Edward Leigh fires warning shots at Cameron

Edward Leigh MP of the socially conservative Cornerstone group of Tory MPs has become the first influential voice within the party to raise public concerns at the Cameron strategy.  It is rare for anything written in the sleepy House Magazine to attract much attention but Mr Leigh's article for the Party Conference edition of the magazine is picked up by the Telegraph, FT and other newspapers.  Mr Leigh warns that the Tory right may not be able to "take any more" of Mr Cameron's modernisation agenda.  Mr Leigh writes:

"I wonder if the Tory right - and our core supporters - can take any more.  Whether or not people agree with us, freezing us out upsets the balance of politics.  Most people end up thinking there is no difference between the main parties. So Bromley should teach us that going too far to attract the floaters is a very high-risk strategy."

After Bromley Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov warned - on this site - that whilst Mr Cameron may be appealing strongly to the voters who float between the main parties but he is not necessarily energising the voters who float between voting and not voting.

The EPP retreat, the caution on tax and public sector reform, the unwillingness to campaign on immigration and the reluctance to be specific about the family are all of concern to the Conservative right.  ConservativeHome has long believed that David Cameron is right to broaden the Conservative Party's appeal by building the party's commitment to environmental and social justice issues but that this need not be done at the expense of the party's core identities.  The party should be broadening rather than changing.  Some members of Team Cameron do believe in ConservativeHome's 'politics of and' but believe that the gentler, greener identities have to be emphasised before the party can return to its core messages.  The danger of this approach is that the media will accuse Mr Cameron of flip-flopping when he does start talking about tax and immigration again.

ConservativeHome has worried that Project Cameron is out-of-tune with the world's most successful conservative parties but, in an article for today's Times, Stephen Pollard says that Mr Cameron is very much in line with the world's newest conservative leader - Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden's New Moderates.  "The electoral success of the Moderate Party suggests the Tories should continue appealing to the centre ground," is Mr Pollard's clear conclusion.  The Daily Mail draws different conclusions from Sweden and hopes that "touchy feely Dave" will offer the kind of tax cuts and welfare reforms that Mr Reinfeldt has promised for Sweden.

Comments

[Jack Stone]

Stephen Pollard is entirely correct. The way forward for the Conservative Party is to do what Cameron is doing and appeal to the centre grund.
Our enemies have painted us as obsessive right-wingers only interested in Europe and intent on privatising public services and desroying the welfare state.
We should not fall into this trap they set for us in the last two elections for us again.

[JT]

But Jack; it is Britain's membership of the EU which is destroying representative democracy in Britain, and costing us an absolute fortune.

The social security budget now claims over £120bn per annum. And private hostpitals and schools deliver far better results for people, which is a result not just of more money, but their need to strive for quality, excellence and high service in order to attract custom. They are also much freer from interfering and ignorant politicians trying to organise their every step.

Your social democratic philosophy, which represents the "established wisdom", is the cause of much of what is unsatisfactory about Britain today.

[Monday Clubber]

Excellent news. Leigh could well be the man to lead the Tory fightback against the party's recent flip-flopping agenda, or rather non-agenda. More power to his elbow.

It's interesting to note that even the pro-Cameron clique is keen to distance itself from the rather silly faux-leftist posts of "Jack Stone"

A couple of days ago somebody posted to say that "Jack Stone" is actually a UKIP troll. Is this true?

[Ted]

So this year - in Canada the Conservatives come to power by dropping some policies from the previous manifesto & moving to the centre, in Sweden New Moderates come to power by dropping some policies from the previous manifesto & moving to the centre...but that isn't what the British Conservatives should do.

I imagine there was a Moderate Edvard Engstrom who equally complained that Reinfeldt wasn't being as radically right wing as Bildt had been.

I agree that we need to develop a broad coalition and that Cameron & co need to keep this coalition healthy but members voted for change and were warned the policy groups wouldn't report back for 18 months as we took our time to get a coherent set.

[Mark Fulford]

Monday Clubber, Jack has been posting on here far longer than you and he uses his real name. So please do us all a favour and play the ball, not the man.

Do you disagree that "Our enemies have painted us as obsessive right-wingers only interested in Europe and intent on privatising public services and desroying the welfare state."

[malcolm]

Agree totally with the thrust of your editorial Tim.In order to be successful the Conservative party has to build a wide coalition.Although I'm broadly supportive of many things that DC has done he has to remember what makes so many of us Conservative. Sooner or later he will have to start talking about 'core' Conservative issues.This should be done in tandem with those subjects covered by Built To Last not afterward.

[Editor]

Quite right, Mark. I wish people on this site would address the arguments of people with different opinions and not attempt a personal trashing.

[Mark Fulford]

Oh, and "Monday Clubber", since you brought up the subject of trolls... when you invent a real-sounding e-mail address, it's best to check who else uses it. It's an interesting tour company that you operate from the USA.

[Michael McGowan]

Unsurprisingly, I don't think Jack Stone has actually read Stephen Pollard's article. The key point is the one which he makes right at the end: even if Cameron is successful in winning an election, there is a real risk that he will end up like Blair - occupying office but achieving nothing in the process, other than jobs, perks and power for him and his mates. That is why I and many others are so unenthused by him.

I don't disagree with Mark Fulford's statement in quotes. Whether the "solution" is to pander to the Guardian and the BBC is rather less clear.

[Jack Stone]

What people who advocate privatising the NHS don`t seem to realise is that in many cases using private companes is actually costing the NHS more than it would do if it continued to operate these services and projects in house.
PFI is a far more expensive way of financing capital projects than it would be if the government financed it themselves
Using private cleaners as resulted in hospitals being dirty and operated wih too few staff because of cleaning companies need for profits.
Using private companies takes money out of the health services that should be used for pateint care not private profit.
When we get thi continued obsession with Europe and privatising public services isn`t it small wonder why voters think we are obessessed by Europe and don`t trust us on public services.

[Gareth]

I'm unconvinced that what is always referred to as our 'core vote' is anything like as ideologically homogenous as Leigh's thesis would require. Certainly, there is an element of our core membership who have something approaching a consistent ideology but I suspect the views of the 30% who've voted for us through thick and thin are less consistent.

Citing Bromley as evidence of this disillusionment really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The thesis must run: our right wing voters were so fed up with the left-ward drift of tory policy they voted, erm, Liberal Democrat. It's preposterous. In Bromley we were the victims of the Lib Dem by-election machine which picked an issue (3 jobs Bob) and banged on about it endlessly. We had nothing in our arsenal with which to respond.

I'm not dismissing Leigh's argument out of hand but, even if he is right, there is reason to believe that our voters will behave much as lefty Labour voters did in 1997: their desire to see the government beaten had them sprinting to the polling stations, whatever their reservations about New Labour.

[James Maskell]

Jack, your last post implies that a public worker could make the hospitals cleaner than a private worker? They are doing the same job arent they? I see the problem as being in keeping to routine in regularly cleaning wards, not who employs the people who do the jobs.

[Oberon Houston]

Leigh has done some great work for the recently in chairing the public accounts committee, its a shame that he is reverting to his usual type behaviour of the unreasonable loud-mouth on the right.

Is he is obviously still not sick of being opposition - not that an ideologue would give a whit for that.

I would also dispute his assertion that the 'core' of our party heavily right leaning. Only the minority that I speak to are as right-wing as Edward, even if they are the most vocal.

[Michael McGowan]

Jack, why are you banging on about privatising the NHS? No-one else is.....but while we are on the subject, shouldn't you be demanding that the Conservatives nationalise Pfizer, Glaxosmithklime, Astrazeneca and all private-sector suppliers of medical appliances to the NHS? Aren't they all profit-making companies which according to your deluded Scargillesque thinking must be taking money out of the NHS which should be used for private care? Your mindset makes Aneurin Bevan look like John Redwood.

Gareth, Sean Fear will correct me if I am wrong but I thought that at Bromley, the Lib Dem share of the vote hardly moved ....but the Tory supporters simply stayed at home. Hence the near miss.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

More sour grapes from Edward Leigh than a bottle of Latvian chardonnay I see.

Edward Leigh threatened to enter the leadership contest last year but didn't (thankfully) because he lacked the courage of his convictions and probably realised that his agenda would be rejected resoundingly.

Instead, around half of the parliamentary party and a comfortable majority of the membership endorsed David Cameron's agenda - so to suggest that core supporters are opposed to that agenda now (less than a year later) seems a little odd.

[Sean Fear]

"even if he is right, there is reason to believe that our voters will behave much as lefty Labour voters did in 1997: their desire to see the government beaten had them sprinting to the polling stations, whatever their reservations about New Labour."

I think that's the nub of the argument. I don't they will, or at least, I think that fewer of them will do so than their Labour counterparts.

I don't think that there is that sense of tribal loyalty to the Conservatives that there is towards Labour in some parts of the country (albeit diminishing). Conservative voters, are, on average, a bit richer, a bit better-educated, and a bit more independent than Labour ones. Few of them utterly hate Labour in the way that a section of the population utterly hate the Conservatives. Those who do utterly hate Labour are likely to find people like Peter Hitchens and Simon Heffer persuasive.

In addition, core Conservatives do have alternatives now - with the radical right fringe parties, who Yougov consistently put on 7-9% of the vote between them. In the South West, at least, UKIP have shown they can poll pretty well in Conservative/Lib Dem marginal seats.

The other point is that, despite their rhetoric, Labour have taken care to lavish lots of money on their core voters. Whatever their reservations, 48% of voters from socio-economic groups D and E still voted Labour last time. Labour have taken some care to keep their core supporters on board.

So a strategy of taking Conservative core supporters for granted is a pretty high-risk one IMO.

[John Hustings]

I find Stephen Pollard's article rather odd, because if you read his blog, he constantly expresses disdain and disappointment at Cameron's announcements.

He is often rather confusing though.

[Chad]

Exactly Michael, at 10:24 - Pollard's conclusion was of winning office but not being able to achieve anything else.

Pollard's article seems to be aimed at those like Oberon for whom simply "being in office" is the goal.

For these people, values-based criticisms will always be an irksome nuisance. You can sense how Oberon and those like him just want to shout "shut up!" to those conservatives who object to the current direction of their party.

For those driven by values of course, not speaking up would is inconceivable, as office without values is much much worse than values without office.

(And no it will not give Labour a free reigh as we head towards possible hung parliaments, parliament and debate will become more important than ever)

[Sean Fear]

It's also far better, Chad, that the argument between values-driven Conservatives, and office-driven Conservatives, should take place now, rather than in government.

Voters are far more tolerant of divided oppositions than they are of divided governments.

[Chad]

I agree Sean.

imho, the public is slowly warming to the smaller government, low tax approach, and as the insincere veneer-politics of Blair etc wears thin, we'll slowly win the debate.

At the moment, does it really matter to anyone but rabid rosette-clutchers whether Blair/Brown/Cameron/Campbell are installed at number 10?

The "it'll be more likely if x is in charge" argument is completely false. If someone is not banging the drum (please don't insult us with vague 'hints') for something now, they sure won't be when they are in office.

[elrafa]

Tim and Mark - the reason many use pseudonyms (I have started using this one) is that we are getting threatening emails from CCO employees and others. If you only wish people to use their real names then prepare for the site to become totally redundant or neutered.

Jack Stone - PFI incurs an higher interest charge on the capital cost as it is private sector borrowing. Although the risk premiums tend to be lower than ordinary borrowing. Were all the PFI capital charges passed onto the public sector the cost of all borrowing public and private would rise, as the PSBR would go through the roof. It is an urban myth that PFI is costly.

PFI allows the public sector to concentrate on their core capabilities and competencies rather than basic facilities management. Totally sensible.

As for Edward Leigh's comments. I wholeheartedly agree. Those of us who consider a smaller state sector, radical reform of the public sector , tax simplificaion and reform to be the priorities for a Conservative Government can take no more of the Dave "emperor's new clothes" Cameron project.

[malcolm]

I thought Sean (please correct me if I'm wrong) that D & E's are least likely to vote for anybody at all.
PS Over the last nine years I've found I bloody hate Labour!

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I'm not too worried about what Edward Leigh says, given that he's basically the Conservative equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell.

[Chad]

Why do you hate Labour Malcolm?

Serious question.

[Sean Fear]

They have the worst turnout, Malcolm, but 48% of those who voted, according to MORI, voted Labour.

[malcolm]

Not sure where to start Chad but top three would be.1 Politicisation of the civil service.2 Half baked Constitutional changes which currently are putting the Union under threat.3 For the culture of lies and spin that have debased politics to such an extent that we are seeing record low turnouts and a general contempt for politics in this country. Oh I forgot to mention lying to get us into a war,sending our brave troops to war with inadequate equipment......I think you get my drift.I bloody hate them!

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

How can David Cameron's strategy be wrong when we are consistantly so far ahead in the opinion polls.

What may appeal to the Right of the Conservative Party is not guaranteed to appeal to floating voters.

Mr Leigh should take a deep breath and think again because such comments are not likely to go down well at all in marginal seats like my own of Lincoln who instantly see splits developing inside the party.

The Conservative Party should be (and in many cases are) taking advantage of splits in the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats especially given the news that Menzies Campbell and Gordon Brown are now agreeing with each other on some aspects of tax policy.

[Michael McGowan]

Thanks, Sean, Your point about Labour's core vote is spot on. They have been astute enough to take good care of their (more homogeneous) core vote despite the hostile rhetoric. The Tories have not only gone out of their way to abuse their core voters but have now appeared to throw their weight behind policies (tuition fees? higher road taxes?) which heap extra costs on many of their core supporters on lowish incomes. At the same time, unlike the Republicans under Nixon and Reagan, they have failed to add new constutuencies to their core vote.

Was I wrong about the Lib Dem share of the vote at Bromley?

[Sean Fear]

Geoffrey, we are on average, about 4% ahead, which isn't that much of a lead.

We can't win unless we can satisfy *both* groups of voters.

[Chad]

I agree Malcolm, I loathe their policies and approach too.

The reason I asked is I'm sure for all the core reasons we hate Labour, Cameron is not offering a noticeable alternative.

The other story of the day about the super low turn out for B2L seems completely consistent with your point 3, obviously Cameron voted for and still supports the Iraq War etc etc.

For me, in no particular order,
#1 Supported/Still Supports Iraq War
#2 Large state funded by high taxation
#3 Opposition to Grammar schools
#4 Positive discrimination.
#5 No real plan to reduce EU power to pursue an internationalist agenda.

For these 5 reasons, Blair and Cameron are identical.

[Sean Fear]

Their vote remained the same. Their vote share rose sharply.

I think some ex-Conservatives did switch to the Lib Dems, but more sat on their hands.

[christina speight]

Stephen Pollard's article is plain wrong in one crucial respect. Cameron has NOT held on to past supporters and members. If he had, and with Labour shooting itself in the foot daily, he would have an infinitely bigger lead than the paltry amd slipping 4-5%.

And, Gareth, your analysis of Bromley assumes that Tories voted LibDem. All the evidence is that half the Tory voters did not feel motivated to vote at all! This, I suspect, will be Cameron's undoing. Many of us feel that Cameron is a Blair-clone, so why bother?

Jack Stone - as all europhiles do - wants us to ignore the elephant in the room - the EU. When our contribution is set to rise to £12bn a year and when Brussels makes 70-80% of our laws, and when it interferes in the minutiae of our lives, it is probably the most dreadful scandal of Britain today. No wonder JS: and Cameron, Hurd, Ian Taylor, Ken Clarke all want us to ignore it. And Cameron broke his promise over it.

Oberon - Those who disagree with you are not "right wing" in the pejorative sense you use. We are demanding things that will benefit the under-privileged, lessen the family's dependence on the state, provide better services by ditching the dogma and structuring them properly, cutting the ever-growing tax burden (starting with the £12bn we give to the EU for nothing). We are sick of seeing our people turned into the proletariat which the Cameroons (possibly unwittingly) seem to support.

Dantel Vince Archer - The membership backed Cameron partly because of a promise which he has broken - unforgiveable. And I've posted here documented instances of people who regret backing him and one whole committee who voted for him and wished they hadn't.

Sean Fear - Too right. Labour looks after ITS core which is why in the polls the Labour vote is steady at a highish level and recently rising

I'll certainly not be "sprinting" to any poll to vote for Cameron's vapid party and I'll do all I can to stop others. I too "can take no more of the Dave "emperor's new clothes" Cameron project."

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

Sean 11.44am.

Agree that it is not a huge lead but as things stand we haven't even got our policies together yet.

I really think that the vast majority of people who voted Conservative in 2005 will do so again because they desperately want rid of Labour.

Afterall, as has already been pointed out, even though many left wing socialists didn't like the New Labour project in 1997 the vast majority of them still voted Labour to get rid of us.

Which only brings me to the conclusion that DC is well on the right course.

[Alexander Drake]

Christina, I don't often agree with your views here, but I don't deny that there are some people on the Right of British politics that your views reflect.

If so, do you think it is possible for people with views such as yourself to support a Conservative Party sufficiently attractive to potential swinging voters?

If so, what sort of policies could cover this gap?

If not, how will the Conservatives get the votes they need in order to form a government?

In asking these questions, I'm not being silly, I'm genuinely curious. You clearly have very firm views about the direction of the Party and I'm keen to learn how you think the Conservatives can win again.

[MH]

I fully agree with Leigh's sentiments, although I think it is a tough one for MPs. To be fair to Dave, he got a huge mandate for whatever it was he vaguely stood for (although he's clearly hidden alot such as the EPP lie) and maybe the Tory left deserves this chance. The dilemma for MPs is do they speak their mind or do what we ordinary councillors and activists do who disagree and resign. I think the parliamentary pension may focus their thinking.

[Mark Fulford]

Tim and Mark - the reason many use pseudonyms (I have started using this one) is that we are getting threatening emails from CCO employees and others.

elrafa @ 1124 - I suspect your claim is wild fantasy but, if you really have received threatening e-mails from CCO, please forward them to the editor. I’m sure he’d have no hesitation in exposing intimidation without revealing his source.

I have no problem with pseudonyms. For devious subterfuge I use several myself. I do have a problem with hypocrisy, and that’s why I challenged Monday Clubber.

[christina speight]

Alexander Drake (1216) - Thanks for that. I don't think that on the spur of the moment I can do better than point one way ----

The Cornerstone Group espouses many of my views and contains, amongst the 25 + MP members, some fine names such as John Redwood, Bill Cash and Edward Leigh (list on website). It’s at http://www.cornerstonegroup.org.uk

But a good summary of the answer to your question lies on that site but specifically at - - http://www.cornerstonegroup.org.uk/Strange%20Des.htm

Some highlights include:-
== critical of the Tory election campaign, accusing it of being too timid about tax cuts, public service reform and family values, and lacking passion and conviction. ==complains that the party leadership relied too heavily on focus groups and opinion polls and that it framed a message barely distinguishable from New Labour.
==“We believe that these values must be stressed: tradition; nation; family; religious ethics; free enterprise. We want to use the leadership election to argue for principles and policies, not about personalities.”
==liberals, embodied by Tony Blair’s big tent New Labour, and backed by large sections of the media, have been steadily winning the culture wars in Britain for the last 40-50 years. The time has come for social conservatives to fight back.
==It is understandable that after three General Election defeats, many in our party have lost confidence… But it is unacceptable for people whose electoral success is dependent on carrying the Conservative badge to use it to conceal fundamentally unconservative attitudes. Such critics usually have little to offer as a clarion call beyond the shrill cry for evermore unbridled liberty."
==the Conservatives fought the last election with one hand tied behind their backs, too afraid of Labour mud-slinging. For instance, the tax cut promise of £4 billion was slight given that public spending is running at £700 billion a year. But it did not head off Labour claims of swingeing spending cuts
==In an appeal for clear blue water between the two main parties, [it argues] for radical tax and spending cuts, a voucher system for schools, tax relief for private health insurance, a more patriotic approach to Europe and the supremacy of Parliament, a compassionate approach to the poor, and the courage to talk about moral values and the importance of marriage to the upbringing of children.
==“Critics will say that that Britain has changed, that we must modernise. (It would be) happier with this argument if (we) knew what we should change into - New Labour? Liberal Democrat? Is that what the public really want? Why would anyone vote for the pale blue imitation of the liberal orthodoxy when they can get the real thing?
==

There's much more and it's only the fact that Cornerstone exists that keeps me caring about the Consertvative Party at all.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Dantel Vince Archer - The membership backed Cameron partly because of a promise which he has broken - unforgiveable. And I've posted here documented instances of people who regret backing him and one whole committee who voted for him and wished they hadn't."

Chrtstina Spe ight - The EPP withdrawal pledge (which by the way has not been broken, at worst you could say it's been postponed) was but one small part of David Cameron's 'Change To Win' leadership bid platform which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the party.

The claims that our core support are turned off by Cameron because he is following that agenda seem a bit odd given their endorsement of that agenda less than a year ago.

[MH]

Daniel - I think you are being disingenuous in the extreme. Cameron was supremely vague (big change) on detail and so it's legitimate for some to question his approach. Core support is falling off as my former association can attest: 300 lost from 1300 members in one year.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I agree that David Cameron's leadership bid was light on detail and I was vehemently opposed to it for that reason.

Frankly, I feel that people must be really naive to have voted for such a leadership platform and not realised they were giving David Cameron carte blanche to carry out changes as he saw fit, so I have no sympathy or patience for those people whatsoever.

If the core voters who are apparently so disaffected with David Cameron had wanted a safe leader who wouldn't have 'abandoned' our traditional values and policies, they should have voted for David Davis and any MPs that feel the same should have voted for David Davis or Liam Fox.

To have voted for David Cameron only to start whinging about him now is a bit like buying a tin of paint and then complaining about the colour once you've painted half the wall and I find it all a bit absurd really.

[tapestry]

Nice to hear the Cornerstone are still in business. The current decline in Cameron's lead over Labour in the polls is probably because Labour's leadership battles have made them look interesting for a moment.

Once Blair goes, labour will seem very dull and hopeless, whichever minnow swims to the surface. Until he goes they will manage to seem interesting, and Cameron's undoubted progress will be temporarily checked. This opens up the chance for doubters to express their views.

Only if Cameron attempts a merger with the Lib Dems would any serious revolt break out. Meanwhile shadowing the LD's is doing well in attracting potential new support.

As long as eurocompliant candidates are avoided, unlike at Bromley, and eurosceptics are selected, the traditional, loyal Conservative will no doubt rally round to vote for Cameron when the time comes - especially in Yorkshire.

[elrafa]

Mark Fulford - I suspect your claim is wild fantasy but, if you really have received threatening e-mails from CCO.

Trust me matey, I am not one for wild fantasy, I have received emails from CCO suggesting that it may be advisable to tone down my postings.

I am not prepared just yet to put my head above the parapet, but I will in time.

Equally the whole Orange thing a month or so ago, deterred me from posting under my real name.

[Goldie]

When you're a right-wing party, moving to the left to gain power is pointless other than if you're interested in sharing in the spoils of power.

[Mark Fulford]

Trust me matey, I am not one for wild fantasy, I have received emails from CCO suggesting that it may be advisable to tone down my postings.

I am not prepared just yet to put my head above the parapet, but I will in time.

Your comment that CCO employees have threatened you is a serious allegation of intimidation and, if I may say so, fairly unbelievable. CCO would surely know that any threats would be dynamite if they were exposed, so it seems unlikely that you are so important and your posts so irksome to CCO that they would take such a risk.

Flinging accusations from behind a parapet is, IMO, cowardly. However, you can easily convince us all while retaining your anonymity: simply show Tim what you’ve got. As he did with A-list informers, I’m sure he’ll protect your identity.

[Oberon Houston]

There is a lot of chat along the lines of... “We are principled, not throwing away our values, no point in trying to gain power if it means compromise.”

In reply, I may have a more pragmatic view, but that doesn't mean I am unprincipled, secondly the view that we cannot compromise in an effort to seek power smack of the kind of panacea. To ignore the preferences of the electorate is a ridiculous thing for a political party to do, and arrogant in the extreme. Now, to those that will reply – we need to make the argument better then – no, not good enough, the other parties have hammered us when we have tried that.

Those that throw up their arms in horror at Britain today and claim that only radical policies will fix it our doomed Country cannot claim this on the one hand and also claim to be dismissive of the need to gain power aspect, the two just do not match up. Now, if I were you (not that I am), I would certainly go along with the get into power agenda, to not do so is bizarre, hardly going to influence the beneficiaries of this folly, Labour, In power, I could at least try to shape some real policy proposals. Surely that’s a more intelligent way of approaching the issue, a least you can make a difference.

Finally (deep breath), I get irritated when those on the right imply that they are ‘pure’, and I am not. Well my little right-wing friends, the very foundation of conservatism is “scepticism of change”, and it is because of this that I would hint that it is you that are displaying some very non-tory tendencies. Tories don’t do radical, so if that’s your bag, think again before accusing me of being an unbeliever.

[christina speight]

Daniel Vince-Archer - Come off it Cameron BROKE a clear promise to get our MEPs out of the EPP in days not weeks. It's breaking a promise to leave it till after the euro-elections since it will then never happen. And also all the jobs are dished out in the lead-up to the elections and the EPP want the Tories there to get more Committee Chairmanships. (See Roger Helmer in september European Journal)

Our MEPs are led by a rabid europhile - Kirkhope - and he's doing everything to sabotage any change.

Cameron got elected on the votes of many - now furious - anti-EU Tories (who, let me remind you) represent the majority of 2005 Tory voters.

You may not "have any sympathy" for those who regret voting for a turncoat and a liar but I have and so do many others.

He's forfeited all claims to legitimacy by that act of betrayal.

He's losing support - see total membership - and see MH above =-23%.

[James Maskell]

Actually Oberon the last point is a fallacy. Tories can do radical, it just depends on what it was previously. in Britain for example its a centre left Government which has brought in radical changes, radical meaning against what is was opreviously, which was very conservative after 18 years of Tory Government. Changing it to be more conservative now and removing the socialist aspects brought in is radical, but its also Tory as its got Tory principles.

Its not an oxymoron to be a radical Tory.

[Oberon Houston]

Sorry about the last post, garbelled….

There is a lot of chat along the lines of... “We are principled, not throwing away our values, no point in trying to gain power if it means compromise.”

In reply, I may have a more pragmatic view, but that doesn't mean I am unprincipled, secondly the view that we cannot compromise in an effort to seek power, better to shoot for an unachievable ideological panacea is a ridiculous aim in politics. To then also propose ignoring the preferences of the electorate is an awful proposal for a political party to do (Oberon just wants power, what a bizarre boy he is, and a troglodyte to boot).

Now, to those that reply – we need to make the argument better then – no, not good enough, the other parties have hammered us when we have tried that. Sorry, three election defeats for the most successful political party ever is proof that you are barking (up the wrong tree).

Those that throw up their arms in horror at Britain today and claim that only radical policies will fix it or we are all doomed cannot claim this on the one hand and also be dismissive of the need to gain power aspect, the two just do not match up. Now, if I were you (not that I am), I would certainly go along with the get into power agenda, (for reasons given above) to not do so is bizarre, hardly going to influence the beneficiaries of this folly, Labour, who you will boost into power again. I could at least try to shape some real policy proposals if I was pragmatic and adjusted my position to get elected. Surely that’s a more intelligent way of approaching the issue, a least you can make a difference that way.

Finally (deep breath), I get irritated when those on the right imply that they are ‘pure’, and I am not. Well my little right-wing friends, the very foundation of conservatism is “scepticism of change”, and it is because of this that I would hint that it is you that are displaying some very non-tory tendencies. Tories don’t do radical, so if that’s your bag, think again before accusing me of being an unbeliever.

[Oberon Houston]

James, are you suggesting that skepticism of change is not one of our founding principles?

[Richard Weatherill]

Oberon - could I gently suggest that it is precisely this "scepticism of change" that leads many on this blog to question some of DC's proposals for change?

[James Maskell]

No Im not. If Labour pulls Britain to the left, your argument is that we wouldnt try to pull it back because we are simply skeptical of change and that we wouldnt put change in ourselves. My argument is that Tories can be radical and argue for change. As I said, Labour have pulled Britain in a more left direction. If the Conservatives argue in favour of pulling Britain into a more right wing direction thats change. Its also radical because its pulling in the opposite direction.

Its a contradition in terms of course to be a Tory but believe in change, but with having had a socialist Government in change for 9 years, a reversal of change is change in itself and can also be conservative.

[Conservative Bookman]

Fascinating stuff, all of this.
Cameron's a shyster, but he's OUR shyster and that counts for a lot.
No Tory leadership was going to beat Blair at his first two elections, given recent history and the desire for change etc, so we've really only had one contest. We lost that, because their snake oil salesman was better than ours and because the BBC and the rest of the largely liberal media twisted our message.
The next contest's some way off (and the longer the better; this Labour administration is only going to mess things up more from here on in, and we'll need a very big swing to get a two-term majority which is what is needed to undo the damage done by Blair et al).
In the meantime, things move and change and therefore so must Conservatives. No-one wants to conserve wing collars or bi-planes, after all. Disraeli might have shown a lot of interest in carbon-related global warnming had it existed in his day.
HOW we should move is the interesting question. The single biggest error the Tories have made is in failing to understand presentation: allowing race to be conflated with immigration, for instance.
We need to outflank the BBC and the liberal chatterati and Cameron is the man to do that. Leigh, for all his worthy qualities and admirable views, is simply not.

[Richard]

"Quite right, Mark. I wish people on this site would address the arguments of people with different opinions and not attempt a personal trashing."

Sorry Editor but I'm pretty damn sure Jack Stone is a troll and I think this fact should be highlighted to prevent him antagonising people. He once claimed those in favour of EU withdrawal secretly wanted to outlaw homosexuality and suggested I wanted to send children back up the chimneys because I thought calling the 16th century "wicked" was silly. Oh, and for mocking positive discrimination I was called "nasty".

I do sometimes make attempts to respond to his arguments but I've rarely got any replies. Others have noticed his tendency to make one-off controversial postings and then never return. Sometimes he does return and sometimes I've even seen him make sensible postings but I suspect these are just a diversion.

I don't say this because I disagree with much of what he says - I've disagreed with many people on here and not made accusations of trolling - but his tone of posting just strikes me as a bit of a wind-up.

[Yet Another Anon]

What people who advocate privatising the NHS don`t seem to realise is that in many cases using private companes is actually costing the NHS more than it would do if it continued to operate these services and projects in house.
PFI is a far more expensive way of financing capital projects than it would be if the government financed it themselves
There is another option which is to commercialise it and either have as something such as a number of not for profit private charities limited by guarantee (which means no shareholders but seperate from state control) or as some kind of Trading Fund more like Ordnance Survey or Met Office that is required to fund it's activities by raising money through commercial activity - In the 19th an early 20th centuries there were many public organisations such as The National Physical Laboratory and The Lighthouse Boards and Ordnance Survey has a long history with naval origins and yet public spending especially that raised by taxation was far lower and the state had very little to do with what went on outside of a limited range of activities - there is no need to convert all the public sector to plc's or private franchises indeed if all public service activity outside of core civil service admin were privatised or contracted out it is still possible that spending could be high, on the one hand money wasted on excessive luxury or spent inefficently or on things that the state should not be involved in, PFI schemes are still state schemes even though they are carried out by the private sector in the main, they have been used as a means of spending money while keeping it off the books, the solution is to cut public spending and axe the PFI schemes - deregulate the labour market, for small companies with regard to regulation of how they employ people and taxation - the state should be something they deal with very little not all the time as currently

[Yet Another Anon]

liberals, embodied by Tony Blair’s big tent New Labour, and backed by large sections of the media, have been steadily winning the culture wars in Britain for the last 40-50 years.
Far longer if anything, the 20th century as no other had been before it was a century of social liberalism, not that everything was perfect before then but it has to be understood that in centuries before that there wasn't the benefit of computers, DNA testing and advanced techniques for using Genetic Modification to improve crop yields and the such like, most of the improvements in modern life have not been due to social advances but rather through the development of new technology, it is technology that drives economic growth - perversely the liberals have been successful in associating loose living with technological change, to really defeat liberalism then the validity of such an association must be destroyed and at that point the political parties will be falling over each other to introduce strong police and military policies and strict discipline - such can go hand in hand with low public spending, low taxation and a mindset orientated towards increasing economic growth.

[Mark Fulford]

Christina, “betrayal”, “turncoat”, “liar”. If you are so opposed to David Cameron, what do you think of the 74% who are satisfied with what he has done? You must be fairly bitter towards us too.

But can I ask you, am I right that your original defection to UKIP was a result of disagreement previous Conservative leader? And what precipitated your subsequent renunciation of UKIP? Was it another disagreement?

I believe the EPP pledge was made in good faith, but became undeliverable. I have concerns that Cameron didn’t foresee the problems, but then neither did David Davis. If David Davis had been elected leader, do you think he would have delivered on a promise that, in a shifting political landscape, had subsequently become harmful? Would he have been better to hold promises above consequences?

[Geoff Gilson]

I have to chuckle at all this talk of leaving Thatcherism behind. It may well seem that, on the surface, David is modernising the Party. But not in respect of that which really concerns the mandarins: arms corruption.

Go to: www.conservativecampaign.com

Thatcher oversaw, and Blair perpetuated, the systemic corruption of Whitehall and Westminster, while the UK arms industry grew to be the world's No. 2 exporter - on the back of both 'front-door' and 'back-door' arms sales.

David is all set to revive this corruption when the Tories return to power. This is confirmed by the appointments he has made to those sensitive positions in the Front Bench and the Party, which will control arms sales and the illicit flow of funds back into Tory coffers.

With that matter 'built to last,' the mandarins don't give a toss what logo David designs for the rest of us.

[tapestry]

Roger Helmer is outside the EPP and a member of the Conservative delegation, the first MEP to fulfil Cameron's pledge. That is progress, Christina.

Cameron will need to be in a strong position to challenge the power structure than holds the European Parliament in its grip. Everything he does until he wins power will however be aimed solely at winning power.

The EPP decision was flunked, not because Cameron has changed his view of the EU, as Mark Fulford says. But because the defensive strategies of the eurocompliant were effective. The casualties were not worth taking.

Cameron has many known eurosceptics holding down key positions - John Redwood, IDS, Owen Paterson, Bill Cash. All is not lost in the eurosceptic cause.

It is interesting that Cameron is making progress without any support from Murdoch. That could be taken as an indication that he is not thought to be sufficiently eurocompliant in that quarter. Murdoch has placed all his chips on Gordon Brown, where he must be feeling increasingly insecure as Brown's popularity sinks ever lower.

Christina's contribution does everyone a favour - by reminding us every day how much Conservatives detest the EU. First we have to ensure Labour get all the attention as the reality of the Blair/Brown nightmare spills out into the open, so that Cameron can fill the resulting void.

[christina speight]

Mark Fulford - You're very good at asking questions but since you say you use aliases as devious subterfuges why should anybody answer.
But nevertheless - - -
I left the party after 45 years because of the disgraceful bullying tactics and blackmail John Major used to steamroller the Maastricht Treaty through in the face of a party which was largely opposed. I joined UKIP and only left that when the unsavoury Farage hijacked the party in 2001. From then until Michael Howard I used my publications to give qualified support to the Tories but went wholeheartedly behind Michael Howard.

Does that satisfy any of your pseudonyms?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tapestry - Is not Roger Helmer not back with the Tory whip now? He says (see current European Journal) that he achieved more on his own than as a party member in that "parliament" !!

[tapestry]

Yes Christina. But Helmer's actually outside the EPP - the only Conservative MEP in that position so far!

Mark Fulford (alias) lives in Switzerland, a physicist I believe - and has other ID's elsewhere in the internet. His work is good on detail. But he does not aways draw the conculsions from it that you or I necessarily would.

UKIP are a cabal..pretending to be a democratic political party. Kilroy Silk couldn't achieve anything with them. What hope anyone else?

[Mark Fulford]

Does that satisfy any of your pseudonyms?

To the extent that it confirms that you tolerate nothing less than your own opinion, yes.

I presume that John Major’s blackmail was to threaten the Maastrict Rebels with a general election. I saw the same episode as 22 rebels blackmailing their government by being so hell-bent on their own agenda that they didn’t care what damage they wrought.

You resumed "qualified support" of the Tories in 2001. Wasn't that when one of the rebels, IDS, became probably the least effective leader that we've ever had? It was at the very same time that I became a person without a party (until David Cameron).

p.s. Self-confessed devious subterfuge is hardly devious or subterfuge. My sense of humour and yours are apparently very different.

p.p.s. I save my pseudonyms for other sites.

[Matt Davis]

I agree 100% with the Editor and with Malcolm's first post on this thread. What worries me the most is not even that we are in danger of losing our core vote. Rather it is that we are losing activists and helpers, the very people who are completely essential in delivering the leaflets and knocking on the doors that must be done if we are to win an election. These people are not going to be replaced by any floating voters, who by definition are not interested in becoming party activists.There is a real and present danger here and pretending that getting nice write ups in the Independent and on the MPACUK website are enough to win is cloud cuckoo land stuff.

[Mark Fulford]

Rather it is that we are losing activists and helpers

I disagree. Since David Cameron I've become an activist and will certainly help at the next election. I don't suppose I'm unique.

[tapestry]

Wasn't that when one of the rebels, IDS, became probably the least effective leader that we've ever had? (Mark Fulford)

He only converted 20% behind Labour to 5% ahead in 2 years, founded the local democracy programme, the social justice agenda and finally resolved the Conservative EU issue in favour of euroscepticism, in addition to depriving Portillo and Ken Clarke of their chance to bugger our party up completely.

Cameron is son of IDS. So are we all - apart from Christina. She's a girl.

Matt Davis, I think the Party's activists will tolerate nearly anything in terms of policy as rhetoric, but they won't work or vote for europhiles, so constituencies should not select them as did Bromley.

[Wallenstein]

>>I disagree. Since David Cameron I've become an activist and will certainly help at the next election. I don't suppose I'm unique.<<

No Mark. I think there's at least three others who have emulated your example.

So when IDS became leader you decided to terminate your loyalty to the party. You only returned when the party chose somebody who shares your TRG Wet agenda.

Your loyalty, therefore, is not to the party, but to the Wet faction within it.

And if it's true that you have moved to Switzerland your loyalty to the UK would appear to matche your dubious loyalty to our party.

[Alexander Drake]

I think Goldie has put the position of many on this thread sucinctly by saying:

When you're a right-wing party, moving to the left to gain power is pointless other than if you're interested in sharing in the spoils of power.

A fair call, Goldie, and understandable sentiment - but at what point does the Party's obligation to be genuinely electorally competitive get a look in? I think this obligation is derived from the need to avoid government from becoming stale under a near-one party system, our collection of short money, the size of the Party and the requirement under the Westminster system that the second largest party also function as a serious alternative government.

Populus's surveys suggest that there is a lineal ideological spectrum from 1 to 10, and that Blair's electoral success in part has been derived from being close as possible to as many voters as possible (wasn't his score close to 5.3 or something?)

In short - under Britain's party system, the Conservative Party is obliged to be a genuinely electorally competitive political party for attaining government. Do posters think that winning those swinging voters in marginal seats is possible at the same time as avoiding a drift to the mainstream?

In short, I think the curse of political parties for members is that as a semi-official organisation, it's not just about its members - surely it's also about what the punters want from that party.

[christina speight]

Mark F: - If you want to know what happened with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty read all about it in the current European Journal.

That treaty was the biggest single nail in the coffin of Britain as a sovereign nation. There was NOT a majority in the Commons for it and even Ministers backed the Tory rebels and lent help [not very principled but that's life] . In fact on the second vote the government lost but Major, after withdrawing whips right left and centre, (which stirred up more revolt) made the final vote one of confidence.

And if you want the really nasty bits of blackmail used Teresa Gorman's book has them all. Yuk!

[christina speight]

Mark Fulford - " I've become an activist and will certainly help at the next election. ". YES but who is going to do all the work for the next 3 years? Election help on its own is not activism - it is a sop to one's ego.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"You may not "have any sympathy" for those who regret voting for a turncoat and a liar but I have and so do many others."

Have you ever told a lie Christina? Or made a rash promise to do something which, despite your best intentions and effort, circumstances forced you to postpone? If you haven't, you're a better person than me, and I suspect most of the rest of us too.

David Cameron didn't lie when he made the pledge to withdraw from the EPP-ED - he made an ill-considered promise which political circumstances have prevented him from fulfilling as of yet, with a firm commitment to do so in 2009.

And another thing - I wouldn't choose to use the words 'liar' or 'turncoat' here and now but inconsistencies in David Cameron's political record were highlighted on more than one occasion during the leadership contest so again, talk of people changing their minds now on the basis of something that was known when they cast their votes for him still won't wash with me.

[Richard Carey]

Do posters think that winning those swinging voters in marginal seats is possible at the same time as avoiding a drift to the mainstream?

No - and why on earth should we want to avoid the mainstream anyway?

I remember the polls you write about - there was a similar one in late '04 where on the (admittedly somewhat artificial) left-right continuum, Blair was within about 8 points of where the average voter placed themselves, about 5 times closer then where Howard and the PCP were perceived to be. Interesting stuff.

Election help on its own is not activism - it is a sop to one's ego.

Well, there's one way to boost membership and involvement. Who votes we put Christina in charge of recruitment? Anyone? No...oh well.

[tapestry]

If the Cornerstone would sign up for Better Off Out, Farage says he will withdraw the attack dogs from their Constituencies. Worth a second's thought.

[Alexander Drake]

The Mirror has quoted Edward Leigh as saying:

"Our core vote is different from Labour's. If we do not wear enough of our traditional garb they tend to think that, like the emperor in the fairy tale, we are naked."

This may be correct for part of the Conservative vote, although I question the 'core'ness of these people if they simply 'peel off' if they don't get what they want. At what point does a loyal liberal Tory become as 'core' as a long-term supporter of the party from the Right?

I'm keen to hear from those those worried about Cameron's approach, what their solution is for squaring the gap between the 30-333% we've been getting in recent elections, and the voters we need to form a government again. Right now Cameron's giving it a go, and he's getting some sort of favourable result for the Party in polling, for the first time in ages. It may, or may not, actually work at a general election - but at least he's trying. What is the alternative - is it not to regard electoral defeat as feedback to heed, and take any electoral success that arises in the future as a bonus?

The problem as I see it though with this approach, is that we will lose the ability to claim to be a broad-based, mainstream national party, and we would probably lose our place in the party dichotomy of forming governments to some other group. Not seeking to make a claim on government would be more disastrous to our future as a serious political force than anything to do with the chocolate oranges, or logos, or A-Lists.

Keen for some genuine discussion, without the predictable heat and light that many threads seem to generate here these days.

[Monday Clubber]

Alexander, if you are indeed an Australian you are clearly seeing a far more robust and successful conservatism at work in your own country, and that doesn't bode well for the future of the "touchy-feely" approach being adopted here.

The chief claim of the Conservative Party must be to be Conservative. If the pubic don't like Conservatism they are free to vote elsewhere. There is no shame in being an effective opposition.

And that is what Cameron has yet to prove - that he can be effective in opposition. Continually nodding to all the things that Conservatives deplore in Socialism and Political Correctness proves only that he has "gone native"

[Chad]

Daniel wrote:
"David Cameron didn't lie when he made the pledge to withdraw from the EPP-ED - he made an ill-considered promise which political circumstances have prevented him from fulfilling as of yet, with a firm commitment to do so in 2009."

On what authority or statement do you base that claim Daniel, or did you just make it up to fit your argument?

[christina speight]

Daniel V-A: - "Have you ever --- made a rash promise to do something which, despite your best intentions and effort, circumstances forced you to postpone? If you haven't, you're a better person than me."

I have suspected I was just that for a while now. :-)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"On what authority or statement do you base that claim Daniel, or did you just make it up to fit your argument?"

Er, how about the declaration signed with Mirek Topolanek announcing the creation of a new European political grouping?

You can stick that in your pipe and smoke it Chad, instead of indulging in pathetic attempts at nitpicking and point-scoring.

"I have suspected I was just that for a while now. :-)"

I note you didn't actually address any of the points I raised, Christina. Case closed methinks.

[tired and emotional]

We've seen just what being an effective opposition is worth over the past 10 year - nothing whatever. Rule by cabinet (read PM)and headline renders the idea of priniciple opposition almost meaningless. Its power or whistling in the wind these days.

That said I can barely sleep at nights because of the lack of anything to actually support about DC... reminding myself that there's also a lack of anything to oppose (and that this seems to be an effective electoral strategy) is wearing pretty bastard thin.

[tired and emotional]

Apologies for my language.. the red mist descended..

[Opinicus]

@Alexander Drake
The argument against Cameron's strategy is twofold
A) that it is enough to raise us to 39% +/- 1% and free us from the obloquy of the last few years but it is not enough to persuade swing voters that we would do a better job in government or had any better idea what to do about the problems affecting Britain, without which we are going to struggle to get to 43% and form a government on our own (the very worst result being a hung parliament when we are at the mercy of the LibDems demands for PR)
b) that if the next government is going to be Blairite it would be better that it were run by the Labour Party so that we kept our hands clean of the current state of the nation and our powder dry for a better future. Office without power is of benefit only to those few members of the Party burnishing their offical Jaguar leather.

[christina speight]

Oh dear! Daniel didn't get it did he.

He wrote "you're a better person than me." I replied "I have suspected I was just that for a while now"

Now do you get it?

[Gareth]

Daniel got it all too well Christina. He made a substantial point. You responded with abuse. You forfeited the argument. Don't deceive yourself that your 'wit' was so sophisticated it surpassed understanding.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Thank you Gareth.

I did get your little 'joke' Christina but I just wanted to note that you had no response to the points I raised.

Stick to your prophecies of electoral doom for Cameron's Conservatives™ - you'll get more laughs that way.

[Wallenstein]

Stick to your prophecies of electoral doom for Cameron's Conservatives™ - you'll get more laughs that way.

Especially when she turns out to be right, eh, Daniel? ;)

Pip!Pip!

[UKIPmovingTory]

Cameron's policies are aimed at the wine-bar, metropolitan element which likes to read about "global warming"/world poverty from the safety of Notting Hill.

There is nothing in his statements about crime, dealing with crime, dealing with disorder, or failing schools, ways to improve schools (using traditional teaching), greenbelt erosion and countryside/rural economic decline, improvement of general cultural standards etc.

Cameron stands for nothing more than temporary "positioning", focus-groups, all the insubstantial things we associate with modern politics.

Yesterday, a picture appeared of Sir Ming Campbell parading around with a group of "new-look", diverse Lib Dems. I would say that the latter party is indistinguishable from Cameron's Conservatism.

As far as the new UKIP leadership is concerned, Nigel Farage would be well-advised to capitalise on Cameron's Lib-Dem approach, BUT avoid boring the public with endless telephone number figures about EU spending projections etc.

To reach the man in the street, UKIP must show (using sums of money that the ordinary man can relate to) how the EU is consuming HIS taxes; how much the EU bureaucrats get per week, compared to his take-home pay/rail fares etc.

People today are very worried about their homes, their wellbeing, their debts, their mortgages, the state of their children's education etc.

The patriotic Right will not tune into this with abstract notions about "sovereignty" etc. Neither will the public respond to Cameron's way-out trips to the North Pole, and the impression he gives of being a well-off trendy.

Time for UKIP to step in with REAL ideas, and things which relate to OUR lives today.

[James Maskell]

And looking at real issues is by concentrating purely on how the EU affects our lives? I think thats a bad strategy and not too far distant from the strategy theyve always held. They need to get away from the idea that every issue has to be attached to the EU. The current strategy simply puts off voters who have heard it before. Looking at issues apart from the EU is how UKIP will win more votes.

[christina speight]

D:V:-A & Gareth
When I'm asked a silly childish question like - "Have you ever --- made a rash promise to do something which, despite your best intentions and effort, circumstances forced you to postpone? If you haven't, you're a better person than me."

Whenever I have been in a position of responsibility I have NEVER broken my word. You two cr***ns may not have noticed but I am NOT the Leader of the Conservative Party.

So therefore I think I AM a better person than you - but only since you ask.

Now pop off now and play with your rubber ducks in the bath with Dave - it's bedtime

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"You two cr***ns may not have noticed but I am NOT the Leader of the Conservative Party."

I have noticed and trust me, I'm extremely glad that you're not.

There's no point continuing this discussion, if abuse can be your only response to somebody challenging your views, so don't bother replying.