« Labour 1% ahead in MORI's world | Main | The Sun spins for Brown »


Yeah it does look better, but not £40,000 worth of better. This site did it for free!!!!!

Better. Not great, but better. £40,000? Hmmm.... We can't really complain about Cherie's hairdressing bill can we?!

Although I would personally have used a different type-face on it, the bottom of the two is so much better. In my opinion, it would lend itself to so many more applications of graphic design. To hear that that top one cost £40,000 is shocking.

They could have had better for a hell of a lot less and put that money into some campaigning or bothering to tidy up the member database which still sees me getting two copies of everything!

It's fine. I like the soft focus. Wonder how it'll look on a ballot paper though...

That does look much better than the specimen we were presented with yesterday and the colour is pleasing. The cost is rather staggering, but professional PR isn't cheap these days.

What was the point of changing the logo in the first place?I'm sure the logo of a party is the last thing voters consider whrn deciding how they should vote

It looks much better on the telegraph site:

I think the scribble together with the good text looks good, with the informality balancing the text. In isolation the scribble just looks like a scribble.

James Maskell - fame in the Times!

Yes, well done James, good quote in the Times. At least with the 'Scribble', the logo now has a name that is bound to stick.

"It's fine. I like the soft focus. Wonder how it'll look on a ballot paper though..."
Particularly next to the torch of a rival party... ;-)

The lower design (the free one) appeals to me as a Conservative. The one apparently adopted has no solidity. It's just a scribble, not built to last, to coin a phrase.

And people laughed when I offered to do the job for £50,000....

I'd have done it for £20 and a set of felt tip pens William.

I like it in colour but since many wards cannot afford colour for their leaflets I am concerned as in black or blue it does not really work.

It is a scratchy mess!

Like everybody else I think it is better - the top logo - at least it is a recognisable tree, oak tree, and I like the shade of blue. But £40,000???

So, a very pleasing and understandable design (created by Consevarive Home visitors) was pushed out in favour of a indistinct scribble costing £40,000. Well thanks. It's good to know how those at the top value the efforts of those who are much closer to the party than a PR company. The thing they produced must have taken them all of two seconds! And while I love the idea of a tree; How are we to know i'ts an oak tree?

I like it.

Personally, I rather we kept the Torch - an eternal ray of hope. As for the scratchy oak tree, well it reminds me of William Hague's attempt to blur the image with yellow and blue wavy line.

I will continue to have the torch as my screen saver.

When I first saw it I hated it but now I've seen it in colour it's slowly growing on me. As anything is better than the Stalinist torch I'll learn to love it.

Not sure the party got £40K of value - actually I am sure, they didn't

I very much agree with that kingbongo - it's much better in colour - although many associations will photocopy it for leaflets and it doesn't look too great in b&w.

I can't believe that cost £40,000! That is ridiculous.

Good to see my members' subs being spent on high profile political campaigning, but why did they steal my two year old neiece's picture?

I think it's great. Bang up to date, and has a subtle effect of 'drawing in' (which will hopefully happen in the polling booth), where the old logo was far too hard.

The Times link quoting James Maskell and the Ed is here

I'm also somewhat relieved now from seeing the colour version!

My main issue with it though is its lack of clarity. We surely need to be getting away from the accusations of the Party's policies being ill-defined and made on the hoof, but that is exactly what the scribble effect on this logo conveys. I can only assume the image gurus think we're better off attracting people through ambiguity than absolutism.

This is another Conservative tradition down the drain: efficient spending!

I rather like the idea of the oak tree, but the present effort does look as if the previous efforts of the design agency had been to draw up logos for various local councils. In a completely non scientific poll, my non political office mates generally approve. Finally, let's keep in mind that there was a suggestion to rename the party as a whole, so if changing the logo keeps the ‘all must change' brigade happy, it is a price worth paying!

In colour it's fine, but ballot papers aren't in colour. The Blue and White version on the Conference Passes is awful, and I'm sure that it won't be any better in black and white.

Also, when fighting the Lib Dems quantity of literature can be more valuable than colour leaflets, and with the tight election spending limits (especially in smaller wards) there's a trade off to be had when using colour.

Regarding that new logo.Next time take the following steps. 1. Randomly select a state primary school. 2.Ask a class of 4/5 year olds to design a 'green,friendly looking 'badge''.3.Pay the school £2500 and the winning designer £250. This would achieve the desired effect and give us something designed by those who actually know about art and design in the first place. Secondly, Party funds would be better off to the tune of £37250!

My design would have been box with the New Labour logo on it being trodden on by a large blue boot!

Colour or no colour it is still awful.

It is the shoddy "that'll do" impression that it gives that annoys me most.
After this Government, everything from our logo upwards must convey detail, clarity and distinctiveness.
This 3 yr old's scribble does none of that.
How ironic that CCO spurns the design created here for nothing.
An opportunity to embrace and cement relations with a new political influence has been well and truly lost.

Lets be deeply meaningful.

Problem with the oak tree symbol is when presented in a more representative fashion it looks like a Building Society logo - attractive for images of deep roots in history, solidity, competence but also boring, old fashioned, unchanging, unbending.

New logo does have dynamism, change - tree shaken up and bending but not uprooted. The foliage resembles a tornado on its side - possible destructive but maybe that's about creative destruction (Danny Kruger), about being in a hurry to change. There is a naive quality in drawing - qualities of innocence, naturalness and childlike wonder at the natural world.

Still not sure about it though.....

OK, so once we'd decided on an oak tree, why did it cost £40,000 to have a chalk-scribbled tree a three year old could have drawn with the word 'Conservatives' next to it? How hard is it to draw a tree and pick a font?

Am I the only one who thinks the tree looks like it is being struck by lightning?

I think it is scandalous that in the midst of a huge debate about party funding and wasting money on frivolities our leadership have forked out £40,000 to get something that anyone with the slightest bit of design flair could have created over lunch for free.

The new logo is growing on me.
I didn't like the fist and flame logo it was too macho and this one is better.

When I see the 100 policy proposals that are agreed I'm beginning to wonder if I'm a Conservative and that's worrying me more than the logo.

Well, this just about takes the biscuit 40k for scribble, this makes almost any of Labours balls up's with cash look tame, what the hell are you all thinking???? and you want us to put you in charge of the country......God help us!!

I'm reminded of a logo for some asthma medication.

Its also about as relevant to the branding of an asthma drug as it is to a political party.

Bland, shortlived and quickly forgotten. Easily lampooned to boot.

Recess Monkey has a great take on it!

It still look like a magic mushroom to me.

Most appropriate... Dave and his crew seem to be hallucinating much of the time, as they drift about in their own little world, utterly detatched from Conservative supportetrs, ditching our core beliefs and policies. They are copying Blair when the voters and his own party are turning away; snuggling up to the corrupt and federalist EPP and the EU, when the vast majority of voters (especially young voters) are sick of EU interference.... the list goes on.

This meaningless and bilious squiggle is just another symptom of the malaise which has struck our party under Cameron and his chinless-wonders.

Gives me a new idea for the UKIP logo:

A chainsaw

Astonishingly absurd.

This logo was unbelievably over-priced. Are we sure that the press haven’t done that factor of 10 thing on the numbers? If not, Cameron and co really do need to get back into the real world on advertising and marketing expenses!

We use several very talented designers at work, all of whom would have done fantastic work for small fraction of the price. Two designers on a fantastic £100K a year would come out to £16K a month. How did Perfect Day manage to justify £40K? Did they employ a bunch of people to sit in a room for a month?

As for this logo being the overwhelming favourite of the focus groups… well I can hardly imagine how bad the alternatives must have been.

The bottom logo, while a good show of the principle, looks dated and amateurish -- sorry.

The top logo shows we've changed while looking professional and modern. The concerns about the two-tone one are probably more to do with the damage to the image done by it being scanned. Let's all agree that it's not wrong to replace the torch and that, given CH readers preferred a tree, this is a great democratic decision!

It's been a busy media day for me. I did Radio 5 at 7.50 and then Today at 8.45 and just done ITN for the Lunchtime News. Whilst I was waiting to be interviewed for ITN the engineer brought me some tea... in a mug with the Liberal Democrat bird on it. "I thought it was appropriate," he said!

Jesus, they paid 40 grand for that! I'd done it at half the price!

I have some difficulty with Maude's claims to have consulted widely across the country with party members. I've not heard of anyone being consulted - in fact, quite the opposite, a little bird told me that most MPs didn't hear about the new design until they were invited to a party meeting to announce it (unless they read about it first here, of course)

I've not heard of anyone being consulted

A very fair point.

If they just cleared up the squiggle, it would actually look reasonable. I don't much like the bottom one either. Just a green circle and two blue lines. What's all this squiggly fudge business about?

Also? £40,000 is a farce. Martin Dewhurst's proposed school logo competition would have been better, more fun, would have attracted more interest, been more cost-effective, and would almost certainly have produced a better result.

Criticism reveals as much about the critic as the object...

1 - "My child could have done..."
Markets are littered with small minds and companies who "could have done...". They didn't. This company did. Life is not fair. Learn from it and move on.

2 - "What a waste..."
Sniping about fees is like shooting into the proverbial open goal: lazy, not clever and boring for anyone watching.

3 - "I would have spent £40k..."
Perhaps sensible investment, legal or accounting advice would have been a better investment? Given the state of lending and party financing, perhaps it should have been banked; not spent at all? No - ideas are at the heart of movements and great things. The Party will not win by incremental steps and improvements. These remarks underestimate the degree of change required within the Party.

4 - "I don't like..."
Subjective though they are personal remarks and professional comment about style and symbolism (photocopying, colour, smudging etc.) have more merit. However, the clue is not what lies in front (of the nose) but what lies ahead.

The Party needs to change. It needs to outmanoeuvre an opposition in full view (albeit one currently in meltdown and another in pipe-and-slippers). To do this it must imbue the new "badge" with the emotive qualities and values that resonate with a majority of the population.

That is what New Labour managed to do: redraw the political landscape and occupy the largest piece of ground.

This is brave, not careless. It is something I can get behind. More's the point, I think it is something others will too.

Why does this remind me of the Emperor's New Clothes?

It really does look like a supermarket logo - either co-op or Somerfield I think.

It's bloody terrible.

The torch had meaning. This is just a wishy-washy symbol designed to offend as few people as possible, while inspiring none.

Well I like it!

I like it. It brings the party forward as the old one was so-outdated. Those who don't like it need to get with the times.

As with the cost - £40k - its not that much these days is it?

I hate it.

This is what I give the Party my hard-earned cash for - rebranding writing paper.

It seems a hideous ammount of money but hey ho, looks a pretty good design to me. I don't know what all the hoo-haa is about. Simplistic, modern and representitive... what more do you want? It's only a logo

Representative of what? Of the fact that the Party wants votes, and will happily focus-test all its principles into oblivion to get them?

As a floating voter who last voted Tory in the increasingly distant past, I think the new logo is great and says all the right things about the party. Of course everybody likes a good moan and no logo is ever really worth that much money - but I think it gets the ideas of environmentalism, strength and gentleness across really well. The previous logo was like being shouted at by a man holding a stick to beat you with. I'm glad to see the back of it, and I think it will do the power of good for the party's image. You've got me interested, for a start...

The one on this page (the oak) is far superior to the rubbish they have unveiled, and would have been quite nice to see. I'm a professional graphic designer. (But a rabid socialist.)

Just confirms exactly who is running the asylum.

Its look like a housing association company/estate agents rather than a political party.

40,000 pounds for a logo which a child could do and anyone with knowledge of Publisher could create the style of 'Conservatives'

Looking at the other new logo, (not the squiggle), it looks amazingly similar to Mulberry… Perhaps it is Samantha Cameroon’s influence (Mulberry and Smythson being next door neighbours in London)

We really don't get this branding thing do we?!

An oak tree if not done carefully could appear aloof, imposing and forebiding which goes completely against the 'bottom up' sort of politics Cameron has been trying to advocate. I think the very point of this logo maybe that it is a scribble - it's something anyone could do, something people can feel part of.

It's cleverer and cleverer the more I think about it.

Simplistic, modern and representitive... what more do you want?

Thirty five thousand quid back!

New logo is sh1t

I think this wishy-washy logo is entirely appropriate for Mr Cameron's wishy-washy new Conservative party (which is really redundant given that there are already the Labour and Liberal parties).

I much preferred Mrs Thatcher's party, and party logo..

Perhaps Mr Cameron would like to indicate whether he prefers ex-supporters like me to vote UKIP or BNP?

All three designs are simply terrible. They look like they're from a small child's pencil case. The Scottish tory logo the Welsh tree tory logo and the English tory tree logo.

Tree and tree and tree = 9...as they say in the Republic of Ireland. Uck!!

Recess Monkey has a great take on it!

Mark, as Beau Bo D'Or did the work perhaps he/she should get a mention too?

I know lots of people (Not Recess Monkey) use the D'Or images with no credit and it must hack him/her off mightily

Beau Bo D'Or

I'm not as bothered by it as some. But what's weak about it is that it looks so like what you'd imagine e.g. a reformed, slightly crooked Italian party would have cobbled together at the last moment as its logo c. 1995. In other words, its fey, continental, gimmicky, transient and nervous. None of those things are especially evil. Indeed they all have their place in the wider scheme of things. But shurely not as the Tory party's symbol?

The point with paying for a new logo is not whether the drawing is difficult to replicate, but rather whether it conveys the correct idea or message. This logo was well worth the £40K.

I found myself trying to see if the scribble had any hidden words in it!

I wondered whether, if the green foliage were crafted into a phrase such as 'for the environment', and the blue horizontal read something like 'with our feet on the ground', this would say a little bit more about our blue-green and common sense approach to the future of our country.

Then I thought that, the fact that the oak is deciduous, critics might suggest we would shed our green credentials according to the seasons (expediency)!

On balance, therefore, I have some concerns about how others may use it against us. The consultants will only have done a good job if they have thought all of these issues through and if it becomes a real campaigning asset not a liability!

I think your new logo is a very good modern image and your apparent new direction is very interesting. I cannot support your party, but I think it is very important in a democracy for there to be a truly effective opposition and I whish you all the success in that at least.

Does the £40k include the cost of employing one tottyish 'brand manager' headhunted from ad agency? I suspect not...

Its growing on me, no pun intended. I'm concerned over the initial loss of recognition the new logo will have, and I would like reassurances on how that will be managed.

I sincerely hope that Political Parties aren't funded by the tax payer in future. Mark my words; this £40k would just be the tip of the iceberg as regards to expected expenditure. If we do get taxed to fund them then the first thing I'll do is found a PR Company and wait for the money to come rolling in for silly projects like hmmm, oh yes, logo changes.

If Cameron was in PR then he must have been a waste of space. Posters showing a logo in bilious green and blue do not stand out.
Red is the most striking colour, and it should be in there somewhere.
The tree logo is childish and silly.
What is wrong with having the British bulldog with a Union Jack scarf as our logo. He would be a winner. Put him under the tree.

It's stupid and a waste of money, that same money that could have been used to pay hard working interns and other members staff who are going to make the real long term difference for the party.

I like the typeface and the general shape of the new logo, but overall it just doesn't work for me. The colour version is really only distinguishable as a tree of any kind because we are told that that is what it is
As for the two-tone version, it's ten times worse. Unrecognisable. It just looks a mess.

The old logo looked like that of a modern Leninist party.

The new logo looks like that of a re-vamped luxury funeral service.

oh well.

Personally i am of the opinion that a lot of the idle chatter is a waste of precious oxygen.

The party has the money to spend, the logo is new and fresh for a progressive conservative party (obviously more emphasis on the noun than adjective) and, crucially, is created by EXPERTS.

I thinks this is what the people who have far too much time on there hands and endlessly post withering endless tittle tattle on this site miss. If a company gets an audit do you go through saying - 'dont like this' - no, because its done by 'profesionals'. well so has the logo, even though it's really an identity not a logo, i rest assured that many groups where consulted on its appropriatness and effectiveness.

Peter, get real. Using the money on a few policy wonks is not going to help us! Changing from the Stalinist Torch is a good idea, and 40k seems quite a modest amount for this sort of thing - I bet less than the rolled up sleeve toch I bet.

It's terrible!
The only thing it inspires is both admiration and loathing for those that designed it:
Admiration for having the nerve to charge 40K for something so pathetic and loathing for realising I am in the wrong industry!

the logo is new and fresh for a progressive conservative party (obviously more emphasis on the noun than adjective) and, crucially, is created by EXPERTS.

Will, interested to know how many hours EXPERTS should take to conceive, test, execute and retest a logo. Also interested to know what you think is the fair rate for an EXPERT.

Also interested in your definition of EXPERT. Does an EXPERT produce artwork that is so roundly derided?

Looks like a 4 year old got bored and drew it, waste of time and money... is this what we will expect from a tory government as well?

Looks like a 4 year old got bored and drew it, waste of time and money... is this what we will expect from a tory government as well?

Sutton Council will be irritated. Their old logo looked exactly like this. The new one isn't so different:


And to think all those people who criticised David Miliband for spending, um, £40k, on a blog.

Sure, taxpayers stumped up for the blog, but if Cameron's state funding proposals go through, we'll being paying for this kind of thing too.

It looks Like Phlegm.

It looks like a new logo for Barratt Homes - a corporate nothingness. It portrays nothing of strength and leadership (unlike the torch logo)

"What is wrong with having the British bulldog with a Union Jack scarf as our logo. He would be a winner. Put him under the tree"

...more appropriate would be a CCHQ poodle having a p*** on the membership.

As a rather young Conservative I can't remember the adoption of what is now sadly the former Party logo.

I have been a committed Conservative since my youth and played an active part for the Party in Glasgow while at University and will continue to do so. I do fell, however, that this change in logo is another change which will have no or more likely a negative effect (what a waste of £40,00 for a cash strapped party).

The reason that I am and many others are Conservative members or voters is our belief in values such as individual liberty, in our country, in the notion that we should promote as free and cohesive a society as possible. The torch, while maybe not perfect, in my eyes symbolised this - A Torch/Flame of liberty is synonymous with the State of Liberty or that the light of freedom will never fade. More Importantly that image constrained the Conservative Party’s public perceived colour - Blue - prominently as well as the colours of national flag, showing our commitment to Union and some feeling of patriotism and pride in our country.

The new logo is largely green, and the only organisations I can think of with trees as logos are mutual organisations, financial savings companies, The Student Loans Company, companies in the timber and paper industries and Schools. I don’t think represents the party or its values at all, and while I agree that climate change and green policies are an issue and can be seen as naturally 'conservative' I don’t think it warrants our logo, however much it does or doesn’t look like an 'oak' tree.

All I think this will do is make people more cynical of our party's stance, allow our opponents to poke fun at us - detracting from Labours massive self - destruction - and most importantly and sadly of all make the voting public further disillusioned with the party when they need clarity of purpose and engagement with the party to finally get us back into office where we can act in their interests and dismantle the destructive edifice of government created by Labour in the past 9 years.

Suffice to say I think this is bad idea and a waste if money, and that we need to rethink where we want to go with the electorate.

I am slightly concerned about the balance between the 'tree' image and the word 'Conservatives'. The perception of the logo as it stands is that it is comparatively weak, especially when compared to it's predecessor, though that too has suffered over the years and now seems ridiculously strident. It will be interesting to see how the logo evolves over time and how it will be used on other media.

As for the 'scribble' argument, 'Automated robot' summed it up best of all, design companies like Minale Tattersfield were doing this sort of thing 30 years ago. It's bold and youthful, not necessarily bad things, and I'm afraid to say, superior to the other oak tree effort. £40,000 is a lot of money for a logo, but having said that, the party could have paid a great deal more as well as a great deal less.

Whenever you embark on an enterprise such as this, it is inevitable that a lot of people are going to get wound up by it, simply because they identify so closely with the tories that any perceived meddling with the image of 'their ' party is taken as a personal affront.

As the first person to suggest an oakleaf on the first CHome thread on this subject (later modified to an oak tree by the appropriately named Marcus Wood) can I claim my share of the £ 40,000 ?

I have it on good authority the logo design was completed last Friday to meet a deadline set by Central Office.

here's the proof

I find the new logo to be pathetic... totally unispiring. Undoubtably it would not look out of place as the logo for Greenpeace perhaps, but not for a mainstream party with aspirations of leadership.

I voted for David Cameron in the party election, but now I starting to regret that decision. We may well pick up a few votes from dissillusioned Liberal Democrats with our new friendly image, but its far more likely to cause the loss of thousands of existing Conservative supporters, who dont want to see a party that is seemingly becoming a green version of Labour !!!

Out of interest, how much did Saatchi charge for adding the arm and sleeve to the torch a couple of years ago?

Was it decided by a competition on Blue Peter?

Hello, I'm not a Tory but I watch with interest the political debate until the next election. I have to laugh at your new logo. As an voter with no fixed affiliation, your logo doesn't tell me what you stand for. If anything, I'd think you were the green party! Watch out Tories, because to the electorate you appear all over the place and your new logo isn't helping you - or your cause.

I find comments along the lines of, "Hah, I could have done that in two minutes, where's the £39950 change?" incredible, especially given the conservative's market & business friendly image!

Do you not realise the amount of work that goes into a design, not just in the preparatory work but also into market research, client contact and deliverables?

Do skilled designers, who spend time and effort in training and practicing their craft, not have the right to earn a decent living?

Are market forces not in place? Do you not think that if someone could have offered the same service for cheaper, they would have done it?

Do you think the Conservative party purchasing system is so bad? After all, for someone to charge a price, someone has to pay it! Do you not think that various bids were made for the contract?

Also, with regards comments like, "It's awful, what appalling designers" - in my experience, clients tend to get what they ask for and a bad design is, in general, a reflection of the bad taste of the client!


PS I actually don't like the design, but then I tend not to vote Conservative!

The price is rediculous. I know its a scribble but that should not undermine a design. What strikes me is the way it is presented. Normally a scribble would bring out your emotions and feelings; the sheer magnitude of these strokes would represent your intensity. This I'm afraid is a bit too much. Why? The green portion (part of the green campaign) obviously depicts a tree and the lower blue part should represent the trunk. But interestingly to ME, it shows nature. The land and the sea. To me the lower part depicts a Waterspout with a tree on top. Its just my imagination.

The fact remains that its just a messy blob a big huge mass sitting on top of a tiny, minutest trunk which takes the charm away from it. Its just too much of a mess.

I really like the idea of EdR "Just a green circle and two blue lines." Perhaps that would have been better. Simple and conservative. 40k makes me think that someone amongst the conservative party wanted to benefit the london based company "perfect day". Nothing more than that. If this is how these people spend legal money then may GOD save the Queen and the rest of you.

I am not a Conservative Party supporter, but I have been a graphic designer for the past twenty five years and think it only fair to point out to Mr Cameron that this particular style of logo was out of date when John Major was running the party. To pay £40k for such lazy thinking is scandalous. Those donating to party funds have my commiserations. Perhaps, in future, Mr Cameron should look outside London to 'the provinces' where he would find many talented designers who would do a far better job for a more realistic price.

"If this is how these people spend legal money..."

How legal is still being examined...

Just goes to show that Zac Goldsmith is bankrolling the party.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker