LibDem surge lifts 40% Tories to election-winning lead

After grassroots anger at David Cameron’s new changes to candidate selection the Conservative leader receives a big boost from a new ICM opinion poll in The Guardian.  The Conservatives enjoy a 40% to 31% lead over Labour – enough, writes The Guardian’s Julian Glover, for David Cameron to enjoy a narrow parliamentary majority.

The growth in the Tory lead is because of a marked shift of support from Labour to the LibDems.  Labour is down four points and the LibDems up five.  The 22% standing for the LibDems would appear to vindicate (in electoral terms) Ming’s strong criticisms of Tony Blair’s solidarity with Israel.  Labour will be surprised that it receives no benefit from John Reid’s sure-footed handling of the recent terror alert.  72% of voters told ICM that government policy has only increased Britain’s vulnerability to terrorism.

The Conservatives now enjoy a 6% lead in ConservativeHome’s poll of polls.

Comments

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

The Liberal Democrats are still no better off than they were under Charles Kennedy.

[Editor]

Yes, DVA, and my guess is that the surge won't be sustained.

[christina speight]

The recovery in the LibDem position which has resulted in the bigger Tory lead over Labour is not 100% good news. Many of the seats that are being targeted by CCHQ are at present held by the LibDems and this will make gaining them more difficult Also in the "badlands" of Northern England it is the LibDems who are picking up the anti-Blair / anti Labour votes.

[Oberon Houston]

Interesting to know if a lot of the Lib-Dem swingers would vote for us at a General Election, not sure if the poll reflects this or not. But, one thing is for sure - we are moving in the right direction, and the more this happens the less critisism Cameron will take. Good Tory presence on the Today program, well done to Osbourne and Hague for getting up early this morning. They are definetly upping their game. More of the Shadow Cabinet need to do the same.

[Chris]

Christina, if that is indeed the case we wouldn't win the majority of them, even if the Lib Dems did poll 17% in a general election. Trying to unseat Lib Dems is extraordinarily hard, and futile if we are trying to say that we are similar to the Lib Dems in some ways.

This poll simply shows the Lib Dem voters who flirted with Labour during their crisis hour are returning home. It also shows that our gains so far have been from Labour.

I don't think its ever going to be much better than this, trying to squeeze more out of Labour will be difficult, because almost all of that 31% that still support them will have supported them their entire lives. Lets just be happy with this poll, and hope we can sustain the lead over the next few years.

[James Maskell]

The poll was done between the 18th-20th August. I suspect if you do another poll soon, the results wont look quite so peachy for us.

[Ted]

Chris

I think it is possible to squeeze Labour a bit more - the big bad Tory threat is less effective with nice Mr Cameron in charge. With bad results for Labour in Scotland & Wales next year and resulting turmoil as Gordon tries to decide whether to be New Labour or old I could see Labour support dropping below 30%.

Regarding Christina's point on LDs, while its better to have them well below 20% in terms of recovering seats there is also benefit if they take Labour voters.

[Ted]

James

Why do you think that?

This poll started two days after DC returned and made speech attacking Government on its response to terror, a day after relaunch of Built to Last. Seems to show that when DC & others are on the TV & radio we get an uplift. This was achieved at time when John Reid was winning plaudits for his handling of airline threat - perhaps public less convinced but YouGov tracking seemed to show he was viewed as a competent player.

[John]

The amazing thing about this poll,it seems to be that it is foreign policy, that is driving voters away from Labour. Will this still be the case at a GE? If so it will be the first time in political history, that a government is unseated due to its foreign policy. But then there is 3 years to go!

[Denis Cooper]

But if the anti-Tory vote consolidated around the leading anti-Tory candidate in each constituency, as happened in Bromley, it could lead to a hung Parliament.

[Yet Another Anon]

because almost all of that 31% that still support them will have supported them their entire lives.
There's always a lot of switching around of votes on a smaller scale, even in 1983 Labour will have gained some new voters even though the trend overwhelmingly from Labour to the Conservatives and Alliance; the same with Labour in 2001 and 2005; there are people who the Conservatives gained off other parties in 1997 and 2001, the media paint rather a false impression frequently of support shifting in blocks but it doesn't work like that - people vote on different issues, people change their minds about what they want to happen and in what they think will achieve what they want to happen.

[John Hustings]

I think the Tories are benefiting from staying quiet, and letting the public assume the best of them as Labour's failings become more and more apparent. I really fear, however, that the Cameron team will blow this advantage and misjudge the public mood -- especially on such topics as immigration -- where, for the first time in a long time, the Tories have a great opportunity to establish themselves as on the side of "ordinary people", the low-paid working class.

I don't think they will take this opportunity because I fear they share in the same fastidious, middle-class contempt for such people as the Labour Party. The British public has finally worked out that the Labour Party is not in its side, we will have to wait and see just whose side the Conservative Party is on.

[Max]

I don’t think you can extrapolate the Bromley result across the rest of the country. The General Election in 2005 (which was clearly a much bigger sample) showed a splintering of the left-wing vote which is why we gained as many seats as we did. There is no real reason to think this will not continue.

As to the Lib Dem’s picking up support it is far better for us electorally (remember 1983) that the Lib Dems poll reasonably well so as to split the left-wing votes in Lab/Con marginal seats which lets us in through the middle.

[changetowin]

A fantastic poll - best results in over a decade - and still they carp! We have a long way to go and the leader is right that we need to step up the pace of change. But the polls show that we are moving in the right direction. The British public like the Conservatives again - we must never allow ourselves to go back to the days of IDS.

[CDM]

Surely this excellent news should come before an article about candidate selection?

[changetowin]

Yes, CDM, it should have. But like all pressure groups, this site has an agenda...

[Chris D]

Excellent poll for the tories, many had thought that Labour would get a boost from the terror threat.
The guardian notes a shift of support with floating/stay at home voter's,
"However, the Conservatives are beginning to eat into Labour's bedrock of support. One indication is that voters who failed to turn out in 2005 now say they intend to back Mr Cameron's party next time. That reverses a long-standing trend that saw Labour become the natural option for uncertain voters. Conservative and Lib Dem supporters are also more likely to say they intend to vote at the next election than Labour supporters."

It shows that we are being seen as a real alternative to Labour. Also increases pressure on Tony Blair from within his own party, will he go voluntarily or will he be pushed? Interesting times ahead.

[CDM]

Any editorial reason why this shouldn't be the first article on the blog? It's by far the most important.

"LibDem surge lifts 40% Tories to election-winning lead"-That's not the most positive headline either. Anything we should know?

[malcolm]

Well CDM and CHANGETOWIN perhaps if this poll had come out before Camerons announcements on the A list it would have been published beforehand but then of course don't let the facts ruin your ridiculous assertion.
I'm delighted to see that John Reids media offensive has brought no polling advantage to Labour.Regarding the timing of the polling it is a bit of a shame it was carried out before Byers dropped his IHT bombshell.Hopefully this will cause a bit of a war within Labour ranks.

[David Belchamber]

These results must be very heartening however you interpret them. We now need to work up very carefully worded aims for three key issues: (i) the economy, (ii) immigration and (iii) Europe.
As we have debated on the thread about Damien Green's work on immigration, we need to analyse the subject carefully and, if necessary, subdivide it into separate categories so that debate can remain focused and constructive. To do so takes the heat out of "immigration"; I feel something similar could be done with "Europe" and so avoid the polaristion of views which is really not very helpful in building up a policy that is in the best interests of the UK.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"We must never allow ourselves to go back to the days of IDS"

Back to the days of continually improving polling performance and a sustained lead over Labour with ratings in the high 30s/low 40s bracket you mean?

No, that simply won't do at all.

[Andy D]

This is quite unexpected and very good news indeed, well done Mr Cameron and everyone else in the party.

[TomTom]

August polls are super - none goes on vacation any more but sits at home waiting for the phone to ring.............see what October brings !

[G-MaN Wild]

Yes CDM I'd have to agree with you, its not the most positively worded headline for such fantastic news. After all the treacherous behaviour of some in the party (and on this site) all said "we want 40% or we'll riot, blah blah"... Well.

[James Maskell]

Out of curiosity, where is the quote from? I dont know a single person who has said that on this site or anything like that.

The Tories do need a fair bit more than 40% though before we can start saying were the next Government. The only poll we should completely trust is the General Election.

[Plain Speaker]

To: the Cameroons who have decided to knock CH again.

The headline to this thread is perfectly accurate:
* election victory depends on Con margin over Lab - 9% looks very attractive
* LD share goes up 5%, Con share up 1% - LD movement is more significant than Con

Hence "LibDem surge lifts 40% Tories to election-winning lead". It does what it says on the tin.

Or would you have preferred "Millions of women flock to Cameron and demand to have his babies following election-winning change to candidate selection rules?"

[Ted]

The "millions of women..." headline would certainly brighten the day.

Guardian report says "The poll shows former Labour voters switching to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in almost equal numbers" so presumably the underlying data presents a more complex view than simple Lab to Lib Dem switch so it doesn't appear correct to say "Lib Dem surge etc."

[Mark Senior]

Ted , it is thought but not completely clear that the headline Guardian comment refers to changes since the last GE rather than the last July poll . This poll does seem to under report the support for Others at the moment as do most ICM polls . I would have thought they should be showing 10-11% support but which party would be down to compensate .

[Max]

Funnily enough it is support from women (according to recent polls) that is fuelling the Tory come back. Traditionally we always led amongst women up untill 1997 and are begining to re-establish that lead.

Not sure about wanting to have his babies though.

[G-MaN Wild]

..."Or would you have preferred 'Millions of women flock to Cameron and demand to have his babies following election-winning change to candidate selection rules?'"

Yes! And James, I wasnt quoting anyone in particular. It was rather more of a textualised characature of certain personalities floating about, and the many things they have said. Hence the "blah blah".

[Jack Stone]

Pesonally I find it sad how some on this site are so keen to talk down our leader and the party.
This site started as a good idea but I am afraid when I hear comments on it quoted on T.V. to try and damage the party I think it is doing more damage than good to the party`s chances.
What all Conservatives should start to ask themselves is would we have a better country under David Cameron`s leadership than we under Gordon Brown`s. If the answer is yes than they should start working for DC and not against him.

[Ted]

Mark Senior

Quite true the reprentation of others looks low.

Of course reason for that is over-estimation of the LDs :-)

[Jon White]

Yes yes yes, of course the only poll that matters is the GE, and of course many of us have reservations about where DC is taking us, and yes there is no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

But for heaven's sake - I'm in my mid 40's, been following politics for more years than I care to remember, and I can't recall a poll that gave us such a lead. Can we just 'bask in the glory' for a little while without throwing all the negatives about.

To quote the greatest PM ever: "Rejoice, rejoice".

[ChrisD]

"The Tories do need a fair bit more than 40%"
James, you are right to say that we need more than 40% to win a GE. IIRC David Cameron thinks we need to be polling at least 43%.
Libdems surge to their 2005 figures, Labour slump to a 19 year low and oh! tories reach 40% at a time when poster's on ConHom are angry about selection of candidates.
This might only be one poll result, but for the GUARDIAN/ICM poll to put the tories at 40%, 9points ahead of Labour is very good news.
I think the headline on this thread, and the reasons given for this poll lead give credit to everyone but the tory party and its leadership!
David Cameron was given a mandate of "change" by the grassroots less than a year ago. WHY?, because the grassroots are tired of losing GE's. The tory party has to address the views and aspirations of a lot more people than the 200,000+ membership of the party if it is to get a mandate to govern the country.

[George Hinton]

It's all speculation, polls show nothing but a snap shot of that moment.
NuLab having built up a cult of dependancy with the bloated state sector, will always use the job cutting threat to rein in any continuing support for the Tories.
The conservatives cannot promote tax cutting and reducing the state sector without the loss of support. It's a Catch-22 situation.
NuLab are nicely positioned to attempt to shrug off all the scandal and perpetuate their reign.
Their scandals and dirt need to be brought out daily and emphasised as a counter.

[Ted]

ChrisD & Jon White
- yes its a great turnaround just a year after an election loss. Just to show what Cameron & co have achieved here in reverse order are ICM Guardian Polls:
August 2005 - Cons 31%, Lab 38%, LD 22% - after GE
August 2004 - Cons 33% Lab 36% LD 22%
August 2003 - Cons 32% Lab 37% LD22%
August 2002 - Cons 32% Lab 41% LD21%
August 2001 - Cons 30% Lab 46% LD17% - after GE
August 2000 - Cons 34% Lab 44% LD17%
August 1999 - Cons 30% Lab 48% LD16%
August 1998 - Cons 31% Lab 47% LD17%
Sept 1997 - Cons 24% Lab 60% LD10% - after GE

Now we have hit 40% we need to look to how we achieve 45%!

[John G]

The 22% standing for the LibDems would appear to vindicate (in electoral terms) Ming’s strong criticisms of Tony Blair’s solidarity with Israel

A shrewd observation and absolutely spot-on.

One of DC's most sure-footed measures has been his move to take a fair, dispassionate and humanitarian view of the Middle Eastern situation.

People who bang on about "reactionaries" etc in the party (I've just been called that on another thread) should look to the real far-right threat to Tory success.

It comes from the "Neocon" element. Was it on this site or the Telegraph I recently read that this minority element is stung by DC's line and regrouping to cause future mayhem?

The LibDem surge proves that we Tories must stand firm against international warmongers and against Neocon intrigue.

[Oaktree Lover]

This vindicates the change of the logo completely.

If we could only drop the old name, too, we'd get to 50%.

[NigelC]

I agree with Jack Stone that the comments on this site have recently become more negative. I come to this site to build on ideas and to contribute to moving thinking forward in a constructive way. I am not always right but the discussion is valuable.

There is a dilemma as to whether we want to win power and that means changing policies that have not attracted enough voters or whether we hold on to things some hold very dear but means we do not appeal to the wider electorate.

I am exercised by what winning power means if we ditch too many ideals along the way but win power we must to stop the damage Nu Lab is doing to this country.

How can we all help secure a meaningful victory?

[Max]

John G – What will be interesting to see is whether or not the Labour vote stays as low or whether they recover some of the support lost to the Lib Dems or whether the drop in popularity will be sustained.

It is noticeable that the Canadian Conservatives saw their vote share slump – largely attributed to their strong support for Israel – but it recovered almost entirely within one month.

We may or may not see the same happen here.

[Ted]

NigelC

There are those who use this site in a completely negative fashion but most are keen to see a strong conservative party. Ignore the obvious trolls or UKIP/BNP visitors, present your case and argue for it.

There is a degree of compromise in any party, both in terms of the broad membership it attracts but also in terms of what poicies it pursues. That's what a site like this offers at its best, the chance to explore with others what those compromises mean and whether they are acceptable.

[changetowin]

I was absolutely delighted to hear the news that we are 9% points ahead in the polls. Delighted because it shows the British public like what we're doing and delighted because it suggests we are closer to getting rid of this government.

I really think that some of those who post regularly on this site were annoyed to see the poll success. It undermines their constant carping when the British people actually seem to like what we're doing.

We really need to ask ourselves whether we are Conservatives who want to win or Conservatives who want to return to ideological purity and electoral defeat.

We voted for David Cameron by a 2-1 margin so that he could broaden our appeal from something that c. 32% of the public reluctantly support to something that c. 43% of the public enthusiastically support. We won't achieve that by changing nothing and without sacrifices. But let's be excited and enthusiastic about Conservative success! That goes to the Editors of this site too!!!

[Andrew]

"I really think that some of those who post regularly on this site were annoyed to see the poll success."

Closet Blairites the lot of them :-)

What's kinda depressing is that the constant carping has transformed CH's reputation as voice of the grassroots, to voice of the extremists. Both are exaggerations of course, but the perception of being merely a vocal minority limits any contribution to closer democratic links with the leadership.

[John G]

What's kinda depressing is that the constant carping has transformed CH's reputation as voice of the grassroots, to voice of the extremists

What utter nonsense.

This is an excellent and constructive site. The majority of contributions are mainstream Tory with a small minority of anti-Cameron and pro-war elements on the right and a smaller but still shriller PC element on the left.

However the Tory Party is a big and generous enough tent to take in all these people.

The overall picture fully reflects the outlook of the party I have been proud to belong to for 36 years. The webmasters are to be congratulated on a truly impressive achievement.

[Yet Another Anon]

As to the Lib Dem’s picking up support it is far better for us electorally (remember 1983) that the Lib Dems poll reasonably well so as to split the left-wing votes in Lab/Con marginal seats which lets us in through the middle.
In 1983 the Conservatives were if anything losing support to the Alliance and people not turning out because of worries about the size of the Conservative majority, it could easily have been a far larger majority - if everyone who wanted a Conservative government had voted Conservative the party would have got well over 50% of the vote and won maybe double or triple the majority it eventually got.

Sept 1997 - Cons 24% Lab 60% LD10% - after GE
Absurd figures reflecting hysterical wishes of many who had a feeling that to say that they would have voted Conservative and feeling that Labour was the latest thing rather distorting the figures, I don't think that there has been any time in history at which Labour would have won more than 50% of the vote in a General Election and no time that the Conservatives would have got less than 28% in a General Election at any time since they were founded.

What has happened is that from 1992 to 2001 Labour generally has been hugely over represented in opnion polls and the Conservatives hugely under represented except perhaps for during the Fuel Protests, in the 2001 to 2005 Parliament this balanced out so actually people were prepared to say which way they were voting and and wrongful responses mostly balanced out, now that Labour has been in power a long time it is possible that they are now seen as being unfashionable but they have the advantage of having been in for 9.5 years of almost being seen as the natural party of government and anyone with doubts over the opposition in a General Election is always going to be more likely to support the Status Quo, actual changes in support since 1997 have been far less than opinion polls suggested and from 1983 to 1997 equally they had been far less than they suggested.

[deborah]

Ted 17.18
Thanks for the advice. I will continue to argue my case and hope to covert the sceptics...

[David Belchamber]

"I agree with Jack Stone that the comments on this site have recently become more negative. I come to this site to build on ideas and to contribute to moving thinking forward in a constructive way".
This site, Nigel @ 17.00, is a splendid safety valve; people can let off steam about the party and about the leadership (and especially Blair and Nulab naturally) but I agree wholeheartedly with your wish to move thinking forward. There are some topics which would lend themselves to debate and to be worked up into a firm proposal for the party to consider.
We certainly should deplore excessive negativity - which can be used against us - just when the party is so clearly becoming much more popular with the electorate than a thoroughly discredited Nulab.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Excellent post about the dangers of the neo-cons John G, that's long been my contention. Britons tend to the independent and being reliant on another power, whether it be EU or US, is something that has little support.

What is a concern is that anytime this site is in the news (complete with nice screen grab) it is accompanied by 'conservative activists lambast Cameron' or some such. What makes it more galling is that it is doubtful the type of person they quote is actually anything to do with the party.

[Andrew]

"This is an excellent and constructive site"

I never said otherwise. Note my (very deliberate) choice of words - the key one is "perception". When so many threads, regardless of topic, rapidly becomes about immigrants or the EU, any mainstream credibility goes out the windows.

This an inevitability of open net forums, with disproportionate space taken up by those who in previous days would have no public exposure at all. The same thing happened in uk.politics years ago - those familiar with it will see our very own versions of Wotan etc.

[John G]

Well Andrew, it's obvious that most contributors to this (and all political forums) are unlikely to be shadow cabinet members.

But it's being suggested that the forum has changed since it was originally set up. I wasn't a member then so can't comment.

Who's "Wotan"? Sounds like some Nazi fantasist.

[Yet Another Anon]

Who's "Wotan"?
Wotan is another name for Odin - essentially the Anglo-Saxon name for Odin, don't see what it has to do with an ICM Guardian Poll in 2006 though?

[Andrew]

Wotan was a character who inhabited the (Usenet) newsgroup uk.politics I mentioned, along with a few others whose obsessive bile essentially ruined the group.

It's only one example though - the same thing happens with most online political groups I've witnessed in the past 12yrs, whether it's been newsgroups, forums or blogs.

[Richard]

This is good news. Let us hope this is reflected in the next Yougov poll (which have tended to be the best at predicting election results).

[David]

What we always have to remember is that many of the most regular posters on this site are not Conservatives. Some are members and supporters of other parties. So it's not surprising that a good opinion poll rating for the Conservatives gets our opponents a little upset. Hence the splenetic postings today.

[lucy74]

"We must never allow ourselves to go back to the days of IDS" - changetowin @ 10.23

Couldn't agree more. IDS is a principled and effective policitian but as leader of the party he was an absolute disaster. Harsh though that may seem, well, life's tough, and endless carping about how badly he was treated by MPs, donors etc does not change the fact that he just was not getting the job done.

[Yet Another Anon]

IDS is a principled and effective policitian but as leader of the party he was an absolute disaster.
He carried out a very thorough and pragmatic policy review and then Michael Howard dropped all that and went for a few soundbites which didn't seem to achieve much, I rather think that IDS in the second half of the parliamentary term would have advanced things rather more although probably Labour would still have won a majority it would have been much narrower and the Conservatives might easily have ended up with more votes and rather more seats - IDS was quite open in what he stood for, Michael Howard merely came over as opportunistic.

[Jon White]

AND, what he stood for was more inline with the majority of conservative (with a small 'c') voters than Michael Howard.
(and arguably David Cameron)

[G-MaN Wild]

IDS was a disaster, plain and simple. What a joker. Who acres about the policy reviews he undertook, at the end of the day the people of this great nation would never elect him over Blair, or even Brown. Cameron will trounce Brown at the next GE (if it is Brown and not Blair, hes a sneaky one).
And you can actually take that to the bank.

[Richard]

"IDS was a disaster, plain and simple. What a joker."

Then how did he manage to achieve poll ratings of 40%?

[Richard]

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/you020101076_39.pdf - evidence for my previous assertion.

[hmmm....]

Oh for the golden days of IDS, who would be Prime Minister by now, if only the party, the media and the public had not regarded him as a bad joke. Hmmm, which would Labour choose IDS or David Cameron? Hmmm....

[Jon White]

IDS was a decent, honest, hard-working leader. He was, and is, a man of principle. He was not, sadly, very media friendly.

Of course he would not have been PM, he was too nice a bloke.

But, and let us NEVER forget this, he did this party and the country a huge service. He stopped Clarke becoming leader, and for that, Britain and the Tory party should be eternally grateful.

[Richard Thompson]

Can we talk about the future, not the past?

[Richard]

"Oh for the golden days of IDS, who would be Prime Minister by now, if only the party, the media and the public had not regarded him as a bad joke."

Yes, let's just ignore that polling evidence I provided.

Actually to be honest I couldn't see him being PM either. But he obviously wasn't as disastrous as some try to make out.

[Michael]

I think the one 40% opinion poll rating you are pointing out was under Michael Howard's leadership.

[lucy74]

"I think the one 40% opinion poll rating you are pointing out was under Michael Howard's leadership."

Indeed you are right Michael. I think Richard may have been reading the wrong column! In fact these figures (http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/you020101076_39.pdf) only underline my point - other than the v occasional 37 or 38 point poll during IDS's leadership, the party was consistently at 32/33 and only hit 40 briefly in Jan 2004 (after Howard took over.)

And given the unpopularity of the Government in 2003 over the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier, it was just unacceptable that the Tories were consistently trailing Labour in the polls, with the Libdems picking up lost Lab votes.

"IDS was a decent, honest, hard-working leader. He was, and is, a man of principle."

No one is suggesting otherwise; just pointing out that as a leader he was pretty hopeless.

[G-MaN Wild]

Here here Lucy!

[John Hustings]

IDS' poll ratings were too low to think realistically of winning the 2005 general election, but he did not have many of the advantages and opportunities that David Cameron now has. When one considers how poorly Labour are now perceived by the public (especially since the Charles Clarke home office scandal); the immense amount of positive publicity the Conservative leadership contest and the subsequent honeymoon produced; and the general effect of a declining economy, David Cameroon really *ought* to be leading in the polls. Yes, he is to be congratulated for achieving this, but it would be silly to overlook his good fortune. IDS, in stark contrast, inherited the leadership at a bad time: the media were not interested in the opposition leader (and when they did pay attention to him, it was to lampoon him unfairly), and the public were not yet contemptuous enough of Labour for the Tories to be in a situation to capitalise.

All in all, it is unfair to compare Cameron and IDS.

[Yet Another Anon]

And given the unpopularity of the Government in 2003 over the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier, it was just unacceptable that the Tories were consistently trailing Labour in the polls, with the Libdems picking up lost Lab votes.
Most of the people leaving Labour were opposed to the War in Iraq, the Conservatives were in favour of it - unfortunately a majority in this country seem to have been opposed to the war at most times since, many of these people anyway abandoning Labour over the war were of Marxist or pacifist tendencies and hardly likely to switch to the Conservative Party, Labour has always had a large pacifist element and the Liberal Democrats from the days of the old Liberal Party have something of that legacy. Whatever poll ratings the Conservative Party got in the second half of last parliament the fact is that the Conservative vote at the last General Election was only very slightly up on what it had been in 2001.

[James Hellyer]

given the unpopularity of the Government in 2003 over the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier, it was just unacceptable that the Tories were consistently trailing Labour in the polls, with the Libdems picking up lost Lab votes.

Given that dissatisfaction with the government then concerned the decision to invade Iraq, to expect those disaffected Labour voters to switch to the pro-war Conservatives, rather than the anti-war Liberal Democrats, seems somewhat perverse...

[lucy74]

"Given that dissatisfaction with the government then concerned the decision to invade Iraq, to expect those disaffected Labour voters to switch to the pro-war Conservatives, rather than the anti-war Liberal Democrats, seems somewhat perverse..."

Although that does not negate the fact that the public were not overly happy about the dodgy dossier/David Kelly situation and one would have expected some leadership from the Conservatives on these issues.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Yet more revisionism from the 'slate Iain Duncan Smith' camp I see.

Those who rush to write off the IDS era as a disaster obviously don't consider the following to be positive achievements at all:

- continually improving poll ratings culminating in a sustained lead over Labour with ratings in the high 30s;
- excellent local election results despite reported internal discontent and support for the government's 'unpopular' foreign policy;
- the instigation of policy reviews to develop a fairer, more compassionate policy agenda with a particular focus on social justice.

Presumably those who are so deeply unimpressed by the above will claim that David Cameron's leadership has been a disaster as well?

Or could it be that the anti-IDS brigade were taken in by Iain Duncan Smith's lack of credibility with the media, which never forgave him for depriving their darling Michael Portillo of his rightful place as Conservative leader?

Oh, and a quick fact check for Lucy - you're right to say the Conservatives failed to capitalise on the government's trouble with the David Kelly affair, but you're entirely wrong to blame Iain Duncan Smith as it was Michael Howard that made a pig's ear out of our response to the Hutton Report.

[lucy74]

I repeat! No one is doubting IDS's credentials as a champion of the social justice agenda. But the Conservatives were unelectable under his leadership and rather than being a credible opposition were a laughing stock.

To implement any kind of social justice agenda requires the party to be in government and that just could not have happened under IDS.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Ah, I see Lucy. You're convinced that the IDS era was a disaster solely on the basis of his lack of credibility with the media.

By the way (I repeat!), the 'unelectable laughing stock' that was the IDS-led Conservative Party became the largest party in local government in 2003, gaining 566 extra seats and control of 31 extra councils along the way.

The 'unelectable laughing stock' not only deposed Labour from control of Birmingham for the first time in two decades, it also beat one of the governing parties (the Liberal Democrats) into third place in the traditionally hostile territory that is Scotland in the Follyrood elections that year, as well as gaining seats in the Welsh assembly elections.

Oh, and did I mention that the 'unelectable laughing stock' enjoyed a sustained lead over Labour and consistently polled in the high 30s during the last six months of the IDS era?

I'm not pretending that Iain Duncan Smith would be in residence at 10 Downing Street right now if he hadn't been deposed, but I do feel that given the successes I have outlined that were achieved in the face of several handicaps (the media witchhunt against IDS, residual public hostility towards the Conservatives, IDS being undermined from within, support for the government's 'unpopular' foreign policy, etc...), describing the IDS era as a disaster is little more than revisionist hyperbole.

[G-MaN Wild]

Hahaha, these are the people who actually elected this guy to lead us, no?

If the leader of my party actually manages to make me cringe at Conference with the horrible "the quiet man is turning up the volume" speech then yes, id consider his time as leader a disaster.
Embarresing tis what it was govnar!

[John Hustings]

"If the leader of my party actually manages to make me cringe at Conference with the horrible "the quiet man is turning up the volume" speech then yes, id consider his time as leader a disaster."

David Cameron has made me cringe more than just once. The following stunts come to mind: the windmill on his roof, the Norwegian iceberg (which wasn't melting), and who can forget: his chauffeur-driven car trailing behind him cycling to work.

IDS and even Hague seem much less embarrassing.

[Jack Stone]

IDS was a leader both public and media thought was nothing short of a joke and people defend him on this site but attack our present leader at every opportunity when the public like him and many members of the media admire him and think he is likely to become Prime Minster after the next election.
Am I the only one who thinks this is quite bizarre!

[John Hustings]

"Am I the only one who thinks this is quite bizarre!"

Depends if you think sycophancy is the proper attitude of political activists. If you do, then you might well find it bizarre that some would express independence of mind.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"If the leader of my party actually manages to make me cringe at Conference with the horrible "the quiet man is turning up the volume" speech then yes, id consider his time as leader a disaster.
Embarresing tis what it was govnar!"

Well Graham, you certainly set exacting standards don't you?

Personally, I prefer to judge political leaders by their results and the policies they espouse rather than on the basis of one speech and a media agenda hell-bent on bringing somebody down even before they've taken position, but each to their own.

(And FWIW I thought the 'quiet man' speeches were decent efforts that played to Iain Duncan Smith's strengths as a normal, decent bloke as opposed to the showbiz grandstanding preferred by Tony Blair. It was the stage-managed standing ovations that were cringeworthy IMHO.)

[Fred Baker]

Howard was the disaster not IDS. The election campaign became really unstuck when one day he claimed that his parents were refuges and then a few days later it turned out that they were illegal immigrants!

So much for intellectual heavyweights! Immigration is always a major issue so why did he stand?

IDS is an excellent orator and at his last conference as leader made an excellent speech under pressure. I think he could have won the election if he’d had the backing he deserved. Much grass root support was lost on his deselection. Mr Portillo had been regularly briefing the media against him and anarchy from Davis, Howard, Macgregor and Bercow caused the problem.

Duncan Smith was voted in by 155,933 people and ousted by just 8 (15 votes).

There is no surge in Tory Party support. It is an illusion caused by loss of support for Labour due to Blair’s warmongering.

[Jack Stone]

IDS is an excellent orator.I am afraid there is no answer to that one at all. I am speechless!

[David]

Jack Stone - it would be bizarre if not for the fact that many of the most profilic posters on this site are not Conservatives. That's why they look back with fondness on the reign of IDS. The last thing our political opponents want is a successful Conservative leader.

[Fred Baker]

Ah. You have never seen him let loose in Chingford. Anyway I am just further to the right than most posters here and how many Davids are there in this party? It should be the Tory and David Party.

[John G]

Jack Stone - it would be bizarre if not for the fact that many of the most profilic posters on this site are not Conservatives.

I've noticed an increasing tendency on the part of the "Metrosexual Liberal" tendency to knock this site and make this type of suggestion, an assertion for which, I imagine, they have not a shred of proof.

What I find rather amusing is that people of this ilk constantly whinge that the party is (or at any rate was until some unspecified date within the past year) dominated by "reactionaries" (ie normal traditional Conservatives)

Without arguing about ideological rights and wrongs, I'd like to know where our friends think all the "reactionaries" have gone. As the latest BNP figures show a drop in membership, presumably the "reactionaries" have not migrated - perversely - to that socialist party.

Could they have evaporated into thin air?

I mean, it couldn't possibly be genuine Tory "reactionaries" actually posting on this site, could it?

[Richard]

OK so I was wrong about IDS getting 40% - my memory was dodgy and thought Howard took over in February. But as others above have pointed out he did have a poll lead over Labour.

Anyway, IDS is gone now and Cameron seems to be doing well so far. Let us hope he uses this advantage to push forward some genuinely conservative policies, even if the price includes more soundbites about chocolate oranges.

[John G]

Personlly I concluded that IDS wasn't up to it, although I did vote for him.

I voted for David too and the boy is doing well.

People who knock Cameron should remember his background. An Eton man can be trusted.

They must also remember that "presentation" and "spin" is everything these days. David will show his true Tory mettle when he becomes PM.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Jack Stone - it would be bizarre if not for the fact that many of the most profilic posters on this site are not Conservatives. That's why they look back with fondness on the reign of IDS. The last thing our political opponents want is a successful Conservative leader."

David, I can assure you I am a paid-up Conservative member - are you?

The comments I have made in defence of Iain Duncan Smith were not written because of a fondness for the reign of IDS (I share the common belief that he wouldn't have become Prime Minister and would have voted pragmatically for Ken Clarke in 2001); they were written because I genuinely feel that IDS gets too much stick based solely on negative media perceptions, rather than the facts.

As for your implicit assertion that IDS was not a successful Conservative leader, I have repeatedly outlined above how such assertions are at odds with the electoral and opinion poll evidence of the hugely positive results achieved under IDS in the face of some not insignificant handicaps.

[John G]

Maybe Mr Stone could lend us the crystal ball which enables him to peer into the secret motivations of other posters.

It might help me make a few profitable punts - including one on the next General Election.