Tim Montgomerie: The centre ground is not broad enough for victory

I have written for this morning's Independent - essentially about the And Theory Of Conservatism:

"At the last general election I found Michael Howard's manifesto unhealthily imbalanced. The former Tory leader offered Britain a thin programme and his campaign spent disproportionate time talking about immigration. At the time I repeatedly blogged in the futile hope that Mr Howard might start championing other causes - the very sort of environmental and socially responsible causes that David Cameron has now put at the heart of his modern, compassionate conservatism.

In his perfectly-pitched speech to Tory delegates yesterday, Mr Cameron talked about "a Britain that is more green". He promised "more family-friendly" policies and identified social justice and global poverty as foundation stones of his "brick-by-brick" rebuilding of the Tory house. I welcome these new emphases. They are essential for the Conservative Party to reconnect with the "Waitrose voters" who don't just shop ethically but vote ethically, too.

The trouble with these early stages of Project Cameron is that the whole programme is in danger of becoming almost as unbalanced as Project Howard. While Michael Howard was all about immigration, David Cameron is all environment. I exaggerate my case, of course, but many of David Cameron's advisers - egged on by too many commentators - argue that the Conservative Party has a choice between the new issues and the old. I think that's a false choice.

It is perfectly possible to combine strict immigration controls with a hard-headed, open-hearted commitment to fight global poverty. Lower taxation and social justice aren't incompatible if a tax-cutting agenda focuses on freeing Britain's poorest workers from the net of income tax. Few policies are as environmentally damaging as the EU's Common Fisheries Policy. David Cameron could please Eurosceptics and green voters if he pledged to retake control of Britain's waters.

Tony Blair attempted to occupy the whole political stage. Some Tory strategists only seem interested in the centre ground and they are leaving David Cameron's right flank dangerously exposed. They have slept through the wake-up call provided by the Bromley by-election and its warning that traditional Tory voters can always choose to stay at home.

In the failure to talk about crime, immigration and tax - alongside the gentler, greener messages - Team Cameron is not reaching the "Morrisons voter". Morrisons voters are largely Midlands and northern-based. Their wage packets are the main victims of uncontrolled immigration. They can least afford Gordon Brown's stealthy taxes. They are more vulnerable to crime and less able to opt-out of failing public services.

In America, Australia and Canada lower income families like Morrisons voters have become central members of the coalitions that have underpinned the recent electoral success of those countries' conservative parties. While many voters have moved leftwards as they have become richer, Bush, Howard and Harper have more than replaced them with appeals to cultural and socially conservative "strivers".

Until David Cameron offers a policy platform as broad as the coalition he needs for a majority, the Conservative Party's opinion poll lead will continue to be modest. The Independent/ ConservativeHome.com survey of 1,500 grassroots Tory members shows that 65 per cent believe that the party should have a larger opinion poll lead given Labour's difficulties. An overwhelming majority of members are satisfied with David Cameron's leadership, but many are unhappy with his failure to focus on tax, crime, Europe and immigration.

The A-list is also a source of grassroots unhappiness. Just 6 per cent of members believe that the list of "priority candidates" represents the most talented individuals in the Conservative Party. More than half of members dislike its political correctness. They object to the way it has excluded some of the party's most talented and locally-rooted candidates.

The next election could be very close. Time is still on his side but David Cameron must recognise the narrowness of the current strategy. Adopting a policy platform that makes him more and more like other centre-ground politicians may help him with the voters floating between the main parties, but it will not appeal to the voters floating between voting and not voting at all.

The Conservative Party currently has a leader with the X-factor that is so important in today's politics. With a broader agenda I am still confident that David Cameron can be Britain's next prime minister."

Comments

[Monday Clubber]

So Cameron's finds "sunshine and optimism" in Blair's Britain, does he?

Not much point in changing the government then...

[Tapestry]

The benefits of a broader strategy might be more enthusiastic support from activists, but the cost would be sustained attacks from much of the media, and possibly a rebellion from Ken Clarke's europhile wing.

The casualties are not worth taking until an assault is bound to win. Cameron is like Montgomery - I mean Field Marshall Montgomery. He only fought Alamein once he had all his resources deployed and he was ready for the battle. He had to keep Churchill from pushing him into acting any earlier.

Cameron's strategy is already winning enough victories for now. The Lib Dems have unravelled. Labour are close to doing the same. Gordon Brown used to be thought of as viable, but Cameron's making him look like a B movie dinosaur, a million years out of his time.

If it's to be John Reid, Cameron will find him a lot slipperier, but on the evidence so far, he will find ways to unsettle him too.

You cannot fight on all fronts right from the beginning.

Cameron is not a Blair actor who enjoys conning and manipulating people. He's managerial and takes things on one step at a time. But because everyone's got used to politcs being a business of lies, image and spin under labour, it will be a while before people realise that Cameron is really quite ordinary and down to earth.

If Cameron says he will approach things in a certain order, he is not saying he will not deal with the issues of concern to Conservatives, but he will deal with them in a carefully planned, structured approach that will work. It might be a bit dull compared to Labour's 'you can have it all the way you want it now' politics - which has proved disasterous. Cameron's politics will be effective.

Are Conservatives so shallow now that they want everything promised and delivered on day one without putting in the work that will build the success they crave? They need to listen more carefully to what Cameron is actually saying, rather than taking in the Labour spin version.

The enemy tanks will withdraw, but they will need defeating first. That will be not be a one year battle.

[Monday Clubber]

Good morning Tapestry

Get real.

[James Maskell]

"You cannot fight on all fronts right from the beginning"

Thats true, but Camerons been in charge since December 5th, not May 5th.

[Chad]

All Cameron has to say is "I want less state-run services" and the low-taxers will be off his back in a second as low-taxation is part of the small state approach.

No-one is demanding a full manifesto of tax cuts today, but they are demanding a clear small state framework to reduce the amount of state-run services that will *eventually* lead to lower taxes.

The big question is, does Cameron actually want a smaller state, ie less state run services and if so, why is he not passionately arguing the case?

[Richard Weatherill]

I hope you'll drop this "Waitrose voter"/"Morrisons voter" shorthand pretty quickly, Tim. I think it comes across as rather patronising and it also confuses the hell out of me, since I shop at both stores regularly. (I'll send you the bill for the psychological counselling!)

I'm also intrigued by your assertion that Waitrose voters "shop ethically" (whatever that means). I suppose the assumption is that they're the only ones that can afford such a luxury?

[Editor]

I thought you'd left this blog, Chad. That was what you promised us last week!

Sorry Richard if it appears patronising. I was trying to make a general point - perhaps too crudely. Waitrose does have a higher income customer base and is more southern. Waitrose markets its organic and environmental credentials quite strongly. Morrisons - certainly until it bought Safeway - is more of a northern store and emphasises vale for money to its customers.

[James Maskell]

Editor, Chad posted about that point yesterday...

[Angelo Basu]

Perhaps the metaphors are already a bit too far stretched, but the interesting parallel that Waitrose has with the modern Conservatives is a regional one.

Waitrose had traditionally been very southern because they had felt from a management perspective that frugal Northerners would not pay the premium for their groceries that Waitrose demands. Following the Morrison/Safeway merger, Waitrose made tentative steps to purchase some of the overlap Safeway stores to see whether there was a viable northern business for them, so there are Waitroses in Harrogate, Otley (both in traditional Tory seats which have gone Lib Dem) and a number of other selected locations. The lesson learned should be that the North is not all poor and depressed and that it will pay for quality.

[Chad]

"I thought you'd left this blog, Chad. That was what you promised us last week!"

Well you promised to pay me £100 and photo yourself handing it over to the TPA, but I'm still waiting.... ;-)

[Chad]

..that was regarding my point and subsequent way back that Cameron was lying over his EPP pledge, but you bet he would be good to his word and deliver in June/July etc.

[Gwendolyn]

Well done Tapestry, a thoughtful piece that sounded real to me.

[Matthew Sinclair]

I think you should be careful to draw too many lessons from Australia and the States. Both of these countries have a very different, and more old school conservative, political culture. Our electorate is, I fear, more European.

Harper is a very different case and I would question if he actually has built a conservative majority in any long to medium term sense. The Liberals were a far more wretched government than Labour are; we can't expect a negative victory in the same way.

I agree with your central objective of combining the new agendas on the environment etc. with older conservative themes However, I disagree that Cameron let that agenda down yesterday.

He did not focus on the environment to the exclusion of all else and his first two examples of his central theme, responsibility, were school discipline and parental authority which are very old conservative and Conservative themes. I see the Cameron approach as being about pointing out right wing responses to traditional 'left wing' challenges like poverty and social breakdown. I thought Cameron made that case, a broad one, very well yesterday.

Sorry if I've rambled a bit... the same idea is here in a more coherent form:
http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/10/camerons-speech.html

[Mark Fulford]

To be seen as genuinely broad, and not just paying lip-service to new causes, we need to properly establish ourselves in the new areas. It’s a straight-forward marketing job and it requires us to temporarily spend a disproportionate amount of time and resources on the new causes. Our reputation on tax, law and order, immigration, etc is firmly established and won’t be harmed by a year of talking about other causes.

[Og]

"Are Conservatives so shallow now that they want everything promised and delivered on day one without putting in the work that will build the success they crave?"

Tapestry, this is disingenuous bullsh*t.

Not a single soul has asked for "everything promised and delivered on day one", and you know it.

The debate is over basic principles. A smaller state is one, selective schools another, immigration, localism and accountability etc etc.

The instinctive feeling we have about many of these issues is what made us conservatives in the first place. If some of these basic cornerstones (to use Cameroon analogy) are no longer secure, what else is?

Whigs in Tory clothing are welcome to start their own ploitical party and woo us from intellectually honest ground, but painting over the spots and telling us we are not leopards any more is untenable and risks splitting the party in an even more profound way than Europe.

[James Hellyer]

Our reputation on tax, law and order, immigration, etc is firmly established and won’t be harmed by a year of talking about other causes.

This is simply untrue.

At the last general election, the Conservative lead on law and order collapsed to one point, and while it has since recovered, it has been declining again in recent months.

Similarly, polling evidence from the last election showed that people didn't actually believe we would deliver tax cuts (possibly rightly givern Howard's platform), and since then our lead on tax issues has been slight at best. And we still trail on the economy.

It's all too easy to squander our strengths on these issues, just as Howard did with law and order in 2005.

[Chad]

I agree Og. Is there a greater mobiliser for poor but bright kids than selection by ability?

It gives them a chance to compete with the rich kids.

I find it very distasteful that an old Etonian would support selection by wealth but make a point of rejecting the same opportunity by ability.

[Matthew Sinclair]

The tone of some of the posts in response to Tap suggests that he has hit a nerve.

[Sean]

Tim is right in the dicotomy of voters. While I understand that the United States and Australia have a different, more pragmatic, approach to politics, the issues by-and-large are similar.

The "centre" ground is a mythical few thousand voters in a couple of dozen swing seats. Focusing on these and ignoring the broader electorate who are becoming more despondent is the true challenge for winning an election.

Cameron is failing to appeal to those who are more small 'c' conservative voters because of his approach. Voters are sick and tired of the typical politico-speak. When asked a question that is tough they try to speak about something else. Voters are then turned off politics and it has shown with lower numbers turning out and voting in elections.

If you contrast the approach of John Howard to that of David Cameron, I think you would understand what I mean. Howard is extremely plain speaking. He has made a virtue of it. He used the term "pussyfooting" when talking about how Muslim leaders have progressively failed to tackle extremism in their community. Since when has there been such bluntness from British politicans and on a regular basis?

A little more bluntness, less attempt to think in terms of the margins will see more people attracted to the Conservative Party. If it is between a choice of a Labour Government dominated by headlines, a Lib Dems dominated by a confused message over direction and a plain and honest Conservative Party, then they will choose Tory.

[TomTom]

Did the Tories have a campaign in 2005 ? I missed it. It was very hard to know what the 2005 Election was about..........it was issue-free.........and noone really thought the Tories put much effort into winning it. It seemed they had made a deal with Labour not to discuss issues but just to go through the motions.

Now it seems the new deal with Labour is to find issues attractive to women's magazines and ignore the issues that are irritating voters.

Politics is increasingly irrelevant and it does take personal loyalty to a candidate to make it worth voting at all, in the council elections I cease to have sufficient enthusiasm

[Steve]

I think Tapestry's point about taking our time is perfectly valid but there's an obvious lack of consistency in this appraoch.

Hence, Cameron has been prepared to take on the associations immediately on taking office regarding his politically correct nonsense about getting more women and ethnic candidates in place, regardless of ability; instead of 'taking his time' and encouraging more women and ethnic people to apply as candidates in the first place.

It's this emphasis on PC issues at the expense of more traditional Conservative ideas which has upset many people.

And before anyone does it, smeering all activists as right wing nutters who haven't got a clue doesn't help either.

As Tim has said more than once, we need the centre ground but we can't afford to ignore our right flank.

[Mark Fulford]

Our reputation on tax, law and order, immigration, etc is firmly established and won’t be harmed by a year of talking about other causes.

This is simply untrue.

You’re missing my point.

Survey voters about what policies they associate with the Conservative party and you will get a traditionally right-wing list: immigration, privatisation, tax cuts, service cuts, etc. (If you disagree with that statement then please tell me what list would you get.)

Part of broadening our policy base has to market ourselves in other directions.

[James Hellyer]

You’re missing my point.

No, I'm demolishing your point that our reputation on these issues won't be harmed by a year of talking exclusively about other areas. As demonstrated by the polling data, leads on any policy area can be easily lost. That's not "broadening" your policy base, it's narrowing it.

[Michael McGowan]

You're right, Mark but only PART of broadening the policy base is to do those things. Even then, it is being done incoherently.....too much mood music and little else, apart from nasty noises about yet more taxation and regulation.

Part of the problem with Tory policy on traditional issues is that it has been very badly put together and sold, not least by David Cameron in 2005, thereby offering Labour easy targets on things such as immigration and tax cuts. Any policy overhaul requires root and branch changes to the approach on those issues as well.....but not the economic gibberish called putting stability before tax cuts

[Mark Fulford]

No, I'm demolishing your point

James, you haven't even scratched it.

Your polling data does more to contradict your argument than it does to support it. For law and order the Conservative lead fluctuates wildly between -2 and +19, with a range of 15 points over 4 days between 20/03/05 and 24/06/05. Ditto the taxation and economy polling data. If there's anything that can be read from the polls, it's that on all of them we're doing better under David Cameron, with a whole 23 point improvement on the economy.

My argument is basic marketing theory. Michael is absolutely right that when we talk tax we had better make more sense than we did in 2005... but we won’t need to persuade the electorate that it’s an issue which interests us.

[Cassilis]

No one seems to appreciate the masterstroke Blair has pulled in equating the phrase "tax cuts" with drastic reductions in front line services in the minds of the British public.

While the informed or politically aware voter understands that taxpayers money stretches far wider than this your average voter has no such conception. Unlike the US the UK has no "it's my tax dollars" mentality and it will take years for this to develop, even with Cameron's assistance.

We'd do well to remember that people who read and comment on sites like this one (and I include myself) tend to be political nerds who understand these subtleties - the average punter doesn't. If Cameron commits to tax cuts now for every grassroots Tory who returns to the fold, 10 others will walk away.

[EML]

I do sometimes wonder whether some people who contribute to this site actually read or watch Cameron's hitherto generally good performances.

He has made clear that he favours a smaller state, with society taking up the slack with community- and family-driven initiatives. This, combined with the pledge to share the proceeds of growth between government expenditure and tax cuts, should persuade anyone that Cameron could make a lot of positive changes if he is given at least two terms in office.

Incidentally, was anyone else watching the Poltics Show this morning? It beggars belief that their female reporter has to ask what social responsibility is. Is she thick, or has she just been told to ask stupid questions? I fear we may soon reach a point where the majority of people in this country can't imagine anything being done without a government minister involved somewhere along the line.

[[email protected]]

Fink is lumping the TPA in with the old school Tory line on tax but they are manifestly different.

The TPA has answered them here...

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/news/individual_blog.php?post_id=362

It will be interesting to see the response.

Prediction: the Party and Fink will continue to pretend the TPA is Tebbit/Redwood, BECAUSE their argument is obviously different and much harder to answer...

[T Sinden]

Tactically ,
It might be an idea to stop paying Blair et al compliments . Just remember that they are the enemy and while it is not good to get bogged down in yah boo politics a quiet disaproval of what they do is correct . When the do do something correct , always connect agreement with something they have done wrong .

Middle ground -
I am not sure what this code for - it might be better though to bear in mind that 85% of the British electorate are English and they need recognition as such . This endless referral to Britain and the
" the country " is a process of talking past the English . Try talking direct to the English as the English - you might be pleasantly surprised at the result .

The general election will revolve around getting that expanding percentage of votes in " the centre ".

Someone in this thread referred to swathes of the electorate being despondent and left out by politicl parties
- see above .

[Jon White]

Cassilis point is the most succint and insightful that I have seen on this site for some time. As someone currently working in the US, I am amazed (and thrilled) that ALL politicians go to such lengths to justify how THEY are spending YOUR tax dollars. Their is no conception of spending 'government money' like there is in the UK. The money that government's (either federal or state) is regarded as moneyt which belongs to the voters, and the government is entrusted with spending it wisely.

The perecption in the UK is so very different. It IS only the political anoraks like us that understand the difference.

I would love to see a more tax cutting agenda from DC. However, until we as a party can alter this basic perception amongst the voters, he is on a loser. As osmeone else has posted, Blair's master stroke has been to equate in the voters' minds the idea that tax cutting MUST mean poorer services. We must change that perception. To promise tax cuts before doing that is putting the cart before the horse.

[Jon White]

Cassilis point is the most succint and insightful that I have seen on this site for some time. As someone currently working in the US, I am amazed (and thrilled) that ALL politicians go to such lengths to justify how THEY are spending YOUR tax dollars. Their is no conception of spending 'government money' like there is in the UK. The money that government's (either federal or state) is regarded as moneyt which belongs to the voters, and the government is entrusted with spending it wisely.

The perecption in the UK is so very different. It IS only the political anoraks like us that understand the difference.

I would love to see a more tax cutting agenda from DC. However, until we as a party can alter this basic perception amongst the voters, he is on a loser. As osmeone else has posted, Blair's master stroke has been to equate in the voters' minds the idea that tax cutting MUST mean poorer services. We must change that perception. To promise tax cuts before doing that is putting the cart before the horse.

[Jon White]

I apologise for the appalling typos (too numerous to mention) in the above post! Monday morning bad typing disease. Sorry.

[James Hellyer]

Your polling data does more to contradict your argument than it does to support it.

No it doesn't. On Law and order, for example, each polling company shows an overall downwards trend in the run up to the last general election - one where it was noted that Michael Howard failed to capitalise on law and order issues that should have been his strength.

For law and order the Conservative lead fluctuates wildly between -2 and +19, with a range of 15 points over 4 days between 20/03/05 and 24/06/05.

Four different polls by three different companies asking slightly different questions...

What can be seen is that each company recodrds a general downwards trend until their results plateau at around 1/6/12% depending on the company. Bearing in mind the concerns about Howard's approach to law and order, that entirely bears out my point.

we won’t need to persuade the electorate that it’s an issue which interests us.

Whether they think the issue "interests" us is irrelevant to whether we actually address their concerns on those issues. Knowing that in the past you've talked tough on law and order will not convince someone that you're offering better solutions than the incumbents - especially when they're starting to talk tough too.

Talking about the environment may increase the appeal to some people, but remaining silent on other issues means that those people who prioritise them are more likely to listen elsewhere. That remains a great risk when the government has specialised in parking its tanks on our lawn...

[Mark Wadsworth]

EML at 13.27.

I also get the impression that some posters here did not bother watching DC's speech yesterday.

I watched it to see what why CH were getting so upset, and yes, it was a bit waffly and he didn't expressly call for tax cuts, but he went into a lot of detail on the smaller state and Nulab wasted billions (and he said he'd build more prisons) so frankly, I don't see what most CH-ers are getting so upset about.

There is also the point that The Goblin King is currently overspending by £40 bn a year (about 8% of overall spending).

Unless a future Tory government is happy to continue this reckless spree, it will have to reduce annual state spending by £40 bn first to get PSBR down to nil before it is in a position to cut taxes (dynamic and Laffer effects notwithstanding).

[EdR]

Cameron has talked a bit about crime. I've heard more from him on that subject than education or health, in fact.

On tax, he's committed to spending less over the course of a parliament. Labour never shouted from the rooftops about their tax gouging plans. They didn't need to. Anybody with any political instinct whatsoever understood that Labour would raise taxes. And they did. Massively. Similarly, the Conservatives will cut taxes. Sure, I could get behind a more vocal tax-cutting programme, but at what cost electorally? For most people Tory tax cutting commitments would be fairly redundant; and for the rest, it's associated with cuts. Better to make the case in office.

Same with immigration. He's promising a border police force already before the policy committees have even reported back. Which big, bold ideas from 2005 should be brought back (the magical holding island that was never identified?)? Nobody I know believes anybody on immigration anyway. They have slightly more faith in the environmental message just because it sounds fresh.

On Europe, the moaning about the EPP deal misses the point. If he wanted to be opportunistic, he could have kicked it into the tall grass over Christmas and had a big, splashy photo op with Merkel. Instead, he spent 6 months making deals. It didn't eventuate for this period, much as David Davis has feared. Mistake made. Big deal. Move on.

The fact is that to get through to the non-political public as a whole, messages need to be dripped intensively. Cameron's strategy has been to choose messages that you wouldn't necessarily expect from the Conservatives. I realise this makes a few hardliners wince -- but everyone's always a critic. I think the strategy is a strong one and I hope he sticks to it.

[Mark Wadsworth]

EdR 14.13.

I am relieved that there are people like you who actually listen to what DC says, who come to the same conclusion as me that DC is a perfectly reasonable chap.

Winning votes by promising tax cuts is actually quite easy - you just promise to increase the personal allowance - everybody wins a fixed amount in £sd. Which happens to be worth relatively more to lower earners than to higher earners.

By the way (re my comment above), the £40 bn debts that The Goblin King runs up every year are equal to fair mid-estimates for government waste/overspend. No particular significance to this statistic, I just wanted to mention it.

[Mark Fulford]

Your polling data does more to contradict your argument than it does to support it.

No it doesn't.

At best it tells us that Cameron's silence on these issues has actually improved our polling on them - but I don't think that's the point you're trying to make!

Whether they think the issue "interests" us is irrelevant to whether we actually address their concerns on those issues.

Irrelevant? Absolutely not. It’s fundamentally relevant!

We can have the best imaginable environmental policies but, if the public thinks we're insincere about our commitment to the environment, whatever we say on the subject will have no credibility. I agree with the editor’s search for broadness, and I think David Cameron does too, but we can’t open up new fronts on election eve. What we’re seeing is the beginning of a carefully thought out campaign.

[Cassilis]

Unlike the US, the UK general public has no explicit conception of government spending as 'their money'. Americans will routinely talk about 'my tax dollars' and any use of public money is held up to great public scrutiny for that reason. In the UK people are aware at one level that public spending mainly comes from tax receipts but there's no shared sense of possession for that money and governments (of whatever colour) are generally left to take & spend what 'they think' is in the public interest. This passivity or timid compliance isn't a product of informed consent between the government and the governed - it's actually one of the last manifestations of class difference in UK society. It's the working man doffing his cap at his betters in government saying "here's my tuppence worth Guv'nor...do as your wisdom tells you sir".

In this context encouraging an atmosphere of scepticism about how public money is spent is actually a progressive thing - it's about democracy, freedom and the sovereignty of the individual over the state - much as those advocating republicanism would contend. These might not always make comfortable bedfellows for Conservatives but it's for the greater good.

[Don Gilders]

What is this 'middle ground' classification but self indulgent navel gazing?!

We very ordinary folk see real serious problems ahead for us and our children.

Janet Daley headed a column today 'It is not right wing to aim to reduce taxes, it is common sense'

How right she was - and the same applies for other aspects of life:

It is not right wing to protect our children's future and civil peace by limiting immigration, it is common sense.

It is not right wing to prefer spending agendas and control to be managed by individuals rather than by state bodies and quangos, it is common sense.

It is not right wing to protect this country's inheritance of liberty and independence from unelected foreign rule, it is common sense.

It is not right wing to want a return to individual liberty, and a cessation of excessive state surveillance and intrusion, it is common sense.

It is not right wing to want effective education of children at schools rather than effective passing of bogus tests and exams, it is common sense.

It is not right wing to want to see more police on the streets and on the roads as a deterrent to crime, it is common sense.

It is not right wing to want the traditional family to be supported as the most effective route to a stable civil society, it is common sense.

It is not right wing to want to eliminate gratuitous toxic elements shaping our children horribly, it is common sense.

There's loads more, including for the likes of global warming.

So where's our politicians' analysis and conclusions - based upon which they will recommend appropriate action?

[Andrew Austin]

Sorry to make an obvious point, but we lost the last election, and the one before that, by focussing too heavily on tax, Europe and the coterie of other issues that most people in this country don't give a f*** about. In my view, it really beggars belief that people here would risk torpedoeing the renaissance of the party - a renaissance explained principally by the fact that we are finally reclaiming the middle ground, where we belong - by allowing the media traction on stories of "tory splits". Things have changed since the 80s, in the country and in the world. Deal with it and move on.

[Oberon Houston]

The problem is that if the voters don't trust you, every area of policy is adversely affected. We did badly on traditional strong areas in the last election because we failed to make a convincing case for reduced spending, which Labour very effectively exploited by misrepresenting what we were saying. Cameron has adopted a very similar tact to Howard, share growth as opposed to fixed growth, yet he has got the right in a fiz. He is correct to argue that we need to build the foundations and get the public attention and intererst - once detailed policy follows (and it will), we will see far more interest in all aspects of it, instead of the previous off-hand dismissals of the past. I'm interested in Tim’s point as it is a good issue to debate, but unconvinced we need the ‘and-theory’ full-strength, it seems like a ploy of the right to muscle in.

[christina speight]

I wish you wouldn't subscribe to the left-wing canard that Howard talked about nothing but immigration. This just untrue and near slanderous. Shame on you
=-=-=-=-=-=

Mark Fulford asks what you'd get if you asked a group of voters.

Well I've been away for 3 days in Shropshire - away from my normal contacts. I found a very profound attitude to Cameron both in one-to-one talk and in seeing the reaction to Cameron on TV in the hotel bar. In both cases it was one of baffled contempt and when he mentioned no tax cuts the bar erupted with cat calls.

No wonder Cameron and his friends - wading in money - don't want tax cuts - THEY don't need them.

I'd be happy if Cameron told it as it is that Brown "has left so many debts to pay that we - the tax-cutting party - will only be able to make a modest start. But when we've straightened Brown's mess out we WILL reduce taxes. That will be a priority"

But if he goes on like this denying the NEED for tax-cuts many Tories will deny the NEED for Cameron.

I've reached that point already and if he won't talk about tax cuts or the EU then he'll not get elected. It would be better therefore if he saw failure in his slipping lead and went quietly now. But I suppose we will have to wait for an election defeat before we can get a leader who IS a Conservative.

[Oberon Houston]

Christina, you may be interested in the Telegraph debate held today at Conference, which I posted a short piece about. I disagre the Tax cuts should be mandatory, in-fact nobody has put forward a convincing case for them with regard to immediate and deep ones I mean. If we propose this without being absolutely sure of our case, the electorate will find us out and we will definetly lose the next election. Cameron is proposing tax cuts, but he is being more cautious, a very sensible stance I think.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark Fulford asks what you'd get if you asked a group of voters.

...about policies they associate with the Conservative Party. You are a marketing pro so I'm certain it's a question you're familiar with.

I found a very profound attitude to Cameron both in one-to-one talk and in seeing the reaction to Cameron on TV in the hotel bar. In both cases it was one of baffled contempt and when he mentioned no tax cuts the bar erupted with cat calls.

For a start, as you well no, he didn't say "no tax cuts". He refused to be drawn on tax, which is quite different. And now, thanks you you, I have got a dreadful mental image of Shropshire hotels. I can only imagine the sort that erupts in political cat calls...

[Yet Another Anon]

Supposing upper limits on public spending and requiring the Treasury to at least balance the books in each quarter were written into the constitution with it being possible if these rules were broken for the Courts to order these requirements to be met and bypass the government to do it.

[Michael McGowan]

"Unlike the US, the UK general public has no explicit conception of government spending as "their money"". Like most sweeping generalisations, I doubt whether this stands up to scrutiny. Quite apart from anything else, ine the last decade of waste and failure, the Tory Party has hardly tried to generate a groundswell of opinion along these lines, so paralysed is it with fear by the black arts of Anthony Blair. Today might even be a good time to encourage such sentiments....but the Tories would rather fight each other and smear disaffected voters who think they are useless, rather than serve the public they are lavishly paid to serve by offering meaningful alternatives.

It is utter b*****ks to argue that the Tories fought the last election on tax, immigration and Europe. One of the main reasons I didn't vote was that beneath the surface froth, general posing and personal abuse, the two main parties were in basic agreement on all the key issues. Looks like we will be getting more of the same in 2009.

[Jack Stone]

If Christine is going to post on this site I think its about time she said something sensible.
Why should a l;eader who is more popular than either of the other two main party leaders and who has put his party neck and neck or in the lead with the only other potential governing party resign. Its sheer nonsense.
You would argue that it was wrong that the party forced Margaret Thatcher out but there was a far better case for forcing her out then there is David Cameron.
The trouble with you dear lady is at the end of the day the only reason you want our leader out is that you disagree with him. You don`t care if we win or lose the next election you just want a leader who you agree with.
Well you are not going to get it and contray to your opinion this party will win the next election with the best leader we could possibly becoming Prime Minster.

[Michael McGowan]

"If Christine is going to post on this site I think it's about time she said something sensible". And with these well-chosen, Mr Pot denounced Mrs Kettle.

[christina speight]

I don't know why I bother answering Jack Stone but here goes- - -

The idea that a party with a leader totally without principles or policies should have achieved a poll lead of a mere 4.2% (or 0.5% in the last two!) when all his opponents are in the direst straits immagineable should be described as "the best leader we could possibly " (SIC!!!) [possibly WHAT? Get rid of??] is laughable.

You heard the audience reacting to Tebbit today and the explosive reaction to the suggestion that we could pay for all our tax-cuts by leaving the EU?

But the party leaders decide what will be talked about - they think!. If these "chosen ones" don't consider an issue "political" it is simply excluded from the debate, any input either ignored or described as "banging on" By this means they try to shape and control the debate.

The public have seen the emptiness of Cameron (see all the polls) and even if Mark doesn't like it, the spontaneous reaction to "the wimp" by people out in the sticks impressed me.

The Conservatives as at present will NOT win the next election and they don't deserve to .

[malcolm]

I see all the polls Christina and EVERY one indicates that DC is more popular than the party.You might not like that. Tough.Get over it. Why not be constructive just for once instead of making the same points ad nauseum? If you don't like the modern Conservative party fine either try and change or go somewhere else don't just keep saying that everyone who disagrees with you has no principles.It is simply not true.

[malcolm]

I see all the polls Christina and EVERY one indicates that DC is more popular than the party.You might not like that. Tough.Get over it. Why not be constructive just for once instead of making the same points ad nauseum? If you don't like the modern Conservative party fine either try and change or go somewhere else don't just keep saying that everyone who disagrees with you has no principles.It is simply not true.

[Jack Stone]

Christina. David Cameron is twice the person you could ever hope to be.

[James Hellyer]

I see all the polls Christina and EVERY one indicates that DC is more popular than the party.

I assume you missed last week's YouGov poll for the Telegraph.

[malcolm]

I did miss that James.I'm sorry.

[Terry]

The Christians of this country (ncluding me)need a political home and they are a significant force once they have woken up to the fact that Tony Blair has a Christian veneer but not much else. We will need protection though from the gay rights lobby who Labour favours and for whom they are putting forward the proposed sexual orientation regulations. Are the Conservatives the party for us?

[james higham]

May I add my voice to this last, by Terry? David Cameron still worries one though - light on specifics.

[Jon White]

Terry, I sincerely hope we are not. I hope that we are a party of tolerance, and a broad 'church' that welcomes people of all sexual preferences. I hope that we are not a 'God hates Queers' party.

Interestingly, as a 'Christian', could you quote me one passge from the 4 NT gospels where Christ speaks on the issue of homosexuality? (Not St. Paul, not the OT, but CHRIST - you know, the one you profess to follow). If you can't, then please explain how 'Christians' like yourself feel so threatened by Gay Rights?

(Incidentally, I am a twice married hetero-sexual. I am confident enough of my own sexuality not to have to pick on those who are diferent to me. I always wonder with 'queer bashers' if they are not hiding something - probably to themselves)

[Cassils]

If it's the party for Terry then count me out....

[christina speight]

Malcolm - Though you say it twice it doesn't make it more true. To win the Tories need a 10++% lead. The last 2 polls give them no lead at all. Cameron is the leader of the party and he's doing worse than Howard did. Howard was up against a coherent united Labour party. Cameron has had it easy and people won't buy it. For the question that matters is voting intention and the lead here has vanished. It may improve a notch or two with attention this week but it will not reach a winnable level.

Cameron may not want to talk about tax cuts and Europe (and the two are linked) but as Tebbit showed today they are subjects which PEOPLE will talk about. If he won't he'll be left behind.

For a Tory Party that's lost its soul that would be a fitting end.

[malcolm]

Er no Christina,he's not 'doing worse than Howard did'.Period.

[Jon White]

Also Christina, I don't think that Cameron has 'had it easy'. He's certainly had a much harder time from WITHIN the party (i.e. people such as yourself who - and you are quite within your rights to do so - oppose him).

Howard had a 'coronation'. Cameron won a leadership election.

Howard's politics are closer to my own than Cameron's, but I have to acept that Cameron has a MUCH broader appeal to the public than Howard (or Hague, for that matter. I wonder what would have happened had IDS had the chance to face the elctorate. I think that he would have done better than many think. We'll never know).

[christina speight]

Jon - "Cameron won a leadership election" Yes but he won it on a promise which he has broken and broken promises are the cardinal sin for any party leader. He's untrustworthy.

He may have "a MUCH broader appeal to the public" but unfortunately, as the polls show, that broader appeal is to those who are not going to vote for him anyway.

Many of those who WOULD have been inclined to vote for him have decided against doing so, not because he has no policies but because he has no principles from which to derive any policies.

He has no vision for Britain - none anyway that he is able to communicate.

When he took over he had a hill to climb. He has transformed that hill into a mountain.

[Philip]

An excellent piece by Mr Editor. True, DC may be appealing to some centre-ground voters, but as Tim says, we cannot win on centre ground alone. So while we need to show, as DC is doing, we're concerned about issues that concern non-core voters, such as the environment, public services and that there is more to life than making money, we also need a traditionalist even authoritarian right-wing* approach to issues where the voters tend to be more right-wing: crime, fair immigration, EU and so on. We cannot neglect these issues. And we must remember the Bromley Lesson: ‘right-wing voters’ might stay at home or vote UKIP - if it were not for UKIP, we may have had a hung Parliament last year – and people who want liberal policies might vote Lib Dem!

Furthermore, are things different now than in 1997, due to greater worries over crime, terrorism, security etc? Also after 10 years of slick perception-making but little success in changing what matters to voters. So would voters be more open to someone who might not be so 'nice', or telegenic, but who gives the impression of being straightforward, serious, who seems to stand a better chance of getting things done, and who understands the threats facing us. Even someone who seems to be tough and competent. Could this be why John Reid is viewed by the CH poll as more of a threat to us now than the other Labour contenders?

May I say something about tax. Like any Conservative I want people to keep as much of their hard-owned money as possible, with a smaller role for the state, with law and order and protecting the public being its most important role. But voters have accepted the Left's assertion that cutting taxes will always = cuts in public services. Also they may fear rising interest rates - would the Bank of England put them up to prevent inflation if tax cuts put more money into the economy? So DC saying stability must come before tax cuts is probably the right approach for this time.

* I define authoritarian from a right wing point of view as being tough on criminals and thugs with punishments that deter, with police freed to get out and patrol the streets, as opposed to left-wing authoritarianism which in attempting to tackle crime, is tough on the law-abiding and those who do what is right, examples being ID cards and attempts to restrict free speech.

[John Hustings]

I don't know if Cameron is doing worse than Howard, but I do know that if he doesn't win the next election then that will be a much bigger failure than any failure of Howard's. I have many criticisms of Howard's leadership, but one thing I will give him is that he did not inherent the leadership at an ideal time. Indeed, I cannot imagine a worse time. David Cameron, in contrast, inherited the leadership after suberb publicity from the Tory leadership contest, has had a favourable media throughout, and has faced a Labour Party that is extremely unpopular. So when we compare Howard and Cameron, these things need to be borne in mind.

It remains to be seen whether Cameron will ultimately be a success, but recent months haven't been good.

[Chad]

"right-wing voters’ might stay at home or vote UKIP

UKIP are socially left-wing, i.e. libertarian-right (therefore economically right-wing) which is why they have both exLibDem and exTory members.

Whereas Cameron is seeking to move the Tory Party economically to the left to woo economic lefties, UKIP is neatly positioned on the economic-right and libertatian left to already benefit from both disillusioned LibDems and Tories.

Still, anti-grammar, pro-private elitist Cameron (52% of a-listers from private schools) seems keen to only be representative of the wealth and education base of his favourite clubs....

[Peter]

Firstly good speech at conference fringe Tim. Secondly as a candidate next year the less Cameron says over the next year the better. Thirdly as a true Libertarian the UKIP party are not that even their flat tax plan given out at their conference shows a big problem as it would mean people on salaries between 20,000 to 30,000 would on that part of their salary see an increase loss of £1,100.
Finally through being know allowed to become members of Better Of Out means that people like me can with no problems go for the UKIP vote.

[Paul Marks]

If Mr Cameron really is so "compassionate" and believes in "social justice" (the "distribution" of income and wealth away from their owners, in accordance with the doctrine of egalitarianism - in case you do not know what the term "social justice" means) then he should give some of his money to me.

After all I am poor and he is rich (born rich and married even more money).

Actually I do not believe it is the role of politicians to be "compassionate" (that is for human beings in civil society with their own money - a vast administrative machine, the government of a nation, can not be "compassionate") and I think that "social justice" is a load of evil nonsense.

But it irritates me when rich kids strike poses about what nice people they are (someone who really is nice does not boast about it). It is bit like Mr Cameron's friend "Zac" Goldsmith - pretending to be concered about C02 levels (as "green" equals nice) and then opposing nuclear power. People who really are concerned (rightly or wrongly) about C02 levels, such as James Lovelock, are rather different.

Lastly, yes it would be good if Mr Cameron promised to get out of the E.U. fishing policy. My first thought would be that he was telling lies (due to his past record and life), but I would fight down my doubts.

If a man makes a very clear promise there is a big political price to pay if the promise is broken.

Of course if Parliament (now held in contempt by the vast majority of the British people) is to be restored then a lot more than power over fishing is going to have to be taken back from the E.U.

All powers for regulating internal economic activity (the vast majority of new "British" regulations actually come from E.U. directives these days) and exports to non E.U. nations will have to be taken back.

[Yugo Kovach]

For Tim Montgomery. See my letter below.
Regards,
Yugo Kovach

Letters to the Editor
Independent
Wednesday, 31 October 2007

Immigration

Steve Richards claims the logical position of the right would be to welcome a free labour market, hence immigration ("While Tories talk the language of the right on immigration, their policies are on the left", 31 October). But this is only true of the neoconservatives, who are best described as market obsessed Jacobins. Just as New Labour shouldn't be confused with Old Labour, so the new right should be differentiated from the traditional, small-c conservative right. Traditional conservatives believe in markets as a means to an end, not as the end itself. Their main concern is that the state should continue to naturally command the allegiance of enough of its people, from which arises a cautionary approach to immigration.

Yugo Kovach
22 The Barons
Twickenham, Middx TW1 2AP
020 8892 1979 or 01258 880 029