Labour leadership woes fail to lift Tories

If we are to believe today's ICM poll for the Sunday Mirror the Conservative Party has made no gains from Labour's recent leadership difficulties.  A 9% lead in the previous ICM poll (for The Guardian) in mid-August is down to 4% now.

Mike Smithson at PoliticalBetting.com puts the ICM percentages into Baxter's electoral calculus and finds the following seats projection: CON 276, LAB 292, LD 50.  It is no wonder that The Sunday Mirror, in its coverage of the LibDem conference, is raising the prospect of a LibDem-Tory pact after the next General Election.

Mr Cameron will hope for better polls over the next few weeks.  There is limited enthusiasm for his modernisation project within the Tory grassroots but the critics are muted when opinion polls point to improvement - buying the leader the breathing space his advisers want for their 'faster and deeper' changes.

Comments

[tapestry]

Labour's leadership woes are making the Party interesting. It's like Big Brother and I'm A Celebrity - Get me Out Of Here - rolled into one.

Conservatives appear to be a one man band. Labour have seven candidates competing for the ahem Deputy Leadership. There's a danger of losing the limelight here. Until Blair's gone, Cameron will be a minor player in the main media story. The policy of standing back while Labour melt down could need review.

[David Belchamber]

On the basis of Mike Smithson's projection, surely a Lab/Lib Dem coalition is more likely?

[Jack Stone]

Some polls will show the party way out in front, some will show the gap narrower but one thing is clear from all polls the party is more popular than Labour or the Liberals and we have the most popular leader.
Three years from the next election is a time when only anoraks and fools start debating the result or what a move of a couple of points this way or that means to a party`s chances.
The country wants change, they like David Cameron and for those reasons I think the party will win regardless of what the doom mechants say that will undoudtably be posting before the morning is out.

[Logos]

The problem being,that when the leadership battle commences, even if its brown vs a paper candidate, we will be very much out of the limelight during and for a while afterwards whilst Brown beds in and everyone wants to know what he's about. The only way to combat this is to come up with a fully body of eye catching yet substantial, conservative policies.

the key is to take advantage of the fact we now have a settled leadership with a solid backing amongst MPs and the membership

[Monday Clubber]

I'm not in the least surprised. The recent poll results were clearly a "novelty bubble" just waiting to be burst.

I suspect that the public are realising just what insubstantial fare is being offered by Cameron. It's simply New Labour with an Eton-educated face. "Bluelabour", if you like.

The electors are not such utter fools as politicians like to think. They can see through a bunch of phoneys, even when they're wearing their "Mister Nice Guy" masks.

Jack Stone is so slavishly loyal to Cameron it's difficult to believe he is for real.

Tell me Jack, were you a member of the party during the (golden) Maggie years, and if so how did you get by from day to say with all those dreadful Conservative Thatcherite policies which must have been total anathema to you?

[Max]

Monday Clubber the margin of error on one of these polls is +/- 3%. The changes are therefore statistically insignificant so no real conclusion can be drawn.

What is clear is that for the first time in over a decade we have a sustained opinion poll lead which contrasts very favourably with just twelve months ago.

[Prodicus]

There's no guarantee that the GE is three years off. It's very likely that Brown will call it early. Maybe very early.

[Cllr. Gavin Ayling]

Thursday's ridiculous speech to the Scottish Tories probably aren't going to help when their effect is seen too...

[John]

With three years to go, only a moron would make an predictions as to who is going to win: so here goes.
The jump is just too wide for the Tories to do in one go, 12 seats less than Labour in '83.The Tories vote is un-balanced strong in south weaker as you go north, with no real sign, of an upturn in Tory fortunes north of the Trent. If the Labour vote was going to collapse it would have by now,it is still above the critical 30% and no sign of the Tories moving much above the 40%. The first past the post system over benefits Labour, in 1983 its vote slumped to 27%, it still held onto over 200 seats. The Tories on 33% in 1997 dropped to 166 seats, so the odds on an outright Tory victory still have to be slight. Be nice to Ming, you may need him!

[christina speight]

Jack Stone - "from all polls the party is more popular than Labour or the Liberals"

Clutching at straws here. If a 10% lead is needed for a Tory win the 4% today is a disaster as is the FALLING lead shown in most polls. The Cameron bubble has burst.

And Logos = "we now have a settled leadership with a solid backing amongst ----- the membership"

Oh no you haven't! The core members have had enough of LIBERAL conservative hijacking of a once great party. If he doesn't believe me see the majority of comments yesterday here on this blog. And the public are increasingly realising that Cameron is an empty vessel. (They're right too - see his Scottish speech).

If the party doesn't wake up to the disaster ahead AND SOON, there'll be no future for it or for our country.

[Tam Large]

It's down to two factors in my view. First, Cameron is being perceived as a lightweight, with too much spin, too many bike & glacier stunts, and too few views and policies. Secondly, in the changes and dramatic shift to the left, for every new member the Cameron Party gains, it is losing a core supporter, who no longer has a party to voice their views.

When Cameron became leader, Conservative Party membership went up about 10%: now it has dropped about 10% (so far...) and we are back where we were before he took charge. The next election willl depend on how many of these abandoned / disillusioned voters return to the Tory fold in the heat of an election; and how many decide to vote for another party or (more likely) do a Bromley and stay at home.

[Richard Bailey]

Lets make this the shortest comment stream ever.

We are talking about the Sunday Mirror here, okay.

For me, a year of repositioning is just fine but I want to see an outstanding speech at Conf which moves the strategy into phase two.

The most critical thing for me, is the complete lack of support for the more arrogant members of the Shadow Cabinet. The silence from certain key characters is deafening.

[Monday Clubber]

"The most critical thing for me, is the complete lack of support for the more arrogant members of the Shadow Cabinet. The silence from certain key characters is deafening."

No surprise there, Richard.

They're busy planning their own careers post-Cameron.

[Richard Bailey]

Sorry that should say "...from the more arrogant members..." and there should not be a comma after "...for me..."!!

[Richard]

"Jack Stone is so slavishly loyal to Cameron it's difficult to believe he is for real."

Probably because he's not:

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

[Modern Conservative]

Conservatives in the lead in the polls! Again! Goodness me if this keeps up I might get the opportunity to vote for a Conservative party with a shot at governing rather than principled opposition and fascinating if futile leadership contests.

I'm 27 and have voted Conservative since I was 19. I have never been more optimistic about the future for the Conservative Party. What I don't understand is why so many people who post on these boards seem genuinely nostalgic for the days when all people wanted to talk to Conservatives about was fox hunting, section 28 and which hospital our most recent tax proposals would require closing.

Thank God we've moved on! Why can't you all see it?

Regarding the Shadow Cabinet I'd just say that it's incredibly difficult to get the press to pay attention to what they say. If it's just to offer support then that is doubly the case.

[G-MaN Wild]

Agreed Modern Conservative.

[CDM]

Modern Conservative, you are not alone! What many readers of this site don't seem to appreciate is that there will be at the next election a huge pool of voters who cannot even remember the days when Empress Thatcher was in power. If we ever want to win their votes, we've got to stop comparing David Cameron to the Dear Leader and start drawing comparisons with his likely opposition: Gordon Brown. For anyone (except for true blue tory boys) born since the mid 80s, endlessly glorifying the past is not going to win any votes.

[Andrew Price]

"Thank God we've moved on! Why can't you all see it? "

I agree 'Modern Conservative'.

I'm under 25 and I've never been more optimistic either.

I still do not think many people here realise just how much Cameron had neutralised the 'Conservative' brand over the last year. While people may not be yet flooding back to the party, they are looking at us. Even I would have laughed 12 months ago at the idea that I would today be a Tory party member.

I went to a 24th Birthday party last night and the difference in people's attitudes to the party compared to this time last year is astonishing. The days of 'anything BUT the Tories' is over.....

The brand is becoming stronger all the time. And while DC has won over us closet 'Soho Tories' and our Champagne, café latte wishy washy liberal friends he is faced with the hard task of bringing in the Heartlands.

We have to stop competing between these two poles of the party and achieve what Labour did in 1994-97 and form a coalition from Soho to Heartlands - THAT is how you win elections!

[comstock]

On the basis of Mike Smithson's projection, surely a Lab/Lib Dem coalition is more likely?

The Lib Dems wouldn't neccesarily have to form a coalition with the largest main party.

There isn't much precident in general elections, but there are several councils where Liberal and Tory have gone into coalition even though Labour was the largest single party. (and indeed vice versa)

[Yet Another Anon]

On the basis of Mike Smithson's projection, surely a Lab/Lib Dem coalition is more likely?
Charles Kennedy ruled out supporting a Labour government that had lost it's majority, Menzies Campbell has ruled out supporting a government which did not have a committment to introduce PR in it's first Queen's Speech and which did not make progress towards that goal, neither main party is going to go along with this, there will be rebels on this but as in the 1970's such a measure would be voted down, on the figures the poll gives actually I am inclined to think that if that was the result that actually the Liberal Democrats would gain some seats through tactical voting, the probability though is that in such a situation Labour would probably form an interim minority government, it is possible that there might even be a coalition between Labour and Conservative, it is not inconceivable that if the Liberal Democrats, DUP, SNP, Plaid and Independents continued to oppose both main parties that Gordon Brown and David Cameron might well get together and form a coalition - it is quite possible that David Cameron would be a Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Home Secretary in a government that was roughly half Labour and half Conservative, because the alternative might be a quickly following and possibly also inconclusive General Election, no doubt in such circumstances all 3 parties would expect participation in policy making and government positions if they were to be support a government of any nature.

I don't think a Hung Parliament is very probable though, I think that the Conservatives will continue to make progress but that it will be a long and slow process over 3 General Elections with the Liberal Democrats having setbacks.

[christina speight]

Modern Conservative, CDM, and others! Please realise that those who have built the party, those that have recruited, those that who have raised funds, stuffed envelopes, run fetes , delivered leaflets and canvassed are those "core" Tories that Cameron despises and whom we despise in return.

I came into the party to fight the totalitarian socialism which was then prevailing and we went a long way to destroying it. We believed that poverty was best tackled by giving more opportunities to those disadvantaged - NOT by making them dependent on the state. We believed in Grammer schools because they offered a way out of deprivation. The party doesn't believe in any of this any mpre so we, the "core" members, are on strike.

Cameron's honeymoon is over, the polls are slipping and the party machine is falling to bits.

So you young will have to get "stuck in", not just at elections, but week in, week out!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yet Another Anon @ 12.42 - 'I don't think a Hung Parliament is very probably though'...

Well lets hope it isn't a Ming Parliament either!!!

[James Maskell]

Some of you may be happy at this new style Tories but Im genuinely worried. My Association is not happy at Camerons policies and amendments to the Party itself. The polls may be looking fav0ourable but I think they are soft ones. I think there are a lot of waverers who are giving Cameron the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I suspect they can just as easily switch back to Labour, or worse...go to the Lib Dems.

[Francis]

I'm under the age of 25 to! Have'nt a clue what Thatcher was about. Anyway back to the present. Ladies and Gentlemen whatever the disadvantages of Cameron we have a choice. You can vote for Brown or you can vote for Cameron. I know which I would choose. What about you Monday Clubber?

[Wallenstein]

>>I'm under the age of 25 to! Have'nt a clue what Thatcher was about<<

Really?

Well if you have such a pitiful grasp of recent political history - and brag about your ignorance - you're unlikely to be much use to man or beast, are you?

I'll tell you what Thatcher was about.

Thatcher was about the heart and soul of Conservatism and the Conservative Party.

[Francis]

We believed in Grammer schools because they offered a way out of deprivation. - Christina

From what I've been told Thatcher was not to keen on Grammar Schools. Suppose she wasn;t a real tory either.

The impact played by local associations in fighting elections is failing for all of the major parties. The internet is now far more important then local associations. From what I know and gathered all the "core vote" do is patronise to people like myself. Personally I dont like it when Tories of my fathers generation rant in my face about the same three issues, EU, Immigration and Crime. I am far happier talking about Transport, Health, Education, Africa and the Environment, issues many of the "core Tories" dont give a stuff about.

Might be a bit harsh but that is how you come across.

[Yet Another Anon]

Have'nt a clue what Thatcher was about.
It was an attempt to end a ratchet effect in which each Labour government and indeed most of the time Conservative governments too had ended up extending welfare, extending regulation and nationalisation and in reversing social liberal trends that had been going on for decades.

Public Spending as a percentage of GDP was lower at the end of the period but on the rise again, privatisation largely only effected the financial control of many former state enterprises - indeed to some extent it had the worst of both worlds in introducing Regulators and so to a great extent retaining state responsibility and in many cases public financing while the beneficiaries were largely private shareholders, in a sense a strong seperation of public and private services is the best thing, the private sector is largely left free and unchained, the public sector that is deemed strategically vital and likely to be a monopoly should be largely transferred to not for profit charity organisations or in the case of security functions run by Executive Agencies.

So far as social liberalism and welfare goes, actually Welfare continued to go up and the rise was only really halted eventually not actually reversed, short sharp shock was quickly replaced by signing up to European Human Rights legislation and internment abandoned, no serious attempt as a party was made to return to punishments of past centuries that are neccessary for social order to be maintained, defence spending was slashed and the Unionists betrayed again by the Anglo-Irish agreement.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

"Thatcher was about the heart and soul of Conservatism and the Conservative Party."

The 'was' is the most important part.

Some people are still lost in a hazy 1980s world and trying to fight old battles in a changed world.

[Yet Another Anon]

From what I've been told Thatcher was not to keen on Grammar Schools.
She saw them as Socialist, her ideal was that the state system would be replaced by Independent Schools just as it was her hope to replace State Healthcare with a mixture of Private Commercial and Charity Hospitals - she was vigorously opposed though by the wets and so in a sense the UK in 1990 was not a trully Thatcherite state, she didn't get her own way on things nearly as much as people believe.

[Robin Roberts]

I'm not under 25 and am close to 65 but I support the views of Francis and Modern Conservative. I supported Maggie but was never a slave to her policies and only joined the party recently when Cameron became leader. Give the guy time and his shadow cabinet, look out for new policies which I am confident will come from the study groups. Then watch the opinion poles especially when GB (our Scottish leader with his new transformed English accent)takes over.

[Francis]

"Well if you have such a pitiful grasp of recent political history - and brag about your ignorance - you're unlikely to be much use to man or beast, are you?"

Very sorry for not being born until 1988. I cant say I know nearly as much about Thatcher as I do Cameron, but there again I only started really getting into politics at about the time Blair got into office. Sure you can see that the Labour party I know is very different to the one you know.

As I'm not much use to "man or beast" then I'm sure you dont need people like myself who have never voted before.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

"We believed in Grammer schools "

Although clearly not in spelling schools.

[Modern Conservative]

Christina, I don't accept the premise of the points your making; You say you

"came into the party to fight the totalitarian socialism which was then prevailing and we went a long way to destroying it."

Yes, bravo, but as you say that one is a battle pretty much won already. We won't win the next election refighting old battles.

"We believed that poverty was best tackled by giving more opportunities to those disadvantaged - NOT by making them dependent on the state."

What makes you think David Cameron has rejected that kind of thinking? Yes DC uses the language of the left when he talks of social justice, so does IDS. Thats good politics but don't assume they well thus adopt left wing solutions as well.

"We believed in Grammar schools because they offered a way out of deprivation."

David Cameron has repeatedly committed himself to selection; but within schools rather than between them, and he's not about to abolish the remaining Grammar Schools as many Labour MP's would given half a chance. Reintroducing Grammar Schools wouldn't be practical in many areas even if it was electorally desirable (the buildings will have been sold off years ago). David Cameron is applying Conservative principles to the current situation. Thats what leading a political party is about.

Look, I have huge respct for everyone who has done the hard graft for the Party in the difficult years. What David Cameron is doing is giving that Party a future. I for one am looking forward to continuing to be part of it. I hope you can as well.

[Yet Another Anon]

The Lib Dems wouldn't neccesarily have to form a coalition with the largest main party.

There isn't much precident in general elections
About the closest is the Labour government of 1924, but even then Labour had 191 seats and was the 2nd largest party - the Conservatives didn't want to form a coalition with either main party and the Liberals didn't want to form a coalition with Labour (which still would have been just short of a majority)surely such a scenario would be far more likely to happen to the Conservative Party, short of a sizeable collapse of both main parties it is hard to imagine the Liberal Democrats having enough seats to form a minority government - certainly 62 seats is not enough to form a government unless they were going to have vast numbers of Lords of government ministers, or merge a lot of government positions (which would be a positive move).

[Wallenstein]

>>Very sorry for not being born until 1988. I cant say I know nearly as much about Thatcher as I do Cameron, but there again I only started really getting into politics at
at about the time Blair got into office<<

Since hardly anybody knows anything about Cameron's true political philosophy your knowledge of Thatcherism must be small indeed.

Blair has been in office for nine years and if you really started getting interested in politics when you were nine years old you have no excuse for not having studied the influence of Thatcher, which has informed the development of New Labour quite apart from anything else.

None of us can know everything about politics but if you are truly ignorant about Thatcher's enormous influence on modern politics I would certainly not boast about the fact.

It makes you look extremely foolish, not (as I imagine you suppose) witty or "cool".

[Francis]

I do not need to appear witty or "cool" to you or to anyone else for that matter. My earlier statement did indeed make me look ignorant and I will take greater care when posting as opposed to off the cuff, after all I am well aware that the "Iron Lady," along with Reagan she helped bring an end to the Cold War and that we are no longer the "sick man of Europe" because of her, or the right to buy scheme.

However I did not grow up with her as my Prime minister and I cannot claim that she shaped my beliefs or opinions. She was from another era, one that I was not part of and therefore dont understand. Like most people my age I am not centre-right leaning because of her.

[Jack Stone]

Personally I think Christine`s continue efforts to talk down the party are not just stupied they are sad. She is one of those aged old biddys who spends there whole time how dreadful everything is.
I am afraid christine the party and the country as moved on from the tired old solutions you and your felloow right-wingers stood for and that`s why the party is becoming electable again.
Also Richard I am a Conservative and I have nothing but contempt for those in UKIP. As I have said before you really should change the record.

[James Hellyer]

stupied

Irony, your name is "Jack Stone"!

[Francis]

A spalling maskike made while typing quickly. Well thats a reason to get at someone

[Wallenstein]

That is an appalling sexist and indeed ageist attack on Christine Speight.

Jack Stone is coming out in his true colours it would seem, and they are certainly not Conservative.

As it happens virtually every "Jack" I know is drawing his pension and I assumed Jack Stone was 60+.

If these insults are his only weapons against Christina's commonsense he must be desperate indeed.

[James Hellyer]

A spalling maskike made while typing quickly. Well thats a reason to get at someone

No, the content of Jack's posts is the reason to get at him. The consistent spelling mistakes just add an amusing level of irony to his accusations of stupidity.

[christina speight]

Francis 1320 "Might be a bit harsh but that is how you come across".

Then you haven't been reading what I wrote. I wrote about totalitarian socialism; I wrote about helping the underprivileged and not making them state-clients; I wrote about empowering the individual. These are the heart of Conservatism at its best. And if you, Francis, can't be bothered to answer what I wrote then with you there the party will certainly go down the plug-hole taking our country with it.

Thatcher was a great libertarian but didn't get all the details right She made buying a council house possible - one of the great party achievements of recent years.
=-=-=-=-
And the anonymous claimant to be aCardinal - "We believed in Grammer schools "
Although clearly not in spelling schools."

Pity you weren't educated enough to know that is the alternative spelling.

=-=-=-=-
Modern Conservative - You don't disagree with what I said it seems. But YOU trust Cameron to do things he has already expressed his disdain for. You're a naive optimist. I'd say.
=-=-=-=-

And Jack Stone again - I've stuck with the party through thick and thin AND WORKED IN BETWEEN elections. Sometimes I didn't like individual policies but it's taken this Jellified Junkie to ditch the parties core principles AND its core workers.

Is it any wonder that you can't join the party in many places. The volunteers that ran the offices are on strike or have left altogether. So the result? The polls get worse. Cameron destroys the party. He'll join the LibDems in the end.

[Editor]

Jack Stone's intervention was mean-spirited but back to the subject thread everyone please.

[Editor]

Enough from you, too, christina. Thank you.

[matthew]

my god, this place gets worse by the day. Whine, whine, whine. It's very clear that the majority of posters on this site want the Tories to lose.

I don't know what they think they are playing at.

It's clear that a good number of them are UKIP, and quite possibly a few from other parties trying to make the Tories look bad by taking any opportunity to bash the party.

When will you people realise? The modernisation project is going ahead. I do not like it all, I personally would stand for scrapping tax credits, and cutting public spending on pretty much everything.

The right-wing strategy was sold to the voters in successive elections and frankly failed miserably. The public don't want to buy it.

So give it up, unless you want 5 more years of Labour.

[Denis Cooper]

Francis at 13:21 - "Personally I dont like it when Tories of my fathers generation rant in my face about the same three issues, EU, Immigration and Crime. I am far happier talking about Transport, Health, Education, Africa and the Environment, issues many of the "core Tories" dont give a stuff about."

But all of your five preferred issues are to a greater or lesser extent affected by the EU, ranging from a high degree of EU control for the Environment to selected probings into Education. Of the two issues which you list alongside the EU as being of interest to your father's generation, Immigration of course is now largely under the control of the EU, and various aspects of Crime already come within EU competence but still with a national veto rather than qualified majority voting.

The way things are going, by the time the next Conservative government takes office there'll be even less for them to govern, rather than to pretend to govern.

[hf]

The polling company will shape the questions and structure to the requirements of the customer. In this case it is the Sunday Mirror who want some good news about Labour. So that is what is provided. Just change a few of the parameters and the gap goes down a few % points. Result = one happy client who will buy more research.....

No panic. As to Christina's stuff about volunteers deserting... tell that to the folk who tried joining in 2005 pre-Cameron and found the same problems. It has been this way for a long time! But, for all their faults the Constituencies are retaining members better than the other 2!

Where I do have a concern is with the "teenage scribblers" who float in and out of CCHQ. The lack of experience and stability in CCHQ does not lead to a "fit for purpose organisation". Just remind me what exactly has Francis done in the light of the near disaster in B&C? Er email CP's to see how they handle a new Member? Er create a new logo? When will we get our own Lord Rennard Francis?

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Grammer is not an alternative spelling (except in the minds of those who can never admit that they are wrong).

If Ms Speight cannot be trusted to admit to such a simple error then her judgement is clearly not to be trusted in other areas. Sensible people would admit to such a mistake.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Apologies Editor if I strayed with that last post, I missed your earlier admonition as I hadn't refreshed the page!

Mea culpa.

[Francis]

I am afraid I have work to go to. I will leave on a hight not by saying that at least the Labour party problems are only going to get worse. Amen

[matthew]

Cardinal Pirelli, I agree on 'grammer'. Hilarious.

If you are so stuck in your ways that you won't acknowledge that you have misspelt a word, it's hardly surprising that Christina wants to set the party's policies back 25 years as well.

It always makes me laugh when people say how much better they are for having gone to a 'grammer school'. One hates to think how much worse their literacy would be if they hadn't!

For what it's worth, I went to a comprehensive :-)

[Editor]

I do not believe - hf - that pollsters of the standing of ICM would risk their reputation by tilting the shape of questions in the way you suggest when it comes to headline figures like voting intentions. You should present evidence if you have any. If not, I think you need to be careful what you say about ICM and its commercial reputation.

[Yet Another Anon]

The right-wing strategy was sold to the voters in successive elections and frankly failed miserably.
The 1997 General Election was fought by the Conservative Party on an agenda of increasing health and education spending above the rate of GDP as public finances allowed, actually it was really a quite Heathite agenda (I don't get into using words such as Right, Centre and Left as they have so many different meanings and people can have the same goals as someone else but come up with a very different policy platform and equally people can have different goals but end up advocating the same policies so really it is better to look at it from a split position of goals and methodology towards achieving those goals).), then in both 2001 and 2005 General Elections senior Conservatives who advocated Tax & Spending cuts through Efficency Savings were effectively gagged, there has been no commitment to leave the EU, or bring back Capital Punishment, or raise defence spending above the rate of growth in the economy, there were arguments for a restriction in immigration and in 2005 a cap set but this is one issue, this is the problem with the whole use of right-left descriptions, if a single issue is highlighted then people who associate a range of other issues as being left or right wing along with that one then even though those issues have not been put forward people assume that they have been rejected - who knows what vote the Conservative Party might have got if they had stood at the last General Election on a platform of withdrawing the UK from the Council of Europe and rejecting the Convention on Human Rights and reintroducing Capital Punishment on a 3 line whip - they might well have picked up a lot of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters who see no difference with regard to Crime & Punishment between the parties and so haven't been altering their vote on that issue, the Conservatives might even pick up a lot of people who are Socialist but believe in strict social order and strong Law & Order policies and who want the scum on the streets and the terrorists to be exterminated or imprisoned.

[Modern Conservative]

"You don't disagree with what I said it seems. But YOU trust Cameron"

Absolutely, primarily because the way he communicates, the issues he talks about and the language he uses resonate with me. Whats more he's been involved with the Conservative Party for most of his adult life and at a time when an opportunist (Sean Woodward for instance) would have been long gone.

He doesn't need to prove he is Conservative enough to me and he shouldn't to you. The main need at this time is to prove to the rest of the country that he is the right man to be PM. If that means putting a little distance between himself and the Party so be it.

The ICM poll is no disaster and it's odd to me that any Conservative would seek to spin it as such.

"You're a naive optimist. I'd say."

I'm an optimist yes, it's the best way of living - but I'm not naive.

[comstock]

Charles Kennedy ruled out supporting a Labour government that had lost it's majority, Menzies Campbell has ruled out supporting a government which did not have a committment to introduce PR in it's first Queen's Speech and which did not make progress towards that goal, neither main party is going to go along with this

It didn't give much details, but Fridays Mirror claimed Gordon Brown was going to abandon first past the post. It didn't say what he was planning to replace it with (2nd preferences or PR)

it is possible that there might even be a coalition between Labour and Conservative, it is not inconceivable that if the Liberal Democrats, DUP, SNP, Plaid and Independents continued to oppose both main parties that Gordon Brown and David Cameron might well get together and form a coalition

It's certainly not impossible. They have such an arrangement in Germany for instance. My own feeling is that, how ever much they play up their differences, New Labour and Liberals agree on far more than they disagree on and are natural bedfellows.

[malcolm]

Hey, welcome back Mr Hellyer.We hardly agree on anything but I've sincerely missed your always well argued posts.Since you stopped posting this blog has picked up a number of demented anti Cameron lunatics who use any excuse or none to attack both the leadership and the party in general. It will be good to have someone worth arguing with once again.Where've you been?

[christina speight]

"Cardinal" (what's that about? ) P: "Grammer is not an alternative spelling (except in the minds of those who can never admit that they are wrong).

If Ms Speight cannot be trusted to admit to such a simple error then her judgement is clearly not to be trusted in other areas. Sensible people would admit to such a mistake."

Funny (a) that it's in my dictionary AND (b) the local relevant school in my home town was a "GrammEr School".

So fake Cardinal I should confess if I were you instead of being offensive.
=-=-=-

And the Editor is right about ICM. Interpretation post-hoc can and is skewed. The actual polling is NOT - EVER!

=-=-=-

(I presume I may reply to Modern Conservative?) Cameron DOES have to prove he's a Conservative since he says he's a "Liberal conservative with a small 'c'"
=-=-=-=

[Monday Clubber]

Somebody asks which way I will vote. The answer is, as always, Conservative. I have no quarrel with my local Conservative MP although, as you may have gathered, the organisation of his association leaves much to be desired.

What is all this nonsense about "trying out the right-wing strategy". In my book you put forward the policies you believe in, be they left right or centre. I assume Cameron's views are genuine, but they are not mine. As a result I am, on balance, unhappy with them.

Christina, I agree with much that you say but I once received three strokes of a ruler on the hand for spelling "grammar"
"grammer" at my (public) school.

I have never heard of any place where this spelling is officially sanctioned.

[Andy Stidwill]

I think there's a danger we could narrowly fail to gain a majority at the next election because we don't manage to win back enough seats from the Lib Dems in the South West. Why? Because the older folk down there will identify more with Ming Campbell than with Dave.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Ms Speight is digging that hole ever larger. Use this page and type in grammar into the school name secion. Then type in grammer.

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=schoolsearch&tab=secondary&q=grammar&x=9&y=7

Result -
164 Grammar Schools, 0 Grammer Schools.

I am sure that people can draw their own conclusions as to the trustworthiness of Ms Speight in light of this.

One presumes that there will now ensue a diatribe about how this is some sort of BBC plot!

[hf]

The Editor asks "How can we doubt a poll"?

1) What weighting is applied to past voting intentions? Recently some MR companies have had to "cut back" on this becuase more people were admitting to voting Tory than they usually did!
2) What was the order in which the questions were asked?
3) Was the target audience different for this poll, 1% more women would bring up the Labour vote, same effect if 1% more northern people included.

The effect is usually less than 3 percentage points so that the research quoted can stay within a range of + or - 5%, but, it is still a real effect that can make a gap of 7% be as wide as 10% or as low as 4%. We have to accept that a poll for Sunday Mirror will be slightly more favourable to Labour than if done for Telegraph.

Yes I do know a bit about Mkt Research!

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Section, not secion!

An unfortunate slip of the keyboard whilst eating a custard cream.

[Editor]

You haven't substantiated your case hf. You have said that polls can be distorted but I dispute any suggestion that ICM has done this for any client. There may be random variations but no deliberate manipulation. I must insist you not repeat any further suggestion of manipulation to suit a customer.

[John Coles]

Editor - it seems a pity that you have not intervened regarding the horrible sexism and ageism displayed on this thread.

[A H Matlock]

I suspect the results of this poll owe more to a sampling error than a real shift back to Labour among the electorate. Regardless, getting worked up over any one opinion poll is pointless anyway. It's the trends that are important and the trend since December 2005 is very clear: Conservatives up, Labour down.

[Yet Another Anon]

1% more women would bring up the Labour vote
1997 was the first General Election ever that Labour won more votes among women than the Conservatives did, surveys there have been suggest that actually women were again more recently tending to favour the Conservatives more than men were.

[Sandbagger]

It is a whole load of tosh this looking at opinion polls. What with all the upheaval the Labour Goverment are in,anyone who is a Tory and the Leader of the Party could achieve the same rating as Dave. Whats more, he or her could do so without splitting the Tory Party into bits.This rubbish we are getting such as the Logo.I thought that it was a prize for an Art competition for as class of 5 year olds.Those in charge should get out and about in the constituencies as I do. I would welcome the chance to take them about in my Council Ward as I do on a daily basis and they would get a flavour of what the people really want!

[Modern Conservative]

Quite right, A H Matlock.

And Mrs Speight - What if DC does describe himself as a liberal conservative? We're a freedom loving party aren't we as often as we are an authoritarian one and we're against ID cards at the moment. Why not talk about it?

The Conservatve brand had become so tainted Cameron has to do things like describe himself as a liberal conservative. It sugars the pill and makes it easier to get the voters to listen to what he says. Ultimately it will help them vote for Conservative candidates. It's all in a good cause, your a smart lady i'm sure you recognise that.

[Max]

Sandbagger if it was purely down to Labour being unpopular then why aren't the Lib Dems gaining support too?

I know some people here don't think Cameron has done anything to make the party more popular but the evidence suggests otherwise.

[christina speight]

The fake Cardinal doesn't know when he's beaten and even quotes The BBC of all people as an authority. Nobody believes the Beeb anymore!

Try Googling "Grammer School"

On page 1 it mentions "Grammer School Keighley Rd Bradford"; Alcester Grammer School (Warwickshire) - ; . The Royal Grammer School (High Wycombe); and "You can find our selection of Grammer Schools in Kent"

That's just page 1 - there were 79,500 entries!

A public apology would not come amiss

And Monday Clubber - My sympathy for having a pig-ignorant teacher to use corporal punishment on you. Ooooh! He wasn't pretending to be a politically-correct Cardinal too, was he?

[christina speight]

Modern Conservative is suggesting that Cameron should lie to get elected - OoooH! That's not a very moral stance. And it's NOT "all in a good cause". It's throwing away tried and tested beliefs just to gain power - to do WHAT? Nobody knows!

[Modern Conservative]

I'm not! He is a liberal conservative, because apart from anything else those are the sort of terms that can be pretty much self defined. And yes ("and without apology" to quote MT) I'm sorry i think electing a Cameron led Conservative government rather than a Brown led Labour one is a good cause.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Three simple words Christina -

You - are - wrong.

That you cannot accept that is the most amusing thing about this thread.

Actually, I rather believe that someone is posing as the aformentioned Ms Speight as she appears to be trying to destroy her own credibility. Maybe the editor could check to see if the latter posts are coming from a different person altogether.

(For information, the writer of 'Concerning the Eccentricities of Cardinal Pirelli' was probably one of the most politically incorrect writers of his time which is why he's rather a fun read).

[Jon White]

I hate to be a killjoy, but we are meant to be discussing here the recent opinion poll. Does it really matter one bit how one spells 'Grammar' v 'Grammer'. Lets stick on the topic.

(With apologies for my hypocrital behaviour, having criticised others' spellings on a post a few weeks back in a fit of pique)

[Sandbagger]

Well Max. That is a typical sort of remark from the Cameron Luvvies. Please don't compare the Lib Dems with the Tory Party.They are after all a ragbag of political opportunists and should not be taken seriously by anyone unless they are prepared to take them on by disussing their so called policies and exposing them for what they are.Perhaps that is because I have been fighting them and the Labour Party for 40+ years. I hate to see the Tory Party being dismantled by someone who describes himself as a Liberal Conservative whatever that means.

[Sandbagger]

Well Max. That is a typical sort of remark from the Cameron Luvvies. Please don't compare the Lib Dems with the Tory Party.They are after all a ragbag of political opportunists and should not be taken seriously by anyone unless they are prepared to take them on by disussing their so called policies and exposing them for what they are.Perhaps that is because I have been fighting them and the Labour Party for 40+ years. I hate to see the Tory Party being dismantled by someone who describes himself as a Liberal Conservative whatever that means.

[comstock]

I agree with much that you say but I once received three strokes of a ruler on the hand for spelling "grammar"
"grammer" at my (public) school.

New Tory education policy? :D ;)

[Max]

"That is a typical sort of remark from the Cameron Luvvies."

Thanks for the thoughful, insightful and articulate reponse.

I'm rather more sick of losing election after election and letting the Labour party dismantle the country.

[Sean Fear]

So am I, Max.

Unfortunately, I have little confidence that a Cameron-led government would seek to reverse very much that Labour have done to dismantle the country.

[A H Matlock]

What do you propose then, Sean? You criticise an awful lot, but I have not seen much in the way of constructive suggestion from you, either here or on Politicalbetting. If you have done, then I have obviously missed it and you have my apologies.

Do you think we need a change of leadership? Fast-tracked announcements from the policy commissions? Another core-vote strategy?

I would be grateful for any insight to care to offer!

[christina speight]

Five simple words you anonymous fake Cardinal -

"It's YOU that are wrong."

Google, the dictionary, and ACTUAL schools all show you're up the creek without a paddle.

Stop huffing and puffing and just admit it!

[tapestry]

It didn't give much details, but Fridays Mirror claimed Gordon Brown was going to abandon first past the post.(Cornstock)

This (if true) could be the key as why the EU is backing Gordon Brown and Murdoch too. If we lose FPTP and have PR, a coalition government could ignore popular opinion and introduce the Euro. Gordon Brown must be stopped.

[Ted]

Max,

O/T (apologies Editor) Strange isn't it that no-one bothers to try to understand what a liberal Conservative is before leaping to attack it? Hayek rejected the term Conservative because he saw that in reality it meant conserving what was there - the sort of Butskellism around in fifties/sixties. He disliked liberal because, though a classical liberal,he felt term had been taken by the socialists (as progressive is today) so he referred to himself as an Old Whig.

Margaret Thatcher could be termed a liberal Conservative - she reject "conserving" the post war consensus and instead adopted a revolutionary approach of adopting a free market, small state, individualist philosophy (classical liberalism).

I would like to understand more of what Cameron means - it comes across as more about triangulation between traditional conservatism and the post-60's liberal society than a thought through philosophy. Thatcher's liberal conservatism was based on a coherent philosophical approach and pragmatism (which is why Thatcherism remains a force in world politics). I would like to see that same firm foundation underlying Cameron's change agenda.

P.S google is a great tool - I tried Christina's google query and laughed at first line "did you mean grammar?". Also looked up a couple of other things - a golfing term regarding someone who misleads others, cheats & hustles & a treacherous Bohemian general who asked for nothing but the right to plunder.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

This is amusing me so I may as well continue, feel free to skip this however.

Let us take the Oxford English Dictionary (from the Oxford University Press), no slouches in the field of spelling and lexicography.

For the word grammar - an entry here.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/grammar?view=uk

For the word grammer - a result which says "sorry there were no results for your search".

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=grammer&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

Just in case it was an Americanism I checked Webster's.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/grammer

Similarly, nothing.

That many people can be found, via Google, to be spelling it incorrectly would not appear to be reason for changing accepted usage. I'll take Oxford and Webster's over Google thank you. Your position is however useful to know when confronted with your intransigence in political matters.

[matthew]

Oh dear, Christina is even more deluded and arrogant than I thought.

The fact that a spelling is in google does not make it right.

'On page 1 it mentions "Grammer School Keighley Rd Bradford"; Alcester Grammer School (Warwickshire) - ; . The Royal Grammer School (High Wycombe); and "You can find our selection of Grammer Schools in Kent"'

If you actually look at these schools' websites:

http://www.bgs.bradford.sch.uk/

quite clearly
Bradford GrammAr School

http://www.alcester.dial.pipex.com/

quite clearly
Alcester GrammAr School

http://www.rgshw.com/index2.htm
Royal GrammAr School, High Wycombe

Those 79,500 entries in Google are wrong. The schools are right.

The fact that is in Google means nothing

There are also 310,000 entries for "the earth is flat"

As well as 21.8 MILLION entries for the misspelling "seperate" for "separate"

Despite the fact that all these are in Google, they are all wrong, as indeed are you.

If you are so incredibly stubborn and obstinate that you won't acknowledge a simple misspelling, I'm afraid to say that it rather suggests that the rest of your opinions are the product of a mind that refuses to acknowledge that anything else could ever be right, and anything that contradicts what you believe to be true to be must be wrong.

You are welcome to start a correspondence with the Oxford University Press about whether perhaps they could include some of your most treasured misspellings in their dictionary, purely to massage your evidently planet-sized ego, but the rest of will stick to real grammAr and spelling, and the Conservative party that we have today.

If you do not like it, I'm sure the Flat Earth Society are accepting new members.

Otherwise, I hope you have learned a lesson, that not everything you read on the internet is accurate, and perhaps you could open your mind just a little to ideas different from your own.

[matthew]

does anyone think Christina is trolling here? I rather took the bait, but I'm not sure that anyone could really be that stupid. Is she real? Or did I fall for it hook, line + sinker?

[matt wright]

This thread varies between the slavish cheerleaders of the modernisers and the wrist-slashing negativeness of (well we know who). For most voters and most members I think the feeling is that they generally like the fresh approach but are interested to know when there will be more substance. In fact there have been some very good speeches that start to shape the new direction and YET there are some "buts" we need to take seriously. I think the party needs to move into the next phase for a number of reasons. Firstly many people now are aware of DC and warm to him, but people are fickle and nowadays their interest has to be genuinely engaged. That phase needs to be more practical and set out in very simple terms what we stand for along with examples of policy outlines in upto 4 key areas which people vote about eg health, pensions, crime, education. This is also important as we are beginning to get Labour on the backfoot and we have regional elections rapidly approaching.

Matt

[malcolm]

Yes Mathew she is real (see stel from two weeks ago).Good post Matt Wright a rare voice of sanity today.

[Sean Fear]

A fair question, Alistair.

I would like to see us adopting a similar approach to that from 1976-79.

That would see us attacking Labour at a philosophical level; criticising:-

the view that the government needed to be spending 40%+ of GDP;

that we needed to be regulating every aspect of peoples' lives in order to protect people from themselves;

the view that one family structure was as good as any other when it came to raising children;

the view that Britain needs massive levels of immigration in order to sustain its standard of living;

But it would not see us tied down, at this stage, to specific policy proposals.

Cameron could probably do this rather well, given his background, and undoubted skills, in PR. His preferred approach, IMO, is to apologise for what we have done in the past, and try to present us as Guardian-friendly.

[A H Matlock]

Spot on, Matt Wright.

[A H Matlock]

Sean Fear,

Many thanks for that response. I agree with you entirely on every point, but I think Cameron was and is right to recognise that our image and reputation had become badly tarnished by an extraordinarily long period in office between 1979 and 1997 even despite the fact that we did an immense amount of good for the country during that time. I regard his current efforts to 'de-toxify' us as critical if we are going to make any serious progress at the next general election.

I do agree however with those who, like Matt Wright, think that the time for the next phase of Cameron's leadership must be nearly at hand and that we must begin to address precisely the sort issues that you raise without committing ourselves to specific policies.

[John Travis]

We are clearly not doing as well as we should be. The government is imploding and we haven't got the poll leads we should be getting.

Strategy therefore must be wrong to some degree, so what do we need to do ? Why are people not going to Cameron when things are going so wrong for Labour ?

We need to add some alternative policies and grit, to the goodwill Cameron has. I know what our policies are on chocolate oranges and pre-teen clothes. We need to start talking, at least in broad terms , about the direction Cameron wants to take us.

[Modern Conservative]

Matt makes some very good points. I would say there have been some very good substantive speeches the, Chamberlain Lecture on communities for instance and the speech to Demos, Modern Conservatism.

Yet their is in some regards a perception that Cameron is insubstantial. I don't think announcing specific policy this early will particularly help though. IDS did that and it was one days news but it didn't really help him.

I don't think it's a problem for the regional elections though. Both Welsh Assembly Conservatives and Scottish Parliament Conservatives will have there own manifestos to run on.

[A H Matlock]

John T,

Good to hear from you again. Could you drop me a line if you see this post? My email address is in the signature line. Thanks!

[Wallenstein]

>>Also looked up a treacherous Bohemian general who asked for nothing but the right to plunder.<<

Anybody with a basic knowledge of European history and, indeed, literature could have told you that Ted.

How does "Snappy-dressing hoodlum closely associated with bicycle chains and Notting Hill riots" grab you?

[Fred Baker]

We are roughly where we were when those idiots Davis, Howard, Macgregor, Bercow and Portillo staged their coup against IDS!

[christina speight]

Matthew - I never said that because it was in Google it was right. Since your argument is based on misrepresenting what I said it falls flat on its face. What Google does is lead you to sources.

I also have never said GrammAr was wrong but that GrammEr was an alternative spelling which it clearly is judging by the number of links to schools with addresses you can find. Just a short selection (not retyped by me but downloaded)
Viz: Grosvenor Grammer School (Belfast) - Religious Studies Network (for teachers & pupils)

Bradford Grammer School
Keighley Rd, Bradford, W Yorks , YORKS, BD9 4JP

Wolverhampton Grammer School
Compton Rd, Wolverhampton, STAFFS, WV3 9RB

Salt Grammer School

Dunbar Grammer School

Henley Grammer School

And here's another quote- - -
"I was at Archbishop Tenison's Grammer School from 1969 until 1976. Ok, so it isn't a grammer school now, but it was then"

Oh and btw my dictionary is the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary and it says "see Grammar" and I've just looked at the FULL OED in the paper version [no wobbling around the internet the lazy way] and it gives "Grammer - (obs) - - -'

This proves my point that it IS an alternative spelling which is all I ever said in the first place. If this were scrabble I've won.

So you and the fake cardinal have made asses of yourselves and the vitriol you two poured out when you thought you'd caught me out shows quite clearly what spiteful minds you've got and ones which are careless with the facts.

Everything I write is based on solid facts not Cameroonian waffle!

[Wallenstein]

I've also got the full OED and it does indeed give "grammer" as an obsolete form of "grammar". I'm amazed.

Seems we all owe Christina an apology.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

(obs) = Obsolete, as in not used. The original Greek had the 'a' but not the old French, which came later anyway. We're talking medieval times when it was last written with an 'e' which given her politics seems very apt. As for the French connection, maybe she's just a cheese eating surrender monkey after all.

She is wrong, absolutely 100% wrong, and her alter ego Wallenstein (or whoever he used to be) equally so. I take great pleasure in knowing that the readers of this site are seeing how ridiculous they both are.

Go and infect UKIP with your sick and twisted bile instead, you're clearly out of your depth here.