« 'Doing the right thing' is getting harder and harder under Labour | Main | Tony Blair apologises for Foot & Mouth disaster... »


Is the Cameroonian revolution more a matter of political strategy than a serious values reconfiguration, in your opinion?

Do you trust him?

Has he annoyed you?

Do you regret him?

Doesn't he make you feel a little sick?

How many times has he disappointed you?

Do you think he has the capacity to disappoint you in the future, or has he pretty much finished the job off as it is? How many times have you attempted suicide?

Are you just disenchanted with him, or has the rot set into the rest of the party too? Do you have cramp from holding your nose each time you boot up ConHome?

Is he sufficiently weak and silent on terror and national security, or would you like him to be just a little more pathetic at the serious business of politics?

Given the realignment in people's political concerns since 1997 - since 9/11 and 7/7 especially, too - isn't being the heir to Blair rather like having the Emperor's new clothes for hand-me-downs? Why is he competing for irrelevance? What, do you think, is it about the vapid, contemptible political PC orthodoxy of the age that Cameron likes so much? And shouldn't we, perhaps, alert his family and friends, who would no doubt like to stage an Intervention to save him from such a squalid life?

We get it JA...you don't like him. But howsabout (thats a bit of slang from my neck of the woods) you ask a serious question.....okay bud?

Do you think Britain will be a country true to its heritage under Conservatives or simply continue to drift and unravel into a very dissatisfied and balkanised offshore island ?

If David Davis were leader today, do you think we would be better off, worse off or about the same in opinion poll standings?

Questions need to be asked about the influence of Homosexuality in the Party.This subject worries me greatly and I do know that there are so many of them wielding a stick in the Party and following behind Mr Cameron that I think they are going to take power.

We need to know the truth of Daves past relating to Drugs and Prostitution.Somebody does know something about him, and George, but are probably waiting for the bigger news Scoop.

Do you feel the Party is better, worse, or about the same since David Camerons election?

One question I would be asking is why he has chosen to celebrate his anniversary by snubbing the CBI, pulling out of their conference at the last possible moment.

Personally I don't much like the "corporate state" style CBI or its thuggish-looking and thoroughly Politically Correct boss "Sir" Digby Jones, but if you want to get a reputation for tatally flaky unreliability tghis is the way to do it.

Curious how every one of Cameron's would-be "Clause 4 moments" rapidly morphs into a "Baseball Cap Moment"

S1: Do you believe we can win the next GE?

S2: When speaking to Liberal or Labour supporters they give the impression that they are more likely to vote for us becuase of DC.

S3: In the past 12 months our party has been better led than Labour and LD.

S4: The shadow cabinet Ministers have buried personal ambition for the common cause.

What wouldn't Cameron say or do?

Do you like the tendency of replacing Conservative voters temporarily with former NuLab voters?

I'm for James Maskell's question too.

Which policies from the Hague/IDS/Howard era will be kept?

What has been the numerical change in membership of your local Association over the past 12 months?

How many times have you heard a disgruntled member say something along the lines of: "I'd join UKIP if they weren't such a bunch of nutters, but there's nowhere else to go."

Which of our election-winning Labour-busting Thatcher-era policies will be kept?

It needs an apostrophe though..."David Cameron's election". Relative poverty of apostrophes...

What balance of presentation and policy do you think would be best for the Conservatives?(with a range from "mostly presentation", "equal amounts" to "mostly policy") By all means suggest improvements. Its a difficult one to phrase.

Maybe Im wrong here but I think the questions are to be asked of us at a later date, not of Cameron...


I love Maragaret Wilson!

The Tories are going to be taken over by a homosexual coup!

We are completely buggered.

Yes according to Margaret, if there's a big swing to the Tories, there won't be a seat safe in the country. 'Big sticks, following on behind' didn't used to write Carry On scripts did she?

1. Would you be happy if the Conservative Party gained power by espousing socialist policies?

2. Would you be happy if, once in power, the Conservatives pursued those same socialist policies?

3. Do you think that the Conservatives can justifiably be called a party of the "centre-right", or are they now a left-leaning centre party?

A women-only question:

Under David Cameron has the Conservative Party become

A. More appealing
B. Same old
C. Less appealing

I really am most concerned at the direction in which this Party is taking. We are now being perceived as being further to the left of Labour.We are of course receiving heaps of praise from the Guardian which is not surprising.All the (former) Tory papers are being less than supportive and that must tell us something.Anyone in this Party who disagrees with Mr Cameron and his acolytes is dismissed. I could go on and deal with that if anyone should care to ask.
I come from a family with a strong Tory background and have been a Cllr for 41 years and a Leader of a Conservative Group for 20 years following on from my late brother who had been a Group Leader for 15 years prior to that.My youngest son has twice stood as a parliamentary candidate for the Party so I do speak with some real concern for the future of this Party. I can say that for the first time in my political life,I am feeling that the Party has now abandoned all it's principles and what it stood for.I can assure you that I am not alone in thinking this way.I wonder if anyone in that place called CCHQ can give the members an idea of how many have left the Party recently or who have failed to renew their membership. The constituencies are now being led by the nose by CCHQ with veiled threats of losing their support unless they choose the candidates that CCHQ want. When I was a constiuency Chairman,I would not have worried at any such threat as it is impossible for CCHQ to fight an election without the wholehearted support of those on the ground.I have the feeling that it is manned by people who do not live in the real world. We have ceased to address the issues which people feel strongly about and now it is people like John Reid who are raising the stakes.If we do not tackle these sort of issues head on then we will not be taken seriously.

Do you believe that David Cameron is correct to bring centre-right thinking to subjects such as:

(a) the environment
(b) work/life balance - "family life"
(c) poverty reduction

Would we be better off letting our oponents dominate these issues giving the impression we don't care about them?

Goodness, Ms Wilson, and there's quite a few Christian Evangelicals, and Jews, and heterosexuals, and - whisper it quietly - people with different colour skins influencing/infiltrating the Party. How terrifying, that we're actually representative of the mix of people in this country.

How terrifying, that we're actually representative of the mix of people in this country.

How many dinner-ladies, charladies, roadsweepers and so forth hold leading roles in the party?

They don't, and won't, so stop talking such nonsense. The higher ranks of the Party remain, as always, the preserve of the prosperous middle classes.

For as long as I can remember homosexuals have been very well represented in the party and politics generally - probably because they have no family commitments to hold them back.

What I do want to see is a much bigger active Christian representation taking this party in a direction which will truly benefit our people and our country.

One reason for seeking power under the Conservative banner is simply to be a more competent manager of the current system, and not to take any material steps towards reducing the tax burden or reversing the steady erosion of personal freedom and the growth of government at all levels that the last nine years have seen. This might be labelled “accepting the Blairite settlement.”

An alternative is to pursue root and branch reform of the current system – many years ago this might have been described as “reversing the ratchet effect of socialism” but might now just as accurately be described as “dismantling the Blairite settlement.”

Leaving aside detailed timescales, where precisely do we stand between the two under our current leadership, and where in principle should we be aiming to stand?

Who said I don't like him?

I don't think it's as simple as liking him or not liking him - I think part of his strategy is to deliberately repel a lot of people, but not permanently.

A 'serious' question:

Was Cameron right to legitimise and emphasise climate change and the environment as a political issue?

Nice to see the 76% who are satisfied with DC so well represented as usual :)

My suggested questions:

Do you agree with DC's "social responsibility" theme?.

Do you agree with DC raising environmental issues?
Would you like to see more technology-based solutions talked about?

Do you think that keeping people's mortgage rates low is of greater importance and effect than lowering taxes? (Bearing in mind that public borrowing increases interest rates)?

Do you agree with "sharing the proceeds of growth between public spending and reducing taxes"?

Do you like the sound of "We are developing a tax policy that puts stability first, simplifies taxes and reduces them when we can"?

I can say that for the first time in my political life,I am feeling that the Party has now abandoned all it's principles and what it stood for.

Under David Cameron the party has added some principles to its portfolio: work-life balance, the environment, representative Parliament and poverty. I can’t see anything it has abandoned that I would call “Tory”.


I love Maragaret Wilson!

The Tories are going to be taken over by a homosexual coup!

We are completely buggered.

Posted by: bee | November 27, 2006 at 10:28

Yes according to Margaret, if there's a big swing to the Tories, there won't be a seat safe in the country. 'Big sticks, following on behind' didn't used to write Carry On scripts did she?

Posted by: arthur | November 27, 2006 at 11:07

Childish comments and quite offensive really...........

Also, was Cameron right to reverse (or at least significantly alter) his positions on marriage and the family, by explicitly declaring all relationship and familial configurations equally valid

There are a lot of gays in the party; and not all of them are normal like IDale. Alan Duncan is a creep, for instance.

I can’t see anything it has abandoned that I would call “Tory”.

Then your definition of "Tory" must be peculiarly idiosyncratic.

Down the centuries Tories have fought to preserves those national liberties and traditions which have developed “organically” in the body politic.

Embracing fashionable anti-freedom concepts such as Political Correctness and seeking to reposition the party to the left of the Socialists hardly counts as Toryism.

Who’s your ideal of a classical Tory Mr Fulford?

Sorry TomTom, what's offensive, the mocking of Maragaret's bigoted, ridiculous views that homosexuals will all act as one and form some kind of secret homosexualist cult, as if they were spies from Russia, or the views themselves?

There is a lot of ridiculousness here,

"There are a lot of gays in the party; and not all of them are normal like IDale. Alan Duncan is a creep, for instance."

So? Alan Duncan is a creep because he's gay? Or is he a creep because he's a creep?There are plenty of creepy non-normal heterosexual MPs, what's the point of this statement?

Mark,I think that you should have read the whole of my post. These matters which you say have been changed under David Cameron are worthy of attention and some are the type of issue that we would doing in any even.But apart from the environmental issues,are not those which are of the greatest of concern to the membership of this Party or for that matter,the Electorate at large. I have a real feeling that this Party has been taken over by an unrepresenative group of people who are more concerned with pleasing the minorities and abandoning the majority of members of the Party. If we don't win the next election and it's a big if,then there will be precious little left of the Party to build on.Before it is too late,we have got to turn our focus on to the real agenda and forget all this nonsense we seem to be obsessed with. I want to see a Tory Government elected but not one which really isn't Tory.We would be just as well with those who are in, making a mess of things.
All true Tory principles were those carried out during The Thatcher Gov when she did more for the 'poor' than any other PM.

Alan Duncan is a creepy kind of homosexual. If he was heterosexual, he would no doubt be a creepy heterosexual. If he was a woman, a creepy one. A pensioner, a creepy one.

But the fact is he is a homosexual, and a creep; and since we were talking about gays in the party, this prominent gay, and his creepiness, seems to be relevant.

Whether or not gays are more or less likely to be creeps is something I didn't mention or gesture to at all.

Btw, Margaret was being satirical.

We are way off subject folks and it's not attractive.

Mark,I think that you should have read the whole of my post.

I did, although it read more like a CV. I've also read the whole of your reply. Nowhere in either post do you give an example of a policy that has been abandoned - it's all nebulous "real agenda" stuff.

1) What has been David Cameron's biggest achievement/failing in Year 1
2) What aspect of DC's leadership have you been most pleased/disappointed by?
3) Do you agree with the broad thrust of DC's direction in relation to: (1) Tax (2) the environment (3) health (4) education ....etc etc
4) What issues are most important to you when deciding how you vote?
5) What issues do you believe are most important to the electorate in deciding how to vote?
6) If you could give 1 piece of advice to DC in 8 words or less, what would it be?

Anyone who thinks either Al Gore or Polly Toynbee has anything sensible to say, is not a Tory.

1. Which Party do you think Cameron should belong to?
2. Do you think Cameron took/takes drugs?
3. Should Cameron have his passport withdrawn while he is on a glacier/in Iraq/abroad?
4. Will Cameron go down as the Conservative Leader who destroyed his Party?

Top marks to Simon Chapman for one of the few sensible posts on this thread.

1. Would you like to see more policies now and risk them being stolen by Labour or wait until the policy groups have done their work?

2. Which shadow minister has been the star performer over the last year?

3. Would you rather belong to a centre-right party in power or a right wing party in continual opposition?

Mark ,Well I am gld you read my 1st post and to say that it was like a CV. Maybe so in your view but it is a CV that you are hardly likely to better. Yes,I am proud of my family's record of service and committment to the Conservative Party which goes a bit futher back than I outlined in that post. You see,Mark,I am a working class Tory who would not feel out of place in any class of society but maybe,I would not fit in or be comfortable with the plans of this new bunch who appear to be saying that your past record dosen't matter and that we have to accept these changes or do the other thing.Well maybe a lot will if this goes on. I

Would you rather be a centre-right-of-centre-left party with a slim lead in the polls, or a committed conservative, right wing party with a huge lead - given, in part, by the millions of voters presently neglected by your thinner than thin policy platforms, and who don't bother to vote any more?

RobD - anyone can play this game.

Is David Cameron's left-leaning approach:

1. Courageous, because he risks his career upon so great a re-positioning of the Conservative Party;

2. Cowardly, because it is so clearly an attempt to offer Blairism without its current greatest liabilty, Blair himself; or

3. Simply opportunistic, and likely to change when focus group feedback tells him that a move to the right is advisable or necessary?

It would be interesting to have a survey to see who would become leader of the Conservative Party if the members were given another chance to vote now.

JA - I can see your point but the last election would indicate that sounding more right wing than we currently do will turn off more voters in the centre than it will attract stay at home Conservatives. You may disagree with the way that Cameron is leading the party but after 3 bad defeats some would say it is time to support the leadership in doing what they feel is best, especially while the polls tell us we are moving in the right direction.

We had two excellent leaders in Hague and Howard and the polls were at times just as favourable as they have been for Cameron, notwithstanding that Cameron has been leading the party at a time when Labour has been rudderless and seriously embarrassed.

I view a Cameron-led party with as much detestation as I do the Labour Party under Brown or Blair, and were it not for the excellence of my local Tory MP, who is also a longstanding personal friend, I would be tempted to withhold my vote altogether.

I believe that Cameron will lose, a view shared by several of his more sober supporters here. I will then expect him to follow the honourable example of his predecessors and resign.

The guiding slogan for the post-Cameron party should be "Never again!"

Maybe so in your view but it is a CV that you are hardly likely to better.

Cllr Mackie, I am simply asking you to put some flesh on your claim that the Party has abandoned its principles. A CV, no matter how worthy, doesn't answer the bloody question.

I think you're probably right, RobD, though I fear the one thing that lots of people are forgetting is a very important fact within the research Osborne et al did that prompted this new direction. They found that Tory policies were highly popular with people, so long as they didn't know the policies were from the Tories; so image change is key, to redress this. But we should never forget that we are changing the image of the party so that the policies and philosophies we believe in - which are very popular with the electorate - can ultimately be professed without embarrassment, and carried out by a popular Tory party.

I fear this kind of bait and switch they're doing is very risky. It can only succeed if they claim and convince people that their changing is genuine; and yet its final success can only be had if they finally betray this change and carry out the popular policies, when they are popular by dint of... renouncing them, and hence in government.

I honestly think that this brand repositioning is such a fraught and troubling thing to do. The disollution of the party, and a ground-up generation of a true conservative party, bringing in the disaffected, jettisoning the transparently unconservative, and without the baggage produced by the last 50 years, would have been far better.

Why did you join the Tory party?

When did you decide to deracinate it and why?

Which party do you think conservatives who abhore your leadership should support?

I think Mark Fulford is treading a dangerous tightrope in demanding "evidence" that the Cameron clique have abandoned Conservative principles.

Most people - including some of Cameron's most fervent supporters - would agree that thise principles have been comprehensively trashed as Cameron "repositions" himself to the left of Blair.

However I have been passed an excellent post which I am reliably informed was placed here some months ago by one David Clive. IMHO, Mr Clive says it all.


I think this is all a bit rich coming from you. On many of the major issues of today, isn't CH a lot closer to Blair than Cameron? In fact, I PROPOSE THAT YOU RE-NAME YOUR SITE TONYBLAIRHOME.COM! Lets look at the facts:

Do you support neo-con foreign policy in a general? Blair & CH, yes. Cameron, no.

Was Israel "disproportionate" in its recent response to Hezbollah? Blair & CH, no. Cameron, yes.

Should we look favourably on expanding nuclear power? Blair & CH, yes. Cameron, no.

Should we make immigration more of a campaign issue? Blair & CH, yes. Cameron, no.

Should we have a Bill of Rights? Blair & CH, no. Cameron, yes.

Should we allow the police more powers to detain terror susupects? Blair & CH, yes. Cameron, no.

Given this, answer the following question truthfully: From 9/11 to today, would you rather have had Cameron or Blair as the leader of your nation? I don't expect an honest answer, but its obvious what you and many CH bloggers think. Don't get me wrong. I'm with you. I am a Conservative, but Blair has given me a lot more comfort in recent years on the issues that really matter than the jokers that have led our party. Remember the Reagan Democrats. I'm a Blair Conservative, and so, I think, are you Mr. Editor.

Posted by: David Clive

James' question way up top is a good one but needs to be split into various parts e.g. party image, party morale, party organisation etc.

My serious questions.

Commentators previously sympathetic to the Conservative party such as Simon Heffer and Melanie Phillips are dismissive of Cameron, is this a good or bad thing?

Should Cameron actively seek the support of Rupert Murdoch?

I'd like to second the suggestion that one question should be something like:

If the leadership election was held again, with the same candidates, knowing what you know now of Cameron's performance, how would you have voted?

Perhaps include Fox and Clarke in the options.

We are way ahead in the polls and yet again the whingers are out carping. The more I see of the reactionary and silly posts by those that attack him the more I support DC. Their approach seems to be to take something he said, exaggerate it and then argue ever more belligerently over those misrepresentations.


Has anyone thought that those who seem to be in support of DC are actually working in CCHQ!!

"We are way ahead in the polls" Matt Wright 18:56

Scroll up this page, Matt, and look at the list of polls. How many do you see above 40% for the Conservatives in the twelve published polls since September 10th?

Exactly. Nil.

The Government is in a slough of despond, led by a lame duck, mired in war overseas and reduced to sacking nurses from the NHS, its flagship raison d'etre. It is almost completely discredited in those areas which have had the larger amounts of public cash fire-hosed at them

Yet the Conservatives maintain only a shallow lead and its leadership appear to be relishing a civil war with a large percentage of its membership.

If you think this is "way ahead in the polls" and a winning position for a general election, you need a pair of specs or some basic maths tuition.

In a local or European election, I suspect that the Conservatives would win less than a third of votes as things stand now.

Interesting to see Tory "Loyalist" above quoting David Clive's piece about where Cameron disagrees with Blair. Mostly because the knocking squad in the early days of DC's leadership were mostly concerned he was too close to Blair and too consensual!

Back on-topic, one area I'd be interested to see explored in the members' panel is

Has you local Party been (a) active and (b) successful in attempting to capitalise on the changes in the Conservative Party?

in addition to Simon's excellent points above. As a Party, I think we're often better at analysing the leadership than we are our own activities, and it would be useful to get a picture of how well we all think we've done across the country in the last year.

How much longer will it take for the troglodytes to stop sniping, especially those who criticise DC for not being "conservative" and then go on to justify their statements with classical liberal arguments?

Well easy to guage that Richard.Has the leadership given any encouragement to the members in local Partys.
In answer to the above points:-
(a)Why should they be active when the Leader is doing his best to dismantle the very principles of the Party- Why? by pandering tothe minorities and alienating the majority.
(b)Have they been succesful in capitalising on the changes in the Conservative Party. Why should they? these changes go against the will of the majority in the Party.
Do you really think that the Party would re elect David Cameron if they were given the chance. No Way. I think that he has seen his way to populate CCHQ with a bunch of people who have never done anything before on behalf of the Party and although they may be well meaning and support the leader,I would love to have them with me on the doorstep in some of the situations I have been in and see how they would get on. I really think that big Dave would have the same problem.

Mark - here's some evidence of Cameron's abandonment of our principles.

- The risible NHS campaign, which accepts that a slowdown in massive expenditure is a cut! The NHS needs reform with incentives introduced into it.

- The acceptance that a low tax economy is not a priority.

- The patronising attitude that those on low incomes should be taxed out of foreign travel.

- Stalinistic environmentalism.

- Green taxation which is highly regressive.

- Massive house building on green field sites ahead of brown field sites.

- Ignorance of nuclear technology.

- Willful open borders policy which maintains the illusion that huge immigration is to be welcomed and necessary.

- Use of state apparatus to alter personal behaviour.

- Elevation of cohabitation of whatever sexual practice to equivalance with marriage.

- Embracing woolly liberal thinking on crime and justice.

- Considering re-regulation of public transport services.

- Failure to address the constitutional mess created by Labour government.

That's just off the top of my head. Give me a couple of hours and I'll think of some more, unless anyone else can add to them.

Oh and include

- affirmative action in candidate selection

I have no problem with splitting the question up. Perhaps something like:

Do you feel that the Conservative Party is better off, worse off or about the same with the following criteria (rattling off a number of various things to evaluate)...

Some of the posts on this thread have ignored the point of the thread. We are supposed to be thinking up questions to ask in the next CH Members Panel questionnaire, not questions to ask Cameron.

Thanks, Sandbagger (twice!). But one answer does not a poll make, and it would still be interesting to see some numbers in the area. Note that the members' panel as a whole frequently gives a different slant to the approximate mean of the blog comments.

You raise one good point, regarding the campaigning experience of staff at CCHQ. I don't share your apparent knowledge of their level of experience, but if that were a concern I would be tempted to make the following suggestion to the powers-that-be at CCHQ. Are all new recruits to non-field positions are at least offered a secondment to a local campaign centre, local by-election campaign etc as part of their development?

Latest poll Communicate Research in tomorrows Independent Lab 36 + 4 Con 34 - 4 LibDem 17 + 3 Others 13 - 3 . Another one not to include in the poll of polls because of volatility

"Another one not to include in the poll of polls because of volatility"

Don't you mean "because of inconvenience"?

I think that 'elrafa 20.31' has answered some of the many points which in my humble working class toryism,I have failed to articulate.I will however embrace them and would wonder if you would like to comment on their accuracy or otherwise.I have watched with some interest the posts of 'elrafa' and find that they appear to be well researched.I would be very interested in your views on the comments made by 'elrafa'

Thanks Richard,I may have pressed the key too many times but the point is weel made

Many , like me, are clinging to the desperate hope that David Cameron is executing some tricky footwork and in Rugby parlance is 'selling a dummy'. By a clever body swerve he is pulling attention away to the left and will at the last minute dash back towards the right wing and score in the corner. After all, he cannot really believe all this social justice/ relative poverty crap - can he ?

After all, he cannot really believe all this social justice/ relative poverty c**p - can he?

I wonder what your motivations in politics are, RodS.

You don't believe in the idea of social justice? Or that we have a responsibility to help those at the bottom of society to find a way to improve their lot?

You don't think that we should ensure that, to use the "net and ladder" model of welfare, we should hold out a hand to everyone who wants to climb out of the net?

You don't believe that children should be lifted out of poverty, regardless of its initial cause?

I'm sorry, everyone, for another off-topic post, but this made me sufficiently angry to challenge this.

If you're not here to help, why are you here?

Believe it or not, there are many older Tories clinging to the belief that Cameron's utterances are mere tinsel and glitter window-dressing that will be abruptly removed WHEN (it's always "when") the party wins the next General Election.

In their fantasies the said window will then immediately be filled full of the Thatcherite red meat they lust after.

I've known these people for decades. It's pointless arguing with them. One Tory lady I know who would be on the far right of the party on every possible issue, is so far convinced that Cameron is "one of us" she barely speaks to her husband, a Cameron-hater.

You don't believe in the idea of social justice?

Richard, you are clearly unaware of Enoch Powell's great dictum that wherever the word "social" is used as an adjective, it will surely reverse or negate the meaning of the noun to which it is applied.

Conservatives believe in Christian Charity, not "Social(ist) Justice"

Such justice as lies beyond the laws of nations is determined only by the Almighty.

TL, I'd love to continue to debate with you, but we're both way off-topic and think we should put a stop to it (or get a room...). Plus I've better ways to spend my time! Any more ideas for the membership panel?

"Or that we have a responsibility to help those at the bottom of society to find a way to improve their lot?"

Richard, looking at the Scarman Lecture, Im not convinced we are supposed to believe in that. The speech was missing the key ingredient, the belief that we believe that the Government should help the people to help themselves, a key part of Conservative philosophy.

Use this line phrase, Cameron. "Conservatives, helping people to help themselves". Link it to responsibility and you go some way towards reconciliation with the more right wing members. If you want to unite the Party then you have to accept that there is some good in the right wing of the Party.

I am still of the conviction that it is not us who should be thinking of leaving the Tory Party but those deluded Liberals who have infested the Party----Land of Hope and Long Lost Glory ,Please Oh Please bring back the real Tories. This Country is crying out for us to come back in our real form!

James, I think there is a good question in there for the Panel: Do you believe that the Party has the right approach to tackling poverty in Pritain?

On the wider point, I'm a little bemused as to where this idea among some commenters on this blog that we don't want to help people take advantage of opportunity has come from. Isn't that the essence of our theme of "social responsibility"? Government can't fix this on its own, and some individuals aren't in a position to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. So let's share the burden - or at least let the Panel tell us their view!

"Do you believe that the majority of Conservative Members and Voters share David Cameron's preoccupations?"

Well Oliver Letwin gave a talk at our University a few months ago, and was asked as to whether or not Cameron's actions were meant genuinely.

His answer: the Tories have never been and are not now the nasty party (echoes of Howard's speech), but the general public thinks they are and have been. The only way to reconcile the party with the public, and put into action all the policies everyone wants, is to accept their false view of you - for telling the electorate they're wrong is unlikely to endear - and then change so as to alter entirely this view of you, but retain the substance of what you are and have been all along.

As I've said before, this seems to me an extraordinarily bizarre and unworkable strategy. And everyday people are waking up and realising this. Look. Cameron is a pretty face and has had good press. The time for him to start advocating traditional Tory views more consistently and stridently, has surely come. Let's see what happens. I doubt people are going to run away from him if he does so. Plus, remember that Labour has recently legitimised whole chunks of politics previously ruled off as politically incorrect - immigration, Islamic extremism, etc - though they are still doing their appalling worst at managing them.

If David Davis were leader today, do you think we would be better off, worse off or about the same in opinion poll standings?
The Conservatives would probably be doing better as people would feel more that they knew where they stood with him. Then again he probably would evoke more reaction and possibly push up Labour support as well - maybe increasing Labour's majority but possibly meaning more Conservative seats than otherwise and fewer Liberal Democrat MP's.

I'm still inclined to think that the Conservative Party will have more votes and seats in 2009, enough to see David Cameron although probably being challenged by Edward Leigh being able to remain leader into a 2nd General Election in 2014. Less than 9 million votes, or less than 200 seats, or less than a third of the vote even if there was an increase in total votes I'm sure would see David Cameron's leadership at an end.

Camerons version of poverty is rather different from that of right wing conservatism. You can see it from the speeches and from the Policy Group reports, which are clearly defined within the Cameron Conservative perspective.

Hague and Howard had.....as favourable polls as Cameron-Tory Loyalist. er...when?

Q: Does it annoy you that Cameron and Osborne - exceedingly wealthy, both, and both from exceedingly wealthy families and backgrounds - who therefore are feeling no pinch whatever - are so wary of tax cuts? Isn't it gross insensitivity and elitism?

A question that needs to be asked is: Is there any room in the party for people with disgraceful attitudes like Margaret Wilson's ?

"Q: Does it annoy you that Cameron and Osborne - exceedingly wealthy, both, and both from exceedingly wealthy families and backgrounds - who therefore are feeling no pinch whatever - are so wary of tax cuts? Isn't it gross insensitivity and elitism?"

No. Not very surprising is it?

"His answer: the Tories have never been and are not now the nasty party (echoes of Howard's speech), but the general public thinks they are and have been."

If the public ever thought the Tories were "The Nasty Party" it was on account of financial and sexual sleaze, not immigration, alleged homophobia etc.

That falsehood has been carefully fostered by people who actively want the party to join the left-wing consensus of which they are already part.

Remember how the appalling Portillo told Anne Widdecombe "I'm part of the liberal elite"?

Last week when the question was asked "who ever called the Tories The Nasty Party" one of the Cameron support clique trawled the internet and was only able to come up with a couple of quotes from hack journalists uttered during the Thatcher/Major years.

We activists were deliberately slimed by the leftist control clique in a manner not dissimilar to Nazi black propaganda.

You announce that the country's under attack by Communists and burn down your own Reichstag to prove it. You claim that the Poles are about to launch an invasion and Germans in Polish uniforms shoot a bunch of hapless prisoners so everybody believes you.

In the meantime you keep repeating the Big Lie until everybody believes it.

1. Is David Cameron a Conservative?

2. If no, does it matter?

3. Give David Cameron your own personal score out of 100 for his first year in post.

I see that a poll in The Independent is now showing that Labour has taken a two-point lead over Cameron.

Another valid question would be; what will the party's inner harmony look like at all levels should Labour regain a permanent poll lead?

It's my guess that recent favourable opinion polls are currently the only factor keeping the lid on the cauldron.

Less than 9 million votes, or less than 200 seats, or less than a third of the vote even if there was an increase in total votes I'm sure would see David Cameron's leadership at an end.

8,772,598 voted Conservative in 2005

8,357,615 voted Conservative in 2001

9,600,943 voted Conservative in 1997

14,093,007 voted Conservative in 1992

13,760,935 voted Conservative in 1987

13,703,429 voted Conservative in 1983

13,697,923 voted Conservative in 1979

10,462,565 voted Conservative Oct 1974
11,872,180 voted Conservative Feb 1974

13,145,123 voted Conservative in 1970

So for Cameron suuccess is underachieving every Conservative Leader since John Major.............could to know how low the bar has been set

I like the personal score idea. BY asking the general quesiton, are you a member, supporter etc, and maybe a question about from whcih region you are from, we can get a better breakdown of the data.

On a more general point, questions that are blatantly biased wont make it through. They need to be ones that you would expect to see on a proper survey. Questions like "Do you agree with the Conservative Party being torn apart by Cameron?" isnt going to be asked as its clearly leading.

A question that needs to be asked is: Is there any room in the party for people with disgraceful attitudes like Margaret Wilson's ?

Posted by: Warwick | November 28, 2006 at 04:56

You answered that yourself so it is not a question..........maybe you should join a SECT and find ideological purity with the Scientologists ?

Do you think that the party is more likely to win the next election than a year ago?

Should the replacement for Trident be supported? (This raises an inevitably thorny question as to how the party could support retention of our nuclear deterrent whilst our leader refuses to countenance the use of nuclear power stations)

When would you expect to see concreate policy from the Party arriving? (Timescales ranging from 1-3 months, 3-6 months, 6 months to 1 year, 1-2 years etc.)

In conversation with non-political friends and colleagues do you detect that their attitude towards the party has improved? (not scientific I know but annecdotal and demonstrative of any potential sea change)

Do you think that admitting to voting Labour in 2005 is akin to admitting to voting Conservative in 1992? (I think it would be worth exploring whether our poll lead is a solid as a number of people think. I distinctively remember in 1992 that Labour were ahead in the polls yet we won the election)

Should the Party be advocating a reduction in the 30% rate of Corporation tax to retain economic competitiveness?

Will you be renewing your party membership? (options ranging from no we need to change to win, will renew but am uncertain about the current direction, not certain to renew, will not be renewing)

I also like the idea of a personal score. Would it be possible to track this on a monthly basis?

Is it time to rename the Conservative Party?
(If yes - please suggest a suitable name.)

Is the Conservative Party (a)Christian? (b)Democratic?

Is it closer to (a)Labour?(B) Liberal Democrats? (c)BNP? (d)UKIP?

If after the General Election the Conservative Party has most seats but no majority should it have as a Coalition partner (a) Labour? (b)Liberal Democrats?
or should it (c)Govern without a majority?

question - if the Conservative leadership ballot took place today, would you vote for David Cameron or David Davis?

Hi Sandbagger. Just for info I definately don't work for CCHQ as OQ seemed to apply. In fact its an hilarious suggestion as I've tended to be fairly critical of them in the past. Would prefer to see regional offices so North could get its act together. That said yes I do support the general approach of DC as is obvious in my posts. I don't agree with everything, that wouldn't be normal for anyone supporting a leader. My view - He was the person picked by a large majority to lead the party. He has led us ahead in the polls and kept us there. I am not convinced that in the current state of politics that any party can command massive majorities (opinion poll wise) - perhaps the public are just too cynical nowadays.

I like the way he challenges the normal thinking. I think we need to look at things differently, the world has changed, we are not in the 70s/80s. He is trying to make us more in touch with views today and shift the image that made us look stuck in the past. This is important because people won't listen to our messages if they don't like the image. While the electorate can be diverse, I do think there is a form of centre/swing voter out there and they tended not to like the shrillness of the party in the last 2 elections. Remember those classic graphs which showed that most voters positioned themselves in the "centre" and tended to position Blair in line with themselves. They positioned us well to the right and not part of their community if you like. It was mad to ignore this and I beleive that DC has tried to change this.

My experinece from doing many surveys and canvassing recently is that this has broadly worked, with women especially liking the new approach. In my area we did very well in a recent by-election when we had 37% of the vote and Labour on 25% in an area not partcularly naturally Conservative.

So what next? The image is improved and maybe we need to start mapping out some practical positions although not detailed policies as this would be unwise at this stage. Also the party has to get out of the thinking that its just about who leads us, which is a bit of a cop out really. Its about a team and delivering right down at local level. Especially nowadays when people wnat to see more indivdual local action. I could go on but no doubt people are queueing up to rant on about how we are all doomed etc. My frustration is that if some of the negativity was turned to action and helping we would be doing even better.


You can spiele as much as you like, Matt. In the final analysis - until he puts his foot in it yet again - all that people are going to remember about Cameron is "Hug a Hoodie".

I thought about that gem this morning as I was hearing about the appalling murder of Tom Ap Rhys Price by two hoodies who were clearly in need of a cuddle.

As for Cameron's alleged matinee idol looks I think we can put those in the same bin as the comment of one of Theresa May's sidekicks that she was "simply the most glamorous woman in parliament".

In my childhood I used to eat peanuts sold in packs bearing a cartoon of a strange dented-face Lord Snooty type character named "Kernel P Nutt"

He was the spitting image of Cameron.

You can spiele as much as you like, Matt. In the final analysis - until he puts his foot in it yet again - all that people are going to remember about Cameron is "Hug a Hoodie".

I don't think that we did as well as we should have done in how we presented that speech. However, it annoys me to hear again and again supposed Conservatives parroting Labour spin as though it was Cameron's words.

The sentiments in that speech, as in the one later that same day on police reform, were laudable. It's a shame we didn't get the message across in the media, but that happens sometimes.

I had to explain this in some detail to one of our councillors a few weeks ago. We need a bit more of Matt Wright's team spirit.

And Tory Loyalist, if you're going to join the Labour media outfit, you should probably thinka about changing your username!

Whilst I'm not DC's greatest fan, if you look behind the "Hug a Hoodie" (NuLab) soundbite to what he was actually saying in that speech, then he was surely right. His advisers should, perhaps, have predicted how Labour would spin it, given their current infatuation with 'talking tough'.

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