicates what you really think of these groups i.e. that they are not normal.

[Chad]

Tory Lady,

What exactly is balderdash? The A-List contains a fixed % of ethnic minorities. Do you disagree with this?

Along with Mike, genuine modernisers know that real diversity comes from letting communities (not associations!) choose their candidate.

B2L pledges just that (and thus I agree with it), but the a-list shows that the party is promising one thing in terms of values but delivering the exact opposite.

That is nasty hypocrisy.

[William Norton]

Torylady:1 is the incoming president and former secretary of the Bow Group, our main think-tank.
I can think of at least seven think tanks who would dispute that description (although they might not quite agree on which is the 'main' think tank). Still, it's a point of view (and I wouldn't disagree with the person's inclusion on the A List).

Chad:I was a Tory member and resigned over this very issue of positive discrimination so I think my comments are far from irrelevant.
I'm sorry, but I've lost count of the number of reasons Chad has now given for leaving the Conservative Party. Chad, old chap, aren't you carrying the joke just a mite too far? Keep it up any more at this rate and people will start to think you're serious. Surely by now it's time to pick up the rattle and get back in the pram?

[Mike Christie]

"Mike Christie, your choosing to lump martians with women, asians and gays indicates what you really think of these groups i.e. that they are not normal."

That was not my intent at all, I threw in martians to show my ridicule for the idea of thinking that a person's gender or race is an overriding factor in determining someone's concerns or political outlook. I find that attitude utterly patronising, and it wouldn't surprise me if people in the groups targetted also find it patronising. Surely it is the people trying to find ways to appeal to 'women' or 'gays' as if they were a homogenous group defined by their gender or sexual preference are the ones who have the blinkered view.

[Chad]

William,

If you would like to see my resignation letter it is here.

Do please tell me what I have said that is inconsistent with that.

[William Norton]

Chad: I wasn't accusing you of inconsistency; it was a genuine statement of fact - I had lost count of the number of reasons you have given for leaving the Party. From the link you supplied (for which, much thanks) I see that they were all cited in your email to Francis Maude.

My substantive point remains: I don't see what you will achieve that would not have better prospects of success - and might actually do some good - running a blog/ginger group within the Tory Party.

It can be quite fun planning your own party - for most of the 1990s I toyed with the idea of launching the Worcestershire Independence Party. Great manifesto: declare UDI from Herefordshire, form a dynamic free market enclave in a strategically central location, and exit the UK and the EU as windfall benefits. Switzerland on the Severn, with cheaper chocolate and no cuckoo clocks. I never got round to doing anything about it (since the reorganisation which hived off Herefordshire, the boundary of Worcs is now closer to where God - and not Ted Heath - intended it and WIP is on permanent ceasefire).

[Chad]

Hi William,

Don't worry, I don't mind the abuse, amd am getting used to it!

However, the "fight for change within" is a meaningless argument as so far there has been no sign of any effective influence from members on policy decisions since Cameron took over.

With 81% of members here opposing state funding, what noises have the party given that they will reconsider their position? None.

The agenda is being handed down to members on an insulting like-it-or-lump-it basis, and in such an environment the only effective solution is to take the one thing away from the party that will influence them; votes.

[Jack Stone]

The difficulty for Cameron is that the majority in the party want to win and they see him as the way to do so but they don`t want to support him when he try`s to do the things necessary to win.
I thnk the party will win thew next election bvut there is one party that can stop David Cameron becoming Prime Minister and that is the Conservative Party!

[Matthew Oxley]

Not UKIP Jack? how is the UKIP forum these days, a bit lonely I'm guessing?

I disagree with your suggestion that we are the party most likely to stop DC becoming the next PM(we've already heard the notion that DC is being held back due to being a Tory many times) since criticism from the right is supposed to benefit him. The more the right becomes unhappy with DC, the more the public will think the Conservative party has changed ... or something like that.

You should be applauding our efforts to fool the media into thinking we're actually unhappy with DC. Cunning plan, we're all brilliant internet actors.

[Editor]

RobG: Later on today (events permitting) I'll do a special post on why I believe readers can have confidence in the Conservative Members' Panel.

[Old Hack]

Maude will always suffer for the crass way he behaved when William Hague was leader but he, not Cameron, has made some key operational decisions which are just plain dumb.

I mean, Angela Browning line manager for the Regional Directors? She's an MP and not a campaigning professional. We need a replacement for Gavin Barwell and someone who genuinely knows how to fight election campaigns.

As Tim has said, the Leadership does not own the Party, much as it would like to think it does.

It may be worthwhile creating the directly elected post of Party President as a unifying figure, conscience and trustee for the party?

Heaven knows the Party's future is not safe in the hands of MPs who have not proven reliable guardians of the Party's reputation or prospects in the past.