Who will reach the non-voter?

On today's Platform Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov writes about the problem of non-voters.  When, he writes, "they can’t see much benefit to having one gang of politicians in charge rather than another, the duty to give some politician his dream job won’t get many to the ballot box." 

Writing about the way Tory housing policy is becoming more like Labour's, Max Hastings worries that "cross-party consensus about virtually anything - Iraq, criminal justice, MPs' pensions - almost invariably betrays the public interest".

In yesterday's Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips complained that "no-one in the councils of power is talking about the issues that most concern the electorate" although she singled out Frank Field MP as an exception to this rule.

In Sunday's Business Fraser Nelson noted that "Britain is one of the few democracies in the world where the number of abstainers exceeds supporters of the ruling party."  "There is a deep vein of frustration in UK politics," he continued, "and a prize awaits the party that taps it."

Are Cameron's Conservatives positioning themselves to be this party or is our party rejoining the establishment - with status quo views on tax, the public services and foreign policy - at a time when the public is becoming hungry for change?

Comments

[malcolm]

A truly novel idea.What about trying to do without spin and being straight and honest with the electorate.A primary task for the Conservative party is to try and restore faith in politics and politicians and prove that 'we are not all the bloody same'.

[christina speight]

I shall remain a Conservative non-voter until we get some Comservative thinking from this dreadful Conservative leadership.

Something to put "fire in the belly" would help. Otherwise I see no point in backing a Blair-clone.

[verulamgal]

I totally agree with what you say, Christina

[Chad]

"A primary task for the Conservative party is to try and restore faith in politics and politicians and prove that 'we are not all the bloody same'.
"

Hi Malcolm,
There is nothing to suggest that Cameron is following this strategy though.

However, I guess even if his strategy does not actually win the next election, it would have made some valuable progress in removing the fear factor in voting Tory.

I'm still convinced that Cameron is the Tory Kinnock, step 1 of 2 of rebuilding the Tory party, and that the next leader (who will hopefully be a straightforward non spin-merchant) will reap the rewards without having to emulate the Blair/Cameron image approach.

Which in the long-term, for Britain, would be very encouraging for a lengthy spell of conservative government.

I think we'll have to stomach at least one more Labour parliament, but then we could see a new era.

[Mark]

So go on Christina, what policy commitments would light a fire and bring back the masses that gave us Maggie? What would demonstrate that our Boy King has a spine?

[David Belchamber]

I agree heartily with Malcolm @ 09.47 "A truly novel idea.What about trying to do without spin and being straight and honest with the electorate".
In addition IMO we want a sort of "pragmatic idealism" whereby a tory government will put into effect policies that are founded on principle and, above all, commonsense.
Nulab is incapable it seems of making even good ideas work in practice because they have very few people who have actually run large enterprises.
Maybe some non-voters would return if they believed that, say, David Davis could sort out the mess in the Home Office and thereby the consequential problems (prison overcrowding, illegal immigrants, violent crimes on the street etc).
Can we sort out the DfSS, Defra etc any better than Nulab?

[EdR]

There are a few issues muddled up together here. Yes, Cameron should make his appeal to all tiers of the electorate and attempt to engage with them -- that's just good, sensible politics from someone aspiring to national office. He needs to sell his message and persuade people out.

But not everyone will agree and there's a danger in being led up the garden path chasing the prima donna vote. Politics isn't like conkers where you can scoop up everyone else's votes if you play your cards right. It's a compromise, a balance, and Cameron needs to persuade people that he has the balance right.

when Melanie Philips talks about the "issues that most concern the electorate" what she means is the issues that most concern her and perhaps the readers of the Daily Mail. The Mail is a popular paper. But if newspaper circulation were equated to votes, it wouldn't have a majority in the country. So too when leftists talk about Blair failing to satisfy the concerns of the socialist heartland. They had their chance in 1983. And if people still think that the parties are 'all the same really' then they must not be paying very much attention to the tax and bureaucratic nightmare Brown has spent a decade concocting.

If people don't like the main parties' policies, there are plenty of ways to act. There are pressure groups and campaigns and blogs, they can button candidates and so on. The main parties are broad churches where many opinions are debated. But the decisions are made by those who show up: anyone can fix the world from their armchair but things are a bit more complicated when you step out the front door.

Convincing people that getting out and voting Conervative will improve their lives is of paramount importance to any election. But I think specifically targeting "the non-voter" is a mugs' game. Create the best policies, sell it the best, and do the best possible in government. That's where politicians should be expending their energies.

[Graeme Archer]

I agree very much with EdR. Chasing the Daily Mail vote - looking for "fire" for the bellies of the discontented - gosh it sounds terribly exciting, doesn't it. Here are ways to appeal to non-voters of a right-wing persuasion: be more vitriolic. Be more small-minded. Whatever you do, don't imply that any real problem requires some careful analysis - all policies must be summed up in a single crowd-jerking phrase (eg MORE BOBBIES ON THE BEAT). Talk ENDLESSLY about the EVIL of EUROPE, and wherever possible either covertly or overtly explain why your fellow party members are traitors. Oh! And ignore all the empirical evidence that such an approach makes normal people cringe, even when they agree with individual bits and pieces of the narrative.

I know - why don't we just campaign with an image of a boot crushing down on the human face, forever? That could be the new logo too. I'm sure the Daily Mail, with its distinctive 1930s heritage, would approve.

[Jaz]

christina, I fail to see how you would take a Labour Government over a Tory one, knowing that the parliamentary party and the grass roots think and believe in the true tory values, it would only be a short while until we get to those solid policies.

Europe is not evil, we shouldn't say that it it would be an easy opening for labor to attack us on playing risky with our relationships in Europe.

We SHOULD talk about immigration, Muslim rejection of British culture and terrorism. People WILL go out and vote on these issues, and they are big vote winners.

[a-tracy]

"Be more small-minded. Whatever you do, don't imply that any real problem requires some careful analysis - all policies must be summed up in a single crowd-jerking phrase" Graeme - that just isn't the case, the none voting electorate isn't that naive, they are just worried about different long term problems.

and Jaz, perhaps people don't want a Labour government or a Tory government, perhaps just perhaps they want to try a hung parliament where nothing at all gets done for four years or so, less meddling, less interfering in our lives, less telling us whats good for us, more treating us as adults.

as for "it would only be a short while until we get to those solid policies" No Jaz it won't - Cameron already uses his response that he was elected on the platform he campaigned on and he isn't deviating from that platform, fair enough a majority wanted that but don't expect a campaign on one set of issues and another set being resolved because it won't happen.

[Graeme Archer]

Let's take one example, which is repeated on this blog constantly. It is asserted that Tories should campaign strongly and specifically on the issue of tax cuts, because (1) it's a good idea to cut taxes and (2) it's distinctive from the Brown agenda and (3) it's a real red-meat issue. It's also an easy policy to summarise and would get plaudits aplenty from those gurus of the Right at the Mail. Simon Heffer would write that it's "too little too late" but I fear it's too late for him (since according to his Saturday Telegraph column, cutting taxes is just a way to subsidise homosexuality and thus end the state of heterosexual marriage).

What happens if Osborne announces next week that his first act as chancellor is to cut 2pence off the basic rate and somthing similar to corporate tax rates? Let's go to the Newsnight studio, shall we?

Paxman (for it is he): So you are going to cut tax are you?
Tory: actually I was here to talk about Iraq
Paxman: so you'll cut taxes even if the economy is in severe recession and unemployment is rising?
Tory: What we've said is ...
Paxman: So it's not a commitment, is it? You're saying one thing one day and ANOTHER the NEXT.
Tory: No I'm not saying that, I'm saying ..
Paxman: thanks for your participation. There's just time left for a quick headshot of Sir Ming being patrician and disdainful of your recklessness, and then the weather.

Meanwhile, in every constituency in the country, Labour are writing to every public sector worker to lie about our tax policy, in specific and frightening detail. (Dear Mrs Voter. Did you know that here, in Android North, the effect of the Tory Tax Policy would be to sack every nurse and every head-teacher? Yours nauseatingly, Hope Nott MP).

So such a policy would (1) provide New Labour with needless ammunition (when everyone knows we will always tax less than they do), (2) give the libDems some much-needed highground on which they can haul back in the middle classes who were finally coming to their senses and returning to their Tory roots (the people who couldn't care what little people have to pay in tax anyway) and (3) make it much less likely that we'd get a Tory government anyway.

[Michael McGowan]

I think that a hung Parliament next time around has a lot to commend it and I shall think about voting accordingly. I certainly don't want to see Gordon Brown with an overall majority. However, equally, I don't want the current crop of Tory placemen getting the message from the voters that they are happy to swap one set of spin-and-bluster merchants for another.

[Chad]

Hi Graeme,

Osborne has spoken of 'tax simplification', so what would be wrong with pledging to reduce the number of types of taxation as that is surely what simplification means?

This would also be a defined, easy to verify pledge and show that he really means it.

[Andy Peterkin]

"I know - why don't we just campaign with an image of a boot crushing down on the human face, forever? That could be the new logo too. I'm sure the Daily Mail, with its distinctive 1930s heritage, would approve. "

Graeme, do you really believe that 90% of the membership of this Party are closet fascists?

[Graeme Archer]

Andy, do you really believe that 90% of the membership of this party want a Daily-Mail-driven policy? Or that 90% of us are unhappy with Cameron? I'm sure you don't, but it's just as much a non sequitur response to your posting as yours was to mine.

[william]

Why do people shout in chorus for a political message, when they haven't even looked at the political message that Cameron is offering? Why throw out the bath water without first looking at the baby?

You're shouting for an oak tree. We have the acorn. Give it some sustenance if you want it to grow.

I'm still trying to write the magic 20 words to express the Conservative viewpoint. Latest version -

'Compassionate Conservatism

The State cannot carry us all from cradle to grave.

Set us free to carry ourselves.'

Anyone want to do better, please do so!!

[Stephan Shakespeare]

I used to be a teacher in a Lambeth comprehensive, so I have some experience of the reality of inner-London schools. When I lived in Suffolk, I sent my daughter to the local state primary school, and it was pretty good. But when I moved back to central London, I just didn't see that as an option. State schools around where I live are chaotic, often unfriendly-to-children, low-aspiration places and I wouldn't dream of letting my girls go there.

But most parents don't have the choice.

The Conservative Party has to offer something tangible to those parents to make me believe they really care about them.

[Ted]

Greame is right abot the reacion to tax cuts - "Cameron reverses back to Core" " Same old Tories" etc. There was a comment by a Labour MP on Labourhome that already started talikng about the "sahring proceeds of growth" formula as indicating cuts to precious public services.

Voters want an NHS that delivers care when they need it, they want an education system that provides a good education, a police force that solves and deters crime. As a result of the Lawson inflationary boom followed by Major's ERM bust we didn't prove we could deliver good public services in innovative & efficient ways. We need to prove to the electorate thay can trust us. The electorate (or those who voted) only gave us 33% of their votes last time on a tentative tax curtting agenda - 60% voted for Labour or the Lib Dems who talked of increased public expenditure of higher taxes. So deliver a competent governm,ent then we can drive a centre right agenda.

We need to keep on regaining the centre ground because post Blair the siren voices on the Labour side are going to be pushing left - they want to create clear red water. We need to do enough to satisfy the Daily Mail reader and enough to make the Times/Guardian/Independent reader consider voting for us.

Max Hastings has never been one of my favourite commentators but his defense of current planning restrictions which condemn much of the country to high density, low quality homes is a defense from the buskellite settlement - the high Tory & Man from Whitehall agreeing whats good for the public. The emerging centre consensus, that Blair espouses but cannot deliver, is a conservative one of empowerment, freedom & choice.

Non voters will come out and vote if the next election is close and if we convince them they want change - a change from the grubby back door deals, a change from the waste and incompetence of the last nine years, a change from high blown rhetoric and lack of action, the chance to sweep Brown and his coterie of devotees out of number 10.

[Mark Hudson]

As someone who has been a Party member for 20 years and who stuck it as an activist in the dark days from 92, can I say that Dave is almost certainly going to turn me into a non-voter. As the country tires of the lack of delivery of the new Jerusalem that was heralded in 1997, quite why anyone thinks that Cameron's startlingly inept aping of Tony Blair is a vote winner is beyond me. The strategy seems to be that we so-called diehards will turn out anyway whatever his Daveness does to the Party. He may well be in for one hell of a shock.

[Michael McGowan]

Stephan Shakespeare's last sentence is, you would have thought, a statement of the blindingly obvious. What is an opposition for if it cannot offer people in that kind of situation hope? Yet David Cameron is not offering anything of the sort. He and his inner circle are insulated by wealth and connections from these kind of problems. To tackle them properly would enrage the BBC and the Polly Toynbees of this world whom they are so anxious to appease.

Hence we have the ugly spectacle of the three main parties colluding to ensure that public services continue, at vast expense, not to serve the public.

[william]

quite why anyone thinks that Cameron's startlingly inept aping of Tony Blair is a vote winner is beyond me, writes Mark.

and quite why anyone would think Cameron is aping Tony Blair is beyond me. Have you read Compassionate Conservatism?

[Andrew Woodman]

One of the reasons people refuse to vote is the sense that it won't make any difference to many of the things they care about because the power has been handed over to unaccountable quangos such as the EU. The Eu comes out with a directive you don't like and it won't matter which of the major parties you vote for, it won't get changed. You don't agree with management and direction of your local (soon to be regional) police force. You can't act to get the people at the top removed. The way to engage the non voters is to adopt a localism agenda and make them feel they can actually change things with their votes.

[william]

Andrew, that is the key message of Compassionate Conservatism.

Why don't people read the bloody thing, as Cameron is flagging that that is his policy foundation?

Why do people prefer to read newspapers or watch TV to get their information about Cameron when many editors do not understand him or have much interest, and others have an agenda to make sure Conservatives don't find out what their leader actually believes in.

If all the effort going into baying and ranting against the Boy etc went into reading what he believes in, we could at least start a sensible debate within the Party.

Right now, we hear an ignorant roar. Good to hear some political emotion being expended. If the online community cannot be bothered to read what Cameron believes in, what chance the rest?

Time for a bit of homework.

[Henry Mayhew]

The pity is that boring disconnected old politicians and a few PR execs have been given the job of coming up with policies.

Ed, can't you use the wisdom of the crowds available on CH to propose, comment and vote on policy ideas?

I want to post about the benefits of welfare being accessed through mutual societies, for one. I am sure everyone else has got their own pet likes.

Policies could even be voted on by visitors from non-political sites, driving a national debate from the bottom up.

[Sean Fear]

Graeme, I find your analysis far too pessimistic. You seem to be arguing that there's simply no way we can actually persuade the public to support recognisably Conservative policies - well if we really are all so inept at putting our views across, why don't we just disband the
Party and leave the field clear for those who are a bit more competent at PR?

As it happens, I believe that we are quite capable of emulating successful right wing parties the world over, and persuading people to vote for Conservative policies,.

[Andrew Woodman]

William, I'm not a critic of Cameron in this. His speech to the power institute was very encouraging and I look forward to the tangable policy.

[Mark Hudson]

Will, I must confess that I have not. Perhaps I am being too harsh and should, like Rupert Murdoch, wait until I know what he actually believes in before I make a judgement. However, given that he has ruled out tax cuts and grammar schools, imposed a pc 'A'list on the Party, criticised or eulogised the Thatcher years dependent upon his audience, maybe I have a very good sense already. As seemingly did the people of Bromley & Chislehurst.

[James Maskell]

Graeme Archer misses the point about tax cuts. We arent saying Cameron should come out and say a cut in income tax at a specified level. That would be ridiculous and no one at all is actually saying that. What some of us are annoyed about is the fact that Cameron has simply dropped even talk of tax cuts without explaining why the Conservatives dont believe in them as much. Cameron wont even make the case against them. If we understood his thinking, perhaps we wouldnt be so annoyed about it. Theres nothing wrong with us saying that we believe in tax cuts.

It's Cameron preferring not to talk about core beliefs which is sad. He appears scared to hint at believing in "old" beliefs. Does Cameron think he can ignore issues like tax and immigration? The longer he leaves it, the more it could hurt us.

[Andrew Woodman]

The Blair select committee this morning was interesting when it got onto immigration. Many of the questions about the sustainabilty of the current policy was being questioned by Labour members in the main. There is a practical case to make and we shouldn't be afraid to make it in a measured tone.

[John Hustings]

For me, Graeme's defeatism is the attitude that has caused us so many problems in the past (*not* being "nasty", whatever that means), and his type of argument is the reason we seem to be incessantly retreating on almost every issue. I don't know what a "Daily-Mail-driven policy" means, but I would have to guess it means something that sounds unashamedly conservative.

Why does anyone believe that defeatism and retrenchment from confrontation achieves anything except to concede yet more ground to our opponents?

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I don't believe that conservativism -- which I consider to reflect the common sense beliefs of the majority (irrespective of what newspapers they read) -- is "extremist", or anything to be ashamed of.

[Sean Fear]

"Why does anyone believe that defeatism and retrenchment from confrontation achieves anything except to concede yet more ground to our opponents?"

Hasn't that been the Conservative Party's approach throughout most of its history though? Always to regard defeats at its opponents' hands as permanent and irreversible, while regarding its own victories as temporary and impermanent.

[John Hustings]

"Hasn't that been the Conservative Party's approach throughout most of its history though? Always to regard defeats at its opponents' hands as permanent and irreversible, while regarding its own victories as temporary and impermanent."

Yes, indeed it has. I am someone who was converted to conservativism in the United States, a country in which conservatives are *not* ashamed of their views. I happen to believe this difference in mentality is the reason that conservatives in America see much more of their agenda listened to, and have significantly shifted the "centre ground" in their direction. If we could shake off our loser mentality, then perhaps we could share in some of their success.

[Wat Tyler]

I'm no expert on American politics, but my perception is that most of the spadework for the New Right was done by people outside the main political parties (see Right Nation).

Cameron is certainly not promoting the kind of policies I'd like to see- particularly on tax and spend- but I can fully understand his concern to shape a warm centrist image for electoral reasons. He made it quite clear during the leadership contest that policies would come behind that job.

But as someone as already commented, there are plenty of other ways for the rest of us to promote what we belive in. All of them likely to have much more longterm effect than bashing hopelessly on DC's door.

We need to follow the American example (cf Tim's platform piece today) and get stuck into public opinion outside of the Westminster electoral arena. The parties will follow once we can get the issues going for them.

[Peter]

I agree with Christina that many Tories and frustrated Labour voters will not vote at all next time round. What happened to the missing 12000 Conservatives in Bromley? They stayed at home. I have several friends there who said there was nothing in the Tory agenda to vote for which the other parties can't do better.

Mrs Thatcher recognized in 1975 that the Conservative deferential vote had gone, and people were motivated ultimately by what was good for them and their families. The most important factor was money in the pocket. Council house sales and tax cuts were vote winners in the 1980s for voters who had never voted Conservative before. Nothing has changed. With every family groaning under extra taxes of £7000 per annum, and £9000 by 2008,
voters are desperate for the Conservatives to help them. The only party they can rely on to cut taxes is the Tory party. But what does Cameron say- "Tax cuts are only possible with a growing economy ". This is economic illiteracy. Take money out of people's pockets and spending power collapses - ditto the economy. In a recession, tax cuts are fundamental to restore growth ( as the USA understands, but not Paxman, Cameron and all the other
"opinion formers" who have never worked in the real world).

Priority for the Conservatives is to give people something to vote for. Scrap capital gains tax, scrap inheritance tax, scrap the public sector pension element in council tax, scrap the Scottish subsidy, reduce the EU handouts, and start to hand back more of the £9000 per annum which the government will have stolen from hard working families by 2008.

Fix the tax side of the equation and then cut public spending to match income. NHS spending has gone up from £37 billion to £97 billion in 9 years.
One could easily save £45 billion through sacking managers, scrapping bureaucracy, and giving private companies tax breaks to invest in Hospitals and Health care. It is the duty of the Conservative party to sell the alternative vision to the electorate: that cutting public spending can improve services if the spending is wrong in the first place. Unless the Tory party can inspire the elecorate they will stay at home, and under Cameron, I fear the Tories will never form a government again.

[william]

Does Cameron think he can ignore issues like tax and immigration? The longer he leaves it, the more it could hurt us....writes James Maskell.

It is clearly a key plank of the Cameron strategy not to talk about many things such as tax cuts, Europe etc. He has of course broached the HRA, as it impacts on immigration issues, and he inevitably came under criticism for doing so.

Each time he tackles a topic such as the HRA which pleases Conservative voters, he incurs the wrath of the media.

The media would regard it as a major victory if they could as a result persuade Conservatives to stop supporting Cameron, as has probably happened at Bromley.

Cameron has to play it long. Don't ask him to play it short. He can only afford to hint at his true beliefs, but he has indicated that they can be found out by reading Compassionate Conservatism.

Traditional Conservative voters are confused by this, and many alienated, hoping for a Thatcher clone to appear phoenix-like from the ashes. It isn't going to happen.

Murdoch knows precisely what Cameron stands for, but he's having to mince his words as well. It's a cat and mouse game, ploy and counter-ploy. The issue is not what does Cameron stand for. It's whether he's going to get elected.

If he is, Murdoch will be right behind him all the way. Until that's certain, Murdoch will of course hedge his bets.

Politics is the art of the possible. Don't ask for the impossible. That always takes a little bit longer! Slowly catchy monkey.

[Sean Fear]

The problem is if he doesn't talk about the issues you've mentioned, his chances of getting elected will be very remote indeed.

[James Maskell]

"The issue is not what does Cameron stand for. It's whether he's going to get elected"

Im afraid the electorate and I would hope the majority of the Party would think otherwise.

As Maude desperately wants our views on the Built to Last document, an uncontroversial pamphlet which was probably written by Policy Exchange, why not go one step further? Lets have a real debate on issues like tax cuts, like immigration, like public services. At the moment Cameron is shutting out debate on issues which might become contentious. Lets really drag it out and really explore the options as a Party instead of this back-of-an-envelope clique-based style of policy making.

[James Maskell]

"The issue is not what does Cameron stand for. It's whether he's going to get elected"

Im afraid the electorate and I would hope the majority of the Party would think otherwise.

As Maude desperately wants our views on the Built to Last document, an uncontroversial pamphlet which was probably written by Policy Exchange, why not go one step further? Lets have a real debate on issues like tax cuts, like immigration, like public services. At the moment Cameron is shutting out debate on issues which might become contentious. Lets really drag it out and really explore the options as a Party instead of this back-of-an-envelope clique-based style of policy making.

[TomTom]

and quite why anyone would think Cameron is aping Tony Blair is beyond me.

Well William they do and each of them has a vote so I would say it is a real disaster unfolding for the Conservative Party when voters perceive Cameron to be apeing Blair.

That is a Conservative Party problem - not a voter problem

[Dave J]

"I'm no expert on American politics, but..."

But as someone who probably could claim to be something of an expert on at least some parts of American politics--as some of you know, I'm a former state legislative staffer--I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Wat, and I can really do no more than echo your sentiments. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, parties as well as individual politicians don't gain lasting success by rushing to what's perceived as the political center, but by moving the center to them.

Be half-hearted and timid and ashamed about your agenda, and not only will you lose, you will deserve to as well.

[Hadrian]

There is no longer any pretence of democracy in the UK. Blainau Gwent will return a donkey wearing a communist rosette, and indeed has done so as long as anyone can remember. It would not be unreasonable to bet the farm that the Welsh and the Scotch will return, in one guise or another, 90% socialists at the next or any other election. It is certain that the main causes of the British people at any one time, restoration of the death penalty for the worst offences, leaving the EU, the right of citizens to defend their property and family, unstinting support of our forces and nation, will never, never be approved by the ruling metropolitan elite of the four main parties, or by their syncophantic media supporters.
There can be no part reform. Until the system is destroyed join the "None of the Above" party, or at least the Monster Ravers.

[Jon White]

Hadrian, sad but I have some sympathy with your post. However, abstention from politics is NOT the answer. Changing the party from within is.

If DC promised leaving the EU, the right to defend our property, unstinting support of our forces and nation, (all of which I agree with) and the death penalty (which I do not agree with) then he would win by the biggest landslide in history. We may even pick up votes in the socialist Scotland and Wales.

[roy]

re williams post at 17.04. Although its a thoughtful point of view, I think that the man in the street is looking for something to hang his hat on. True, there is a feeling that New Labour is coming to the end of its time by a gradual tarnishing of its image; but my chats in the pub lead me to think that the the floating voters (who backed Blair) are looking for a something to get their teeth into. Right now the Tory line is just not clear enough. Traditional tory man (like me) may find the Daily Mail viewpoint too right wing, too simplistic, but at least you know where they stand and even if the presentation is unappetizing, the ingredients are often right on the money. You know we still love Maggie, and maybe Im wearing the rose tinted glasses, but my image of her was that she was always a conviction led politician, and swept everyone along with her (or swept them out of the way). I think we do need that clarity of vision once again.

[Richard Carey]

If DC promised leaving the EU, the right to defend our property, unstinting support of our forces and nation, (all of which I agree with) and the death penalty (which I do not agree with) then he would win by the biggest landslide in history. We may even pick up votes in the socialist Scotland and Wales

No, the Daily Mail readership isn't that big...
Besides, would you like to be in the party defined by Kilroy-Silk, Tony Martin, and the regular nutter who gets up in the Home Affairs debate in Conference every year?! I wouldn't...

[John Hustings]

"Besides, would you like to be in the party defined by Kilroy-Silk, Tony Martin, and the regular nutter who gets up in the Home Affairs debate in Conference every year?! I wouldn't..."

Maybe those are the only representatives of "right-wing" viewpoints (which are widespread) because "respectable" conservatives are too busy mincing words and trying to ingratiate themselves with the bien pensants in the media to represent the views of the people.

[Richard Carey]

Maybe those are the only representatives of "right-wing" viewpoints (which are widespread) because "respectable" conservatives are too busy mincing words and trying to ingratiate themselves with the bien pensants in the media to represent the views of the people.

Or maybe they are just too rabid and strident in their views to chime with most people - our Party is now being accepted as part of the moderate mainstream majority og opinion and I will not see that threatened.

As far as anyone trying to "ingratiate" themselves with the media - that's a bizarre misrepresentation. The bulk of the electorate still take their political messages and opinions through the traditional media. Different media outlets spin messages as we see fit, but we have to work with them all to take every opportunity to get our messages across - this has to be a huge part of our campaigning.

[Richard Carey]

Apologies - "we see fit" above should obviously read as "they see fit".

[James Maskell]

And the Conservatives werent considered a "mainstream" political party before Cameron?

[Richard Carey]

And the Conservatives werent considered a "mainstream" political party before Cameron?

Of course we were - an uncharacteristically poor choice of words on my part, I think!

My intention was (I thought pretty clearly, evidently not clearly enough) to highlight (again, I know) the brand effect on public perception of policy positions.

[Richard Carey]

James,

Having re-read some of the earlier comments on this thread, I think that you (willfully?) misunderstood me. I never actually said the the Conservative Party had not been considered a mainstream Party. I said that it was now more accepted as representative of moderate mainstream opinion.

We have been very successful in recent months in closing down Labour's avenues of attack against us. Like it or not, Blair's past attacks along the lines of "I'm a pretty nice guy, but vote Tory and they'll eat your babies" have somehow hit home. I'm glad to see that closed down once and for all.

I'm surprised (well, okay, not that much) to find people here zeroing in on me, when I'm the one coming back against someone proposing yet again the same reactionary right wing agenda that has been rejected by the electorate three times now.

[John Hustings]

"Like it or not, Blair's past attacks along the lines of "I'm a pretty nice guy, but vote Tory and they'll eat your babies" have somehow hit home. I'm glad to see that closed down once and for all."

Ever thought that maybe the defeatism that you espouse might have created this situation?

[John Hustings]

"I'm surprised (well, okay, not that much) to find people here zeroing in on me, when I'm the one coming back against someone proposing yet again the same reactionary right wing agenda that has been rejected by the electorate three times now."

I haven't proposed "more of the same" at all. And while I believe we have been "reactionary" at the last three elections, I don't believe we've been right wing (John Major right-wing, anyone?).

In fact, your arguments seem to me to be the height of reaction. I am the one who is saying we should be confident and self-assertive; you're the one who is saying that the public well only vote for us if we self-deny and make symbolic policy sacrifices (and thus shifting the centre ground further and further in a leftward direction).

In fact, your mentality is the mentality that has governed the party since 1990, not mine. Confident, self-assertive conservativism has not been attempted in decades.

[Richard Carey]

That's a little out of order! I haven't espoused defeatism at all - and defeatists probably don't clock up my pavement miles, either! Personally I fight every election to win for the Party, as I hope you do too.

Regarding your criticism of my "mentality", I certainly do not advocate a continuation of reactionary positions. I am delighted with the way in which David Cameron is changing the Party - but we need to drive it through from top to bottom, including having local associations embrace change and reform local campaigning, something that I have written about in other threads a number of times.

[Prodicus]

Have we forgotten that Cameron asked for 18 months for a thoroughgoing review of ALL policies? Policy-lite is what we have to (grit our teeth and) endure until those 18 months are up, but only till then. On the other hand, if he'd rushed straight out with unthought-out, vacuous headline-grabber 'policies', the party would hang him for that. He can't win, can he?

While some real hard work is going on to review/reassess/replace (who knows?) the election-LOSING policies of previous years, it's a bit much to have party members (never mind the other lot) screaming 'But we have no policies!' like a lot of Guardian readers. Or worse.

In the meantime, the polls show that he's doing a decent job of remedying some of the damage done by predecessor shadow cabinets to voter perceptions of conservatism.

Instead of rushing to judgement with nowt to go on, why not give the poor bugger a chance?

[Richard Carey]

And while I believe we have been "reactionary" at the last three elections, I don't believe we've been right wing (John Major right-wing, anyone?).

I really don't have much direct experience of the 97 Major election, as I wasn't really involved with the Party then. You honestly think being perceived as more "right-wing" would have helped in 01 and 05?? The Heffer vote isn't that great of an incentive, really...

This is a debate that I am sure will continue on CH and inside the Party (sorry, I don't recall whether you are a Conservative or not) - but hopefully one we can conduct productively in some way.

[Richard Carey]

While some real hard work is going on to review/reassess/replace (who knows?) the election-LOSING policies of previous years, it's a bit much to have party members (never mind the other lot) screaming 'But we have no policies!' like a lot of Guardian readers. Or worse.

Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more. Some people seem to think that a fundamental review of what we are offering to the electorate is not required after three election defeats. It is vital, as you say, and has to be slow and painstaking to be credible.

[John Hustings]

"That's a little out of order! I haven't espoused defeatism at all - and defeatists probably don't clock up my pavement miles, either!"

I'm not really concerned about how hard you work for the party, the arguments you have offered up are still that of a loser mentality, in my opinion. As Sean Fear states above, such a mentality is not new, even when the Conservatives were winning elections.

You seem to believe that there is no argument that the Conservatives can win with the electorate, and so that all confrontation must be avoided. We mustn't provide anything for our opponents to criticise etc...

This is a loser mentality. As I've said above, my first experience of conservativism was in the United States, a country where conservative ideas are taken much more seriously than this country, and where the "centre ground" could be considered much further to the right.

For me, (and yes I am a party member) success isn't about winning elections. It's about shifting the grounds of debate. Any time a Conservative has to shut up about immigration, or single mothers, or the level of public spending, that's defeat for the causes I believe in. And to be perfectly frank, the Conservatives have been losers for a very long time. After World War II we accepted the general consensus that heavy state expenditure was good, that industries should be run by the state and so on, and the result was decline leading to total crisis in 1979.

Even now, there are vast areas of political discourse where conservatives are too gutless to even raise their voices, and yes I mean the public services, tax and spend, the levels of benefit, single mothers, multiculturalism, immigration and europe. Tories are not representing "right-wing" views on any of these areas. And to be frank, they have only done so intermittently and half-heartedly over recent years. So this picture you paint of a radical right-wing Tory leadership over the past 15 years is patently false. I wish it *were* true! But it isn't.

"Regarding your criticism of my "mentality", I certainly do not advocate a continuation of reactionary positions."

You have misunderstood me because you have mistakenly believed that "reactionary" means "right-wing". It does not to me!

A reactionary *can* be right-wing, but isn't necessarily. A reactionary is someone who doesn't believe in progress, and instead wants to preserve the status quo at all costs. To me, this much better describes your position than my own. You're going for the "safer" path (Don't mention tax cuts! It might set the BBC against us! etc). You don't believe in the possibility that a positive, self-assertive confident conservativism -- articulately presented -- could be attractive to the public. I do.

In that, *I* am the progressive.

"I really don't have much direct experience of the 97 Major election, as I wasn't really involved with the Party then. "

Neither was I. I don't think you have to have been a campaigner to realise that your portrayal of the 1997 election defeat as being the result of a "right-wing" leadership is patently false. John Major was not a right-winger, nor was he perceived to be. His cabinet was filled with "wets" and europhiles. He was rejected because he was incompetent, not because he was right-wing.

"You honestly think being perceived as more "right-wing" would have helped in 01 and 05?? The Heffer vote isn't that great of an incentive, really..."

First of all, perhaps I have a different idea of what being right-wing means than you do. But we'll put that aside...

Secondly, I didn't say we weren't *perceived* as right-wing. We *were* perceived as such; mistakenly in my view.

And thirdly, I haven't said that we lost because we weren't right-wing enough (because that's too simple a diagnosis). What I *have* said is that we lost (and are losing) because of defeatism and retrenchment from debate. We have not offered *positive* reasons to vote for us, we've instead spent years trying to play down the reasons *not* to vote for us (just as you are doing). It hasn't worked. It's failed miserably.

Retrenchment from debate just reinforces your enemies' perceptions about you, and it also shifts the "centre ground" in their direction.

Why is controlling immigration an "extremist" position? It isn't because of what the public think. The majority of the country want much stronger immigration controls (on any poll you care to look at). The general public may not all be "Daily Mail readers" (your favourite slur) but they seem to have a "Daily Mail" opinion on this one. So the acceptance that it *is* an extremist position is mere cowardice.

Incidentally, your use of that repeated insult "Daily Mail reader" (and your Heffer jibe, which is the same thing even though he switched newspapers) shows just how much you've absorbed the debating tactics of the left. You seem to believe that by portraying mainstream conservative (and popular) positions as "extremist" that you can dismiss them out of hand. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives did *NOT* lose the last election because of their (manifestly popular) immigration policy. They lost the last election because they were not trusted on any other issue. And is it any wonder that they are not when conservatives are frightened of even broaching the subject on any other issue because of the defeatist mindset that you display??

In any case, the only "Daily Mail reader" that I know is my neighbour, who is a little old lady that is too fragile to go to the shops, so I buy her paper for her. It's quite amusing to me that she's supposed to be so evil and reactionary.

[Richard Carey]

Don't think we're going to agree on this one, John, are we? A well-argued debate, though!

[Michael McGowan]

Richard, your stance does seem to typify the gloomy lethargy of One Nation Conservatism. Do you really think the left has all the best tunes because if so, wouldn't the principled thing be to join them? Sean Fear has rightly pointed out that ever since 1945, and probably before, the Conservative Party has worked on the assumption that all it can do is to delay the eventual triumph of the left. Not surprisingly, its vote share has ateadily declined and it is in no fit shape to form a Government. The contrast with the US Republican Party and the Australian Liberal Party is obvious and unflattering.

[Sean Fear]

It definitely predates 1945, Michael. It's precisely the same mentality as "the bomber will always get through".

The interesting thing about the US Republicans is that for decades, they were just as much losers as British Conservatives, but then they broke out of the loser mentality.

[Richard Carey]

Richard, your stance does seem to typify the gloomy lethargy of One Nation Conservatism. Do you really think the left has all the best tunes because if so, wouldn't the principled thing be to join them?

Strangely, as a committed Conservative (and a strong partisan!), I can tell you that I've never even considered joining the Labour Party for a minute! And you must be the first Conservative colleague to ever decribe my thinking as gloomy or lethargic!!

The left certainly does not have the best tunes. It has, however, had some effective lines of attack, causing discordant mood music, to extend your metaphor, which buried themselves in the public psyche for some time. My argument was that we must close these down, as Cameron has been doing - after all, people will only listen to Conservative policies on public services if they do not believe spurious Labour arguments that we will sack every nurse and teacher in the country (for example).

How you guys get from there to me applying to join the Labour Party is beyond me...!

[TomTom]

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1272

[Richard Carey]

TomTom (!),

I have to agree with the reference to the "law of unintended consequences" on the link you posted. It is emblematic of so much of Labour's recent legislation that it falls foul of this law.

So much Labour legislation (as well as much of their management - the "target culture") has produced this kind of effect. Witness, for example, the GP appointments fiasco of last year for a good illustration of this.

I am pleased, in light of this, that we as a Party are taking our time (that's all of us, I have a policy forum meeting next week) in finding solutions based on trusting people that do not intrinsically give rise to these kind of scenarios.

[Richard Carey]

TomTom (!),

Reminds me, I am really thinking about getting one of those for my car! Especially useful on those campaign support trips to unfamiliar constituencies...