« Czechs won't quit EPP until at least 2009 | Main | Tory MPs launch sustained questioning of BBC »

Comments

Living in an ultra safe Tory seat in the South East, these polls give little comfort. On the doorstep, there is a powerful dislike of the present Givernment and the geriatric Ming Campbell does little for the LibDems. However, there is also precious little new enthusiasm for us. More strikingly, the last few weeks have seen a major anti-Cameron view take hold: what exactly does he stand for and why is he ditching so many Conservative values and principles?

This does not all add up to a General Election win. A hung parliament maybe.

MH, don't forget we always do better on election day (Not by elections, before anyone mentions Bromley), and the pollsters are'nt always correct. You also have to factor in the margin of error in these polls, 3% extra to the Tories and 3% less to Labour would give us and 8% lead.

Personally I've been aiming for a hung parliament for a while now, but that wouldn't stop us leading a minority government for a bit and then holding a second election aiming to get a proper majority, like Harold Wilson did in 74.

Prescott is the head of the EU's regionalisation programme, and linked in with the bizarre organisation 'Common Purpose'. It is a quaint idea people still have that their views matter. In the brave new world created by New labour, corruption and incompetence in our leaders are irrelevant. Raw power rules us now. There is no democracy.

Prescott's going nowhere. Like Mandelson, he's untouchable. Once these guys have built position with the EU, they can rape your children if they like. But they will not be got rid of.

Save Prezza! Prezza's worth far more to the Tory Party in office than out.

I was hoping for more than 36%

Extract from EU Truth. www.eutruth.org.uk

EU corruption is now exploding through our Civil Service, our local government, and our 7,000 quangos.
A shadow EU government lives inside our bureaucracy, headquartered in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM.) It includes many parts of government including the RDA and the Regional Assemblies. Common Purpose, an EU organisation, the UK branch also headquartered in the ODPM, has members across many government organisations including some city and county councils, the Land Registry, the police and the NHS, which it is destroying from within.

Common Purpose is the glue that enables fraud to be committed across these government departments, most of it lining the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats. It often involves the sale of public assets such as land to friends of politicians or their businesses. (The RDA -The EU Regional Development Agency, is a major player in this type of fraud.) And the handing out of plum government non jobs with big salaries and expenses to members of Common Purpose, all of it involving the theft of our money as taxpayers. The Chief Executive Officer of Common Purpose is Julia Middleton of the ODPM.

Most people have no idea how dug in Prescott is. The above is hamming it up a bit for effect, but there's a lot going on.

It would appear that Labour are stabilising in the polls after such a torrid period for them. I don't think we'll see a complete collapse from them.

The Prescott saga has been going on for so long now that the headline voting intentions will have already had this effect factored in to its maximum extent . The BPIX poll is clearly not worth including in your poll of polls as it is clearly at best a rogue .

There u go again Chris

And if you take the Labour figure, multiply it by 15, add 35, take away the number you first thought of, add your mum's birthday date, divide by your father's, it gives you a Tory lead of 272%, wow no problem there.

For the Tories to be sure of a majority at the next election, the Labour % should drop to about 26/27% Governments' normally (not always) pick up about 4% on election day.
That's what happened with the Major government. they were down in the mid 20's and picked up 4/5%. You can check this out in the mori poll archive. Also there's a good article in Political betting on this.

The point, Chris, is well made, although I am not sure 1997 bears out your thesis. I am sorry, but the feeling on the doorsteps is far from a ringing endorsement of us or what DC is trying to do. It is purely a reaction to the disgust at Blair, RPescoot and co. More worryingly, our natural supporters are becoming ever sceptical of what DC is doing. It does not augur well. By this stage, Blair was 15 points up.

Yes MH, and that's before Cameron flunks the EPP decision.

David, feel free to ridicule me,but what I'm saying remains within the realms of possibility, and any pollster would agree. I'm far from sure we'll get a majority at the next election, I just think that currently our support is being understated.

MH, I'm getting a different response in my area which is a Tory-Labour marginal which we won last year due to Labour haemoraging votes to the Lib Dems. Most people seem impressed by Cameron's positive attitude towards non-traditional methods, but are jus sceptical he'll get rid of too many right wing policies (Which is pretty much where I find myself). Don't forget though its the government than loses an election normally, not the opposition that wins it. We still aren't trusted by a huge swathe of the public, and retreating onto traditional right wing ground isn;t going to solve that.

Left and right doesn't mean much these days. It's almost branding and nothing more.

People from all sides respect a person who stands for what they believe in and delivers on what they promise. They don't respect those who manipulate by promising to get advantage, and then dumping on their promises later.

Polling is highly dubious. If elections can be rigged by postal voting scams etc, how much easier it must be to rig polls to make them say what is required. The game seems to be to swing them around to give people hope and then despair in sequence.

If people become optimistic they power up. If they get too despairing, they get motivated to change things by getting chnage pushed through. By alternating the emotions, people just get worn down and do nothing. That is what they are doing by swinging around poll results. Buying your acceptance of the status quo.

It's the same with policies. One minute a policy is on. Then it's off. Then it's on again. Eventually people tire and go quiet. This is the way our country is being subsumed - death by a thousand cuts. One minute you hope. Next you don't.

I rather think that probably Tony Blair is preparing for a summer reshuffle which he will launch saying that it is a major part of moving towards the transition of a new party leader and Prime Minister, who knows he may even announce when he is standing down as leader (it's bound to be only about 2 years away anyway) and when he is standing down as Prime Minister roughly (about 2.5 years away). Probably see John Prescott dropped as Deputy Prime Minister and maybe being a Minister without Portfolio or just First Secretary of State, Gordon Brown might even be made Deputy Prime Minister or the title may simply be dropped and some new faces coming into the cabinet - after all the Prime Minister can run the country from anywhere in the world.

I don't think John Prescott is going to be allowed to oversee the leadership election, if he doesn't announce he is standing down before or at the same time as Tony Blair as Deputy Leader there will be a formal challenge raised.

Some very perceptive points on here. Cameron's strategy is dependent upon the more dolid, traditional Conservatives turning out whatever he says. This may well be the case, but I just cannot judge it at the moment. The unease I here is quite stark and I am genuinely unsure whether the Right will actually support us come what may if there is no perceived or actual difference. An interesting time in which to live.

It's coming to the point where a resignation by John Prescott as Deputy Leader would probably do no more than force Tony Blair into announcing when he was going to stand down as Leader and also when he was standing down as Prime Minister and knowing he was going anyway Labour members would stop bothering calling for him going immediately but rather focus on trying to build up their favoured leadership candidate.

Some very perceptive points on here. Cameron's strategy is dependent upon the more dolid, traditional Conservatives turning out whatever he says.
He's hoping that the results of the policy review will yield a big shift in public opinion towards the political parties, as with Labour's policy review in 1985 I think it's more likely just to result in building foundations of new positions and that while the Conservatives will certainly make net gains at the next General Election, Labour will consolidate it's position.

"It does not augur well. By this stage, Blair was 15 points up."

Under the last couple of months of John Smith Labour was around 45-50, Conservatives around 26-30. Labour was way ahead anyway.

In the 6 months after Blair became leader the polls were LAB: mid 50's, CON: 20-25

Roughly, Blair gave a 5% boost. The same as Cameron got in his first 6 months. But DC still has a mountain to climb.

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997/

Chris

I did not intend to ridicule you in any way. If I have offended you let me sincerely apologise.

Under the last couple of months of John Smith Labour was around 45-50, Conservatives around 26-30. Labour was way ahead anyway.

In the 6 months after Blair became leader the polls were LAB: mid 50's, CON: 20-25
I'm rather inclined to think that polls showing Labour at over 50% of the vote and the Conservatives under 25% of the vote were distorted by people refusing to answer and and people who when asked were influenced by fashion but in many cases would never actually turn up to vote or while saying they would vote Labour would actually vote Conservative - if there had been a General Election in 1995 or 1996 the actual result probably wouldn't have been much different from what it was in 1997 and I am not convinced that Labour would have won an overall majority at any time from when Jim Callaghan stepped down as Labour leader to when John Smith took over as Labour leader and equally I am convinced that there has been no point since Black Wednesday at which the Conservative Party would even have been the largest party let alone won an overall majority, no matter how they set the opinion polls many people just are not going to react the same way as they would in a General Election.

"We still aren't trusted by a huge swathe of the public, and retreating onto traditional right wing ground isn;t going to solve that."

Unlike you I actually see movement to the left as retreat. "Right-wing ground" is what we're supposed to believe in; if you're retreating back to what you believe in then perhaps you should never have pretended to believe in something you don't.

John Hustings, I'm a right winger at heart, however I believe that right wing policies should be accompanied by those from the left wing in order to achieve balance, in all essence I'm a fan of trying to find the middle ground. If we wish to reduce crime I believe in building new prisons but I also believe that we need to try and stop people from turningto crime in the first place. In recent years if we have found ourselves low in the polls we have retreated to the right and focussed purely on core vote issues such as taxation and immigration. I want lower immigation and taxation but it should not be our only goal.

I also believe that we need to try and stop people from turning to crime in the first place

This belief isn't left wing. Means to achieve it may be, however. Examples would include the crime tolerant policies that so damaged Labour on this issue it had to adopt the "tough on" mantra....

So, what do you mean?

James, greater voluntary sector work with vulnerable youths, as suggestd by DC on Monday should discourage people from turning to crime. Mentoring schemes and education for the most vulnerable in society should be as important as the building of new prisons. Prevention is almost always better than treatment.

I think Chris is a bit confused about what is left and right wing. There is no reason why empowering voluntary workers is a left-wing idea. Furthermore, neither is being "tough on the causes of crime" either.

Labour misdiagnosed what the causes of crime *were*. They assumed the cause was "poverty", a very typical explanation for them. Actually, the causes are(in my view) more rooted in welfare culture and family breakdown (which often caused by well-meant socialist policies in the first place).

It is not left-wing to want to address the causes of crime. I'm as right-wing as they come, and I'd eagerly wish to see this issue addressed. Furthermore, it also shouldn't be the case that we pretend to want to deal with this stuff for the sake of political positioning (so as to "appear" centrist). I'd like to think it was a genuine motivation rooted in our core values.


socialism is a money-centred political philosophy. thatcherism was simply the reverse gear of socialism.

compassionate conservatism is people-centred. its key theme is finding solutions by empowering individual and local enterprise.

the politics of tax and spend are temporarily suspended. the politics of centralising or localising are now in play, with Prescott the ultimate centraliser. his office has become so powerful that he cannot be got rid of, no matter how many children he rapes.

John, its entirely possible that my analysis on left and right wing were incorrect in this case. In so many cases the differences between a policy being left or right wing can be so minute, that its hard to tell the difference. (And I'd had a few when I wrote my post last night)

Labour misdiagnosed what the causes of crime *were*. They assumed the cause was "poverty", a very typical explanation for them. Actually, the causes are(in my view) more rooted in welfare culture and family breakdown (which often caused by well-meant socialist policies in the first place).
Poverty certainly was never the cause of all crime, it can however be the catalyst. People might cite that the reason they stole something was because they were poor, thats incorrect, they stole soemthing because they were poor AND they didn't know/ didn't like any alternatives. We need to find ways to help the poorest in society become more affluent through methods other than cash handouts, we need to provide an incentive for people to go out, train in something and find a job, no matter how insignificant that job might be.

Family breakdown is something which the state is sadly never going to solve. Divorce was once reasonably rare, now it seems odd if your parents haven't been divorced (My parents are still together). The state may be able to help in some areas, but I think we need to stay away from interferring too much in people's lives. In this case treating people who have been the victims of family breakdowns is the only real solution, preventing them just isn't an option.

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