Tory members reject LibDem policies

This morning's Guardian reports the findings of the latest ConservativeHome survey of the Tory grassroots...

Answers to the usual tracker questions on satisfaction with the shadow cabinet and David Cameron will be published tomorrow but we'll focus today on the membership's strong scepticism towards the Liberal Democrats.  The poll follows a number of occasions when leading Tory MPs have talked up the possibility of co-operation with Sir Menzies Campbell's party.

The full results are given in the graphic below but the following bullet points summarise the main findings:

• In the event of the Tories being the largest party - but failing to win a majority - only 15% of Tory members wanted a formal LibCon pact.  Perhaps the idea of Ming Campbell, Simon Hughes and Nick Clegg sat around the Cabinet table was simply too much for the average Tory member?
• 56% preferred the Conservatives to lead a minority government, forming deals with other parties on a case-by-case basis.
• If a minority government was looking for areas of case-by-case co-operation with the LibDems, the two obvious areas that would please Tory members are devolution of power to local government and civil libertarianism (No ID cards).
• 41% of Tory members would support higher green taxation in return for lighter general taxation and the survey also finds that 42% of Tory members agree with the Liberal Democrat approach to the Iraq war.
• Some Liberal Democrat policies are very unpopular with the Conservative netroots, however.  Proportional representation - the possible price for any co-operation from Ming's party - is rejected by 81% to 15% of Tory members (PR was recently debated on YourPlatform - here and here).  There is also a surprising level of support for nuclear power.  By a margin of 85% to 12% Tory members rejected the LibDems' blanket opposition to nuclear power.
• Two-thirds of Tory members rejected the idea that the party "should actively court" the Liberal Democrats in preparation for a possible coalition.  Only 12% were supportive of the idea.

Click on image below to enlarge:

Comments

[Chad]

and civil libertarianism (No ID cards).

I'm surprised that Cameron hasn't also pledged to reject the core database part of this project as that would match the LibDem position, the aim of No2ID and resolve the concerns of the IT industry over the risks of centralising so much personal data (it makes Id fraud more not less likely).

It seems bonkers to even consider working with the LibDems when they seem to be directionless and losing support.

Surely the LibDems could be stretched to splitting point? Tempt the desirable MP's to defect. Be ruthless. Go in for the kill.

[Jack Stone]

All this defeatist talk about pacts with the Lib/Dems is nonsense.
We are not going to need anyone to govern after the next election because David Cameron is going to lead us to victory with a thumping majority.
Conservatives need to get up off there feet and start believing in there party once again. There is far to much moaning and gripping going on at present.
If you don`t want victory, or don`t believe in the way the party is developing then I just wish you would go away and leave us who do believe in the party and the leadership to work for victory.

[Gareth]

I must say, I found the coalition question very difficult to answer. Surely it would entirely depend upon the circumstances?

It would not be sensible for us to keep a Labour government in power when the electorate had just deprived it of an overall majority. If the only way of keeping Labour out was some form of arrangement with the Liberals, I would look favourably upon that on the basis that people hadn't voted tory so we could let Labour back in.

On the other hand, if the Liberals touted themselves around seeking a coalition with either party on the most favourable terms, I would favour telling them to get lost - let them finish themselves by forming a coalition with the socialists.

In any circumstance though, PR is too high a price to pay. Clearly, that would give up any hope of a future majority tory government.

[James Hellyer]

All this defeatist talk about pacts with the Lib/Dems is nonsense.

Unlike you to disagree withy Francis, Jack...

[Derek]

Jack - the CH poll shows most Conservatives agree with you regarding pacts with Lib Dems. However that is not to say that we cannot make critical comments on any aspect of party policy. No party gets everything right!

[Matthew Oxley]

I am pleased to see a poll so supportive of cooperation with the Lib dems.

Since the issue-by-issue would generally involve the Libdems, as Labour would be trying desperately to crush us in this situation, then the poll means CH members have voted in favour of cooperation.

Looking at it another way, 71% are happy for us to cooperate, but with most of them preferring a less formal cooperation.

The challenge will be to persuade people, that in such a circumstance it would be necessary to have stronger cooperation since they will want something in return for their support.

[Chris]

All this defeatist talk about pacts with the Lib/Dems is nonsense.
We are not going to need anyone to govern after the next election because David Cameron is going to lead us to victory with a thumping majority.
Conservatives need to get up off there feet and start believing in there party once again. There is far to much moaning and gripping going on at present.
If you don`t want victory, or don`t believe in the way the party is developing then I just wish you would go away and leave us who do believe in the party and the leadership to work for victory.
Jack, I like you have been a big Cameron supporter since the start, and at times i can understand why you might get a bit annoyed at other posters on this site, because of their attacks on cameron, but that doesn't mean you're always right.

The electoral system is the UK is a big problem, and we have to accept its not a problem which we will overcome with ease. Even if Labour flatline around 32% we are going to need 41% to get ourselves a meagre majority, and thats if we believe the Lib dems are going to seriously lose 30 seats... they won't, meaning we'll probabaly need something closer to 43% of the vote, once again just to get a meagre majority.

The fight ahead is going to be hard, however like you say there is no need to despair yet. I just ask that you at least try to look at the possibility of a hung parliament where the Conservatives have most seats, because frankly its the most likely situation.

Not much suprise in the survey results, except on the Iraq war responses, I thought one of the surveys a while ago was showing that the majority of Conservatives opposed the war? Do peoples principles change just because the Lib dems are now a factor in the equation?

[Paul Kennedy]

Courting the Lib Dems will be used by them in a GE campaign to protect their seats that we will need to target in order to achieve a working majority. They will say something along the lines, "that you may as well keep your Lib Dem MP because the Lib Dems and the Tories will together form the next administration". A political opponent is and will always be a political opponent, much better as someone has already suggested to open our door to those Lib Dems who realise the hopelessness of their party in national terms.

With regards to ID cards and indeed the likely passport fiasco that will occur after 2009, I think as a party we want to make a big issue of it and say that we will have none of it at all and that our policy will be that we will punish the criminals, but not persecute the innocent with oppressive and overbearing Government.

[James Maskell]

Paul, we helped get that ID Card bill through. The Conservatives agreed to that deal. To complain now is contradictory.

[Chris]

James, we voted the ID card bill through tp avoid wasting parlimentary time and money by forcing the government to invoke the parliament act in a years time. Also DC has already pledged to tear the entire scheme down under a Tory administration.

[arthur]

How on earth could red Dave contemplate a pact with the LibDems, they are far too right wing

[Editor]

Chris (0954) - I think you make a good point about the Iraq war numbers. I think there may be an element of Tories liking the LibDem opposition to the Iraq war less than general opposition to the war simply because it is a LibDem position. The other explanation for the difference with the earlier survey finding might be more the nature of how the LibDems opposed the war. I don't know.

[G-MaN]

I do seem to remember other polls have pointed out that just under 50% or so of the Tory Party is aginst the war in Iraq... I cant quite remember where I saw it now though.

[Chad]

"Also DC has already pledged to tear the entire scheme down under a Tory administration. "

No, he has not. That is the whole point.

Cameron had pledged to scrap the "print-outs", the cards, not the centralised system behind the scenes.

It's like opposing knives but not knife possession. Pointless. Headline-worthy, I totally agree, but pointless.

[Chad]

oops s/b "opposing stabbing but not knife possession" :-)

If the Tories pledged to scrap the db, they could then put pressure on the government to ensure that all contracts to build the system have a get-out clause in the even of a change of government to stop us being saddled with the full bill.

This will also make the whole scheme less attractive to third-party consultants.

DC could then say, that with the chances of a Tory government increasing by the day, ministers would be personally negligent not to negoiate a get-out clause, and would be held personally responsilbe if they did not.

As Charles Clarke said before, by the time of the next election, the system will be in place and will be too late to stop. Not if the Tories turn up the pressure now.

Turn up the heat!

[Paul Kennedy]

"Cameron had pledged to scrap the "print-outs", the cards, not the centralised system behind the scenes." 10:56

The centralised scheme, will be an IT disaster - way over budget with a multitude of errors coupled to which the database will be a target for criminals many of whom will seek to plant their people within the administrative system.

I think if we as a party demonstrate how very inconvenienced ( not to mention the cost) the vast number of law abiding people in this country will be with no tangible benefits to show, with this ID nonsense and changes to passport applications, it could be a vote winner.

[Chris]

In all honesty though, the implementation of a central system from an IT based perspective should be an easy task, and shouldn't go over budget. The problems in public IT systems arise due to poor and vague specifications from the government, which are constantly changing. If the system was actually set out in a detailed specification, and that specification wasn't modified at the umpteenth hour then none of the traditional problems should arise.

Personally i don't opose a central database, I have no problem with there being a databse of everyone in the UK. What i do have a problm with is the government being able to track where I go, what I do and who I speak to via an ID card.

Chad, a get out clause is never going to be implemented, the companies which bid for these jobs would never accept such a clause, because of the massive costs they inccur even in just bidding for the project. Beating the private sector up should not be top on the Tories list of priorities, we might need to stand up to big business but making the businesses work for us and not paying them is not just unethical, its theft.

[johnC]

'England does not love coalitions' is as true today as when Disraeli said it. A coalition would be electorally disastrous for both parties. We should be campaigning for outright victory at the next election, and not be distracted by any of this.

[Editor]

Let's not turn this thread into a discussion about ID cards please.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Turning back to the survey I initially opted for a minority government seeking deals on a matter by matter basis. However that's not actually terribly workable. How would the Queen's Speech, the Budget and motions of no confidence be handled?

Also there's the possibility of the Lib Dems joining us in voting out Labour, despite their being the largest party - could we credibly claim to the electorate that we were a party of government if we declined the pass there?

And without wanting to turn this thread into a discussion on party finances, can we honestly afford two general election campaigns in less than a year?

[Chad]

Chad, a get out clause is never going to be implemented, the companies which bid for these jobs would never accept such a clause, because of the massive costs they inccur even in just bidding for the project.

Hi Chris, I disagree very strongly with this.

People present the same arguments against fixed-price contracts as well but the arguments are false.

All the get-out clause will do is force a detailed spec of work, broken into defineable chunks, and chargeds as such. It would not be a vague "go ahead and get it all done but you may have to stop when wer pull the plug".

The third-parties will always peddle this falsehood. They will not turn their noses up at billions of pounds of government work, just because we start to get to grip with their wastage.

Remember Cameron has pledged to stand up to big business. Be pro-business is not the same as letting the private sector bleed us dry.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

It might be more shrewd in the medium-term to let the Liberal Democrats form a coalition with Labour.

The Liberal Democrats cannot be trusted with power, and I would prefer it if we didn't get dragged down with them.

[Don Collier]

The Survey results fail to highlight an important difference between the Lib Dem "Pie in the sky" and real Tory Policy. For example the Greater Devolution of power to real local government is a genuine Tory aspiration and part of the Cameron localism agenda. The Lib Dems talk about devolution but they mean federalism. They mean Regionalisation with Regional Government, which will result in less local authority or accountability, and fatter government. It is another example of where the Lib Dems talk like us but act like Labour. A good example of the real divide and why we cant trust them and underlines why sharing power with them would be hazardous

[Andrew]

Would have liked this question to be poised: in the event of a hung parliament, would you prefer a Lib/Lab coalition government, or Lib/Tory?

Makes things all a bit more specific - obviously nobody wants a coalition, but it's probably that or being in opposition.

[David Banks]

I am glad to see the good sense of the Tory membership reflected in the survey above. I completely agree that a Lib/Con pact would not be a good idea. We should have enough confidence in our Conservative identity to fight for victory without doing any deals with Mings merry men. The much vaunted consesus politics that DC is championing is a club to beat the Labour back benches with, it should not be expected to produce leaves and flower into genuine multi party cooperation.

[David Banks]

Oops have mispelt 'consensus'. Didn't go to Eton like DC , obviously.

[matt wright]

Coalitions at this level are risky as you get saddled with the results of stupid decisions and people feel that the parties are cooking the books together behind the scenes.

Matt

[Richard]

"Jack - the CH poll shows most Conservatives agree with you regarding pacts with Lib Dems."

He's stirring.

"If you don`t want victory, or don`t believe in the way the party is developing then I just wish you would go away and leave us who do believe in the party and the leadership to work for victory."

Tolerant chap isn't he?

http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/post-103814.html&highlight=#103814

[TomTom]

Jack Stone....were you ever a FDJ member of the ? You have that Young Pioneer enthusiasm about you, I could well imagine you being decorated by Margot Honecker as a credit to Party and State.

[Graeme Archer]

Hope we don't require any coalition but I actually found the poll results comforting. I can't imagine any Tory disagreeing with what we found as areas for agreement and areas for disagreement... it's essentially the voting pact that occurs in the House of Lords now. The only result which is at variance with Westminster practice is that for Iraq, and I guess that's down to whipping. I don't know a single Tory - not true, be specific Graeme, I know one - who doesn't want our troops home now.

[Graeme Archer]

I suppose what would really make my statistical day would be to see the results of the same questions applied to LibDem members. Or an interviewer a la Paxman to grill prominent Orange Bookers on where their liberalism ends and their centre-leftiness begins.

[South Londoner]

If there is one thing that is for certain, it is the absolute treachery that would emerge from any Con-Lib coalition. Everything that went right would, according to every Liberal leaflet and pronouncement, be entirely due to they would never cease to proclaim such. The Liberals would essentially remain on a campaign footing and constantly seeking to undermine us as we got on with the business of government. I saw all of this first hand in Lambeth where we had a Con-Lib coalition. We may have been able to claim we were cleaning up after a Labour disaster, but I am not sure how much credit we Conservative got for it. Worse, Lambeth turned into one of the few Labour gains in the recent local elections, the people spoke and they did not like a Con-Lib coalition!

[Gareth]

I agree with DVA (reaches for hand rail to stop from falling over), the best scenario would be another Lib-Lab pact, but are even the Liberals that stupid? The real danger is a very public offer of an anti-Labour coalition to us.

[Gareth]

'South Londoner' - the tory vote sigificantly increased in Lambeth in May which, perversely, is why the Liberals lost and Labour got back in. In seat after seat, tories who had previously voted Liberal, voted tory and cost the Liberals the seat.

[David Sergeant]

South Londoner is right. The Lib/Dems should not be trusted at anything and would let us down. That they have this nice bleeding heart image is just because we've let them get away with it.

We should set about holding up Lib/Dems for what they are and selling ourselves at the same time. Voters will come over, quite possibly followed by MPs. The Lib/Dem party is a split waiting to happen.

[James]

I'v always wondered why it is that Conservatives feel the need every so often to talk up a potential coalition with the Lib Dems. So far as this survey shows, the only two areas of significant convergence between the two of us are on ID cards and localism - the later being seriously undermined by the Libs euromania, giving them two rather paradoxical commitments if ever I saw them. By the time of the next election, if Cameron's rebranding efforts and current opinion polls are anything to go by, then we should be in a situation to seriously undermine the Liberals anyhow - anyone think we can knock them out of the ring completely?

[Gillibrand]

Coming soon a Cam-Cam coalition, whatever Tory party members think. Mr Cameron is trying to fashion the Tory Party in his own image. He does not need ordinary members for this task.

[Westmorland Activist]

Any co-operation with the LDs is like those insects which lay their eggs inside a wasp. We unfortunately are cast as the wasp every time.

However, real-politik means it will be hard not to form a coalition with the LDs if we don't have a working majority.

A coalition with the Ulster Unionists would have made John Major's government a lot more stable and so reduced the scale of 1997.

I'm not looking forward to being eaten alive from the inside but I accept that it will probably happen, just as it has already done here in Cumbria.